Q: We have been following Glenn Beck's Faith, Hope & Charity, Restoring Honor Movement. He spoke of the "Black Robe Brigade" where leaders of faith from all religions are coming together to restore honor with the understanding that honor requires faith. Faith in something larger and more powerful than ourselves with an emphasis on salvation being "individual" and not "collective". We were curious if our church is supporting this movement?
A: This is a hard question to answer. On a personal level I must say that I enjoy watching Glenn Beck’s program. Far from being the “hate-monger” his critics make him out to be, he is a passionate believer in small government, conservative fiscal policies, and authorial intent when considering the constitution. I am encouraged by his “civics” approach to communicating his message. A history lesson is always a good thing…right? What I have heard him say about the "Faith, Hope & Charity" theme is solid and quite ingenious. Where I begin to have a problem is with the syncretistic (a blending of different elements from different religions) nature of his theology. It seems that he quotes the Bible frequently and with good effect, yet as a Mormon he has a whole different take on the message of the Bible and the nature of “faith”. As an “edu-tainer” in the area of history, civic responsibility, and political theory, and insightful political commentary I think he is a very positive influence. However, I do not see him as a spiritual leader, or Christian evangelist who brings true revival.
On the level of whether “our church is supporting this movement” I would have to say no, and yes. If by the “church” you are asking if we as pastors and leaders of this congregation (Beaverton Foursquare) are joining ourselves with Beck in his ecumenical, syncretistic, quasi-religious political revival, then the answer is no. It is not our calling from God. The gospel that we preach is simply “Christ and him crucified”, not some kind of political reformation. However, if by “church” you mean the people that gather here regularly to worship God and be instructed in the Bible, and then go into the marketplace, the schools, the community to be salt and light…then I am sure that some of them are supporting Beck’s movement. There may be many that listen to or watch his programs, there may be some that attend his rallies, but I hope that they are discerning enough to separate his conservative historical/political teachings from his progressive religious statements.
Here is a link to a recent article on this subject: http://www.worldmag.com/articles/17113
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
What about Mark 16:9-20 and John 8:1-8?
Q: There are a few places in Scripture where the footnotes indicate that not all the ancient manuscripts agree on the wording, or even that it's found in Scripture. Prominent in my head are the end of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. Because these are not consistently found in those manuscripts, is there any reason to think they are less legitimate?
A: Another good question Ken. There are very few disputed sections of scripture. Here you mention certainly the two largest and most well known. In such cases it is good to investigate why translators have questions about the text. When compared to the entire body of scripture the number of scribal errors and textual variants is extremely small. It is also good to note that none of these passages affects any major doctrine of the Christian faith. With the two passages you mention, there is very little doubt that they were not originally park of the writing of Mark or John, however that does not necessarily call into question their validity. A good conservative Bible commentary or two [such as the Expositor’s Bible Commentary series (EBC), The New International Commentary of the New Testament (NIC-NT)] should provide helpful insight. Let’s look at them separately via some commentary quotes:
John 8:1-11.
“Although this narrative is included in the sequence of the outline, it can hardly have belonged to the original text of this Gospel. It is absent from most of the oldest copies of the Gospel that precede the sixth century and from the works of the earliest commentators. To say that it does not belong in the Gospel is not identical with rejecting it as unhistorical. Its coherence and spirit show that it was preserved from a very early time, and it accords well with the known character of Jesus. It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the original text.” (Merrill C. Tenney, in EBC)
“But if we cannot feel that this story is part of John’s Gospel, we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It rings true. It speaks to our condition. And it can scarcely have been composed in the early church with its sternness about sexual sin. It is thus worth our while to study it, though it may not be an authentic part of John’s writing. The story is undoubtedly very ancient.” (Leon Morris in NIC-NT)
Mark 16:9-20
“As regards the Longer Ending itself, it may be roughly described as showing knowledge of the subject-matter of John 20, the story of Mary Magdalene, along with that of Luke 24, the Emmaus Road, and Matthew 28, the great commission.
It is, in fact, a short harmony of resurrection appearances, a skeleton which can easily be filled in from the other Gospel narratives….
Therefore it seems reasonable to see this as an early attempt, known at least as early as Irenaeus, to ‘round off’ a Gospel whose original ending has become in some way maimed or lost; that several such attempts were made is obvious from the different versions circulating…
What, then, is the theological value of the Longer Ending? It may be compared with the story of the woman taken in adultery, in John viii, as an example of an early tradition which may very well be genuine and is undoubtedly primitive, but does not belong to the actual Gospel text as it stand. In the case of the Marcan ending we can go further; the contents are in any case evangelical, even if perhaps derived from other Evangels, and there is always the strong likelihood that this is an ‘official ending’, subjoined to a sort of ‘second addition’ of Mark. We know so very little about the actual circumstances of the primary composition and first written forms of the Gospel that it is unwise to be dogmatic. We shall therefore comment briefly upon it…However, it would be unwise to build any theological position upon these verses alone; and this no responsible Christian group has done. (R. Alan Cole, The Gospel According to Mark, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, pp. 258-9.)
“The break in the continuity of the narrative seems to indicate that vv. 9-20 were not originally a part of Mark's Gospel but are rather a summary of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus composed independently…
The Gospel of Mark has four different endings, but only two of them have any significant claim to being authentic: (1) the ending that concludes the gospel with v. 8 and (2) the so-called Longer Ending (vv. 9-20)…
External and especially internal evidence make it difficult to escape the conclusion that vv. 9-20 were originally not a part of the Gospel of Mark. One further question arises: Did Mark actually intend to end his Gospel at 16:8? If he did not, then either (1) the Gospel was never completed, or (2) the last page was lost before it was multiplied by copyists.
Although there are staunch supporters of the view that it was Mark's intention to end his Gospel with 16:8, this view does not adequately explain (1) why the early church felt so strongly its lack of completion, witnessed by the insertion of both the Shorter and Longer endings; (2) why a book that purports to be the "good news about Jesus Christ" should end with the women being afraid (even allowing for Mark's emphasis on the awesomeness and mystery of Christ's person); and (3) why there is no recorded fulfillment of Jesus' promised post-resurrection appearance in Galilee to Peter and the other disciples (cf. 16:7).
Thus the best solution seems to be that Mark did write an ending to his Gospel but that it was lost in the early transmission of the text. The endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking.” (Walter W. Wessell in EBC)
So Ken, I hope that helps!
A: Another good question Ken. There are very few disputed sections of scripture. Here you mention certainly the two largest and most well known. In such cases it is good to investigate why translators have questions about the text. When compared to the entire body of scripture the number of scribal errors and textual variants is extremely small. It is also good to note that none of these passages affects any major doctrine of the Christian faith. With the two passages you mention, there is very little doubt that they were not originally park of the writing of Mark or John, however that does not necessarily call into question their validity. A good conservative Bible commentary or two [such as the Expositor’s Bible Commentary series (EBC), The New International Commentary of the New Testament (NIC-NT)] should provide helpful insight. Let’s look at them separately via some commentary quotes:
John 8:1-11.
“Although this narrative is included in the sequence of the outline, it can hardly have belonged to the original text of this Gospel. It is absent from most of the oldest copies of the Gospel that precede the sixth century and from the works of the earliest commentators. To say that it does not belong in the Gospel is not identical with rejecting it as unhistorical. Its coherence and spirit show that it was preserved from a very early time, and it accords well with the known character of Jesus. It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the original text.” (Merrill C. Tenney, in EBC)
“But if we cannot feel that this story is part of John’s Gospel, we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It rings true. It speaks to our condition. And it can scarcely have been composed in the early church with its sternness about sexual sin. It is thus worth our while to study it, though it may not be an authentic part of John’s writing. The story is undoubtedly very ancient.” (Leon Morris in NIC-NT)
Mark 16:9-20
“As regards the Longer Ending itself, it may be roughly described as showing knowledge of the subject-matter of John 20, the story of Mary Magdalene, along with that of Luke 24, the Emmaus Road, and Matthew 28, the great commission.
It is, in fact, a short harmony of resurrection appearances, a skeleton which can easily be filled in from the other Gospel narratives….
Therefore it seems reasonable to see this as an early attempt, known at least as early as Irenaeus, to ‘round off’ a Gospel whose original ending has become in some way maimed or lost; that several such attempts were made is obvious from the different versions circulating…
What, then, is the theological value of the Longer Ending? It may be compared with the story of the woman taken in adultery, in John viii, as an example of an early tradition which may very well be genuine and is undoubtedly primitive, but does not belong to the actual Gospel text as it stand. In the case of the Marcan ending we can go further; the contents are in any case evangelical, even if perhaps derived from other Evangels, and there is always the strong likelihood that this is an ‘official ending’, subjoined to a sort of ‘second addition’ of Mark. We know so very little about the actual circumstances of the primary composition and first written forms of the Gospel that it is unwise to be dogmatic. We shall therefore comment briefly upon it…However, it would be unwise to build any theological position upon these verses alone; and this no responsible Christian group has done. (R. Alan Cole, The Gospel According to Mark, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, pp. 258-9.)
“The break in the continuity of the narrative seems to indicate that vv. 9-20 were not originally a part of Mark's Gospel but are rather a summary of post-resurrection appearances of Jesus composed independently…
The Gospel of Mark has four different endings, but only two of them have any significant claim to being authentic: (1) the ending that concludes the gospel with v. 8 and (2) the so-called Longer Ending (vv. 9-20)…
External and especially internal evidence make it difficult to escape the conclusion that vv. 9-20 were originally not a part of the Gospel of Mark. One further question arises: Did Mark actually intend to end his Gospel at 16:8? If he did not, then either (1) the Gospel was never completed, or (2) the last page was lost before it was multiplied by copyists.
Although there are staunch supporters of the view that it was Mark's intention to end his Gospel with 16:8, this view does not adequately explain (1) why the early church felt so strongly its lack of completion, witnessed by the insertion of both the Shorter and Longer endings; (2) why a book that purports to be the "good news about Jesus Christ" should end with the women being afraid (even allowing for Mark's emphasis on the awesomeness and mystery of Christ's person); and (3) why there is no recorded fulfillment of Jesus' promised post-resurrection appearance in Galilee to Peter and the other disciples (cf. 16:7).
Thus the best solution seems to be that Mark did write an ending to his Gospel but that it was lost in the early transmission of the text. The endings we now possess represent attempts by the church to supply what was obviously lacking.” (Walter W. Wessell in EBC)
So Ken, I hope that helps!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
