Biblical Sermons, Commentaries, and Essays
Recently, the author of this blog posting heard online an otherwise good Christian sermon based on Chapter 10 of the Book of Luke, a sermon that was regrettably impaired by one flaw. This sermon began promisingly enough by exploring the conditions under which it is advisable to be vulnerable (no extra shoes or luggage, etc.) when venturing forth to spread the gospel. Such evangelists, being without dedicated supply lines, are like lambs among wolves. The 70 (or 72) evangelists sent out in pairs by Jesus were directed to “set up shop” for peace and healing in every town and place that were about to be visited by Jesus. Such locations would wind up being classified, retrospectively, either as “welcoming towns” or as “unwelcoming towns.” When leaving either type of town, these 70 (or 72) evangelists were to proclaim the positive message that “the Kingdom of God has come close to you.”
However, in order to complete the unitary (single and complete) train of thought based on Luke 10:1-12, it should be noted that the evangelists departing from an unwelcoming town were also told to wipe the dust off of their feet as a warning against that town’s ways. The unwelcoming town thereby elicited from Jesus the ominous pronouncement to the effect that “It will be more tolerable on ‘that day’ (the day of judgment) for the city of Sodom than for the unwelcoming town just left behind.” This comment presupposes that the city of Sodom had previously set a high bar for maximally sinful behavior, a high bar that is nevertheless surpassed by the unwelcoming town under consideration. Ultimately, one might argue about the results of a competition for the “worst of the worst” places, towns or cities; but wouldn’t it be a lot easier (i.e., more straightforward) merely to strive for the status of “welcoming town”?
Why does the Zeitgeist consider Luke 10:12 to be so “radioactive” that it may be neither explored nor mentioned? (Related discussions of other cities exist in Luke 10:13-24.) Clearly, what is needed is an authoritative Biblical commentary or book of essays, which includes Luke 10:12 and offers a way to finesse its interpretation. But, of course, one surmises that the entire problem is that no authorities have survived the Zeitgeist’s contemporary reign of terror. Not volunteering, as he most certainly is not, to receive theological tumbril-service at the present time, the present writer will also not elaborate upon Luke 10:12 in this essay. On the other hand, the present writer is now sufficiently motivated to contemplate writing a limited series of Biblical commentaries or essays that might help promote mental clarity and avoid regrettable exegetical shortcuts.
A commentary is an explanation of, or an opinion about, a given text at hand. An essay is a short work on, or an “attempt at,” a topic presumably written up as a text elsewhere. Regarding either a text or a topic: Exegesis is a particular instance of interpretation (determination of meaning, including authorial intent); whereas hermeneutics is the general theory and methodology of interpretation (including the interpreter’s own viewpoint and presuppositions).
Commentaries on books of the Christian Bible may start with exegesis; but they inevitably incorporate some related topics from history, philosophy, sociology, etc. At what point does the sheer volume of such related topics swamp out the Biblical exegesis and turn a purported commentary (text-based) into an essay (topic-based)? Here, “swamping out” means overly reducing the analytical emphasis on authorial intent in favor of the interpreter’s own viewpoint.
It might be best to view the writing at hand as an introduction to a proposed series of hybrid commentary-essays on Biblical texts, as well as on some topics in the history and philosophy of religion (primarily Christianity). For simplicity, these hybrid writings will be called essays; which will be indexed, or brought to mind, by many - - but not all - - of the successive books, chapters, and verses of the Protestant Bible (sixty-six books without apocrypha). In these essays, some topics may be of more interest to Protestants (e.g., the theory with the acronym “TULIP”); while other topics may be of more appeal to Catholics (e.g., the Vincentian Canon or some ideas from G.K. Chesterton).
The Bible considers faith as trust, as in Matt. 6:28-30, which poses the question “Will God not clothe you better than the grass and the lilies of the field - - O ye of little faith?” Dealing, as Paul Tillich does, with faith as the object of “ultimate concern,” one might think that there would be widespread agreement about the Bible’s meaning and application to questions of faith and practice. Alas, not only are there civilizational differences about what faith is; but there are also seemingly innumerable anxieties besetting religious believers: Ontological anxieties (What is the most real?), moral anxieties (What are the criteria for right action?), and spiritual anxieties (What are the grounds, if any, for rejecting the thesis of the ultimate meaninglessness of life? Or for rejecting the thesis that the existence of other minds cannot be philosophically proven?).
If one were only seeking agreement among Christians, then one might perhaps hope for a greater chance of success in resolving all theological issues in an utterly perspicacious manner via Biblical commentaries or essays. However, some attempted resolutions seem to leave behind irreducible disagreement (e.g., Luke 10:12); while others are more likely to lead to mental clarity and agreement (e.g., Matt. 6:28-30). But “hope springs eternal,” and some commentaries or essays may possibly promote common understanding.
Apologetics is, generally speaking, a presentation of evidence and rational arguments in defense of deeply held beliefs. That evidence may come from Biblical commentaries or essays, and the results may help remove conceptual clutter impairing religious judgment. Apologetics in the form of certain Platonic dialogs (Apology, Crito, Phaedo, and Euthyphro) predates the New Testament. For example, Euthyphro poses the controversial question: Is something good because the gods approve of it; or do the gods approve of something because it is good? Later, apologetics came to be known as the rational defense of the Christian faith, often in the “Areopagus” or “Mars Hill” mode of debate found in Acts 17:16-34. (One recalls that the Greek “Areopagus” refers to the Greek god Ares or to the Roman god Mars. The “Hill” in this case was in Athens.) Martin Luther and John Calvin thought that their commentaries might help to increase the accessibility of Scripture by lay persons and to promote the apologetics underlying such Reformation ideas as justification by faith alone.
Orthodox starting point: In the 400’a A.D. the Vincentian Canon was written in support of Christian doctrinal orthodoxy, where doctrine is “what is taught” and orthodoxy is right, correct, or true (ortho) thinking or opinion (doxa). In this rather optimistic view, Christian doctrinal orthodoxy is “what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” (Here, “everywhere” refers to the known Greco-Roman world and its immediate border regions; “always” refers to historical time since Jesus walked on the Earth; and “by all” means “by all Christians.”) For the sake of self-consistency, however, Christian doctrine has come to be thought of as including tradition, reason, and the development of doctrine; because, among those things widely believed and held in high regard, one finds the following concepts:
First, the concept of the “democracy of the dead” (G.K. Chesterton, in his book, Orthodoxy [Chapter IV]) implies that all spiritually engaged Christians have a say (or a “vote”), in what is believed, independent of their current status as being dead or alive. (One does wonder about normalization, or how the effect of increasing total population over time affects the weighted value of past votes.) This is the source of tradition (what is handed down).
Second, the life of the human mind, with its limited logos, or reason, seems to run parallel to the life of the unlimited Logos, or Word of God, through which all things were made (John 1:3). Without such parallelism there could be no perception of God in physical nature; no recognition of God’s own invisible qualities, power, and divine nature; no understanding of God from what has been made; and, contra Romans 1:20, abundant excuses for mankind to be and to remain ignorant of God.
Finally, some theologians find that the ongoing application of human reason to Christian doctrine leads, over long periods of time, to ever more highly articulated doctrine and - - if not exactly to an asymptotic approach of the Hegelian Zeitgeist to Absolute Knowing - - at least to a modest development of Christian doctrine over time (J.H. Newman). This viewpoint was strongly opposed by C.S. Lewis in the Preface to his book “Mere Christianity,” in which he maintained that calling someone a Christian is like calling someone a gentleman (in the original British sense): We are dealing with a description of belief in the case of a purported Christian; and with certain facts about land ownership and possession of a coat of arms in the case of a purported gentleman. In Lewis’ view, we must we stick to the original, obvious meanings of simple, unwavering, and, hence, time-independent doctrines when assessing a network of beliefs.
We will now turn, in subsequent blog posts, to the presentation of essays on selected Biblical books in English translation (most commonly, the NIV). It is anticipated that some references may also be made, occasionally, to the Bible Hub online resource for Hebrew and Greek. Finally, the Schlachter 2000 German translation of the Bible has also been found to be useful. The first essay will start with the first part of the book of Genesis.