Real Fellowship and the Semantics of Koinonia

The next issue of Bible Study Magazine will ship soon and there is a very insightful, well-written article exploring the meaning of koinonia (often glossed "fellowship") in the New Testament. My opinion of the article is in no way biased toward the fact that I wrote it. (No, I'm not that arrogant. It's a joke.)

Here's an excerpt of what I wrote for the magazine (published with permission, of course). If you haven't already, I highly recommend subscribing if you are looking to learn more about the Bible from a Christian perspective in a clear, non-threatening way.

greek word study without greek

Koinonia

If you’ve been part of a church community, you may have noticed how some words acquire “churchy” meanings—like “fellowship.” When is the last time you got together with your colleagues after work for “fellowship”? Never. But in church, we have fellowship luncheons that are held in fellowship halls and we get together for fellowship in our fellowship groups. When we overuse a word, it can lose its meaning. Our overuse of “fellowship” makes an important point in 1 John fall flat.

“That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. … If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:3, 6–7).

We can determine the meaning of fellowship in this passage by examining it within a New Testament context. To do that, we have to find the Greek root word behind the English term. Using the esv English–Greek Reverse Interlinear, we find that the Greek word underlying “fellowship” is koinōnia (κοινωνία).

To read the rest of the article, check out March–April ’11 issue of Bible Study Magazine.

WHAT!!! I cut you off right before we get to the best part where I actually explain what koinonia means? Now you have to buy the magazine? Sorry about that, but thems the rules.

Year Zero and Other Observations

'Tis the season when Christmas music has taken over the airwaves at home, at the mall, and in the car. While struggling to manage a semblance of holiday cheer, I have three somewhat random observations (i.e., pet peeves) inspired by things I've heard said in various Christmas songs.

1. THERE IS NO YEAR ZERO. The Gregorian calendar goes from 1 B.C. (or B.C.E.) to 1 A.D. (or C.E.). Even if there was a year zero, it's not the year of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. The change of era was off by a few years. If we accept the Gospel of Matthew account, Herod the Great was alive and well when Jesus was born, and Jesus's family lived in Egypt for some months or perhaps even years until Herod died. Herod died in 4 B.C. Jesus's birth must have been before 4 B.C. at the latest. Update: This online article from Biblical Archaeology Review discusses the date and location of Jesus's birth.

2. "In excelsis Deo" from the hymn "Angels we have heard on high" is NOT to be pronounced "in ex-Celsius Deo." Latin only has a hard /c/ like English /k/. Proper choir pronunciation (which doesn't follow pure Latin) is "in egg-shell-sis Deo." But whatever you do, "Celsius" should not leave your lips.

3. Christendom. It's pronounced "Chris-en-dom", not Christian-dom, as in "the belfries of all Christendom" from "I saw 3 ships."

Well, I feel better just getting those observations off my chest. I am now  free to celebrate Christmas as my usual cheerful and festive self.

Oh, one more thing. I drove by a billboard yesterday that had a picture of Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus. Joseph was wearing a leather vest and he looked an awful lot like Inigo Montoya from the Princess Bride.

My random Christmas observations are ended.

Merry Christmas!

New Evidence from Ps 23 for the Divine Council

If you never learn the biblical languages, then your exegesis could always be derailed by a multitude of English homonyms, not to mention real semantic issues like range of meaning. My sense of humor tends toward puns and dry wit, sometimes hilarity ensues, sometimes it elicits groans. Anyway, a random thought occurred to me today in conversation about a shepherd's staff for a nativity costume. I think we can use Psa. 23:4b as proof that God has a divine entourage. Here's my gratuitous translation proving it.

Your club and your staff, they console me.

There you have it, proof of the divine council. God has a staff. Their job is to console. (If you don't get it, remember what I said about homonyms and read it again.)

If you want a much better example of how a literal over-reading of Scripture creates humor, Scott's old post here is one of my all-time favorites.

Recently . . .

Like John, I'm preparing for preliminary exams (our version of comps - but I have until July 27). At the moment, I'm finishing up with William Dever's book Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (2003). Dever apparently likes long questions for titles. The last book of his I had to read was What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? The book gives a broad overview of the theories on Israelite origins and especially develops Dever's own preferred version of an indigenous origins model. I think he may be right in many ways, but that's not why I'm writing.

Dever has a tendency to introduce quotations from secondary literature using the adverb "recently." For example, "Thomas Thompson has . . . stated recently that . . ." or "other biblical scholars have also weighed in recently . . . Diana Edelman . . . begins her chapter . . ." (pp. 191-192). These are just two representative examples from pages that I've read in the last few minutes. It caught my attention earlier in the book, too, and struck me as odd because most of the literature he's citing in these contexts is not what I would call recent.  I consider "recent" to refer mainly to the immediate past. In scholarship, a book that came out in the prior 2-3 years is passable enough as "recent."  Now the dictionary does give a technical meaning of "recent" from geology that pertains to the last 10,000 years, so in that sense, Dever's citing "recent" literature.

Thompson's book from which Dever quotes on p. 191 was from 1977. Edelman's book - 1996. And one earlier occurrence that I noticed was directed at a book from 1989. 

Granted, an adverb of time is often relative to the perception of the user, but 1977 was before I was born.  In 1996, I graduated from High School. In 1989, I started 6th grade.

So is the last 32 years of Bible scholarship that vivid and immediate to Dever that he feels it can all be accurately referred to as "recent" or is it just a stylistic tic that a good editor should have pointed out and corrected?

Thoughts? What qualifies as "recently"?

Detecting that hint of irony: a few tips

It's unfortunate that so many of the nuances of irony or facetiousness are best detected through spoken language. It can be very difficult to determine if a writer (myself in this case) is making a serious claim or inserting a tongue-in-cheek remark. I suppose it's a by-product of my dry sense of humor. It's indirect and delivered in a matter-of-fact style. At least it would be if it was spoken. For those of you who have difficulty detecting irony in print, here are a few tips to help you.

1. If it sounds like a throw-away remark or an "aside" (that is, something I would mutter under my breath), then it's probably not a serious claim.

2. If I couch it in words meant to convey uncertainty like "possibly" or "maybe" or "perhaps" AND the statement seems incongruous with demonstrable facts, then it may be something that's not intended to be taken literally.

3. Related to #2, if you are able to prove the statement is patently false or at least highly unlikely based on information available to you, then there's a good chance I already knew that and did not expect you to be taking it so literally as to be fact-checking on something I didn't really think was accurate in the first place.

4. Use of parentheses. If I make a statement and place it in parentheses, your first thought should be that it might be an aside (see #1). If said statement also conforms to one or more of the other clues given here, then it's probably a facetious remark.

5. If you read it and your first reaction is, "really?" (indicating you're on the cusp of belief but still uncertain and need that final confirmation), then the answer is probably, "No, not really."

6. If you typically don't get the jokes when people around you are verbally using irony, sarcasm, satire, wit, or some other facetiousness, forget about it. You're not going to get it in print either.

That's all I can think of for now. Of course, humor is less humorous once you've had to explain the joke. Consider this a fair warning. My statements are not always meant to be taken seriously. On the other hand, I try to limit the use of humor to only a few remarks now and then. So please don't write off everything I say as just a joke. Remember...just a hint of irony. (A hint is a small amount, barely perceptible. I can't believe I had to explain that to you. Seriously.)

Holiness in the Hebrew Bible

In the Hebrew Bible, the root *qds “to be holy” refers exclusively to the state of being set apart because of associations with the sacred (i.e., connected to deity). There are also implications for maintaining that sacred status by keeping free from sin. God’s holiness requires him to dissociate from sin.

The concept of holiness in relation to God has two levels. One is the inviolable sacredness of God himself. This is the ultimate association with God as infinitely set apart and unique, worthy of worship and status as God. This is seen in the divine name common in Isaiah “The Holy One of Israel.” The second is the earthly acknowledgement of God’s worth and uniqueness and status as God. A few examples may help make this more clear. Many passages talk about having a proper respect and fear of God.

Leviticus 10:3 Then Moses said to Aaron, "It is what the LORD spoke, saying, 'By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.'" So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.

Ezekiel 36:23 "I will vindicate the holiness of My great name which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD," declares the Lord GOD, "when I prove Myself holy among you in their sight.

Leviticus 22:32 "You shall not profane My holy name, but I will be sanctified among the sons of Israel; I am the LORD who sanctifies you,

Some of the examples bring in the idea of “profaneness” or “uncleanness.” It is sometimes helpful (linguistically) to attempt to define a term according to its opposite. In Ezek. 36:23 and Lev. 22:32, “profane” means treat as common or not acknowledge the sacredness or violate the sacredness by not respecting and honoring it. The concept of holiness is often contrasted with the state of being “common” as in not-sacred or “unclean” as in not fit for sacred uses.

Another aspect of holiness is seen in God’s desire to have a specific place for his presence that is considered sacred.

Exodus 25:8 "Let them construct a sanctuary [miqdash] for Me, that I may dwell among them.

Deuteronomy 26:15 'Look down from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel, and the ground which You have given us, a land flowing with milk and honey, as You swore to our fathers.'

2 Chronicles 29:5 Then he said to them, "Listen to me, O Levites. Consecrate yourselves now, and consecrate the house of the LORD, the God of your fathers, and carry the uncleanness out from the holy place. [i.e. the Temple]

The Hebrew Bible turns to focus on human holiness in Leviticus 17-26. This section of the book is called “The Holiness Code” because it uses the word *qds so much. Leviticus 19 is an important section. It starts out with:

Leviticus 19:2 "Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, 'You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.

The chapter goes on to outline specific commandments of God that are placed in the context of what it means to fulfill this command to be holy because God is holy. In effect, it’s saying here’s what one should do to be holy – obey God in these things.

The sense in which people are commanded to pursue holiness is in setting themselves apart from sin. The Bible also points out how God has set apart a chosen people to be holy.

Leviticus 11:44-45 ⁴⁴ 'For I am the LORD your God. Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy, for I am holy. And you shall not make yourselves unclean with any of the swarming things that swarm on the earth. ⁴⁵ 'For I am the LORD who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'"

Joshua 24:19 ¹⁹ Then Joshua said to the people, "You will not be able to serve the LORD, for He is a holy God. He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgression or your sins.

Leviticus 20:26 'Thus you are to be holy to Me, for I the LORD am holy; and I have set you apart from the peoples to be Mine.

Exodus 19:6 and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel."

An important theme in the book of Ezekiel focuses on how Israel sinned and failed to keep themselves set apart from the sins they were warned about in Leviticus. So it would seem that the primary emphasis of holiness in the Hebrew Bible is on the earthly aspect of human acknowledgement or awareness of God as holy coupled with proper behavior that should derive from that awareness of God’s holiness. Perhaps this understanding of holiness can bring us a little closer to understanding the refrain repeated again and again in the book of Ezekiel – “and they shall know that I am the LORD.” It is as if God were saying, “I’ll make them see. Surely after this, they will acknowledge my holiness.”

Ezekiel 5:13 "Thus shall my anger spend itself, and I will vent my fury upon them and satisfy myself. And they shall know that I am the Lord—that I have spoken in my jealousy— when I spend my fury upon them.

Big Words, Simple Meanings

Here's another good word to add to the everyday vocabulary. Indefatigable. It's a big word with a relatively simple meaning -- "untiring" or "not able to be tired out." It's especially appropriate to use in reference to God in Isaiah 40:28.

Have you not known? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. (ESV)

Use the word at parties, impress your friends, look smarter. You know, the everyday benefits of a graduate education.

Good Text Criticism Word

The M-W Word of the Day for today has a familiar ring for text critics. The word is "haplology" \hap-LAH-luh-jee\ , the "contraction of a word by omission of one or more similar sounds or syllables." Haplology is more commonly used to refer to spoken language. We're more familiar with the term as it relates to written language, "haplography" -- the accidental omission of a letter or group of letters that should be repeated. When we come across problems of haplography in the Hebrew Bible, we usually assume a scribal error. I wonder if some of the instances of haplography visible in the text could be instances of haplology, that is, based on a different pronunciation, not a writing mistake. I don't know if this is the case. I'm not sure how one would detect the difference, but I'll keep thinking about it.