1. The second greatest crisis facing the church is the absence of men. The first must always be the failure to be faithful to the preaching of the gospel. I really agree the church is where the gospel is faithfully preached and administered (sacramentally). Therefore unfaithful preaching, twisting of the words, absence of the message of grace, false hope, and all our contrived forms of self-justification is the greatest crisis, since it is far harder to expect Christ to work where he isn't even speaking. But beyond that I feel the greatest crisis, going by and large unsolved is the absence of men - particularly in mainline churches. Statistically, there is no greater correlation towards the abandonment of so many of our young people from the church than the already abandonment practiced by their father. Or to put it the other way around (the way the studies have typically put it), there is no single correlation to a young person's likelihood of remaining in church that remotely approaches if the parents were faithful church goers (and practitioners of the faith), especially the father. I think something can be said that the modern inclusion of women in all the life of the church has played a part, that is, this would have happened sooner had the church not needed the men to operate. I don't see that as a reason to remove women from those roles or an excuse, I see it though as a problem. We ought be concerned as to what about our church men are turned off to and why? Some of it I think is an internal problem, of presenting the faith in a manner that simply does not resonate with most men the way it does with women. Some of it also I think stems from a concerning culture that defines masculinity as going it alone, looking down on trust and reliance, and free from moral expectation or obligation. And it has led to a damning male culture of chasing after sex as long as possible, a seriously great number of fathers abandoning that responsibility, and abuse and strength valued over compassion and love. In short, being a man has become some testosterone driven life-sport that lacks the ability to humble oneself before God. My father-in-law was at my church this weekend, and immediately noted the absence of men (in relation to the number of women that is).
2. The DH needs to stay the hell out of the National League. I like the designated hitter and all, but I also like pitchers hitting. I like the greater need to use the bench and bullpen wisely. In short, I like that with the National and American leagues being different, we get both of these worlds. But each year it sounds like we are moving closer to the DH in the NL too. Well I say boo on that! What I propose we should do instead is that since the move of the Astros to the American League has shifted the way we do interleague play, we should expand interleague play greatly so that all teams are spending even more time with and without the DH. Additionally then they should expand the 25-man roster to 27. This would allow NL teams to carry a DH type on their bench without worrying as much about "wasting a roster spot" so they could more competitively face AL rosters. To show the need for this, consider that spanning 2013-2015 only 4 NL teams have had a winning record on the road in interleague play (conversely, during that span only 4 AL teams have had a losing record on the road in interleague play). The American League has overall dominated interleague play for about 10 years. Expanded rosters and more interleague play could even out the statistics some by both the law of averages and by letting NL teams sign some more DH type players. Expanded rosters would also allow greater use of platoons or specialist relievers. In all, it would benefit baseball and all its angles of strategy than just the adoption of the DH in the National League.
3. If you can't tell the difference between the stances of your church body and your political party there is a problem. The more I read the Bible, the more I cannot simply categorically fall into one political party's idealogy. Now that doesn't mean I can't fall more into one, or I might think the places that I fall into one are more important than times I fall into the other. That is all true. But I am so tired of watching church bodies seemingly confuse our allegiance. When I see churches or its leaders (my own included) seem to uncritically praise one side while constantly bombarding the other, I have become greatly concerned, and the more that reading and wrestling with scripture has changed me the more I realize that so much of what I believed was influenced more by the world around me than my faith. I likewise notice pastorally that what politics tells us matters is what people seem most caught up on in the church. People who never speak up in a Bible study all of the sudden passionately speak about homosexuality (one way or another). I'm not upset that people are speaking out, I'm simply wondering how it is we have let the world convince us these are the only things we should be speaking up and out about? Those things that are truly unique to our faith, and offensive or in the least inappropriate to the political sphere, and far more central we are too often silent on. And way too often the political arguments get synthesized with a semi-scriptural one. Whether your church is "liberal" or "conservative" that should not be a total buy in to parties of the same name. Since both are foremost churches that should be distinctive. And while we will find common ground or even the church may have influenced a movement politically in some way shape or form, ultimately we should be mindful of the non-Christian influence that also comes to the parties, and the call to not conform but be transformed to the image of the Son. And I ain't seen no political party that looks that much like Jesus. And if we are too close a bedfellows with such we will be change into a likeness more likened unto the whore of Babylon I fear.
4. When the New Revised Common Lectionary comes out it should be a 4 year lectionary. In case you are wondering, I made the the term NRCL. I'm not aware of any efforts to revise the current RCL, not by its producers at least. But the idea of a 3 year lectionary is a bad one. Not only does it not allow a year to truly go through the Gospel of John, but it then excludes another year of readings to cover more ground in scripture. This last summer I got the Whirl Lectionary Bible. If you use the RCL I would recommend it. It is nice because it is still a normal bible (unlike many lectionary bibles that only contain lectionary readings), but it highlights (in the colors of the appropriate season) the readings that the RCL covers. What is so nice about this from a critical standpoint is you can see precisely all that is left out. And there is a lot left out. Lectionary-based churches ought take this to consideration either in order to take time away from the lectionary or use other occasions (bible studies, midweek services, etc) to cover some of these lost texts. A 4 year lectionary would allow 52 more weeks of extra texts. These extra weeks would add a lot of totally excluded Old Testament material be included. And as for the Epistle readings, in addition to covering some of the gaps in the readings that are currently left untouched, it would also allow you to perhaps shorten some of the current readings by that extra year spreading out the time needed. Yes, some major events the Lectionary focuses on (such as baptism and transfiguration of Jesus) don't appear in John, but if we can currently insert John endlessly through the other three years it would make much more sense to insert one of the other Gospels' (I'd advocate whichever one on such an occasion includes the most variation/details) account into the John year. If we were really being fun I would actually think a 5 year lectionary would be fun. 4 years that focus on each individual Gospel and one that is kind of a hodgepodge of either the best of each, a harmonization (oh my!) of the stories, or a year to pick up whatever was left out of the previous years. Plus, another year means another 52 weeks of previously untapped biblical material. I like having a Lectionary. I like the Gospel-centeredness of the RCL. But it could use some improvements.
5. The Resurrection is way too under-emphasized in the church today. I've really been enjoying N.T. Wright's book Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. I already thought this before, but especially do every time I read this think the resurrection is not the hope and comfort most Christians turn to, instead we care more about heaven. A lot of this has to do with our pseudo-gnostic and platonist thinking that has run rampant in the church unchecked for some time. Namely, the immortal soul goes somewhere when you die. The goal and real hope is to go to heaven where we golf and drink Corona forever with our loved ones. While you can see how this can so easily hijack Christianity (after all, we talk about heaven, hell, eternal life, paradise, etc) this is also far from the biblical picture. For one, our images of these things are way removed, but more than that I see the Bible focus more on resurrection than life in heaven. Even Revelation, where we probably get the greatest image of "life in heaven" (and let me tell you it's more like spending all day in church than at the golf course) that is seen as temporary until the final visions, the day of judgment, the day of the parousia (Christ's second coming), when a new heaven and a new earth are seen in union together. Yet it is not the "sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life" or the belief in "the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting" that most Christians look too, we look to family reunion in heaven. Along with Psalm 23 no passage is requested more at funerals than John 14. The worst part is that nothing is wrong about saying we go to heaven, what is usually wrong is our over-focus on heaven and our absence of resurrection hope. As a pastor I am starting to think I need to go to this more in funerals especially (although the immediate "where are they now" is an important thing to address still). Resurrection is much more prominent and rooted a belief in the Bible (Old and New Testament), and the resurrection of Jesus is perhaps most important here. That is the event that changed everything. Yet we see it more metaphorically (how many people don't even like to acknowledge a bodily resurrection and think more about spirit Jesus even when the Gospels include details to explicitly reject that notion). It's as if the resurrection is only a sign that death can't stop this life. But that only gets applied to the soul, and we don't speak enough of what it means as a created (and re-created) creature of God. What Wright's book does well, is not only take a long look at resurrection in early Judeo-Christian thought and the corruption of belief that has minimized its role today, but his work on it helps place how resurrection as the final hope has much more to say about life today than heaven as a final hope. The resurrection of Jesus totally shaped the New Testament thought and mindset, we need to recover that today.
6. There are 6 players the Brewers should trade this offseason. To be clear: the Brewers should trade Khris Davis, Jonathan Lucroy, Adam Lind, Ryan Braun, K-Rod, and Jean Segura. Some of these names, especially K-Rod and Lind, should be no surprise. But if I'm Stearn, I would not only listen but pursue trades of each of these players. Braun may be the hardest to trade with his injury concerns, PED history, and 100mm extension kicking in. But considering guys like Cespedes, Heyward, Gordan, and Upton are all likely looking at contracts that exceed that in the free agent market (and all but Cespedes will also require a draft pick) some teams may be more interested, especially after Braun started showing a semblance of his former self with a return to the All-Star game, an .854 OPS, and another 20/20 season. He also ranked 9th in the NL in slugging. So he still has value, just nothing near what he used to have. Segura probably has the least value, but plays a premium position. He'd particularly be of interest to a team not confident in its SS option to compete with, since he is probably more than a back up, but nowhere near an elite SS. He might be the best piece to hold onto for a midseason trade, but he is also the most replaceable in the long and short term with Sardinas and Arcia in the system. Some, like MLBtraderumors advocate keeping Lucroy until midseason so he can recover some lost value from a down year and late season concussion, but I disagree. It is a serious gamble waiting to see if he returns to form, and I'm not sure the risk outweighs how much more you would get, especially since he'll be that much closer to free agency. I think his overall defense (although that was down this year too) and contract make him still extremely valuable now, especially to smaller market teams that have prospects but not a lot of spending money for free agent upgrades. Oakland, Tampa, Baltimore, Chicago (Sox), Arizona, Anaheim, Colorado, Detroit, Atlanta, and Miami all strike me as places that would clearly see him as an upgrade and yet could really value the cost savings because of their abundance of expensive contracts already or their general budget constraints. The bigger deal suggested here is for Khris Davis. But he could I think net the Brewers a huge haul (although perhaps I suffer home-team over-valuation of players). Milwaukee is in the currently toughest division in baseball (it's actually been quite tough for a while), and the one other team not good is also rebuilding and aiming for sooner than later. Milwaukee should plan for a slower, more complete rebuild ala Cubs/Astros, even if they have some young MLB talent and some near MLB talent, they need to be set up even more long term. Davis, while he could likely be a part of a winning team might not be, but more importantly he represents the most expensive free agent commodity : power. And he provides it for low cost and many years (Davis is not even arb eligible yet). Even while missing some time he still was among the league leaders in homers (10th, 5th in ABs per HR), and while he led LF's in errors this year and has a notoriously weak arm, his range factor is rated highly. Or an AL team could utilize him primarily as a DH. Davis has shown that power is his calling card (.494 career slugging %), but also showed he can make adjustments as he was able to increase his BA, OBP, and walk rate this year, generating 10 more walks in over a 100 fewer PA. With other guys like Domingo Santana able to step in and take his place, even though he is good and established he is also therefore worth exploring trades for.
7. I think Kylo Ren and Rey are the children of Han and Leia. This is the theory I most buy into for Star Wars Episode VII. Han and Leia have two children who go separate ways in life. Rey has become a bit of a forager, perhaps looking for something/someone (Uncle Luke or his lightsaber?) while Kylo has caught on with the knights of Ren and begun to experiment/lead using the force. This theory explains a lot we've seen in the trailors. It explains how these characters tie into and continue the story of Episode VI, being a continuation of the struggle of light/dark in the Skywalker family. It would explain a bit about Kylo Ren, having a hodgepodge lightsaber (if you get a chance to examine a toy, you'll see this is much more a DIY lightsaber) and connection to the Dark Side, particularly with this love for Vader (and the burned up mask we see in the trailor). He is drawn to all this because of his interest in the force in his family (think of the Luke quote from the original teaser trailer, "the force is strong in my family"), and if Luke doesn't teach him, perhaps he becomes obsessed with his grandpa. Perhaps he is even convinced he is continuing his grandfather's mission (to rule the galaxy by the power of the force, to get Luke and family to come to the dark side?). It would also explain the controversial style of his lightsaber, since that makes sense if both your uncle and grandpa lost a hand in lightsaber duels. The also now internet famous "it's true, all of it" line of Han's could also not be about the force in the past (as many presume) but about what has happened to her brother Kylo, or if it is about the force it is about Vader and the Empire (and now First Order) being a result of her Grandpa. Additionally there is a famous foreign trailor that shows Ren come up behind Rey and put his lightsaber to her throat. This could explain how she (and perhaps a companion like Finn who engages Ren in a saber duel) escape alive, if Kylo cares about her as his sister and therefore she appeals to their bond. It would make his betrayal of his family or plunging into the dark side immediately be something you care about, since you care about his parents. It would immediately tie them to Luke, Leia, and Han while letting these new characters still be the focus of the new trilogy. It would also make his latching onto the first order a real problem for the resistance since he would perhaps know many of its people. His turning towards the first order, contrasted with Finn's abandonment also creates a simultaneous story-line (think Anakin's plunge to the Dark Side running alongside Luke's joining on with the Rebellion, the merging of the two previous trilogies).
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
5 Deuteronomic Laws We Ought Be Talking About
I just finished reading Deuteronomy in my own personal devotion, and when I finished I said to myself, "Man, I love this book." It's not the first time I read it, but it's been a while since I read it in its entirety and I really think it is just so underrated among Christians, who today seem to as a whole have a bit too much contempt for lists of laws. While our culture has certainly shifted and we need not have congress enact these laws or follow the punishments for failing to follow them (after all, we are free from the Law's wrath when we are in Christ), we would do well to cultivate a greater love for these laws. The spirit of these laws are still very important for our world today.
So for a little enjoyment and engagement, I thought I would share 5 laws I particularly found relevant and how I see them as worth our talking about today (please note I'm not implying this is all we should care about from Deuteronomy, but more like a sampler platter to perk up your appetite):
- Faith over Filial Loyalty: If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods' - which neither you nor your fathers have known, any of the gods of the peoples around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other - you must not yield to him or listen to him. -Deut 13.6-8
The passage understands the great temptation we face particularly when those closest to us are leading us into it. These are people we love, trust, and want to please and therefore are particularly susceptible to being led astray by them. Deuteronomy reminds us what it truly is to love God with your whole heart (the greatest commandment, according to Jesus, which by the way, is also from Deuteronomy). It means not choosing even those people who matter most to us over God.
In a culture that is increasingly indifferent if not hostile towards faithful Christian worship (to say nothing of faithful Christian living), this law becomes extremely important. Just because our spouse, child, or parent is unconcerned with God does not mean we ought to be. Jesus himself said he will set father against son and son against father (Luke 12.53) and whoever does not hate father and mother cannot be his disciple (Luke 14.26). In short, your relationship with God can negatively impact your relationship with even family when they want to lead you away from it. This law tells us to not yield to the greatest pressure and temptation: to let your love for them impact your love for God. - Against ungodly Grief: You are sons of the LORD your God; do not cut yourselves or make a bald spot on your head on behalf of the dead, for you are a holy people belonging to the LORD your God. The LORD has chosen you to be His own possession out of all the peoples on the face of the earth. -Deut 14.1-2Now for a little background, this law comes as a response to practices of religions of the region they were going to possess. So part of this goes to the practice of idolatry. But it has in it an important element for us; self-inflicted wounds is not how we grieve. Even if we aren't exposed to ritualistic wounding, such as they were with rituals that involved cutting or tearing out the hair, the prohibition makes clear that such actions just is not how God wants you to grieve.
This is especially important for young people, but not exclusive to them. Those new to grief, deeply saddened and impacted by it can fall into the temptation of self-mutilation or even simply the intentional act of not taking care of oneself. How often does death lead to physical harm, even to the point of suicide, especially when some form of guilt is involved or we don't know how to tell the world we're hurting? How often do people seek to feel pain so they feel something? We need to teach clearly that this should not be part of our grieving process.
Most interesting is that the demand is tied to the fact that we are not to see ourselves apart from our relationship as God's people. You are God's own possession, chosen to be holy. That means your body and what happens to it matters to God, and therefore he makes it clear that such unhealthy, damaging practices should not be a part of how we deal with death. In New Testament language: our body is a temple to the Lord (1 Cor 6.19-20) and therefore that impacts what we do with it. Your life is as precious as the life lost. - Look after your neighbor's stuff: If you see your brother's ox or sheep straying, you must not ignore it; make sure you return it to your brother. If your brother does not live near you or you do not know him, you are to bring the animal to your home to remain with you until your brother comes looking for it; then you can return it to him. Do the same for his donkey, his garment, or anything your brother has lost and you have found. You must not ignore it. -Deut 22.1-3
You are accountable for your neighbor's things. Contrary to our common understanding of "finders keepers" we having "finders returners". That is, you have a duty to return what you find to its owner and when you don't know who the owner is or can't yet, you should not consider it your own, but under your care until you do find that person. This command makes me think of Luther's catechism regarding the command to not steal, namely its last part that states we are to "help [our neighbor] to improve and protect their property and income."
Think about stray animals. Think about lost coats. Think about lost money. One of the questions raised to me as a child when people start trying to teach you "moral dilemmas" is 'What should you do if you found a wallet (or if they were really grandiose a suitcase of money!)?' The answer, according to Deuteronomy is to see it safely back to its owner, and most importantly, not being able to do that immediately does not change the expectation.
I think what is quite important about this law too is it teaches us sacrifice. To hold onto something of someone else's for an uncertain period of time actually expects something of you for more than a moment. To not lose someone's coat, hat, or something perhaps larger takes up space in our homes and efforts to make sure its owner finds it and it is preserved until then. To care for lost animals means feeding it, possibly cleaning it and taking it to the vet or at the very least supporting the shelters we rely on to do these things.
Also really big here is the explicit statement "Do not ignore it." Because not only can we sometimes do finders keepers, or take little effort to find the owner, sometimes we take none. Much more often we pay little attention to the protection of that which is not ours, especially if we judge it as insignificant ("it's only a glove") with no care of what value it may have to that person. - Don't Take Dirty Money as an Offering: No Israelite woman is to be a cult prostitute, and no Israelite man is to be a cult prostitute. Do not bring a female prostitute's wages or a male prostitute's earnings into the house of the LORD your God to fulfill any vow, because both are detestable to the LORD your God. -Deut 23.17-18
Again we have a law that is rooted in a practice in the surrounding culture we don't necessarily have, namely cult prostitution (often a religious practice done to appeal to a god, especially associated with asking the Canaanite god Baal to bring rain upon the fields). But part of the spirit of the law is not just forbidding a practice done by another religion, but in using money earned in such ways to practice worship of YHWH. In short, if you aren't earning the wage in a godly manner, don't try to use it to absolve yourself or practice godly worship.
This is especially important for churches to hear. As many churches are shrinking, they become increasingly pressured to raise enough money to stay open. But this law ought teach us that faithfulness is more important than offerings. That is, just because someone is ritualistically faithful, such as making contributions is not all we ought care about with stewardship. Not even how they use the rest of their earnings is enough when we talk about stewardship. Part of our stewardship needs to be about caring about how those wages are earned in the first place, and being willing to back that belief up enough to not accept that which is earned by dishonest or unfaithful means.
I think of a scene in the Sopranos when Carmela goes to see a shrink. Once she admits that her husband is a mobster, the psychiatrist, who happened to be a Jewish man, told her he would not charge her that session because he would not accept blood money and encouraged her to do the same and to leave Tony rather than accept his evil way of life simply because she and her children benefit financially from it. - Fair Wages For All: Do not oppress a hired hand who is poor and needy, whether one of your brothers or one of the foreigners residing within a town in your land. You are to pay him his wages each day before the sun sets, because he is poor and depends on them. Otherwise he will cry out to the LORD against you, and you will be held guilty. -Deut 24.14-15
There are several interesting elements of this passage. The first is to make sure we are paying the poor enough to get by. How topical is this in our country where minimum wage is a major topic of discussion right now? Whatever our political leanings, or the concerns we have of the greater economic impact, we need to be especially mindful of the poorest among us and what they can earn. A full read of Deuteronomy will show just how much this book is concerned with laws to protect the most vulnerable and to make sure the community makes efforts and sacrifices to support them.
The next hot button piece here, is it especially notes the foreigner. This again is very relevant in America, where we currently what to show greater care for Americans. One thing my reading of scripture has done this last summer is thoroughly changed my stance regarding illegal immigrants in America. While I'm not sure I know all the answers, I find because of scripture my heart has been opened to them and their needs/concerns more than it was this time last year. If anyone is especially susceptible to abuse of unjust wages it is those who are getting paid under the table and therefore outside the realm of regulation. The "they took our jobs" argument in part is because they work for less money, but that is in part because they have little choice. Companies that can hire illegal immigrants often do so, and they do so because they know they don't have to pay as much. They exploit the foreigner to benefit their own business, and that in turn impacts the economy of those who don't do that because they then cannot charge as little for a job.
Also interesting is the concern for daily wage. I think how big this law would be for those who run paycheck to paycheck. We can certainly sometimes be critical of those who are in such binds because of poor choices, but we are to be mindful of those who need their money sooner than every 2 weeks. What this law says is we ought be mindful of how we can help support people in those times between paychecks, and perhaps for companies to be more open to the idea of advances on checks (or at least paying up the hours they have already put in) when needed. No matter what the practice is, the spirit of the law is to put a priority on human need over personal profit at their expense.
Lastly is a good reminder. A lot of the laws and lessons of Deuteronomy you find are rooted in the peoples' history and these words about the poor crying out against you are no different. The Israelites are reminded that in Egypt when they were exploited and oppressed they cried out to God against Pharaoh, and God heard them and came to their aid. Being the oppressor may lead to God raising up your own downfall (or your company's downfall or nation's downfall). I am reminded of Luther's large catechism on the Lord's Prayer petition "Give us this day our daily bread" when he says that much of the world's problems are on account of "those who wantonly oppress the poor and deprive them of their daily bread" and he warns all to "beware lest this petition in the Lord's prayer be against them".
So there are 5 laws to ruminate on as a Christian. What Deuteronomic law do you want people to talk about?
Friday, May 1, 2015
Jeremiah, Jesus, and the New Covenant
This was ticking in my mind in the days leading up to Maundy Thursday. But if you think I would have had time to write it, I didn't. So a little late or really early for next year, take your pick.
A few weeks ago we had a reading on Sunday morning from Jeremiah 31, the promise of a New Covenant with Israel. For those unfamiliar with it, Jeremiah gives this hopeful vision for his people in this brief - but hopeful - section of his book:
31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.
That is the section worth focusing on. It's significance for Maundy Thursday, is that many (myself included) within Christianity have seen this prophecy as a reference to Jesus. In fact the Christian addition to the Hebrew Bible and their subsequent divisions has been in some ways categorized under this passage. The "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant", or from the latin testimentum we get the old and new testament. The new covenant is the one which Jesus himself institutes.
But not everyone sees it this way. In fact one of the leading Old Testament scholars alive today Walter Brueggemann does not believe it appropriate to see this passage as a basis for a supersessionist reading of the covenant of Jesus over the Sinai covenant. Brueggemann is particularly challenging such a reading of Hebrews which uses this specific text in speaking of a new and better covenant rendering the first one obsolete. Brueggemann writes:
This final point is also reflected in the Jewish Study Bible and its claim that this passage cannot be a reference to a Christian covenant. Their notes state "The new covenant has been interpreted by Christians as a prophecy of the new covenant through Jesus (New Testament means new covenant), but here it refers to the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian exile and the reconstruction of the Temple. According to this passage, it is not the content of the new covenant which will be different, but how it is learned." This last phrase is a very interesting and good one for their case. Like Brueggemann, they note that the Torah is integral to this passage in relation to the new covenant.
Both of these readings had me really wondering and thinking about it: Was it appropriate for me to see this passage primarily in relation to the New Covenant of Holy Communion? Wrestling with their words I believe the answer is yes still, but their objections raised some new insights. Let me address their objections and what they opened up for me about Maundy Thursday. What we will especially find is how this text gives an essential aspect to the details John gives of that evening when the synoptic Gospels tells us he instituted the New Covenant.
First, I find it hard to agree with Brueggemann that the Hebrews text is either wrong or does not suggest any form of supersessionism. I find Hebrews 8.13 particularly hard to simply downplay when it states "In speaking of a 'new covenant,' he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear." While I agree with Brueggemann about the Jewishness of Christianity, that is, properly read Christianity can only be understood by Jewish roots and having established itself as a faithful Jewish movement. But I don't think that the way the Christian movement included gentiles into the Jewish promise automatically validates his claim that therefore there is no supersessionism or such would be an inappropriate reading of the text. That is, even the Jeremiah passage has a supersessionist feel to it when God says "it will not be like the covenant I made" and the verses that follow seem to imply it is a better covenant and one that takes precedence over the old. Even if one concludes this text's primary context is all that it speaks of, it provides the example that Hebrews is claiming, namely, that a new covenant can take the place and role over from a previous one. In fact, the immediate context of what it meant for Israel was essential. Jeremiah was promising that God would renew a covenant in a manner that mattered more than the previous one, which was essential because they were in violation of the previous one. Come back now to Jesus and the New Covenant. It stands then that the institution of the new covenant he establishes in his own blood, does in fact reflect the words of the prophet. Brueggemann notes the struggle there is with Hebrews and the fact it is canonized in the New Testament, and whether he agrees with it or not it holds weight by that very fact. I also find it hard to read Hebrews as if the writer did not have any Jewish background or understanding of the Jewishness categories and claims of Christianity as he seems to suggest. The book in fact is essentially a series of sermons/reflections on the Jewish texts in relation to Jesus and argues how Jesus (and faith in him) is essentially the heart and height of Jewish belief. I suspect (although this argument doesn't in and of itself discount his argument) that his argument is born out of our modern awareness of Jewish sentimentality and a reaction to ways in which Christian theology has led to or supported anti-semitism and persecution of Jewish people.
My primary critique may be that Brueggemann's reading seems to want to suggest the working of God graciously through both covenants continually. This is the real issue, and here it is not only a matter of whether God is continuing both covenants through two separated movements today (although that especially seems to be the case in his comments) but within the text itself. And that is why it is important to note that even in its context of speaking to a post-exilic community it does not seem to imply the continuation of the old and the new, but the new covenant being the one that renews, restores, and establishes God's relationship with the people, even if one sees the content as the same covenant. If that is the case then, that it would no longer be like the covenant before, it doesn't seem like an appropriate read of the text to not see some form of supersession. Brueggemann (as I understand him) is ultimately unconvincing in this regard, and his conclusions would for me require greater explanation as to why even in its earliest roots as a Jewish movement the Christian community still had similar expectations of welcome into the covenant community for Jews and Gentiles alike, and that this welcome was into the New Covenant of Jesus. His explanation does not adequately state why circumcised Jews needed to be baptized, or why Paul for all his high view of Israel and all God's work belonging to them still ultimately suggests that the vast majority have been cut off and do not belong to the true Israel (Romans 9.3-8) and in their unbelief must be grafted back in through faith (Romans 11.23). All of these point not to the church existing as the gentile covenant that lets us share with Israel, it all points to the view of Paul that the Christians were the true Israel (that is, faithful Isreal). It is for this reason also that the church today ought still consider those of the Jewish faith as still needing to be (for lack of a better word) converted. They may be closer, have more common ground, and we must be respectful and mindful of how we interact with them, that much we have unfortunately learned through the ignorance of Christian history. But more than any other non-Christian religion do we seem perfectly content to let Judaism be as though the Church has no Gospel to offer. Instead we should rejoice that they already have Moses and the Prophets to listen to, for Jesus himself shows how sufficient they are (Luke 17.19-31).
All these lead me to reject an idea that there is in neither this text nor in the biblical canon as a whole any sense of covenantal replacement. Of course, before going further we should acknowledge that the Abrahamic covenant was not seen as replaced by the Sinai covenant. This view was held by both the Jews who would harken back to God as the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" and the promised land and nation from that covenant as well as Christians which we see in Paul's teachings on Abraham and faith. But both those who see this text in relation to Jesus or 2nd Temple Judaism both understand it in relation to the Sinai Covenant, the one in which the Torah was given.
This leads me to the second major piece I had to consider. If the first one was asking what this text means in relation to previous covenants (and covenant communities) the second issue is if it is appropriate to see this text in relation to the covenant of Jesus. Brueggemann is not clear. For he shows it inviting Christians, but not exclusively as Christian and he warns against Christians applying to themselves in an exclusive manner (which the new covenant of communion would certainly seem to do). The JSB is clear in their stance: this is the 2nd Temple community, not a prophecy referencing Christ. They make a good claim too if you recall: the content is still the law. Brueggemann likewise noted this when he calls the commandments given to the Jews the core of this covenant.
Now I come to Jesus and ask myself then how we can apply it to him. But real quick, I will pause and say if it isn't already clear I do believe this had an initial context that was the supersession of a 2nd temple covenant for a post-exilic community over the Sinai covenant of the pre-exilic community, seen essentially as the same. A renewed covenant, but the terms of the renewal superseding the previous. It makes no sense for Jeremiah to write this and the people to treasure it if they didn't in some sense see it applying to themselves. Also, the prophetic rhetoric is consistent with that of other contemporary prophets that the people are forgiven and renewed. That said, like many other prophecies, they point also to a greater truth and fulfillment in Jesus. I believe the same is true here. I always have, but when I came upon the commandment based argument for this new covenant, I had to say to myself "they've got a point". If Brueggemann was correct, it is that this newness was first shared with the Jews, only later to become a reality for Christians in Jesus.
Let's break down this "New Covenant" into what I see as its essential parts:
1. its called a "new covenant" and won't be like the old covenant when he brought them out of Egypt.
2. it is not one that is broken by unfaithfulness to God
3. it is made with the house of Israel
4. God will put the law in them, not others by teaching
5. he will be their God
6. they will be forgiven
Before confronting these critiques I had really only considered 1 & 6. It was "Jesus called this the new covenant and it forgives." Ba-da-boom! Case closed. But when confronted with the claim that the commandment is still at its core I had to ask myself more seriously how well does this text fit with the covenant of communion established in the cross of Jesus?
For one, this also got me rereading the Hebrews text and its argument, which is a fascinating one and well worth your time. Hebrews 8-10 deals with this text in relation to Jesus and the importance of his blood and forgiveness in establishing a new covenant.
But I want to look also at texts about the night it was established. Here I am going to do that unholy harmonizing and assume that John's Gospel assumes Holy Communion in what it presents of Jesus' teachings his final night, since John gives it likewise in the context of that final meal (John's own timeline of events could account for the absence of the passover meal itself).
Now let us look at these elements.
1. As we have already stated, the clearest connection comes from the fact that Jesus himself says "this is my blood of the new covenant". Along with the Hebrews text, this is what explicitly connects the two, and this is what especially connects it to communion. Now we must examine the other points to see how much this covenant relates to the one spoken of in Jeremiah.
2. When God says this new covenant will not be like the old one which they broke in unfaithfulness (remember, in Jeremiah God's case against Judah is earlier presented as an adulterous affair), how true is this! In fact we, in our Words of Institution, echo Paul who recounts communion happened "on the night in which he was betrayed". The context of the new covenant is the context of the disciples breaking their relationship with Jesus. Judas's betrayal is in fact happening in the midst of it. Peter's denial is predicted at its table. And Jesus's death at the hands of sinners is spoken of as the time having come. Unfaithfulness is a part of this covenant, it is the context in which Jesus established it, and even those who partake in it unfaithfully do not break the covenant and may later return in faith and find it still firmly established.
3. This covenant will be established with Israel. Here that question of the relation of the church to Israel is important. Here the Jewishness of the New Testament is shown. It was in the context of Israel that this covenant was made. It was made first with Jews, in Jerusalem, over a Jewish festival. Jesus said he came for the lost sheep of Israel (Matt 15.24) and was clear that the Gentile mission was an inclusion that began in Israel (Acts 1.8). The context is just as Brueggemann reminds us, a Jewish one that will hold within it Gentile inclusion (although that language appears more appropriate than his "Jewish that holds Christian" inclusion).
4. This next point is the one that finally sparked this entire blog and where I really felt the critique opened me up to a new look at the institution of the Lord's Supper. The argument (which I had found compelling) against this text really being able to ultimately refer to the covenant of Jesus was that it still focused on the Torah. The fundamental flaw of the Old covenant was unfaithfulness to God's commands and this passage promised freedom from that. But it still concerned itself with the Law. How shall we speak of the evangelical covenant of Christ in this way? This is where I believe John's Gospel illuminates something important about that final meal. Jesus gives a new commandment: love one another as he loved us. What is so key about this commandment in the context of the New Covenant is that it is a law totally dependent on God! That is, the Jeremiah passage tells us God will put the law in their hearts. No more will they teach people to know the Lord, they will simply know the Lord. The will and commandments of God, the Torah, becomes something not taught but received, for this commandment is love as I have loved. It is Torah that can only be known by being given love from Jesus. It is evangelical in that it is love that is imparted. The characteristic message of the New Covenant was not a teaching of the law instead it was a message characterized as belief in Jesus who sanctifies you. The new commandment of John, set in the same context of Jesus' final meal where the other Gospels mention his institution of the New Covenant shows then how God puts the law in our hearts: by putting Jesus there! He brings the law fulfilled, and he reminds us of this by commanding our love to be as he loved us. Now it is the obedience of Jesus that matters, and the partaking of his covenant that allows one to be obedient to the command. This commandment one cannot be obedient to apart from how it is given to us by God. What indication in all of scripture displays the law placed in the hearts of the people better than when the law is entirely formed by the love of Jesus? That is a commandment truly placed or as we say in communion "given for you". We should also note the importance of the ongoing dialogue of Jesus in John's final meal discourse, much of which reinforces obedience as something given. It includes the promise "If you know me, you will also know My Father" (14.7) and the Spirit who will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement (16.8) and will guide you in all truth (16.13) - all words that tell us no one will say "know the Lord for they will all know me", words that reinforce this knowledge and continued obedience as something imparted. That emphasis on obedience being given appears also in 15.5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without Me." and his great prayer in which Jesus says to the Father "I sanctify myself for them, so they also may be sanctified by the truth" (17.19) and the final words of which again call to us knowing God by Jesus and his law placed in us: "I made Your name known to them and will make it known, so the love You have loved Me with may be in them and I may be in them" (17.26).
5. He will be their God. John again really illuminates much here, filled with verses that claim us as God's people. "By this all people will know that you are My disciples..." (13.35), "I will not leave you orphans..." (14.18), "The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. And the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father." (14.21), "I have called you friends...You did not choose Me, but I chose you. I appointed you..." (15.15-16), "For the Father himself loves you..." (16.27), "I am in them and You are in Me...so the world may know You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me" (17.23). John's extended discourses, instead of focusing on the giving of the New Covenant meal (which makes sense given John's different Passover timeline) instead gives many aspects of the covenant - being claimed by God. Paul likewise when speaking of this meal reminds us "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread." (1 Cor 11.17), words that speak of our inclusion into God's assembly by the meal.
6. They will be forgiven. Matthew gives us those clear words that this body and blood of the New Covenant is shed "for the forgiveness of sins" (26.28). Hebrews looks to this especially as the mark that Jesus did in fact fulfill this promise of Jeremiah. While speaking on the Jeremiah text he said Jesus offered "one sacrifice for sins forever" (10.12) and immediately after quoting specifically the reference to forgiveness the author says "Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness to enter the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way He has opened for us through the curtain (that is, His flesh),...let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean" (Hebrews 10.18-21). Many other passages in scripture reinforce that the blood of Jesus (which is the blood he gives to establish this covenant) forgives; such as 1 John 1.7 that says "the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin." Indeed this is essential to the New Covenant. While the renewal of Israel after the exile spoke of a forgiveness, and the second temple community sought renewal in confession and forgiveness (see Ezra's prayer of confession in Ezra 9-10) it is the enduring quality of forgiveness in and from the covenant of Jesus, and the fact that the forgiveness of his covenant stood and did not need repeated sacrifices (as Hebrews notes when calling this the New and better covenant in chapters 8 and 9) that makes the case that his is a covenant based on forgiveness that Jeremiah was ultimately speaking of. God's reconciling work among the exiles stands example to the covenant God sought to establish through Jesus.
A few weeks ago we had a reading on Sunday morning from Jeremiah 31, the promise of a New Covenant with Israel. For those unfamiliar with it, Jeremiah gives this hopeful vision for his people in this brief - but hopeful - section of his book:
31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.
That is the section worth focusing on. It's significance for Maundy Thursday, is that many (myself included) within Christianity have seen this prophecy as a reference to Jesus. In fact the Christian addition to the Hebrew Bible and their subsequent divisions has been in some ways categorized under this passage. The "Old Covenant" and the "New Covenant", or from the latin testimentum we get the old and new testament. The new covenant is the one which Jesus himself institutes.
But not everyone sees it this way. In fact one of the leading Old Testament scholars alive today Walter Brueggemann does not believe it appropriate to see this passage as a basis for a supersessionist reading of the covenant of Jesus over the Sinai covenant. Brueggemann is particularly challenging such a reading of Hebrews which uses this specific text in speaking of a new and better covenant rendering the first one obsolete. Brueggemann writes:
My own inclination is to say that in our time and place the reading of Hebrews is a distorted reading, and we are back to the recognition of the Jewishness of the new covenant. At best, we may say that Christians come derivatively and belatedly to share the promised newness. This is not to deny Christian participation in the newness, but Christian participation is utterly grounded in Jewish categories and claims, and can have participation on no other terms. Moreover, the Jewish mediation of newness is left open as an act of profound grace to all who come under these commandments and allegiance to this God. It is of course possible to read this in terms of Jewish triumphalism, but such is not the intent of the text. Indeed, the text invites Jews (and belatedly Christians and others) to stand in grateful awe before the miracle of forgiveness, to receive it, and to take from it a new, regenerated life. Thus the promise occasions no arrogance or pride, but only genuine gratitude. The offer of newness is not narrowly construed, but it has at its core the commandments which God has given first of all to the Jews.
This final point is also reflected in the Jewish Study Bible and its claim that this passage cannot be a reference to a Christian covenant. Their notes state "The new covenant has been interpreted by Christians as a prophecy of the new covenant through Jesus (New Testament means new covenant), but here it refers to the restoration of Israel after the Babylonian exile and the reconstruction of the Temple. According to this passage, it is not the content of the new covenant which will be different, but how it is learned." This last phrase is a very interesting and good one for their case. Like Brueggemann, they note that the Torah is integral to this passage in relation to the new covenant.
Both of these readings had me really wondering and thinking about it: Was it appropriate for me to see this passage primarily in relation to the New Covenant of Holy Communion? Wrestling with their words I believe the answer is yes still, but their objections raised some new insights. Let me address their objections and what they opened up for me about Maundy Thursday. What we will especially find is how this text gives an essential aspect to the details John gives of that evening when the synoptic Gospels tells us he instituted the New Covenant.
First, I find it hard to agree with Brueggemann that the Hebrews text is either wrong or does not suggest any form of supersessionism. I find Hebrews 8.13 particularly hard to simply downplay when it states "In speaking of a 'new covenant,' he has made the first one obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old will soon disappear." While I agree with Brueggemann about the Jewishness of Christianity, that is, properly read Christianity can only be understood by Jewish roots and having established itself as a faithful Jewish movement. But I don't think that the way the Christian movement included gentiles into the Jewish promise automatically validates his claim that therefore there is no supersessionism or such would be an inappropriate reading of the text. That is, even the Jeremiah passage has a supersessionist feel to it when God says "it will not be like the covenant I made" and the verses that follow seem to imply it is a better covenant and one that takes precedence over the old. Even if one concludes this text's primary context is all that it speaks of, it provides the example that Hebrews is claiming, namely, that a new covenant can take the place and role over from a previous one. In fact, the immediate context of what it meant for Israel was essential. Jeremiah was promising that God would renew a covenant in a manner that mattered more than the previous one, which was essential because they were in violation of the previous one. Come back now to Jesus and the New Covenant. It stands then that the institution of the new covenant he establishes in his own blood, does in fact reflect the words of the prophet. Brueggemann notes the struggle there is with Hebrews and the fact it is canonized in the New Testament, and whether he agrees with it or not it holds weight by that very fact. I also find it hard to read Hebrews as if the writer did not have any Jewish background or understanding of the Jewishness categories and claims of Christianity as he seems to suggest. The book in fact is essentially a series of sermons/reflections on the Jewish texts in relation to Jesus and argues how Jesus (and faith in him) is essentially the heart and height of Jewish belief. I suspect (although this argument doesn't in and of itself discount his argument) that his argument is born out of our modern awareness of Jewish sentimentality and a reaction to ways in which Christian theology has led to or supported anti-semitism and persecution of Jewish people.
My primary critique may be that Brueggemann's reading seems to want to suggest the working of God graciously through both covenants continually. This is the real issue, and here it is not only a matter of whether God is continuing both covenants through two separated movements today (although that especially seems to be the case in his comments) but within the text itself. And that is why it is important to note that even in its context of speaking to a post-exilic community it does not seem to imply the continuation of the old and the new, but the new covenant being the one that renews, restores, and establishes God's relationship with the people, even if one sees the content as the same covenant. If that is the case then, that it would no longer be like the covenant before, it doesn't seem like an appropriate read of the text to not see some form of supersession. Brueggemann (as I understand him) is ultimately unconvincing in this regard, and his conclusions would for me require greater explanation as to why even in its earliest roots as a Jewish movement the Christian community still had similar expectations of welcome into the covenant community for Jews and Gentiles alike, and that this welcome was into the New Covenant of Jesus. His explanation does not adequately state why circumcised Jews needed to be baptized, or why Paul for all his high view of Israel and all God's work belonging to them still ultimately suggests that the vast majority have been cut off and do not belong to the true Israel (Romans 9.3-8) and in their unbelief must be grafted back in through faith (Romans 11.23). All of these point not to the church existing as the gentile covenant that lets us share with Israel, it all points to the view of Paul that the Christians were the true Israel (that is, faithful Isreal). It is for this reason also that the church today ought still consider those of the Jewish faith as still needing to be (for lack of a better word) converted. They may be closer, have more common ground, and we must be respectful and mindful of how we interact with them, that much we have unfortunately learned through the ignorance of Christian history. But more than any other non-Christian religion do we seem perfectly content to let Judaism be as though the Church has no Gospel to offer. Instead we should rejoice that they already have Moses and the Prophets to listen to, for Jesus himself shows how sufficient they are (Luke 17.19-31).
All these lead me to reject an idea that there is in neither this text nor in the biblical canon as a whole any sense of covenantal replacement. Of course, before going further we should acknowledge that the Abrahamic covenant was not seen as replaced by the Sinai covenant. This view was held by both the Jews who would harken back to God as the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" and the promised land and nation from that covenant as well as Christians which we see in Paul's teachings on Abraham and faith. But both those who see this text in relation to Jesus or 2nd Temple Judaism both understand it in relation to the Sinai Covenant, the one in which the Torah was given.
This leads me to the second major piece I had to consider. If the first one was asking what this text means in relation to previous covenants (and covenant communities) the second issue is if it is appropriate to see this text in relation to the covenant of Jesus. Brueggemann is not clear. For he shows it inviting Christians, but not exclusively as Christian and he warns against Christians applying to themselves in an exclusive manner (which the new covenant of communion would certainly seem to do). The JSB is clear in their stance: this is the 2nd Temple community, not a prophecy referencing Christ. They make a good claim too if you recall: the content is still the law. Brueggemann likewise noted this when he calls the commandments given to the Jews the core of this covenant.
Now I come to Jesus and ask myself then how we can apply it to him. But real quick, I will pause and say if it isn't already clear I do believe this had an initial context that was the supersession of a 2nd temple covenant for a post-exilic community over the Sinai covenant of the pre-exilic community, seen essentially as the same. A renewed covenant, but the terms of the renewal superseding the previous. It makes no sense for Jeremiah to write this and the people to treasure it if they didn't in some sense see it applying to themselves. Also, the prophetic rhetoric is consistent with that of other contemporary prophets that the people are forgiven and renewed. That said, like many other prophecies, they point also to a greater truth and fulfillment in Jesus. I believe the same is true here. I always have, but when I came upon the commandment based argument for this new covenant, I had to say to myself "they've got a point". If Brueggemann was correct, it is that this newness was first shared with the Jews, only later to become a reality for Christians in Jesus.
Let's break down this "New Covenant" into what I see as its essential parts:
1. its called a "new covenant" and won't be like the old covenant when he brought them out of Egypt.
2. it is not one that is broken by unfaithfulness to God
3. it is made with the house of Israel
4. God will put the law in them, not others by teaching
5. he will be their God
6. they will be forgiven
Before confronting these critiques I had really only considered 1 & 6. It was "Jesus called this the new covenant and it forgives." Ba-da-boom! Case closed. But when confronted with the claim that the commandment is still at its core I had to ask myself more seriously how well does this text fit with the covenant of communion established in the cross of Jesus?
For one, this also got me rereading the Hebrews text and its argument, which is a fascinating one and well worth your time. Hebrews 8-10 deals with this text in relation to Jesus and the importance of his blood and forgiveness in establishing a new covenant.
But I want to look also at texts about the night it was established. Here I am going to do that unholy harmonizing and assume that John's Gospel assumes Holy Communion in what it presents of Jesus' teachings his final night, since John gives it likewise in the context of that final meal (John's own timeline of events could account for the absence of the passover meal itself).
Now let us look at these elements.
1. As we have already stated, the clearest connection comes from the fact that Jesus himself says "this is my blood of the new covenant". Along with the Hebrews text, this is what explicitly connects the two, and this is what especially connects it to communion. Now we must examine the other points to see how much this covenant relates to the one spoken of in Jeremiah.
2. When God says this new covenant will not be like the old one which they broke in unfaithfulness (remember, in Jeremiah God's case against Judah is earlier presented as an adulterous affair), how true is this! In fact we, in our Words of Institution, echo Paul who recounts communion happened "on the night in which he was betrayed". The context of the new covenant is the context of the disciples breaking their relationship with Jesus. Judas's betrayal is in fact happening in the midst of it. Peter's denial is predicted at its table. And Jesus's death at the hands of sinners is spoken of as the time having come. Unfaithfulness is a part of this covenant, it is the context in which Jesus established it, and even those who partake in it unfaithfully do not break the covenant and may later return in faith and find it still firmly established.
3. This covenant will be established with Israel. Here that question of the relation of the church to Israel is important. Here the Jewishness of the New Testament is shown. It was in the context of Israel that this covenant was made. It was made first with Jews, in Jerusalem, over a Jewish festival. Jesus said he came for the lost sheep of Israel (Matt 15.24) and was clear that the Gentile mission was an inclusion that began in Israel (Acts 1.8). The context is just as Brueggemann reminds us, a Jewish one that will hold within it Gentile inclusion (although that language appears more appropriate than his "Jewish that holds Christian" inclusion).
4. This next point is the one that finally sparked this entire blog and where I really felt the critique opened me up to a new look at the institution of the Lord's Supper. The argument (which I had found compelling) against this text really being able to ultimately refer to the covenant of Jesus was that it still focused on the Torah. The fundamental flaw of the Old covenant was unfaithfulness to God's commands and this passage promised freedom from that. But it still concerned itself with the Law. How shall we speak of the evangelical covenant of Christ in this way? This is where I believe John's Gospel illuminates something important about that final meal. Jesus gives a new commandment: love one another as he loved us. What is so key about this commandment in the context of the New Covenant is that it is a law totally dependent on God! That is, the Jeremiah passage tells us God will put the law in their hearts. No more will they teach people to know the Lord, they will simply know the Lord. The will and commandments of God, the Torah, becomes something not taught but received, for this commandment is love as I have loved. It is Torah that can only be known by being given love from Jesus. It is evangelical in that it is love that is imparted. The characteristic message of the New Covenant was not a teaching of the law instead it was a message characterized as belief in Jesus who sanctifies you. The new commandment of John, set in the same context of Jesus' final meal where the other Gospels mention his institution of the New Covenant shows then how God puts the law in our hearts: by putting Jesus there! He brings the law fulfilled, and he reminds us of this by commanding our love to be as he loved us. Now it is the obedience of Jesus that matters, and the partaking of his covenant that allows one to be obedient to the command. This commandment one cannot be obedient to apart from how it is given to us by God. What indication in all of scripture displays the law placed in the hearts of the people better than when the law is entirely formed by the love of Jesus? That is a commandment truly placed or as we say in communion "given for you". We should also note the importance of the ongoing dialogue of Jesus in John's final meal discourse, much of which reinforces obedience as something given. It includes the promise "If you know me, you will also know My Father" (14.7) and the Spirit who will convict the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement (16.8) and will guide you in all truth (16.13) - all words that tell us no one will say "know the Lord for they will all know me", words that reinforce this knowledge and continued obedience as something imparted. That emphasis on obedience being given appears also in 15.5 "I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in Me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without Me." and his great prayer in which Jesus says to the Father "I sanctify myself for them, so they also may be sanctified by the truth" (17.19) and the final words of which again call to us knowing God by Jesus and his law placed in us: "I made Your name known to them and will make it known, so the love You have loved Me with may be in them and I may be in them" (17.26).
5. He will be their God. John again really illuminates much here, filled with verses that claim us as God's people. "By this all people will know that you are My disciples..." (13.35), "I will not leave you orphans..." (14.18), "The one who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. And the one who loves Me will be loved by My Father." (14.21), "I have called you friends...You did not choose Me, but I chose you. I appointed you..." (15.15-16), "For the Father himself loves you..." (16.27), "I am in them and You are in Me...so the world may know You have sent Me and have loved them as You have loved Me" (17.23). John's extended discourses, instead of focusing on the giving of the New Covenant meal (which makes sense given John's different Passover timeline) instead gives many aspects of the covenant - being claimed by God. Paul likewise when speaking of this meal reminds us "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for all of us share that one bread." (1 Cor 11.17), words that speak of our inclusion into God's assembly by the meal.
6. They will be forgiven. Matthew gives us those clear words that this body and blood of the New Covenant is shed "for the forgiveness of sins" (26.28). Hebrews looks to this especially as the mark that Jesus did in fact fulfill this promise of Jeremiah. While speaking on the Jeremiah text he said Jesus offered "one sacrifice for sins forever" (10.12) and immediately after quoting specifically the reference to forgiveness the author says "Now where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sin. Therefore, brothers, since we have boldness to enter the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way He has opened for us through the curtain (that is, His flesh),...let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean" (Hebrews 10.18-21). Many other passages in scripture reinforce that the blood of Jesus (which is the blood he gives to establish this covenant) forgives; such as 1 John 1.7 that says "the blood of Jesus cleanses us from all sin." Indeed this is essential to the New Covenant. While the renewal of Israel after the exile spoke of a forgiveness, and the second temple community sought renewal in confession and forgiveness (see Ezra's prayer of confession in Ezra 9-10) it is the enduring quality of forgiveness in and from the covenant of Jesus, and the fact that the forgiveness of his covenant stood and did not need repeated sacrifices (as Hebrews notes when calling this the New and better covenant in chapters 8 and 9) that makes the case that his is a covenant based on forgiveness that Jeremiah was ultimately speaking of. God's reconciling work among the exiles stands example to the covenant God sought to establish through Jesus.
Thursday, April 30, 2015
Acts 8.37 and The Problem of Textual Variance
What I'm about to raise is a confusing and not entirely settled matter for me, and one that has come up among pastors this week due to the presence of the Acts 8 reading in the Revised Common Lectionary. But I thought it was worth thinking aloud about it and how I currently approach the issue.
While not the only example of it, Acts 8.37 is probably the most notable case of textual omission by modern translations. Most notable because its presence or omission could dramatically alter the meaning of the text itself.
36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” 37, And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.
Most modern translations (including these widely used New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, New American Bible, New International Version, and the Common English Bible) omit verse 37 from the reading, leaving only a footnote on the bottom of the page to indicate their reasoning and what the verse states.
You can see why this verse would be the one to spark the discussion of textual omission as the absence or inclusion of this one verse dramatically changes the meaning of the ones around it. Without the verse, Philip's actions indicate that there is water and a willing person, there is nothing stopping them from baptizing. With it, he seems to have one stipulation: that one declare their faith.
One of the most contentious issues in Christianity today is the issue of "Who may be baptized?" This especially plays out on the discussion of whether or not the Bible insists on Believer's Baptism (that one must confess belief before being baptized) or whether it insists upon what I'll dub as Sacramental Baptism (baptism as a means of grace to be shared even with infants). Is baptism more about our faith or God's grace? Obviously they are connected, but which one baptism is more about ultimately leads to a theology that embraces believer's baptism or infant baptism.
The textual omission impacts whether or not this story from Acts would seem more to favor one or the other (I don't think it in any way settles the matter for either side).
Now without giving you the full scholarly breakdown of why this is omitted, let me summarize it in a more simple manner: our earliest and "most reliable" manuscripts omit this verse. Therefore groups like the United Bible Society (who produce updated editions of the Greek New Testament, assembled by critical examination of manuscripts and with critical footnotes below) have deemed the verse as so unreliable towards the original text that they have since omitted the verse, being in highest level of agreement it was a later addition to the text. And as shown above most Bible Translations have followed their lead.
Before anyone cries in outrage, we should note this happens all over the Greek text, just rarely with an entire verse, so that one does not notice. But often a word or phrase that appears in some manuscripts are too absent in other ones (especially older ones) and the UBS omits them from the main text, relegating them to the footnotes. A good way to spot this will be by comparing the King James Version, that used a specific Greek text known as the Textus Receptus. Since the KJV worked from that text, it will include some things that other Bible's have omitted because the critical scholarship has deemed it as unreliable based on earlier manuscripts and fragments. One example that comes to mind is Matthew 5.13 the final verse of the Matthean Lord's Prayer. Most Bibles will show Jesus ending the prayer with "Deliver us from the Evil One." But they probably include a footnote which will say that some manuscripts continue on "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." And some like the KJV include it in the text itself.
Such textual omissions show why there are churches that profess no Bible but the King James Bible. They see the other translations as unfaithful because of the critical omissions throughout, which most readers pay little attention too. It is only in the few instances like this where an entire verse has been left out where some will notice when the text jumps from verse 36 to verse 38. That is the way I first learned, when in my college Greek class I was translating John 5 verse by verse. After finishing verse 3 I wrote the "4" on the left margin of my page and went to translate it, only to learn I could not find the verse!
Now that the issue of textual variance and omission has been laid out, the question is what do we do with it? Many Christian denominations have a high view of scripture and some doctrinal understanding of inspiration or divine authority in its regards, but few take any clear stand in regards to the variances.
It seems to me there are two questions to be dealt with: authorship and variant authority.
Authorship: is it only God's word if it was written by the original author?
Variant Authority: What is the best approach with the variant texts to decide which variant shall be taken as authoritative?
The second question is linked to the first to some degree but not exclusively. That is, if only the original author is authoritative then you have to solve each variant because one simply cannot be, and without deciding which you believe to be original, you cannot decide which to be authoritative. That is a similar manner to the USB's efforts: get as close to the original (or "autograph") copy. On one hand that makes sense. After all, authorship was one of the grounds by which the church determined if a book ought be canonized.
On the other hand that is also problematic. If ONLY the autograph was God's word and variances are not, then we actually have no means of trusting ANY of the text since we have no way of ever knowing what the autograph copy contained. We could discover the autograph and not even know it! And a variance could have been introduced so early, every manuscript we have has been contaminated. Thus if it must be original, even if we have overwhelming evidence something is original it may simply be because we have lost the evidence that it is not original. We also must indicate why only the original includes God's message, as the canon itself indicates the God works a single story and message through multiple authors. It also causes serious issue for books where the vast majority of textual critics believe the book to be the composite of multiple authors (such as debates around whether Isaiah was the work of 1, 2, 3, or more prophets) or books where the claimed authorship is called into question (such as whether or not letters such as Ephesians and 2 Timothy were written by Paul) or books where we really have little or no internal evidence as to the author being who tradition has claimed the book to be authored by (like Matthew). The text needing to be written by the person to be inspired by God does raise issues.
Of course that is not to say the opposite isn't true as well. If we assume that we don't need it to be the original author, we must ask ourselves if it is appropriate to edit scripture today? Was Jefferson's edits of cutting out the supernatural to make a more deistic Bible an authoritative variance? My guess is most Christians will say no. But we must then somehow explain at what point is variance divinely inspired and when is it heresy? As I already mentioned the canonization process did not look to redactors but the original authors when considering texts. We also must wonder what the authority of the text was prior to the redaction. If the variance was divinely inspired, was that original section not (this is particularly important in regards to omission of the section, such as if the redactors cut 8.37 like I suspect might have happened).
These questions of whether the authority is tied to the author, or if the redactors share it is important either way in leading us to the question of how do we best handle these variances when speaking of the authority of scripture (particularly as God-breathed)?
It seems to me there are several ways one could go about doing this including (although I'm sure not limited to):
1. Choose your own variance. You could decide that the overall preservation of the texts ultimately mean the variants are of little concern and each person is free to embrace, teach from, and be shaped by whatever variant they choose. Thus making no issue at all from the variances. Let God use whichever form he so chooses to speak to you.
2. Pick the Best Manuscript. For each book of the Bible, choose a manuscript that you see as most reliable and therefore authoritative. Work from that and leave all variances from it in the footnotes. Just as most churches today settle on a translation that they think most appropriate for worship, we should do the same with our source material. Pick what is best, reliable and appropriate.
3. Get Critical for Jesus. Examine every variance with the best critical scholarship available to determine which is most likely the original. Every one is handled then on a case-by-case basis. We may never know for sure, but we have a responsibility to make the best possible guess.
4. Be Welcoming and Include it all. Never cut or relegate to the footnotes, keep as much in the text as possible, only having to omit things where the variance is not whether something is present or absent, but where two different words are present. Better to have things God did not intend in scripture than to leave out his word.
5. Get Jeffersonian and Cut it All. If there is any real or consistent variance of a text, it is unreliable. Remove it what is in dispute to the footnotes since it cannot be taken with the same certainty the other texts provide. While you may cut out authentic stuff, the inability to know means we are best to err on the side of leaving it out so the text does not lead one astray.
You can see how complex the issue is. In many ways was often do a combination of 3 and 1. Our translations do 3, and we let our preachers do 1 (they may not say the differences don't matter, but by allowing the preacher to even follow the variant form not taken by the translator we are embracing that view to some extent, especially since in those moments the pastors rarely insist on their form or denounce the translator's but only give a preference or another view), which is an interesting balance as they are rather different approaches. #3 works to be as precise as possible, #1 works to be as useful as possible.
But others are used as well. KJV basically does #2. The HCSB is a cross between #3 & #4. The Amplified Bible does basically #4. I'm not sure of any that follow the route of #5.
My personal feelings are that I like the sound of #2 and #4 but really the practice of #3, although I have become more into a mix of #3 & #4 recently. That is, I appreciate and think we ought to do extensive scholastic research to determine the most appropriate text, but where we are less certain and the debate is far more open I think we should err on the side of inclusion.
I don't think the autograph is the only divinely inspired work. Some redaction may equally be a part of God's speaking as was the continued voice of scripture over the centuries across various authors. I am more inclined to believe this on the grounds of included additional words/phrases/stories than excluding or rewording texts (hence my inclination towards inclusion). God added to his voice through new scriptures over time, he didn't remove its voice. Thus a case can be made for redaction as "added inspiration". But that is different from correction and thus we still have a responsibility towards critical scholarship.
As part of the process and the scriptures I think there are also important principles to come into play in determining if a variance can be seen as an appropriate addition to the divine scriptures:
1. How wide-spread and accepted did the variances seem to be? Do we have external evidence of the church embracing the variance? How many manuscripts did include it? How long did the church accept it without question? The reception of a book was part of what also helped determine if it should be canonized. The same principle should apply towards what variance is "canonized" among us. Did God prosper this variant far and above the alternatives? This is done to a degree, but not in determining the value of the text. When scholars ask these questions it wasn't about whether it was a godly message but rather they ask because wide usage often gives credence to it being closer to the original, but not always. Especially in the cases where many of the oldest manuscripts do not attest to the text, then the wide-spread acceptance no longer holds weight over the ancient texts.
2. How does its message match or challenge the teachings of scripture? This especially becomes for me cause for inclusion of many of the variances. So many footnotes will indicate a variant that reflects the biblical truth. This also explains the reasoning for the variation. The scribe makes an addition to clarify or declare a biblical truth (particularly in a place where they may have felt it unclear). This was also part of the discussion of canonization; that the apostolic teachings were reflected. This is the one place where I think scholarship fails in their decisions around inclusion of texts. They regard practical concerns, but weigh the value of the autograph over the message itself. It is not that this is not taken into account, but it usually is only in determining the redactor's motives so that they may better discern which was more likely the result of redaction and which was more likely the original.
These two principles would go a long way though for us. They would reveal I believe what variance has and will best serve the church and relay God's message for us. Furthermore, they allow us to still ultimately honor the original material (since both were used in regards to the judgment of the texts as a whole) and message. They also keep us from fretting about reliability in the sense of needing to be original and only accept the original text while also giving boundaries and limitations to assure us that we do not have free reign to edit the scriptures as we wish. In some ways, this is the #1 that preachers do to the translator's #3. But instead of it being done on an individual level or from congregation to congregation, sermon to sermon this process should receive the same scholastic devotion as other textual critical work receives when assembling a translation. I cannot and should not say it doesn't come into play (especially by our translators since they will make such calls sometimes that differ from each other for reasons likely other than just textual critical belief in the autograph version). But I'd like to see more of it.
Let me come full circle now back to our Acts text that started this conversation and say a few things about that. While many early and reliable manuscripts omit it, we also know it was in use in the church early from outside sources of church fathers who quote it. I personally think it is original to Acts and not a later addition. My reason is twofold: while the story could still be read and flow fine without it, the story reads much more naturally with its inclusion since it actually answers the question, whereas without such it would only imply an answer by Philip's actions. The second reason is I don't see it as likely that it was added because it still remained very primitive in its form.
Some might argue that the Ethiopian's confession that Jesus was "the Son of God" points to a more developed creedal formulation from the initial "Jesus is Lord" (Rom 10.9, Phil 2.11). But Lukan material is not foreign to the confession of Jesus as God's Son (Luke 1.35, 3.38, 22.70, Acts 9.20). Philip's stipulation of belief leading to performing a baptism is consistent to other encounters in Acts (8.12, 16.30-33). Because of these facts it hardly seems out of place in the text.
Although it is possible this verse could have been added because the absence of an answer on Philip's part seemed out of place. Perhaps some found the lack of verbal confession problematic. But more likely as the second-third-fourth generation church would have become more practiced in infant baptism (which we also have attested of by early church fathers) they would seem less inclined to need to include a verbal confession, perhaps even leading to a redaction of omission. The case could be made either way.
The flow of the story, the early external evidence, and the greater consistency the inclusion of the verse creates with other conversions in Acts (although one could argue that the omitted form in which Philip is implying water and a willing spirit is enough is similar to Peter's words in 10.47-48, but that still included a manifestation of the Spirit), all that along with seeing just as good a reason for redactor omission compared to addition all makes me consider it likely original to the text. Although resting there now does not necessarily settle the matter for me. It doesn't account for example why there appears to be two variant strands of verse 37 among the manuscripts that do include it (my sight reading of the Greek may be a little off, but the two variants come to something like And Philip said to him "If you believe with your whole heart you may" and he replied "I believe in Christ the Son of God" or And he said to him "If you believe with your whole heart you may" and he answered "I believe the Son of God is Jesus Christ"). I could imagine that perhaps a scribe, asked to copy a manuscript that omitted the verse, sought to reinsert it from memory (assuming somehow this scribe was aware of the verse by some other means than the manuscript before him). But then I ask am I simply wanting to think that way because it supports my theory for inclusion? But whether settled or not, I currently see good reason to reinsert the verse into the text even if most of our Bible translators and the UBS disagree (of course their overwhelming expertise pointing the other way may say more about this than I am currently aware). And as I said above, even if it is not original, should that stop us from including it if it has an internal consistency and fits appropriately in the story?
Now before people think I am claiming the Bible insists on believer's baptism to the exclusion of baptism of infants because of which way I have leaned in this argument, I have one last contribution to the discussion of authority and disputes that arise around textual variances. This textual variance is a hot-topic one particularly if one feels infant baptism or believer's baptism hinges on this story. And any variance upon which a teaching hinges will instantly become a greater issue and dilemma for the church's discernment.
My feeling on the matter is this: no single variance can make or break a doctrine. That is, no doctrine should ever hinge on a single verse. Doctrine (teaching) of which we stake our faith and faith practices are informed by the wider voice of scripture. Here the Reformation principle that scripture interprets scripture becomes ever important. I know this text with the omission makes a better case for infant baptism and vice versa for believer's baptism. But my belief in the sacramental practice of infant baptism does not hinge on this story. And the Ethiopian confessing Christ does not change the wider voice that tells us to baptize all nations, that saw baptism in place of circumcision, that included Jesus welcoming infants, that insisted one be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God, that constantly used baptism in the passive voice, that witnessed whole households baptized at the faith of the parent, that concluded the Pentecost sermon with an invitation to repentance and baptism that explicitly stated "for the promise is for you and your children". My point is, especially in places of variance where perhaps we have more concern to doubt what the text says, we should seek the wider voice of scripture so that no variance would lead us astray. I'll also say that even in churches that have held to infant baptism, we have still long called for the baptism to be for faith, and have looked to faithful people to raise the child in the faith it was baptized into. We have also held that those who can confess the faith for themselves are asked to at baptism. For this story in Acts to expect an adult to confess the faith is not contrary to our practice.
Similar to how we should test the variances with the apostolic teaching as a part of discerning which one we think ought be employed, in the end we must let the wider voice continue to speak no matter what is employed. That is, while this verse (or lack thereof) may lead us down one path or another, no single verse - from John 3.16 to Acts 8.37 - stands as the entire path itself. The point of the principle of scripture alone interprets scripture was to prevent outside interpretation/manipulation from twisting the meaning of a single text. And that lets us face the challenge of the variance. It's no guarantee we will get it right (plenty of churches after all have wrongfully excluded many from the great gift of baptism because they were infants), but it makes sure we don't let the variance become an excuse to discard the message or simply do what we want with the Bible. Every part must stand in service to the rest.
Kinda like each member of the body of Christ...
While not the only example of it, Acts 8.37 is probably the most notable case of textual omission by modern translations. Most notable because its presence or omission could dramatically alter the meaning of the text itself.
36 As they were going along the road, they came to some water; and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” 37, And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” And he replied, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.
Most modern translations (including these widely used New Revised Standard Version, English Standard Version, New American Bible, New International Version, and the Common English Bible) omit verse 37 from the reading, leaving only a footnote on the bottom of the page to indicate their reasoning and what the verse states.
You can see why this verse would be the one to spark the discussion of textual omission as the absence or inclusion of this one verse dramatically changes the meaning of the ones around it. Without the verse, Philip's actions indicate that there is water and a willing person, there is nothing stopping them from baptizing. With it, he seems to have one stipulation: that one declare their faith.
One of the most contentious issues in Christianity today is the issue of "Who may be baptized?" This especially plays out on the discussion of whether or not the Bible insists on Believer's Baptism (that one must confess belief before being baptized) or whether it insists upon what I'll dub as Sacramental Baptism (baptism as a means of grace to be shared even with infants). Is baptism more about our faith or God's grace? Obviously they are connected, but which one baptism is more about ultimately leads to a theology that embraces believer's baptism or infant baptism.
The textual omission impacts whether or not this story from Acts would seem more to favor one or the other (I don't think it in any way settles the matter for either side).
Now without giving you the full scholarly breakdown of why this is omitted, let me summarize it in a more simple manner: our earliest and "most reliable" manuscripts omit this verse. Therefore groups like the United Bible Society (who produce updated editions of the Greek New Testament, assembled by critical examination of manuscripts and with critical footnotes below) have deemed the verse as so unreliable towards the original text that they have since omitted the verse, being in highest level of agreement it was a later addition to the text. And as shown above most Bible Translations have followed their lead.
Before anyone cries in outrage, we should note this happens all over the Greek text, just rarely with an entire verse, so that one does not notice. But often a word or phrase that appears in some manuscripts are too absent in other ones (especially older ones) and the UBS omits them from the main text, relegating them to the footnotes. A good way to spot this will be by comparing the King James Version, that used a specific Greek text known as the Textus Receptus. Since the KJV worked from that text, it will include some things that other Bible's have omitted because the critical scholarship has deemed it as unreliable based on earlier manuscripts and fragments. One example that comes to mind is Matthew 5.13 the final verse of the Matthean Lord's Prayer. Most Bibles will show Jesus ending the prayer with "Deliver us from the Evil One." But they probably include a footnote which will say that some manuscripts continue on "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." And some like the KJV include it in the text itself.
Such textual omissions show why there are churches that profess no Bible but the King James Bible. They see the other translations as unfaithful because of the critical omissions throughout, which most readers pay little attention too. It is only in the few instances like this where an entire verse has been left out where some will notice when the text jumps from verse 36 to verse 38. That is the way I first learned, when in my college Greek class I was translating John 5 verse by verse. After finishing verse 3 I wrote the "4" on the left margin of my page and went to translate it, only to learn I could not find the verse!
Now that the issue of textual variance and omission has been laid out, the question is what do we do with it? Many Christian denominations have a high view of scripture and some doctrinal understanding of inspiration or divine authority in its regards, but few take any clear stand in regards to the variances.
It seems to me there are two questions to be dealt with: authorship and variant authority.
Authorship: is it only God's word if it was written by the original author?
Variant Authority: What is the best approach with the variant texts to decide which variant shall be taken as authoritative?
The second question is linked to the first to some degree but not exclusively. That is, if only the original author is authoritative then you have to solve each variant because one simply cannot be, and without deciding which you believe to be original, you cannot decide which to be authoritative. That is a similar manner to the USB's efforts: get as close to the original (or "autograph") copy. On one hand that makes sense. After all, authorship was one of the grounds by which the church determined if a book ought be canonized.
On the other hand that is also problematic. If ONLY the autograph was God's word and variances are not, then we actually have no means of trusting ANY of the text since we have no way of ever knowing what the autograph copy contained. We could discover the autograph and not even know it! And a variance could have been introduced so early, every manuscript we have has been contaminated. Thus if it must be original, even if we have overwhelming evidence something is original it may simply be because we have lost the evidence that it is not original. We also must indicate why only the original includes God's message, as the canon itself indicates the God works a single story and message through multiple authors. It also causes serious issue for books where the vast majority of textual critics believe the book to be the composite of multiple authors (such as debates around whether Isaiah was the work of 1, 2, 3, or more prophets) or books where the claimed authorship is called into question (such as whether or not letters such as Ephesians and 2 Timothy were written by Paul) or books where we really have little or no internal evidence as to the author being who tradition has claimed the book to be authored by (like Matthew). The text needing to be written by the person to be inspired by God does raise issues.
Of course that is not to say the opposite isn't true as well. If we assume that we don't need it to be the original author, we must ask ourselves if it is appropriate to edit scripture today? Was Jefferson's edits of cutting out the supernatural to make a more deistic Bible an authoritative variance? My guess is most Christians will say no. But we must then somehow explain at what point is variance divinely inspired and when is it heresy? As I already mentioned the canonization process did not look to redactors but the original authors when considering texts. We also must wonder what the authority of the text was prior to the redaction. If the variance was divinely inspired, was that original section not (this is particularly important in regards to omission of the section, such as if the redactors cut 8.37 like I suspect might have happened).
These questions of whether the authority is tied to the author, or if the redactors share it is important either way in leading us to the question of how do we best handle these variances when speaking of the authority of scripture (particularly as God-breathed)?
It seems to me there are several ways one could go about doing this including (although I'm sure not limited to):
1. Choose your own variance. You could decide that the overall preservation of the texts ultimately mean the variants are of little concern and each person is free to embrace, teach from, and be shaped by whatever variant they choose. Thus making no issue at all from the variances. Let God use whichever form he so chooses to speak to you.
2. Pick the Best Manuscript. For each book of the Bible, choose a manuscript that you see as most reliable and therefore authoritative. Work from that and leave all variances from it in the footnotes. Just as most churches today settle on a translation that they think most appropriate for worship, we should do the same with our source material. Pick what is best, reliable and appropriate.
3. Get Critical for Jesus. Examine every variance with the best critical scholarship available to determine which is most likely the original. Every one is handled then on a case-by-case basis. We may never know for sure, but we have a responsibility to make the best possible guess.
4. Be Welcoming and Include it all. Never cut or relegate to the footnotes, keep as much in the text as possible, only having to omit things where the variance is not whether something is present or absent, but where two different words are present. Better to have things God did not intend in scripture than to leave out his word.
5. Get Jeffersonian and Cut it All. If there is any real or consistent variance of a text, it is unreliable. Remove it what is in dispute to the footnotes since it cannot be taken with the same certainty the other texts provide. While you may cut out authentic stuff, the inability to know means we are best to err on the side of leaving it out so the text does not lead one astray.
You can see how complex the issue is. In many ways was often do a combination of 3 and 1. Our translations do 3, and we let our preachers do 1 (they may not say the differences don't matter, but by allowing the preacher to even follow the variant form not taken by the translator we are embracing that view to some extent, especially since in those moments the pastors rarely insist on their form or denounce the translator's but only give a preference or another view), which is an interesting balance as they are rather different approaches. #3 works to be as precise as possible, #1 works to be as useful as possible.
But others are used as well. KJV basically does #2. The HCSB is a cross between #3 & #4. The Amplified Bible does basically #4. I'm not sure of any that follow the route of #5.
My personal feelings are that I like the sound of #2 and #4 but really the practice of #3, although I have become more into a mix of #3 & #4 recently. That is, I appreciate and think we ought to do extensive scholastic research to determine the most appropriate text, but where we are less certain and the debate is far more open I think we should err on the side of inclusion.
I don't think the autograph is the only divinely inspired work. Some redaction may equally be a part of God's speaking as was the continued voice of scripture over the centuries across various authors. I am more inclined to believe this on the grounds of included additional words/phrases/stories than excluding or rewording texts (hence my inclination towards inclusion). God added to his voice through new scriptures over time, he didn't remove its voice. Thus a case can be made for redaction as "added inspiration". But that is different from correction and thus we still have a responsibility towards critical scholarship.
As part of the process and the scriptures I think there are also important principles to come into play in determining if a variance can be seen as an appropriate addition to the divine scriptures:
1. How wide-spread and accepted did the variances seem to be? Do we have external evidence of the church embracing the variance? How many manuscripts did include it? How long did the church accept it without question? The reception of a book was part of what also helped determine if it should be canonized. The same principle should apply towards what variance is "canonized" among us. Did God prosper this variant far and above the alternatives? This is done to a degree, but not in determining the value of the text. When scholars ask these questions it wasn't about whether it was a godly message but rather they ask because wide usage often gives credence to it being closer to the original, but not always. Especially in the cases where many of the oldest manuscripts do not attest to the text, then the wide-spread acceptance no longer holds weight over the ancient texts.
2. How does its message match or challenge the teachings of scripture? This especially becomes for me cause for inclusion of many of the variances. So many footnotes will indicate a variant that reflects the biblical truth. This also explains the reasoning for the variation. The scribe makes an addition to clarify or declare a biblical truth (particularly in a place where they may have felt it unclear). This was also part of the discussion of canonization; that the apostolic teachings were reflected. This is the one place where I think scholarship fails in their decisions around inclusion of texts. They regard practical concerns, but weigh the value of the autograph over the message itself. It is not that this is not taken into account, but it usually is only in determining the redactor's motives so that they may better discern which was more likely the result of redaction and which was more likely the original.
These two principles would go a long way though for us. They would reveal I believe what variance has and will best serve the church and relay God's message for us. Furthermore, they allow us to still ultimately honor the original material (since both were used in regards to the judgment of the texts as a whole) and message. They also keep us from fretting about reliability in the sense of needing to be original and only accept the original text while also giving boundaries and limitations to assure us that we do not have free reign to edit the scriptures as we wish. In some ways, this is the #1 that preachers do to the translator's #3. But instead of it being done on an individual level or from congregation to congregation, sermon to sermon this process should receive the same scholastic devotion as other textual critical work receives when assembling a translation. I cannot and should not say it doesn't come into play (especially by our translators since they will make such calls sometimes that differ from each other for reasons likely other than just textual critical belief in the autograph version). But I'd like to see more of it.
Let me come full circle now back to our Acts text that started this conversation and say a few things about that. While many early and reliable manuscripts omit it, we also know it was in use in the church early from outside sources of church fathers who quote it. I personally think it is original to Acts and not a later addition. My reason is twofold: while the story could still be read and flow fine without it, the story reads much more naturally with its inclusion since it actually answers the question, whereas without such it would only imply an answer by Philip's actions. The second reason is I don't see it as likely that it was added because it still remained very primitive in its form.
Some might argue that the Ethiopian's confession that Jesus was "the Son of God" points to a more developed creedal formulation from the initial "Jesus is Lord" (Rom 10.9, Phil 2.11). But Lukan material is not foreign to the confession of Jesus as God's Son (Luke 1.35, 3.38, 22.70, Acts 9.20). Philip's stipulation of belief leading to performing a baptism is consistent to other encounters in Acts (8.12, 16.30-33). Because of these facts it hardly seems out of place in the text.
Although it is possible this verse could have been added because the absence of an answer on Philip's part seemed out of place. Perhaps some found the lack of verbal confession problematic. But more likely as the second-third-fourth generation church would have become more practiced in infant baptism (which we also have attested of by early church fathers) they would seem less inclined to need to include a verbal confession, perhaps even leading to a redaction of omission. The case could be made either way.
The flow of the story, the early external evidence, and the greater consistency the inclusion of the verse creates with other conversions in Acts (although one could argue that the omitted form in which Philip is implying water and a willing spirit is enough is similar to Peter's words in 10.47-48, but that still included a manifestation of the Spirit), all that along with seeing just as good a reason for redactor omission compared to addition all makes me consider it likely original to the text. Although resting there now does not necessarily settle the matter for me. It doesn't account for example why there appears to be two variant strands of verse 37 among the manuscripts that do include it (my sight reading of the Greek may be a little off, but the two variants come to something like And Philip said to him "If you believe with your whole heart you may" and he replied "I believe in Christ the Son of God" or And he said to him "If you believe with your whole heart you may" and he answered "I believe the Son of God is Jesus Christ"). I could imagine that perhaps a scribe, asked to copy a manuscript that omitted the verse, sought to reinsert it from memory (assuming somehow this scribe was aware of the verse by some other means than the manuscript before him). But then I ask am I simply wanting to think that way because it supports my theory for inclusion? But whether settled or not, I currently see good reason to reinsert the verse into the text even if most of our Bible translators and the UBS disagree (of course their overwhelming expertise pointing the other way may say more about this than I am currently aware). And as I said above, even if it is not original, should that stop us from including it if it has an internal consistency and fits appropriately in the story?
Now before people think I am claiming the Bible insists on believer's baptism to the exclusion of baptism of infants because of which way I have leaned in this argument, I have one last contribution to the discussion of authority and disputes that arise around textual variances. This textual variance is a hot-topic one particularly if one feels infant baptism or believer's baptism hinges on this story. And any variance upon which a teaching hinges will instantly become a greater issue and dilemma for the church's discernment.
My feeling on the matter is this: no single variance can make or break a doctrine. That is, no doctrine should ever hinge on a single verse. Doctrine (teaching) of which we stake our faith and faith practices are informed by the wider voice of scripture. Here the Reformation principle that scripture interprets scripture becomes ever important. I know this text with the omission makes a better case for infant baptism and vice versa for believer's baptism. But my belief in the sacramental practice of infant baptism does not hinge on this story. And the Ethiopian confessing Christ does not change the wider voice that tells us to baptize all nations, that saw baptism in place of circumcision, that included Jesus welcoming infants, that insisted one be born of water and Spirit to enter the kingdom of God, that constantly used baptism in the passive voice, that witnessed whole households baptized at the faith of the parent, that concluded the Pentecost sermon with an invitation to repentance and baptism that explicitly stated "for the promise is for you and your children". My point is, especially in places of variance where perhaps we have more concern to doubt what the text says, we should seek the wider voice of scripture so that no variance would lead us astray. I'll also say that even in churches that have held to infant baptism, we have still long called for the baptism to be for faith, and have looked to faithful people to raise the child in the faith it was baptized into. We have also held that those who can confess the faith for themselves are asked to at baptism. For this story in Acts to expect an adult to confess the faith is not contrary to our practice.
Similar to how we should test the variances with the apostolic teaching as a part of discerning which one we think ought be employed, in the end we must let the wider voice continue to speak no matter what is employed. That is, while this verse (or lack thereof) may lead us down one path or another, no single verse - from John 3.16 to Acts 8.37 - stands as the entire path itself. The point of the principle of scripture alone interprets scripture was to prevent outside interpretation/manipulation from twisting the meaning of a single text. And that lets us face the challenge of the variance. It's no guarantee we will get it right (plenty of churches after all have wrongfully excluded many from the great gift of baptism because they were infants), but it makes sure we don't let the variance become an excuse to discard the message or simply do what we want with the Bible. Every part must stand in service to the rest.
Kinda like each member of the body of Christ...
Friday, April 17, 2015
5 MLB Holy Cows!
It's early in the season, but what is nice about the early season is a lot of early surprises. Some will sustain, others will level out to expectations as the season wears on. But I thought I would take a minute to name a few of the holy cow things about this early MLB season:
- The Brewers really stink. And as a Brewer fan I hate this, but this team is really struggling all around. Their pitching has been a disaster, especially the rotation which is ranked 27th in the league with a unsightly 5.68 ERA (and think that includes Jimmy Nelson's 8 shut-out inning performance!). While few had high expectations for the rotation (seeing it largely as an entire rotation of mid-rotation quality lacking a real top rotation arm or bottom feeder) that may not be too surprising, especially as they have played 5 of their 8 games against really good offensive teams (Colorado and St. Louis), teams which have given the Brewers a hard time these last few years. But more disturbing is the offense, which is showing no life. The team is last in the league in home-runs with 3, 27th in runs with 23, but surprisingly have been third best in avoiding strikeouts. This is the opposite of what we have come to expect of this offense. Typically Milwaukee has been classified as a strong offense, especially in the power department but one that strikes out too much and walks too little (although they are still in the bottom half of the league in the walks department). But the lack of hitting was what ruined this team's playoff chances late last year and it has continued (although their best hitter to date has been acquired first baseman Adam Lind). Many pegged this team for 4th in the league, I pegged it for 3rd. But they are digging a hole early in a really deep division. The good news is that this struggling is because both offense and pitching are failing, and at least one is bound to level itself, so how bad they will be all year is still to be seen (although I recently read from fangraphs that the Brewers are one of the teams most likely to really disappoint and struggle, with the author even suggesting a 90+ loss season would not be surprising).
- Nelson Cruz is still hitting home runs. Cruz had a career year last season with Baltimore and it netted him a multi-year 57 million dollar deal. And he is earning his keep, leading the league early with 6 home runs (which if you hadn't noticed was twice the total for the entire Brewers' team!). He's featuring a gaudy OPS of 1.192. Cruz has shown power for years, but between PED scandal and last year being such a career year (and in a hitter friendly AL-East) you had to wonder how much he will bring to the pitcher friendly AL-West. Thus far, he's bringing a lot and making Seattle look good early for their investment (since at this stage in his career, the bat is all they are really investing in from him).
- Alex Rodriguez remembers how to hit. There is a lot of time for regression obviously, but A-Rod is back for the first time in over a year and he is putting up solid numbers, sporting a .286/.394/.571 line through his first nine games. Considering the Yankees have to pay him ludicrous amounts of money, they should be happy to see some early contributions. Half of his hits thus far have been for extra bases. Since he will be primarily a DH, they need that kind of offense from his bat. The Yankees have a lot of problems and performance questions, but so far A-Rod is not one of them. If he keeps it up he could be a candidate for comeback player of the year (although my AL candidates based on early returns are Kendrys Morales and Billy Butler). Who votes for that award? Well, A-Rod has burned so many bridges I'm not sure it matters, short of an MVP season (in which he wouldn't win the award since BWAA votes on that) no one is gonna vote him for any other award.
- The Padres' offensive overhaul seems to be working. For starters, they are hitting some home runs (although still in the bottom half of the league in that regard). But they are 5th in the majors currently for batting average, 7th in OPS, 3rd in doubles, and just missed the top 3rd of the league in runs. While that may not scream elite, it certainly is a serviceable offense, which is a far cry from last year when they were last in doubles, 28th in home runs, last in OPS, last in batting average, and last in runs scored. You gotta love this team's pitching, and if this offense can keep rating in the upper half of the league for hitting they will be in real good shape to compete. They are already ranked 5th in ERA and wins, and 3rd in strikeouts. Their biggest concern currently should be limiting walks as they are among the worst in the league in doing that.
- Shane Greene is off to a surprising start. Greene and Simon came into Detroit replacing Porcello and Scherzer. It didn't seem too favorable of a change. But so far Greene is looking like he could be a great replacement and mainstay for this Detroit team. Through his first two starts, the kid has thrown 16 innings in which he has allowed only one unearned run! He's given up only 7 hits and one walk (good for a .500 WHIP!) although he's only racked up 8 k's (although a k/BB ratio of 8 is quite impressive). Obviously he will give up some runs this year, but he is certainly showing that he should be able to improve upon his 3.78 ERA last year which was good enough to be just above the league average (ERA+ of 102). And if he can bring his strikeout numbers back up (last year a k/9 of 9.3) he could be a really nice get for the Tigers. Most people seemed to think there wasn't much to Greene, but maybe this is a sign that he's made the right adjustments to be an above average pitcher.
Friday, March 6, 2015
2015 MLB Predictions
AL East
- Blue Jays
- Orioles
- Red Sox
- Rays
- Yankees
The American League East is so tough to figure out. The Red Sox have the most balanced team, especially when one considers prospects who may help and versatile players like Holt and Betts to prevent a single injury leading to a major hole. But I'm not convinced about their pitching. Both the rotation and bullpen need to be better than I expect. I also have my doubts about Hanley in LF. Granted it is a much less athletic position than SS, to sign a guy for big bucks and expect him to transition so dramatically on the field is still a lot of risk. I think Sandoval will do well there though. But there is so much potential in all the teams. The Rays have a great rotation and at least are strong on the corner IF spots. I have been high on Steve Souza for a little over a year now, and I think he will do well. But the rest of the team does not impress me. The Orioles were so good the last two years, but they did little to make up for significant losses. The only reason I have them so high is they had four players who could easily out-perform their 2014 (Weiters, Davis, Hardy, and Jimenez). The Yankees, I like their overall plan and I think it will pay dividends, but they still have several players who seem to be crashing, and while several of them could also rebound (Tex, McCann, Beltran, Sabathia, A Rod, Drew) the only two I really expect to make significant improvement are McCann and Drew. Their rotation could actually be really good but has way too many injury concerns at this point. But they could easily be contenders again this year. Ultimately I went with the Blue Jays, because in a wide open division they clearly improved (so did the Sox, but I felt the Jays had less to improve and did so more dramatically). Their pitching certainly has question marks, especially as to how they will use Sanchez. But their offense is on a tier that I'm not sure anyone in baseball can compete with, and their veteran arms Buerle and Dickey both pitch in a style where age does not seem to be as great a concern as it is with most pitchers. And adding Martin will make a difference in the rotation's performance as well as help that already elite offense. If Bautista, Donaldson, and Encarnacion can stay healthy through the year, I just see the team riding on their backs.
AL Central
- White Sox
- Indians
- Royals
- Tigers
- Twins
This may have been the hardest division to figure out. The Royals were in the World Series, the Tigers have been on top for years, the Indians have been sneaky good and the White Sox clearly had the best offseason in the division, perhaps in all of baseball for how well they plugged their holes. The Tigers I brought way down because I think they are a year older and suffered some key losses. Martinez was brought back off a career year only to get injured already. I'm curious if JD Martinez will continue to thrive, he may be a late bloomer since he credits an adjustment to his approach at the plate to his success. And I do like Cespedes as a replacement for Hunter. But this team lost Porcello and Scherzer and their work to replace them doesn't come close. A turnaround by Verlander, though unlikely, would be a huge boost. The Royals likewise are hurt by the loss of Shields and Butler. They could surprise though and be even better, as Volquez & Medlen are quality, affordable pickups with some real upside. Morales could perhaps mirror Butler's performance last year but I'm skeptical. In the end I like the Indians and the Sox, who both have fantastic rotations and offenses to support them. Both teams seem poised to be contenders in my view. In this whole division depth may be the real question, as no team particularly impresses me in that department except the Twins who are probably the only ones not really able to compete for the top of the division this year (barring a fast and successful rise by some of their stud prospects).
AL West
- Angels
- Mariners
- Rangers
- Athletics
- Astros
This is another tough division to work out. The Angels were so good last year I will keep them on top even if their offseason did not do much to impress me. Although with Hamilton now facing a suspension they are probably really loving that deal to get Matt Joyce. They would also be well suited to trade with Boston for Allen Craig, who is versatile enough to help this team at first (should Pujols get injured or Cron not take the next step forward) or OF (especially now with the likely suspended Hamilton). I think a lot depends on how some of their young pitchers return from injury. The Mariners started looking like a real threat last year, and they got better in their offense. Nelson Cruz, especially as a DH primarily will be a huge boost for this team. Add in a Smith/Ruggiano platoon, and returning hitters like Seager, Jackson, and Cano and you got quite the team. That isn't even factoring in the fact that Jesus Montero is the talk of spring training in the shape he showed up in, and may finally blossom for this team. Put all that with an elite and deep rotation and you got yourself a contender. The next three though were really tough to figure out. The Rangers previous year can't be used in any way to determine how good they will be because they were that injured. The A's are hard to write off, and had such a weird offseason by adding guys like Zobrist and Butler while dealing J-Shark and Donaldson while also watching some players depart via free agency. In the end I think they will falter because of it, even if I am betting against Billy Beane. The Astros are on the brink but probably another season away from really rising. I thought this was the offseason for them to sign Scherzer when he had such a small market, they had few financial commitments and TWO protected first round picks. But they passed, but I did like the Lowrie pickup. In the end though they need a few more prospects to become quality major leaguers before I predict them atop the division.
Wildcard Teams
- Mariners
- Indians
I originally had the Orioles as my second wild card team, but the more I thought about that Indians team, the more I liked them. The Orioles are still good enough to make this, really with two Wild Cards so many teams are able to make it. Honestly, the two wild card system with a one game playoff was one of the best recent changes in baseball. I know many don't like the one game playoff, but I think it raises the stakes on being a division winner over a wild card winner and keeps the addition from making the playoffs that much longer. The only downside is your team could be in the playoffs and never get to play at home. The argument that one game is not enough to truly judge the better team only goes so far, since you could make that case easily in regards to best of 3 or 5 series, perhaps even best of 7 series. That is how the playoffs are, the better team doesn't necessarily win it all because sometimes someone struggles or thrives at the right time.
ALCS Winner
White Sox
This team should have the rotation, backend bullpen, and offense combination to go deep in the playoffs. I think this will be their year.
AL Cy Young
Chris Sale
King Felix is the safer choice, but Sale is the better one. And his improved team should bear fruits in wins. People can say all they want about wins (and I get it), but when you have dominant stats AND wins it makes a difference.
AL MVP
Mike Trout
Jose Abreu would be my other choice. But really, I think we should get used to Trout taking home the award, especially as WAR becomes so important to so many writers, and Trout being in CF his production and defense is valued higher by WAR than it is from guys like Abreu.
AL ROY
Runny Castillo
I'm going with the young Cuban talent. He showed well last year, and should really get plenty of PT to rack up the stats he needs. His recent injury, depending how long the recovery is (and if they have him do an extended spring training or time in the minors) may make me alter my pick to Steven Souza. Tate and Pompey from Toronto are two sleepers of mine.
NL East
- Nationals
- Marlins
- Mets
- Braves
- Phillies
This was the easiest division to predict. It's bottom teams made intentional efforts to forfeit 2015 in return for a brighter future years from now. The already elite Nationals added Max Scherzer. The Marlins added talent to accompany their excellent outfield and recovering ace pitcher. I don't expect anyone to really come close to Washington. Even if they played below expectations or suffered a major injury to one or two of their stars they are that loaded of a team. The Mets fit nicely in 3rd place. They are clearly a team on the rise, but did not do enough this offseason to convince me they will be able to take on the top two in the division. But they could be real good real soon, with a break or two, maybe even sooner than I'm predicting.
NL Central
- Cardinals
- Cubs
- Brewers
- Pirates
- Reds
This was another really tough division. The Cardinals I am not betting against. Not after that franchise proving their place year after year and nothing really happening in this offseason to change that. Each year they are good enough to be considered a World Series contender. It was after them that was hard to figure out. I'm banking on a big year from the Cubs. They aggressively added some talent to a team that quietly had a strong second half last year already. And they have more talent on the way. Soler and Bryant will likely be a dangerous young duo to pair with their already established duo of Castro and Rizzo. Add to that a powerful (albeit strikeout prone) Baez and a talented Russell. They have depth for trades or injuries. And then look at their rotation which is surprisingly deep with Arrietta (a pickup I loved for them from the start), Lester, Hammel (a move I'm not as big on given his overall career does not support his first half performance last year), Hendricks, Wood, and Jackson and Wada (who had a quietly good debut last year). That means even if some of their question marks like Hendricks or Hammel under-perform they have good in-house replacements already! The Brewers, I'm betting on a middle of the road performance like last year ended up being. They played over their heads early on and way worse than they really were in August-September. An 80-84 win season seems right. But they are one of those teams who could really surprise and do better (the talent is there) or collapse enough early to go into a fire-sale given the number of players in contract years. My biggest concern for Milwaukee is the lack of an ace. They have a solid and balanced rotation, but no ace. They also made a mistake I think by not getting a platoon partner for at least one of Gennett and Lind. The Pirates too could be better, but I'm anticipating that AJ Burnett's second tour will be less successful and the loss of Russell Martin will hurt way more than many think. But I wouldn't be surprised necessarily if they and the Cubs or Brewers switched spots. Even the Reds who I got picked for last place could be contenders. Even after trading Latos and Simon they have a strong rotation and IF their stars all remained healthy this would be a dangerous team. Basically after St. Louis this division is wide open.
NL West
- Dodgers
- Padres
- Giants
- Diamondbacks
- Rockies
I will be a sucker for this Padres team, although I have my doubts. They aren't better than the Dodgers, who along with the talent have some minor league depth as well. I also think Meyers and Upton may struggle offensively in PETCO. Not to subpar levels, but they won't produce like some expect them to in that park. But any offense may be all the Padres need with their rotation, which they strengthened by adding Shields. As much as I am a fan of McGehee, the Giants did not answer to the loss of Sandoval at all, and now Pence is injured too. Although I do like the addition of Aoki. That was one of the best contracts of the offseason. A strong year from Cain could put them in second, but I'm not planning on it. The bottom part was hard to rank, because while I clearly saw these two as bottom dwellers I'm not sure who I prefer where. I put the Diamondbacks second only because I think their star (Goldschmidt) is a more reliable one than the Rockies have and I liked the Tomas signing, which ended up being way cheaper than I expected it to be to sign him. But overall I didn't like either offseason.
Wildcard Teams
- Marlins
- Padres
These two teams worked for it and I expect their offseasons to pay off. I may be unwise betting against the NL Central that has been consistently providing wildcard teams, but I'm not betting against the Marlins's outfield or the Padres's pitching. But like I already said, two Wild Cards leaves things wide open, and with exception to the Diamonbacks, Rockies, Phillies, and Braves I would not be surprised to see any of the 11 other teams in the playoffs. But the wild card is where I expect the action to be as picking division winners in the National League was a lot easier.
NLCS Winner
Nationals
Easy choice. This team was already in my view the best on paper at the start of the offseason and they got better. They have a championship rotation and star offense. I have a hard time seeing where this team has any cracks (although they will miss Clippard in their pen).
Easy choice. This team was already in my view the best on paper at the start of the offseason and they got better. They have a championship rotation and star offense. I have a hard time seeing where this team has any cracks (although they will miss Clippard in their pen).
NL Cy Young
Clayton Kershaw
Until Fernandez in MIA proves he's healthy again, I got no one I would think of picking over Kershaw, who is right now what Verlander was a few years ago and then some.
Until Fernandez in MIA proves he's healthy again, I got no one I would think of picking over Kershaw, who is right now what Verlander was a few years ago and then some.
NL MVP
Troy Tulowitzki
I'm going to be risky here. Tulo has shown over and over he has all the skills, but just can't stay healthy. This year even he seemed destined for the MVP until the pain came. He is so good no one even questions the Coors Field factor in his talent. Since all it takes is health, he's young enough still I'll bet on that.
I'm going to be risky here. Tulo has shown over and over he has all the skills, but just can't stay healthy. This year even he seemed destined for the MVP until the pain came. He is so good no one even questions the Coors Field factor in his talent. Since all it takes is health, he's young enough still I'll bet on that.
NL ROY
Jorge Soler
There were definitely some options here. Bryant may even be the wiser choice, but I bet he won't start the season with the club so Chicago can control him another year, which gives Soler the advantage. Tomas could also take this. But Soler has already shown in a small sample size he can hit major league pitching. So I'm putting my stock in him.
WORLD SERIES WINNER
Nationals
This team went from elite to even more elite. Chicago, even though all the right pieces are there, still aren't enough for me to bet against what the Nats have to bring.
Now it's time for the season to start, when predictions go out the window and what you are on paper doesn't even matter!
WORLD SERIES WINNER
Nationals
This team went from elite to even more elite. Chicago, even though all the right pieces are there, still aren't enough for me to bet against what the Nats have to bring.
Now it's time for the season to start, when predictions go out the window and what you are on paper doesn't even matter!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)