First, he sets the stage with a foul video that his daughter saw as the apparent example of the critique of Wokeness. Interestingly he compare it to a “Mark Driscoll impersonation”, a person strongly embraced by SEBTS leadership at one time.
Then he made a broad, unevaluated claim that “The whole anti-woke and anti-critical race theory trope strike me as not so much interested in opposing progressive authoritarianism and its divisive racial politics as much as it serves to deny ethnic minorities have any grievances and white churches have any responsibility to do anything about it.”
He then aims his rhetorical guns at the sin others he seems to perceive as those opposed to the Woke Movement:
“If you want to talk about evangelical whoring it applies just as easily to churches who have tethered themselves to white supremacy who have fattened their hearts in the days of slaughter who messianize politicians and Caearize Jesus who crave war like a baby craves its mother’s milk who engage in a form of civil religion that combines the worst of racial prejudices with myths of national infallibility.”
And to those he uses terminology, not blatantly offensive as Durbin’s, but in the same rhetorical vein – demonizing those he sees as opposed to what he embraces.
“That evangelical is the false prophet who leads others to bow down and worship the beast with feet made of Darwinian economics legs comprised of corporations and colonies a stomach of moral indifference to the suffering of others arms made of confederacy and misogyny and a head made of the military-industrial complex.”
And lastly he makes the too common charge that those who are opposed to the Woke Movement are ignoring the biblical mandates when in fact they are not – it is the foundational methodology and actions that are being opposed, but he ignores that kind of in depth evaluation and just chooses to paint with a broad condemnatory brush –
“Let me be clear love of neighbour requires you to be concerned for the just treatment of your neighbour whether they are Black Hispanic First Peoples LGBT migrant Muslim working-class or even Baptist. Any derogation of a Christian’s duty to be concerned about the welfare and just-treatment of their neighbour is an attack on the biblical love command itself.”
I myself know of no one who is opposed to the Woke Movement that is becoming so pervasive in the SBC that is a racist or any other “anti-someone” that he implies. Myself and others who are opposed to the Woke Movement are so because of the clear philosophically flawed underpinnings. We have long recognized the biblical injunction and by and large have lived by it our whole lives with no other motivation than God’s work in our lives and our recognition of the image of God in all. We do so from a biblical foundation and without false motivation and actions that do no more that attempt to make people guilty for things they have not done nor would ever consider doing. He would have done better by very directly and pointedly aiming his critique to Durbin and not broadstroking the whole “Anti-Woke.”
by Shawn C. Madden Former Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Abstract: Genesis 1 has been an enigma to exegetes and scientists since man has read the text and read the heavens. Attempts to reconcile or match the two sources of the creative 1activity of God has garnered discussion and debate, often very heated, for millennia. Each time a new way of interpreting the text or peering more closely at the heavens has advanced the discussion and the attempts at finding or recognizing agreements between the two books God has written – Scripture and Nature. While the books have remained unchanged, the hermeneutical tools aimed at evaluating each, linguistics and science, have advanced. This paper is an attempt at providing yet another effort at seeing the agreements in the two books of God. The long history of such endeavors tempers this effort and the author knows that this will not be the end of the discussion and that this paper may achieve no more than to find itself as another item in the catalog of efforts of the creature attempting to understand and proclaim the glory and majesty of the Creator.
Key Words: Genesis 1:1-3, hermeneutics, text linguistics, discourse analysis, creation, Big Bang, science, physics, Hebrew grammar, day, cosmology, universe, earth.
The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go. Galileo Galilei (1564- 1642) in his open letter to the Dowager Grand Duchess.
[It is the] glory of God to cause the hiding of a thing and [the] glory of kings to search [for the] thing. Proverbs 25.2
Introduction
Though I have read through the Proverbs many times, 25.2 never stuck in my head until my son-in-law mentioned that it was his favorite verse. It strikes me as particularly pertinent to the issue at hand, evaluating and looking for harmonization between the two great works of the God of Abraham, Nature, and Scripture. It appears to indicate that there is curiosity created into the nature of man; a curiosity that sets him on the trek of uncovering what God has covered as part of that nature and its quest. This can be seen in the Scriptures concerning themselves in the plethora of prophecies concerning peoples and events, especially the coming of the Promised Messiah that many point out first appears in the Proto-Evangelium of Genesis 3.15.
This paper will be a short evaluation of the history of hermeneutical approaches to these two texts that God has presented for us to observe, ponder, and interpret. Scripture is understood as the Books of the Christian Bible which includes the thirty nine books of the TaNaK and the twenty seven books of the Gospels and Letters.[1] The key tool employed to interpret and understand Scripture is linguistics and its subcategories and tools. The key tool to interpret and understand Nature is science and its subcategories and tools. The history of both approaches involves the development of knowledge and instruments. This review will be necessarily brief but should, hopefully, give a solid account.
[1] These terms are used as the terminology “Old” and “New” can convey a preference for the New over the Old and the Scriptures are not to be so seen and separated.
A quick definition from the world of theology and biblical studies that I believe applies nicely with scientific advances in light of Prov. 25.
The term “progressive revelation” is a well known one in especially Christian studies in the Bible and theology. It says that “we understand God to have worked in a process of accomplishing redemption for humanity, revealing himself and his plan gradually, . . .”[1] Often this comes in advances in manuscript discoveries, literary studies, and linguistics. My foray into this subject, having led me to the hard sciences associated with cosmology, shows that it too applies to scientific inquiry, especially in observing technological advances that have allowed us to dig and peer deeper into the processes of the LORD God of this universe in which he has placed us.
[1] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 132ff.
Scientific Advances
A black hole physicist notes that
One of the biggest misconceptions about [the scientific definition of] the Big Bang theory is that it is a theory of the creation of the Universe, but it’s not. The Big Bang Theory describes how the Universe went from an incredibly hot and dense state to evolve to give us the distribution and different shapes of galaxies we see today. It doesn’t explain what happens at the first moment of ‘creation’ when time = 0. Our knowledge of physics allows us to rewind all the way back to when the Universe was a scant 10-36 seconds old (a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second), but before that all our known laws of physics break down.[1]
[1] Becky Smethurst, A Brief History of Black Holes (London: Macmillan, 2022), 261.
This position is the latest in the field of science that seeks to understand the universe in which we find ourselves. Man has been looking to the sky and observing the sun, moon, and stars since the beginning and he has been contemplating what it is and what it means. And, how it is.
There are several possible approaches to review scientific endeavors and advancements that demonstrate how man has sought to understand and determine his place in the universe he sees all around him; I am going to primarily focus on the cosmological aspect as I find more interest in it than the biological or geological approach, both of which are as equally insightful.
I have been fairly unlearned in this area and just of late have I taken a deeper dive into it, albeit not into the deep waters which require skill and understanding of the more mathematical (especially calculus) approaches. But enough so that I am not drowning.
My primary teachers have been the books by Dean Overman, Andrew Liddle, David Schultz, and Hugh Ross. I first bumped into Dean Overman’s book several years ago when teaching a Sunday School class and the creation topic came up. I was looking up something concerning theology and science and was researching Wolfhart Pannenberg[1] in this realm – I knew out that he had an interest and expertise in this area. I learned that he had written the foreword to Overman’s A Case Against Accident and Self Organization. I ordered and read it. I found it to be an excellent and thorough treatment of the statistical problems that are the heart of the fine tuning and intelligent design understanding and arguments.
More recently, as I began this more in-depth research, I found Andrew Liddle’s, An Introduction to Modern Cosmology[2] which served me as a good introduction to the terms, concepts, issues, and names in the scientific study of the universe. It does have math/maths but not so much that it interferes with a good understanding of the narrative.
In addition, I found another good guide to accompany this trek in David Schultz’s delineation of the history of the cosmological journey in his The Andromeda Galaxy and the Rise of Modern Astronomy.[3]
My own interest in astronomy began in the 1980s when my wife bought me a small, 4 inch reflector telescope. With that I and the Royal Ambassadors of First Baptist Dallas observed Halley’s comet in 1986. I later traded that telescope in for a more capable one (still a 4” reflector) and observed Jupiter and Mars and the moon. My life got busy enough such that I could do little more and as such did not get back into astronomy until 2021 when I traded recreational flying for astronomy as a hobby. I began with an 8 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain and have since added a 127mm and a 51mm refractor and an 8 inch RASA. I have also acquired several astrophotography specific cameras to go with them to image the not very dark Dallas, Texas night sky.
My foray into the field is a bit illustrative of Schultz’s narration. He recounts how what man has gained from looking at the night sky millenia ago has been materially influenced by advances in technology. For me, in addition to the availability of more time due to my semi-retired state, it has meant that, unlike my first telescopes which were manually operated, my newer ones are fully computerized. Even in the brief time in which I have been more seriously involved in the hobby, the technology used to orient the telescope (polar align) and then find the object of my interest (plate solve) and to track it (guiding) has made several leaps and advances. Additionally, I began astrophotography just shortly after advances in more affordable and advanced cameras. The technology has grown such that in many instances amateur astronomers, even those with equipment such as mine, have been making regular cosmological discoveries, including, comets, supernovae and a never before seen blue nebula in the foreground of images (meaning, in our own galaxy) of the Andromeda Galaxy M-31.[4]
Schultz notes that, “We wonder who created the universe, when, why, and for what purpose. Or perhaps we think, as was the case for eons, that humans occupy a central role in the universe.”[5]Man has been pondering the sky since the very earliest times. A recent discovery from the “ancient Nineveh library” revealed “a 5,500-year-old Sumerian star map” which depicted the “Köfel’s impact event observed in 3300 BC.” The clay tablet that was the medium for this depiction, revealed itself to be “an early astrolabe, the segmented star chart offers a glimpse into the celestial knowledge of ancient Mesopotamia, revealing a sophisticated understanding of the night sky.”[6] This shows that even in the most ancient of times man was taking a very serious look at the night sky and trying to depict, analyze, and understand it and our place in it while displaying very sophisticated depiction and evaluation skills.
Schultz provides a review of the people and literature that recorded man’s effort to understand what he saw above him and our place in that vastness. Ancient writers include Aristotle, Thales, Socrates, and Anaximander. Hesiod’s Theogony was a Greek attempt to explain the origins. From the Jewish writers, Moses emerges with the most well know explanation and subject of this paper, Genesis chapter 1.
For most of history, man’s viewing of the universe above his was restricted to his eyes and the quality of the sky conditions above him. Even with such limitations, achievements were made in observing and describing the heavens above.
The greatest technological advancement came with the invention of the telescope. The first patent for one was first submitted by an eyeglass maker named Hans Lippershey in the Netherlands in 1608. It was a refracting telescope meaning that the light from a distant object passed in a straight line to the observer through a series of glass lenses. The design was further improved by Galileo who also applied it to his astronomical investigations. In that same century, improvements were made by Johannes Kepler and Christian Huygens. Also in the 17th century, Isaac Newton built a reflector telescope and Laurent Cassegrain took Newton’s design and modified it. Reflector telescopes bounced and concentrated the distant light before passing it through a viewing lens. Since that time, improvements have been made in each of these earliest designs.
One other major innovation that helped cosmological investigations was the invention and employment of cameras to supplement the use of telescopes. Earlier observers, such as Galileo and Newton, would make hand drawn sketches of their observations. In 1840, the first astrophotography was taken by John Draper. He made a twenty minute long daguerreotype photo of the moon using a five inch reflector telescope.[7] This was followed by an image of the solar eclipse in 1851 by Johann Julius Friedrich Berkowski. Spectroscopic images were made shortly thereafter and in 1880 the first image of the Orion Nebula was made. In 1883 a much better image was made of the same nebula which also revealed stars that were not visible to unassisted observations.
What is striking is how recent all of this is. Not much over one hundred years from the present we get the first fairly clear and detailed images of celestial objects. This step would lead to increased recognition of the enormity of the universe in which we find ourselves resident. These two tools, the telescope and the camera, would open up the world of scientific investigation to an unprecedented level which looks to be expanding continuously and gaining momentum. At the time of this writing, the James Webb telescope is one million miles from earth and taking the most detailed images of the universe to date with a wide variety of cameras. There is also a camera drone on Mars flying around and taking photographs!
The simple observations were expanded with scientific inquiries using spectroscopy, especially concerning light waves of elements. So too it was possible to observe and measure the doppler shift of the spectroscopic signature of distant objects with an eye to determining their distance and the extent of the universe we were observing. This was coupled with the recognition of the Cepheid varible class of stars by Henrietta Levitt which became a major measuring tool for distant objects and allowed Edwin Hubble to determine that the Andromeda Nebula/Galaxy was in fact outside of the confines of the Milky Way galaxy and very distant from us.[8]
In a similar vein, but looking more to the micro scale, Nucleosynthesis, Stellar Nucleosynthesis, and Super Nova Nucleosynthesis revealed the source of the different elements in the universe. This was a major milestone in that scientists came to realize that the creation of all of the elements ranged from hydrogen coming in the first process of the Big Bang and the heavier elements needing the explosion of stars of ever increasing densities to be formed.
In October 1957 a paper, “Synthesis of the Elements in Stars” by Burbidge, Burbidge, Fowler, and Hoyle in Reviews of Modern Physics showed that heavier elements found their origins in the hearts of stars – different elements being produced in different types of stars. The wikipedia site notes that:
Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons (protons and neutrons) and nuclei. According to current theories, the first nuclei were formed a few minutes after the Big Bang, through nuclear reactions in a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. After about 20 minutes, the universe had expanded and cooled to a point at which these high-energy collisions among nucleons ended, so only the fastest and simplest reactions occurred, leaving our universe containing hydrogen and helium. The rest is traces of other elements such as lithium and the hydrogen isotope deuterium. Nucleosynthesis in stars and their explosions later produced the variety of elements and isotopes that we have today, in a process called cosmic chemical evolution.[9]
As described by Hugh Ross,
The fusion of most life-essential heavy elements must await the gravitational collapse of gas clouds into giant stars. Only in such collapses can the temperatures necessary for nuclear fusion be achieved again. And only in the cores of such giant stars can elements heavier than boron (such as carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and phosphorus—the building blocks of life) be manufactured. In fact, two generations of such stars must burn up in order to build a density of heavier elements sufficient to make life chemistry possible. That is, the universe much be old enough to have produced a third generation of stars, but it must not be too old . . . . .[10]
To state it succinctly, recent discoveries and advances concerning the origin of the universe have noted that within the first moments of the beginning of the universe the light elements emerged and it was only after the formation and destruction of successively heavier stars that we get progressively heavier and heavier elements, many of which are necessary for life.
Combine this with the discovery or confirmation that there is a universe outside of the Milky Way and we have reached a point markedly different than previous exegetes have had and now have at our disposal much more specific material discoveries to more closely and specifically evaluate the text of Genesis 1.
For me, this was material in forming my scientific hermenuetic of the Beginning. It greatly informed my linguistic hermenuetic when evaluating the conundrum that is Genesis 1.1-3.
[1] I had read his Jesus-God and Man years ago and found it to be an outstanding work on Christology.
[2] Andrew Liddle, An Introduction to Modern Cosmology, 3rd ed. (West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2015).
[3] David Schultz, The Andromeda Galaxy and the Rise of Modern Astronomy (New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 2012).
[4] Koichi Itagaki discovered SN2023ixf, a supernova in the Pinwheel Galaxy (M 101). I have taken a picture of it myself with my equipment. The blue nebula (Oiii emission arc) associated with Andromeda Galaxy (M 31) was discovered by Marcel Drechsler, Xavier Strottner, Yann Sainty, Sean Walker, Stefan Kimeswenger, and Robert Fesen after 180 hours of imaging using amateur equipment.
[8] Schultz, 125-7. E. Hubble, “A spiral nebula as a stellar system, Messier 31.” Astrophysics Journal 79.8 103-64.
[9] Wikipedia contributors, “Nucleosynthesis,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (accessed October 5, 2024). Article and chart.
[10] Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days, 2nd ed. (Covina, CA: rtb Press, 2015), 230-1.
Linguistic Advances
Standing at the head of arguably the most important book in our possession, Genesis 1.1-3 has received its fair share of investigations and comments. The extent of this paper does not allow a review of those investigations but will rather introduce what I find to be the best tools to investigate and analyze the text. The key to textual hermenduetics is linguistics. Most have been familiar with the orthographical, phonological, and grammatical aspects since childhood. Each of these has been employed to dig deeper into the text. Only of late has a very powerful tool emerged that I have found absolutely essential in this endeavor.
In the field of linguistics, a system known as discourse analysis or text linguistics has emerged and been employed. In my case, its aspect as presented by Robert Longacre in his Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence is paramount.[1]
Robert Longacre was most noted for his developed work in discourse analysis. Discourse analysis is distinguished from the more traditional methods of looking at and analyzing a piece of text in that it goes beyond the bounds of the clause and sentence and attempts to view the text within a larger context, that of the whole pericope within a defined genre. It argues that only from that perspective might the use of grammatical forms and their relationship with each other be best understood. Longacre notes that “A piece of text, especially a literary text . . . cannot be understood by myopically inspecting it verse-by-verse without the study of the whole informing the study of the parts”.[2] In his dissertation, Ray Clendenen (one of Longacre’s students and a linguistic master in his own right) notes that “Discourse typology has been a major emphasis of Longacre, who argues that it is an essential step [my emphasis] in any linguistic analysis of a discourse, ‘Characteristics of individual discourses can be neither described, predicted, nor analyzed without resort to a classification of discourse types. It is pointless to look in a discourse for a feature which is not characteristic of the type to which that discourse belongs.[3] So determinative of detail is the general design of a discourse type that the linguist [or exegete] who ignores discourse typology can only come to grief’”.[4]
To cut to the chase of Longacre’s position and theory, he begins part 2 of his Joseph with a note toward the doing of Hebrew grammar: “Traditionally, within a grammar of a given language all the uses of each tense/aspect or mode of a language are listed and described en bloque in the same section of the grammar”. He presents “a challenge to this time-honored way of describing the functions of the verb forms of a verb system within a language” by positing that “(a) every language has a system of discourse types (e.g., narrative, predictive, hortatory, procedural, expository, and others); (b) each discourse type has its own characteristic constellation of verb forms that figure in that type; (c) the uses of a given tense/aspect/mood form are most surely and concretely described in relation to a given discourse type”. [5]
Longacre goes on to note that, “. . . variation in a text is not random but motivated. In brief, where the author has a choice in regard to a lexical item or a grammatical construction, his particular choice is motivated by pragmatic concerns or discourse structure.” [6] To put it succinctly, the biblical writers knew what they were doing and what they did they did with purpose and on purpose and with purposeful precision. Our lesson is to take the text seriously from linguistic, literary, and theological positions and to glean as much as we can from what the author intended to convey and how he intended for it to be used.
This way of understanding and evaluating a text provides a valuable tool that approaches a text as a whole, an approach that recognizes paragraphs, episodes, and book levels. This is well above the singular verse or clause that so many grammars restrict themselves to when doing orthographic or syntactical explanations. My observation has been that there is a severe limitation to the endeavor if those who approach the text restrict themselves to only those tools.
Concerning the text, Genesis 1 is a narrative discourse type with interspersed hortatory discourse passages. Though recognized as a narrative text, many see a poetry to that narration in how the text is presented in the larger structures, especially centering around the term “day.” As such it is best to evaluate it as such and to note how the hortatory passages fit in. Of course, the text is in Hebrew and the evaluation of the text must start there.
A quick note before the detailed evaluation, I am going to be following, for the most part, the Analogical Interpretation of the “days of Genesis 1” as expounded by Mark E. Ross. In his article he references Meredith G. Kline, where he notes Kline’s comment,
“Exegesis indicates that the scheme of the creation week itself is a poetic figure and that the several pictures of creation history are set within the six work-day frames not chronologically but topically. In distinguishing simple description and poetic figure from what is definitively conceptual the only ultimate guide, here as always, is comparison with the rest of Scripture” (Italics added). “Commentary on Genesis,” 82.[7]
Noting that explanation, I would add that its usage appears to be a method of using a well known word to denote and describe a period of specific activities. Of course, the length of that period is key to the discussions swirling around this part of the issue. I find myself in the camp of very long periods of time – millions and billions of years. I also note that the text of Genesis one is very clear and specific concerning what we call a 24 hour day – the means of utilizing that measurement is not mentioned until day four and their mentioning is less of creation than of assigning purpose, i.e., “for signs and for seasons and for days and years.”
Robert Longacre provides the following table presenting the structure of biblical narrative discourse based on verb types and their function in a passage. This table is followed by his cline for Hortatory Discourse. I have presented these two as they are the two discourse types found in Genesis 1.1-5.
[1] Robert LongacreJoseph: A Story of Divine Providence, 2nd ed., (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003). I agree with Ray Clendenen (Revised Malachi) who notes: “I prefer the term text linguistics (or text linguistics) to discourse analysis because of the ambiguity and breadth of the latter term, which is sometimes used of the study of oral speech.” For a helpful survey of various approaches to text linguistics, see Noonan, Advances in the Study of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, 145–69. The appeal to me of Longacre’s approach is especially (1) its attention to linguistic levels above that of the clause and sentence, (2) its attention to both form and function in language, that is, both grammatical structure and semantic structure, (3) its attention to linguistic universals, that is, what the study of the world’s ancient and modern languages have in common, and (4) its insistence on meaning-in-context rather than meaning-in-abstract. While Longacre’s focus was on the nature and significance of discourse types, neither he nor his method ignores “other important discourse features, such as discourse relations and information structure,” as Noonan observes (p. 155).
[2] Robert E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence. 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), xii.
[3] Longacre, following Pike, speaks of tagmemes and syntagmemes; the tagmeme being a constituent element of the higher syntagmeme. He represents it like this: Σ = {T1 . . . Tn}, Tf: (Σ). Robert Longacre, The Grammar of Discourse, 2nd ed. (New York: Plenum Press, 1996), 274.
[4] E. Ray Clendenen,. “The Interpretation of Biblical Hebrew Hortatory Texts: A Textlinguistic Approach to the Book of Malachi” (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Arlington, 1989), 45.
[5] Robert E. Longacre, Joseph: A Story of Divine Providence, 2nd ed. (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 57.
[7] Mark E. Ross, “The Framework Hypothesis: An Interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:3.” In Joseph A. Pipa, Jr., & David W. Hall, editors, Did God Create in 6 Days? (Powder Springs GA: The Covenant Foundation, 1999, 2005),114, n. 1 and 117, n. 6.
I will be utilizing his scheme for evaluating the text of Genesis 1 and for this paper, I will deal only with the first three verses.
In Hebrew narrative discourse, the mainline of the narration is indicated by the use of the vayyiqtol verb form with the other verb forms providing different levels of separation or support for the mainline. [1] This is what I see as I exegete Genesis 1. In the following pages I have laid it out with the Hebrew text to more visually display the discourse level indentations. I have included a column to show the Chapter/Verse/Clause/Phrase of each line. So too I have included a column to indicate the Discoure Type and Level. As I go through the detailed evaluation I will comment on the linguistics and attempt to coordinate it with my, albeit amatuer, understanding of the Big Bang physics that the text indicates.
The discourse that Longacre in his Joseph first evaluates is the narrative. It is one of the most abundant (if not the most abundant) discourse types in the confines of the Hebrew Bible and thus warrants the closest attention. Moreover, it is consistent enough to serve as an introduction to the concept.
Longacre notes that
A chain of (necessarily verb-initial) clauses that contain preterites [wayiqqtols] is the backbone of any Old Testament story; all other clause types contribute various kinds of supportive, descriptive, and depictive materials. In the cases of clauses that begin with a noun (and therefore cannot contain a verb in the preterite), such background material serves to introduce or highlight something about the noun in question, whether it refers to a participant or to a prop in the story. Clauses that begin with a non-preterite (perfect) verb portray secondary actions; for example, actions what are in some sense subsidiary to the main action, which is described by a following preterite. On occasion, a verb in the perfect (whether or not [the clause] begins with a noun) is repetition or paraphrase of some action already reported as a preterite on the storyline.[2]
He also notes “The special status of hāyâ‘be’” by writing that “It is immediately necessary, however, to qualify the above hypothesis in one important particular. The verb haya, ‘be’, even in its preterite form wahi ‘and it happened’, does not function on the storyline of a narrative. In this respect, the behavior of Hebrew is similar to that of a great many contemporary languages around the world. . . . This is simple [sic] a peculiarity of the verb be in many languages past and present.”[3]
Below I have just the text laid out according to Longacre’s model in Hebrew and English and then Transliterated Hebrew and English. That is followed by my intertexual evaluation and comments.
[1] The old term was qal imperfect with a vav/waw consecutive. My preference is to designate the form of the word (qatal, yiqtol, vayyiqtol, etc.) without assigning any grammatical value to those structures without reference to a discourse type.
Concerning vs. 1, The term, “Heavens and Earth” is labeled by many as a merism but I see it more as a specific description of the relationship between the two. The mass and math from the “heavens” are there to make possible the “earth” and the living creatures whom God will call into existence. Cf. esp. Hugh Ross, Designed to the Core (Covina, CA: rtb Press, 2022) and Dean Overman, A Case Against Accident and Self-Organization (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1997). Stephen Hawking stated, “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, it would have recollapsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand, if it had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have expanded too rapidly for stars and planets to form.”[1] In this view, all of creation began at 1.1 and this includes the heavens (or universe) that is necessary for the creation of the earth which will be the focus of God here and in the rest of Scripture as that is where man, his greatest creation, will live. The separation of the two terms is strengthened particularly in chapter 1 as the two are dealt with separately. The use of the terms “the heavens and the earth” do not necessitate that Moses means the final form. In the laying out of the text, this is an introduction to what will follow and is a note that all that will be began here. Think of the conception of a child – that one, first cell is that child, that youth, that adult.
[1] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (New York: Bantam, 198), 26.
What is then depicted in vs. 2 is, as I see it from what I have read on the Big Bang Theory, a “. . . seething plasma of subatomic particles” before they “cooled to form hydrogen, the first atoms” as noted above. For me, this is analogous to Jeremiah 1.4-5 where we read, “Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the belly[1] I knew you, and before you were brought out from the womb, born I concentrated you . . .” (my translation). The first two phrases are pure nominal clauses simply stating that initial state of the earth, a mass of subatomic particles – formless and void. And in a state of darkness. The third phrase contains a participle, məraḥep̄eṯ, hovering, which some commentators have likened to a hen brooding over her chicks. One of the keys for me was noting the word “waters” and then seeing that stated as a description of the plasma state. “The initial result of the Big Bang was an intensely hot and energetic liquid that was around 4 trillion degrees Fahrenheit (2 trillion degrees Celsius) and existed for mere microseconds. This liquid contained nothing less than the building blocks of all matter. As the universe cooled, the particles decayed or combined, giving rise to … well, everything.”[2]
[1] There are two Hebrew words in this verse in Jeremiah that the Greek, KJV (Hebrew word here, btn), refers to both the body parts of the man and of the woman to provide their contribution to the formation of a new human being, Jeremiah in this case.
What is then depicted in vs. 2 is, as I see it from what I have read on the Big Bang Theory, a “. . . seething plasma of subatomic particles” before they “cooled to form hydrogen, the first atoms” as noted above. For me, this is analogous to Jeremiah 1.4-5 where we read, “Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the belly[1] I knew you, and before you were brought out from the womb, born I concentrated you . . .” (my translation). The first two phrases are pure nominal clauses simply stating that initial state of the earth, a mass of subatomic particles – formless and void. And in a state of darkness. The third phrase contains a participle, məraḥep̄eṯ, hovering, which some commentators have likened to a hen brooding over her chicks. One of the keys for me was noting the word “waters” and then seeing that stated as a description of the plasma state. “The initial result of the Big Bang was an intensely hot and energetic liquid that was around 4 trillion degrees Fahrenheit (2 trillion degrees Celsius) and existed for mere microseconds. This liquid contained nothing less than the building blocks of all matter. As the universe cooled, the particles decayed or combined, giving rise to … well, everything.”[2]
[1] There are two Hebrew words in this verse in Jeremiah that the Greek, KJV (Hebrew word here, btn), refers to both the body parts of the man and of the woman to provide their contribution to the formation of a new human being, Jeremiah in this case.
It is in vs. 3 that matter as we see and know it presently “appears” as that is when the material of creation cooled sufficiently to produce atoms and photons. Once I recognized the production of photons in the cooling process I became convinced that it was significant. One physicist described this as a time before the universe became “transparent.”[1] She goes on to note that at that point we have “the first light in the universe . . . in what we call the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation [CMB].” I want to ask, as a liberal arts guy, is this also when Einsteinian physics begins – i.e., space and time? CMB is landmark evidence of the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe. If my understanding of what I have read is correct, in the Big Bang cosmological models, during the earliest periods, the universe was filled with an opaque fog of dense, hot plasma of sub-atomic particles. From Wikipedia, “As the universe expanded, this plasma cooled to the point where protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms of mostly hydrogen. Unlike the plasma, these atoms could not scatter thermal radiation by Thomson scattering, and so the universe became transparent. Known as the recombination epoch, this decoupling event released photons to travel freely through space – sometimes referred to as relic radiation. However, the photons have grown less energetic due to the cosmological redshift associated with the expansion of the universe. The surface of last scattering refers to a shell at the right distance in space so photons are now received that were originally emitted at the time of decoupling.”[2]
According to standard cosmology, the CMB gives a snapshot of the hot early universe at the point in time when the temperature dropped enough to allow electrons and protons to form hydrogen atoms. This event made the universe nearly transparent to radiation because light was no longer being scattered off free electrons. When this occurred some 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the temperature of the universe was about 3,000 K. This corresponds to an ambient energy of about 0.26 eV, which is much less than the 13.6 eV ionization energy of hydrogen. This epoch is generally known as the “time of last scattering” or the period of recombination or decoupling.
The two great books of the LORD, Scripture, and the cosmos, were written and completed by God and were intended to be read by man. But, as the gulf between the two is great and severe, it should never be nor ever have been understood to be easily read and understood in the first encounter. This is where Proverbs 25.2 is key. I think that it could be safely argued that part of God’s design of man was a need to investigate and discover – a work that he set out before us. Though beyond our complete comprehension, he did provide the impetus to devise and to discover the means to gain a better and fuller understanding of the wonders he laid out before us that declare his glory.
For the book, this development involved the use of language, and then the move to make it written. Then came the desire to observe and evaluate what others had said and written and in that quest came the recognition of the various forms of words, phrases, sentences, and beyond. And then the investigation and comparison of how the various peoples from this side of the tower of Babylon expressed that grammatical and discourse variety. That was then followed by compilations and coalations of patterns of useage that helped to better determine the meaning of the author. This endeavor is ongoing. Most recently many are recognizing the field of discourse grammar/text liguistics as a vital tools in this inquiry and investigation.
For the cosmos, learning and understanding it has been a quest of millenia. Pure eyeball observation and recording (language helps!) was followed and greatly aided by the invention of the telescope which was followed by improvements and enlargements – the eyeball got bigger and better! This was followed by the invention of the camera which too had its “improvements and enlargements” and today we find ourselves with a telescope and multiple cameras parked one million miles into space designed to peer as deeply back into time as was never imagined much less possible even a few decades ago.
In all of this hermeneutics is key. What has been laid down before us in Scripture is absolute but often it gets poorly exegeted by us. So too nature. There is an absoluteness to it but it too often gets poorly interpreted in man’s approach to it – science. Both these cases are born out by the histories of theological and scientific descriptions since men have approached and observed. As such, I find myself in disagreement with Galileo.
Bibliography
Collins, C. John. Genesis 1-4. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2006.
Collins, C. John. Reading Genesis Well. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018.
Hubble, Edwin. The Realm of the Nebulae. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.
Kant, Immanuel. Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens. Trans. Ian Johnston. Arlington: Richer Resources Publications, 2008.
Liddle, Andrew. An Introduction to Modern Cosmology. 3rd ed. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2015.
Overman, Dean. A Case Against Accident and Self Organization. New York: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997.
Pipa, Joseph and David W. Hall, editors. Did God Create in 6 Days? Power Springs, GA: The Covenant Foundation, 1999, 2005.
Ross, Hugh. Designed to the Core. Covina, CA: rtb Press. 2022.
During Capt. Shawn C. Madden’s Deployment to Desert Storm/Norway
Two months ago my husband was a simple schoolteacher and I a simple bank employee. Along came Desert Storm and he is called up to proudly answer his country’s call and I the adoring spouse stand back with handkerchief and tears to send him off to Jacksonville, N.C. My husband is a Captain in the United states Marine Corps. I am a 36 year old wife, mother and secretary by day, and now sole commander and chief by night of our 2,500 square footage that the mortgage company graciously allows us to call home.
Never in a million years do I pretend to minimize the agony that our spouses of the brave military personnel that actually are s-erving in–combat face. I can only write- about the experiences I encounter. We do have the luxury of knowing our husbands (and wives) are safe and to me that is a major plus, yet we still must face the decision making alone, the children alone and the nights alone. My children seem to be taking their father’s absence with little strain after all in today’s busy world children see very little of the “bread winner” as it is. We come in from school, have dinner, baths and bedtime. Didn’t USA Today quote a survey that said working parents if lucky give their children 22 minutes of quality time a day. But most children don’t have a “super dad” and mine do. He provides a strong presence, security, and above all paternal love that goes unspoken.
But, the separation takes a lot out of the remaining spouse, no one to help break up the day to day routine, that you alone as the remaining spouse must face and no one to talk to on an adult level, no one to take over when you are tired, and no one to help with the loneliness of being the one in charge. You are the good guy and the bad all rolled up into one. My daughter tried to catch me in a weak moment and challenged a recent decision with “Daddy would let me go” and “I wish daddy were here”. And with steely determination I held my ground but over the months my ground is getting shaky. Late the other day I had just finished cleaning three bathrooms and reorganizing our daughter’s room when he called! I run to the phone pulling off the rubber gloves and try to sound upbeat and cheerful all the time smelling like pine cleaner. This is hard, I have to carry the entire responsibilities of the home and hearth and yet I must give him uplifting and happy phone conversations that allow him to go back to his bunk contented. I have no control over when I hear from him. The ability to call home isn’t even his, he has to rely on the time schedule of training and the line outside the pay phone.
Sour grapes you say, well maybe but we who were left behind have to change our train of thought and think in terms of one not two. Shawn and I were active duty for twelve years, he spent eight years in the active reserves before Desert storm and when the activation came all my old ways and feelings had to be taken from storage and dusted off, could I go back to the days when this was our way of life? I have never considered myself a dependent woman in the terms that all resolves around the man, I believe in my soul that a military wife must be independent or the military way of life will be intolerable. I am a survivor. I deeply believe happiness is a choice. I love my husband and support him with my life. I am very proud of him for answering his country’s call without even a whimper of the inconvenience it may cause.
John 6.24.-71 – The problems with a literal/physical/transubstantive view
Shawn C. Madden
Within the various ‘traditions’ of the Christian faith, some take a literal view of John 6 and when referencing the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist argue that Jesus’s body is physically present and that we are to physically eat his flesh and physically drink his blood. I do have to add a side note in that in practice the drinking of his blood is very often omitted and it is usually argued that in the host/bread there is present Jesus’s “body, blood, soul, and divinity” thus precluding Jesus’s command to “drink his blood.” That is emblematic of just one of this issues with the transubstantive position. Briefly, the substantiation position argues that the “substance” of the bread is changed to the actual “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus while the “accidents” or outward appearance remains as bread.
The first problem with this while arguing from John 6.24-71 is that in vss. 49-51 Jesus makes a contrast by comparing himself to the manna in the desert from Exodus. He notes that “your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness and they [physically] died” and then he contrasts that with “I am the living bread that came out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.” To be consistent, if, in his contrast Jesus is making a one to one physical comparison with himself and the manna, and if what we find in the mass is a direct reenactment of what Jesus said in these verses and that the bread is transubstanted and then becomes the physical “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus then you would, to be consistent, have to argue that anyone who physically eats his body will physically live forever. But that is not what we find is it?
In the text of John 6.57-58 Jesus says, “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.”
The second problem is a bit cruder. If in fact it has been argued that the host is the “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus to the point that, as when I grew up, if a host is dropped the only proper person to pick it up and retrieve it is a priest, and there is also the argument that there are accounts of some hosts actually bleeding thereby confirming what it is actually the “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus. People are arguing now for a catholic return to requiring the host to be taken on the tongue and not the hand as it more shows that the recipient is taking in the actual “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus.
Then one has to ask, after ingestion, how long does the transubstantive bread remain to actual “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus? Does it cease to be somewhere along the alimentary canal? Does it remain so even to Jesus’s point in Matt. 15.17 – “that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the privy? (Matt. 15:17 DRA)” and then, do the “accidents” continue to actually be “body, blood, soul, and divinity” of Jesus even through the sewer and remain so as the disconnected molecular pieces of the “body of Christ”?
These then are the problems I see with the transubstantive argument that finds itself being argued using John 6. I notice that John 6 is actually tied back into John 3.16. Jesus makes that point clearly at the beginning of the pericope. In vs. 40 Jesus says, “For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believing in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” Believing, having faith in him is where one finds eternal life. He reemphasizes that in vs. 63 with, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”
John 6 is a continuation of 3.16 and points entirely and solely to faith, not physical eating. Those taking the transubstantive position completely miss that Jesus is giving a metaphor of faith with eating. The crowd was seeking a sign and he gave them one.
“Matriarch:” ‘tis a title of which I have always held in disdain. It was common with the American Indians. My ancestral Clarks, Lees, Henrys, Haneys, etc. and my wife’s ancestral Barrons, Gildeas, McDonoughs, etc., recognized a certain authority and even a domination by their wives in the dim past of Gaelic history.
And ‘tis me, a young vigorous man not yet seventy-one years old, lying flat on me back, with me sixty-five year old snip of a wife parading around ordering me to stay in bed where she put me, even making me put on pajamas. But I still had me pipe handy, though it didn’t taste right. Of course I was intendin’ to do that very thing, so it was not as if I was takin’ orders from the likes of her.
We had come a-visiting to this eighty acre farm to babysit with our three grandchildren, while our daughter and her slave, another downtrodden “Mick,” took a business-vacation trip to a warmer climate. They had left without a care, knowing that hickory-tough grandpa would be after taking care of everything.
We had arrived in typical Ohio January weather, as the temperature cooperated with the snow as it continued to fall.
The bugs got me down shortly after they had left, but I would not admit it until everyone turned against me, including two of my sons who were on their way home and happened to stop by. They each outweigh me by once and a half, but I can still whip them even if they don’t know it. And, bad cess to the both of them, they always take sides with their mother. So, nothing would do them but haul me away to a hospital where they had a doctor take a faked-up picture of me rugged chest, and I’ve no doubt that they bribed him to order me to bed on a diet of nasty medicine, after punching around on me 1 with his needle. And this, with all the good whiskey they could have bought me for a lot less money. They even went to the extent of calling my daughter in Dallas, Texas, who is a registered nurse, and the other of eight spalpeens. And the likes of her, me own daughter, giving me orders over the telephone.
‘Twas a sad day for the O’Haney, with her telling me what to do, and what not to do; as if I wouldn’t know what to do about a little thing like pneumonia.
And with all this scheming and behind the back planning, they dealt me the underhanded blow; they put the Matriarch in charge. And them knowing all the time that I would be doing the proper intelligent things without someone having to tell me to do this and not do that.
But I have the advantage of them. I’m remembering that the seventeenth of March is not far away and that me and my Leprechaun will be King for a day; so their domineering ways do not affect my sweet imperturbable nature.
I was watching “The Matriarch” this morning from my bedroom window, which is upstairs where the three grandchildren are under my stern eye while she is out. She was at the barn feeding the nine head of cattle, the two horses, and a pony. “Jesse,” the ever guardian Doberman, was with her, having an eye to the animals, stalking them with that proud, fearless demeanor of challenge, that dared even “Sampson,” the two thousand pound bull, to question the least desire of the Matriarch. The calico cat was also in attendance; a sort of “Maid in Waiting.”
And a vision appeared. The scene was bathed in early morning sunshine. The mockingbird we’d fed each day had ‘lighted on the pasture fence. The Matriarch’s pitchfork became a scepter, the slouch-hat became a halo-like tiara, the too-big coat was robes 2 of velvet and fine spun gold, and the mockingbird’s song became the soft strains of a harp. It was top o’ the mornin’ for the O’Haney and a proud day for himself.
When we first moved into our house it was perfect and clean. But it was bare of all the little touches of love that make someplace a home. So Princess Leila went about decorating the house with a fury that only a woman can accomplish. She brought in new furniture and decorations. She set about throwing trinkets and sparkling things in different locations. Creating our little kingdom of warmth and love. She also began making a long list of chores for me to accomplish. Such as painting the walls a different color and hanging pictures, along with other various tasks. As my list of tasks grew larger and larger. I was not all that upset when I had to go back to work. Even though I knew my list would be that much longer when I returned. Now I say my chore list grew larger and larger. I do have standing orders. I am the gate keeper to all things that creep and crawl. I am the Knight that stands guard against all critters. When it comes to the animal kingdoms multi legged or winged invaders I am death incarnate. Little did I know the Spider Queen was waiting for me to abandon my post. The Spider Queen waited until dusk to strike. As the sun set on our Princess’s little castle the Spider Queen invaded.
The Spider Queen was not just any spider, but she was a wolf spider. I’m not sure if you’re aware of wolf spiders but they can be very large. From tip to tip they can be as large as your hand. The larger ones are often mistaken for tarantulas. They also carry their young on theirs backs. Thousands and thousands of little specs of terror.
As our hero princess was finishing up her day and making new plans for the next. The Spider Queen attacked. Princess Leila encountered her foe in the kitchen (actually the breakfast nook, but in any event). Now I said I’m the Knight that stands guard, but Leila is not defenseless. She was trained by Sheila The Great. She who could train any animal and could dispatch creepy crawlies with ease. Leila knew what she had to do. Our hero grabbed her weapon of choice. A boot. As Sheila the Great had taught her. “ Because a shoe will just piss em off”. Princess Leila reared back and brought the weapon down with a fury! The boot struck down the Spider Queen and the exceptionally large spider was smited! Victory was at hand. Or so she thought. The Spider Queen had a secret weapon. A weapon of instant terror and panic. She was not just a Spider Queen but a Spider Queen Mother! The most horrific of enemies. As Princess Leila disengaged, thinking she was victorious. A second attack occurred. Thousands and thousands of tiny specs of disgusting horrific terror exploded from the corpse of the fallen queen. They spred like wild fire. In all directions they fled. The diameter of their attack grew larger and larger with an unimaginable speed. As the horde grew larger Leila composed herself and calmly reengaged. No, no she did not. She lost her mind. The sight of a kabilion tiny spiders spreading all throughout your house with an alarming speed would rattle anybody. But fear not our dear readers. Princess Leila would not be defeated. However, she would break the Genova convention by using chemical warfare. She quickly retrieved a can of bug spray (or wood cleaner or whatever had spraying capabilities) and redeployed the Boot of Vengeance ! Spraying and smashing everything that creeped and crawled until nothing moved.
After what probably seemed like an eternity battling the demons that spawned from hell itself. She had won. All invaders had been vanquished. Although she saw little spiders from time to time as a result from PTSD (post traumatic spider disorder). She was finally victorious.
She called me after the battle to let me know that we needed to employ an exterminator. No, let me rephrase that. She ordered me to contact an exterminator immediately. It was definitely not a request. As a matter of fact it was a top priority. I did not question the order and happily added it to the top of my ever growing chore list.
My question on this issue has always been, how, when looking at the text of Matt. 13.55, someone says to themselves, ‘Gee, that can’t mean that!’
Though the actual importance of the perpetual virginity of Mary is not as great as some imply; it has no salvific import, one way or the other, it is extremely important as an indicator of one’s or one’s church’s method of interpretation or hermeneutic. In that vein, I would argue that if a church goes to so great an extent to “make[s] the word ‘brother’ a non-argument” when its meaning is so very crystal clear and in no need of an “infallible teacher” to clear up what is already clear, then the more weighty matters of Truth and Salvation as taught by that church are open to question. If you are confused about what adelphos means and go to such great lengths to prove that it doesn’t mean brother, then you are very likely confused or wrong about what other words mean.
The easy things first. The whole argument over “until” has been turned around backwards by the Catholic church. It does not necessitate a change in state, conjugal relations in the case of Matthew 1.25, but the easiest, obvious, surface sense of the phrase is that there was a change—after the birth of Jesus, Mary and Joseph carried on a normal, natural, blessed, marital relationship and from that other children were born. Matthew himself in 2.13 uses “until” to mark a change when Joseph was told to stay in Egypt until told to move. The larger context of Matthew’s narrative is the key to 1.25. Matthew used “until” and then later in 13.55 identified brothers and sisters of Jesus. The obvious impression of the combination of the word until in 1.25 coupled with the brothers in 13.55 means that Joseph and Mary had sex and had children. Until can mean either a change of state or not. In Matthew 1.25 and 13.55 it seems obvious that a change is intended.
Concerning the reformationists, there is much to agree with, there is much to disagree with. I suspect you don’t agree with many of their writings and positions, though you find agreement with them on this issue. There is much about them that I agree with, but on this issue, and others, I disagree with them. In the passages that introduce us to the fact that Jesus had brothers by Mary (Matt. 13.55 & Mk 6.3) the syntax makes it clear (in addition to the very clear word αδελφος. In Matthew the mother and four brothers are the subject of one verb. Joseph is treated separately. Matthew goes to great lengths to separate the legal-but-not-biological father of Jesus from his biological mother and brothers. To push the syntax would lead to the conclusion that Mary is more related to the brothers than Joseph is, quite the opposite of what the Catholic church used to teach, following the Protoevangelium Jacobi argument. Matthew chooses to place Jesus’ brothers with his biological mother, not his legal father. In both passages, the mother and brothers are treated together and not apart; they are treated as a unit.
So too, to take the argument that ‘brothers’ may also mean a relationship other than uterine sibling, which it can (context will tell), then to be consistent you also have to admit that so does ‘father’ and ‘mother.’ So to argue that ‘brothers’ in this instance means ‘cousin’ or someone other than a uterine sibling then to be logical and consistent you have to indicate that ‘mother’ means aunt or someone other then uterine parent. So too with ‘father.’ As you argue, Joseph then was Jesus’ ‘uncle.’
But, the context points very clearly to nuclear family—father, mother, siblings.
Now, if I read you correctly, you made the point from Acts 1.13 that “…JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo’tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES.” From these four passages, we see we have another ‘Mary’, who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus).” James the Less, the Apostle, is the son of Alphaeus. You erroneously label Jude as James’ brother (following Duoay or King James). Most modern translations more often note that Jude is the son of James (based on grammar, the word son is not in the text). The New Jerusalem Bible (1985 ed. Nihil Obstat John Deehan, Imprimatur Cardinal George Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminster) notes this and further notes that “The apostle Jude is not the Jude ‘brother’ of Jesus, see Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3, and brother of James (Jude 1). Nor is it likely that the apostle James son of Alphaeus was James, the brother of the Lord, 12:17; 15:13 etc.” Now, I am not sure of the relationship of the magιsterium to a Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur but that note disagrees with what you are saying as to the identification of the persons in the verses that you note. The James and Jude of the list of the Apostles is not the James and Jude in Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3.
It is instructive to note James the son of Alphaeus in these verses. As you rightly pointed out, he is an apostle, one of the twelve (Mt 10.3; Acts 1.13). He may or not be the James the less of Mark 15.40. The question then is, is he the James, the brother of the Lord of Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3?
In Acts 1.13 we have the following account:
Acts 1.13 And when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.
Now notice verse 14. Acts 1:14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
Notice in the above that a distinction is made between “the twelve” and the brothers of Jesus. If the argument is made that the James of vs. 13 is one of the “brothers of Jesus” mentioned in Mark 6.3 and Matthew 13.55, then who are the brothers of Jesus mentioned in vs. 14? It is obvious from the passage that the James of verse 13 (the son of Alphaeus) is not to be equated with the James of Mk. 6.3 and Matt. 13.55. A distinction is made between James, the son of Alphaeus and James, the brother of the Lord.
Paul always makes a distinction between the apostles and James, the brother of the Lord. If they are to be equated as you imply, the why does Paul make the distinction clear? There is no reason or evidence for equating James, the son of Alphaeus with James who became the head of the Jerusalem church and who is called “the Lord’s brother.” Paul always mentions James separate from the twelve. (1 Cor 15.5-7; Gal. 1.19).
Early church history does know of those who did not believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Tertullian (~200 AD) arguing against the docetic views of the Marcionites states emphatically that Jesus’ brothers were truly (vere) his brothers by blood. Eusebius quotes Hegesippus (2nd century) who speaks of James and Jude as “brothers of the Lord according to the flesh.” Josephus calls James the “brother of Jesus.” It was not until Jerome (~380 AD) (Protoevangelium Jacobi accepted) that there was a move to turn Mary’s virginity from merely ante-partum to post partum. As much as Jerome knew scripture, it seems he had way too much Greek influence when it came to matters of asceticism. This included a very low view of the physical aspects of marriage.
The giving of John to Mary and Mary to John more than likely relates the fact that Jesus knew that his brothers and family would not be available to take care of her as long as John would. Based on your argument, even if the “brothers” of Matt 13 are not hers, they enjoyed a closer relationship to her than did John and hence would be closer to her and would naturally take care of her before John would. However, there are strong indicators that Salome of Mk 15.40 is the mother of the sons of Zebedee of Matt 27.56 and Mary’s sister in John 19.25. Jesus would then be putting his mother in the care of his first cousin. She would go to live in her sister’s household. Jesus also knew that John would outlive everyone and would be available to care for Mary until she died.
The scriptural evidence is strong for the fact that Jesus had real, physical, blood siblings from his mother and his step father. To argue otherwise flies in the face of the clear teachings of the Bible and relies more on the “traditions of men” then the counsel of God. You may not (probably not) buy my argument. But, if what I have shown rings true and your view of Mary’s perpetual virginity is wrong, it is time to examine other things. Within the church that Jesus founded there are many sects. Roman Catholicism is one of them, there are many others. Within each of the sects there are disagreements. Within yours there are many and they are heated, I know, I surf. All of those who truly trust Christ as their savior are Christians and members of his church. There is no requirement to belong to a particular sect and none can claim exclusive authority. It is God’s love for us through the sacrifice of his son that unites us, not a membership in one particular group.
The confusion between the James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas from Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3 and the Mark 15.40 mentioning of “Mary the mother of James the less and Joses” may be cleared up by a simple look at the cross passages set side by side. Those who wish to negate what Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3 clearly says about the siblings of Jesus all to often erroneously and ignorantly point to the mention of “Mary the mother of James the less and Joses” in the Mark 15.40 passage. This ignores the Matt 13.55 and Mark 6.3 passage that lists Jesus’ brothers as “James, Joses, Judas, and Simon”, four, not two. Those denying the siblings of Jesus, following Jerome, have found themselves positing Mary having a sister of the same name, not impossible but not well attested outside of the George Foreman family. The women going to the tomb on Easter morning were Mary Magdelene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mary’s sister and Jesus’ aunt) Mk 16.1 Matthew 27.56 among whom was Mark 15.40 And there were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene John 19.25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus Mary Magdalene Mary the mother of James and Joseph Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, mother of the sons of Zebedee Salome Mary the wife of Clopas His mother’s sister His mother
Matthew 27.56 among whom was
Mark 15.40 And there were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were
John 19.25 Therefore the soldiers did these things. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus
In the Marine Corps culture of MOS job classification there is a hierarchy. As the variety of MOSs is vast I shall restrict this conversation to the combat arms; i.e., Infantry (03XX) and Artillery (08XX). A year ago I could have included Armor (18XX) but since then the Corps has divested itself of that field and benefit and so it may get no more than a passing comment. In this culture, of the two – Infantry and Artillery, the arty guys consider themselves more sophisticated, considering the grunts as lunkheads and bumpkins; necessary but not quite as well heeled and genteel. Despite the cultural differences, the two groups work well together and have made their collective mark on the annals of warfare and the graveyards of our foes.
My initial desire when signing to the men’s department of the US Sea Service was to be a grunt, like Sgt Stryker. As it was, my trek to the 03 community began as a Remington Raider, then Explosive Ordnance Disposal (John Wayne would have done that), then as a Drill Instructor. And then, due entirely to the grace of God, I was accepted into a college program that would culminate in me finding myself graduating OCS, getting the requisite lobotomy, and pinning on a pair of butter bars denoting my entrance to the realm of Officers and Gentlemen.
After proving that I had what it took to be an officer, I joined others at The Basic School to learn how to be an officer – mostly physical training and field work sprinkled with a smattering of knives, forks, and pinkies. At TBS I was afforded the opportunity to become a Naval Aviator (a childhood dream never realized) and as some of my lobotomy did not take as evidenced by my scores on the “So you want to be an Aviator Test” thus indicating that I apparently had the requisite remaining grey matter to decipher the concepts of flight and the myriad of instruments to pursue that endeavor somewhat safely. Now, I do need to note that in the culture of Marine MOSs, the Naval Aviators see themselves as the highest born elite of Corps’ Gentlemen, sitting far higher than their terra bound fellow warriors. But, I learned, much to my surprise, that my heart was not in the clouds but bound firmly on the ground and so, in fulfillment of my original quest, I requested and received transference to the Mud Marines. I spent two years with 1st Battalion, 6th Marines (of Belleau Wood fame) before resigning, for family needs, my Regular commission and joining the ranks of the Reserves. I spent most of my time with Weapons Company, 1st Battalion, 23rd Marines as an 81 Mortar Platoon Commander, Weapons Company Commander, and Battalion Fire Support Coordinator. Due to education needs (pursuit of a Ph.D.) I found myself in the Individual Ready Reserve (not attached to any one unit) when Desert Storm hit. I checked with 1/23 and they were full up on personnel and had no openings, and so I looked around for a unit that was answering the call as the proverbial and ever anticipated balloon went up. What I found was Headquarters Battery, 14th Marines, the Reserve Artillery Regiment headquarters unit. They had an opening and were sending eleven Officers and Marines to Camp Lejeune to augment 1st Battalion 14th Marines. This old grunt found a home with the cannon cockers as we headed to war.
Actually, it was Norway. While others were in Desert Storm winning fame, accolades, and the Klingon Medal in the best war since 1898 (more blue on blue casualties than red on blue), we were sent to Norway on a NATO Operation called Battle Griffin (cool name). We froze (300 miles north of the Artic Circle, in February, in tents for 3 weeks), maneuvered along the fiord at Narvic, froze, ate reindeer lips and blood oranges, froze and successfully both kept alive and kept Ivan from coming down from the north and supporting Achmed. Desert Storm came to a successful conclusion while we were yet in Norway. We returned after three weeks and were transported on the aircraft and the buses which had just recently embarked the Desert Storm Heroes and settled down to putting our gear back in shape and prepping for our return home. I did get an interesting two weeks on the James River participating as the Fire Support Coordinator for a Riverine Operation the Marine Corps was testing. Ironically, during the whole Desert Storm evolution, my old grunt unit, 1/23, was parked at Camp Pendleton not doing much.
As we finished getting our gear ready to turn in and return home we conducted a standard Marine Corps Tradition – the Mess Night. And that is when the trouble happened.
A Mess Night is one of roast beef (“Fit For Consumption”), cigars, and several types of wine, stronger beverages, and braggadocios.
The culmination of the evening was a series of remarks from various members concerning our training, operations, comradeship, and liberty experiences. The deeper into the evening and the cups made for more and more interesting comments among the comrades in arms. Much talk of the King of Battle, the role of artillery in history, the necessity and effect of heavy duty close in fire support requested from the needy, ignorant grunts to the ever obliging weaponizers of geometry. Much was said of the killer aspect of math aided as always by prayers to their patron saint, the wondrous Saint Barbara. Barbara, the sainted patroness of the field artillery. Now, theoretically each service branch should have a patron saint to watch over their needs and wants and successes and to pass on to Higher Command the prayers of the faithful, but it seems that only the artisans of artillery make constant appeals to a power greater than their FDC. I looked into the possibility of the Infantry having a patron saint and all I could find was a vague and infrequent reference to Saint Maurice. His name was enough to explain few appeals to his services in the grunt ranks.
Even prior to joining the gentlemanly ranks of 1/14 I had been very much aware of St. Babs as my father was an Army Artillery Officer who went so far as to name one of my sisters after her. Being a Catholic, he had a higher than normal admiration and devotion to the vaulted saintress of HE and Willy Pete. As such, as the evening wore on I felt more and more inclined to rise and sing the praises of the Lass who let me join her and her acolytes and learn the manly art of massing metrics in the employment of mayhem.
And so, I arose with cup raised. For them what know me and are curious at this, it was merely a cup of dihydrous oxide. I get in enough trouble on me own without the aid of spirits.
I toasted, “To my cannon cocker brother Marines, thank you for inviting this old grunt along on your escapdes and adventures to the ‘snows of far off northern lands.’ I am indebted to your fine tutelage in the gentlemanly art of weaponized geometry. During these last months I have sucked long and hard on Saint Barbara’s Teats, and I am the better for it.”
Thinking back on this incident I think I know where the problem lay. I blame the gun line guys more than Fire Direction Center guys as their craniums were more concussed due to close proximity of speeding 155 lumps of love on their way. The FDC folks tend to be more reserved, thoughtful, introspective.
The problem is orthography (spelling for the gun line guys and grunts). The body part of the object of the discussion may be spelled one of two ways; teat and tit. You may ask, “Professor, what does the difference in spelling matter?” Well, my curious one, “much and more!” You see, those two anatomical objects of interest serve two functions, to which the two spellings refer. Teats are meant to provide nourishment of a physical nature – to lactate forth milk to nourish and sustain, and to speed on growth and health. Whereas tits have a wholly different and just as important function. Their nourishment is affection and love and sexual play.
Now, let me make this point in the realm of biblical hermenuetics. In Luke 11.27 we find a woman in the crowd when Jesus was speaking remark, “blessed be the womb that bore you and the teats that nursed you.” (meown translation if you were wondering. I am, after all, a professor). Here we find the nourishing and sustaining function and power of teats. Anyone so nourished knows the truth of this.
Conversely, in Proverbs 5.19 we find, “as a loving deer and a graceful doe, let her tits satisfy at all times.” (again, meown translation, see above note). Here we find their function as providing sexual play and satisfaction at all times. Anyone so noursished knows the wondrous and exhilarating truth of this.
Now, as I mentioned, we had been prepping for our return to our loved ones (6 months away!) and for we who had loving arms awaiting us and our husbandly duties, the spelling of the spousal accoutrements that we looked so forward to is spelled the second way and not the first.
But, of course, when referencing the good patron of the gun guys, the first spelling was my reference, of course.
But some (gun line guys I highly suspect) did not catch this purposeful and entirely well meaning reference on the part of mehumble self and so some were rising from their seats with reddened faces with shouts of, “What did he say about Saint Barbara’s TITS?!?!” (see how they spelled it?). But, fortunately, there were FDC guys near by who calmed them and explained the orthographic distinction so skillfully (and surprisingly no doubt) wrought by the mud Marine. Tempers cooled, folks settled down, and I got both severe sideline glances of poorly tamped anger (gun line guys) and winks of literary and rhetorical appreciation (FDC guys) for my Irish born skill.
And we left that gathering anticipating our return journey with only one spelling on our minds.
Introduction and integration of a participant requires that he be explicitly presented more than once (158).
Secondary Dialogue Initiation
Sp:Ø + Add:pr
Initiatory dialogue where the participants have previously been well identified.
Continuing Dialogue
Sp:Ø + Add:N/pr
Basic quotation formula; Used when no special implications are being communicated.
Dialogue Redirection
Sp:N + Add:N
When formula occurs outside the initiation sequence, it indicates a sudden redirection in the dialogue.
Equal Status Dialogue
Sp:N + Add:N
Consistent occurrences of formula outside the two previously mentioned functions indicates the speaker and addressee are of equal status; May also indicate a mild tension between participants.
Decisive Intervention/ Speaker Dominance
Sp:N + Add:pr
Indicates pulling rank on the part of the speaker or an attempt to make reality what he is saying. A quick succession of quotation formula between participants may indicate a struggle for dominance.
Express Social Amenities/ Speaker Compliance
Sp:Ø + Add:Ø
Non-aggressive and reassuring; Also used to introduce the last utterance of a dialogue indicating compliance on the part of the speaker.
Argumental Stalemate
Sp:Ø + Add:Ø
For this and previous function look closely in previous clauses for possible indications of speaker and/or addressee, in which case these functions would not apply (166). Indicates either no tension or an attempt to downplay tension between participants.
Finality Dialogue
Sp:N + Add:Ø
Speech that does not anticipate an answer; Also includes expressions of puzzlement and outrage.
Addressee Focused
Sp:Ø + Add:N
Speech is addressee centered.
From SEBTS Course TRA6200 Discourse Analysis Spring 2012 Taught by Shawn C. Madden, PhD.
