Feast upon the Word - User contributions [en]

Isa 52:6-10

2006-10-20T04:51:51Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ corrected spelling mistake

[[The Old Testament]] > [[Isaiah]] > [[Isaiah 52|Chapter 52]]
{|
| [[Isa 52:1-5|Previous (Isa 52:1-5)]] ||             || [[Isa 52:11-15|Next (Isa 52:11-15)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
"How beautiful upon the mountains," Heb. mah-nahvoo 'al-heharim. Literally the reading is, "How / beautiful are they (ie., the feet of the messengers) / upon / the mountains." The Hebrew word here for "beautiful" occurs only three times in the Old Testament, and only twice pronounced nahvoo (the other occurrence is [[Song 1:10|Song of Solomon 1:10]]). The verb (nun - alef - heh) is thought to mean "be comely, be fitting." This passage is probably the source of the city name Nauvoo.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[Isa 52:1-5|Previous (Isa 52:1-5)]] ||             || [[Isa 52:11-15|Next (Isa 52:11-15)]]
|}

John 1:1-18

2006-10-20T04:51:51Z

Steven Barton: /* Verses 4-5 */ subhead

[[The New Testament]] > [[John]] > [[John 1|Chapter 1]]
{|
| [[Luke 24:51-53|Previous (Luke 24:51-53)]] ||             || [[John 1:6-10|Next (John 1:6-10)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
===Verses 1-2===
The order of the words in the Greek exhibit a literary form known as Climax or Gradation:
In the beginning was
the Word: and
the Word was with
God: and
God
the Word was, and
the same [word] was in the beginning with God.

===Verses 4-5===
The Climax form is used again:
In Him was
'''life'''; and the
'''life''' was the
'''light''' of men. And the
'''light''' shineth in
'''darkness'''; and the
'''darkness''' comprehended it not.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[Luke 24:51-53|Previous (Luke 24:51-53)]] ||             || [[John 1:6-10|Next (John 1:6-10)]]
|}

Rom 10:11-15

2006-10-20T04:51:51Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ Climax of words

[[The New Testament]] > [[The Epistle to the Romans]] > [[The Epistle to the Romans 10|Chapter 10]]
{|
| [[Rom 10:6-10|Previous (Rom 10:6-10)]] ||             || [[Rom 10:16-21|Next (Rom 10:16-21)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
===Verses 13-15===
Here we have a beautiful Climax of words:
Whosoever shall
'''call''' upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
How then shall they
'''call''' on him in whom they have not
'''believed'''? and how shall they
'''believe''' in him of whom they have not
'''heard'''? and how shall they
'''hear''' without a
'''preacher'''? And how shall they
'''preach''', except they be sent?

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[Rom 10:6-10|Previous (Rom 10:6-10)]] ||             || [[Rom 10:16-21|Next (Rom 10:16-21)]]
|}

Heb 6:11-15

2006-10-20T04:51:51Z

Steven Barton: /* Verses 11-12 */ spelling correction

[[The New Testament]] > [[To the Hebrews]] > [[To the Hebrews 6|Chapter 6]]
{|
| [[Heb 6:6-10|Previous (Heb 6:6-10)]] ||             || [[Heb 6:16-20|Next (Heb 6:16-20)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
===Verses 11-12===
These two verses are probably best thought of as a continuation of the thoughts expressed in the preceeding verses. What we are seeing is the delicate rhetorical game that the author is playing of exhorting his audience while only condemning them obliquely. The transition to the next section comes with the reference at the end of v. 12 to "inherit the promises."

The phrase is interesting as it invokes two separate sorts of relationships: inheritances and contracts. An inheritance is essentially a status-based relationship. One becomes entitled to benefits because one stands in a particular -- generally familial -- relationship with the benefactor. The classic example is the relationship between a father and an eldest son. A promise, in contrast, invokes the notion of contract. Generally speaking, a contract defines the purely voluntary obligations between two otherwise unrelated parties. No adoption or other change in familial status is necessary in order to become an obligee or an obligor under a contract. Rather, the touchstone becomes mutual assent to the transaction. The notion of promising also invokes oaths, a category closely related to contract. The idea of an oath is that one promises something and then invokes divine punishment upon oneself in the event of lapse.

By discussing salvation in terms of "inheritance of the promises" the author finesses a difficult aspect of Christian conversion. On one hand, conversion is thought of in voluntarist terms, a choice that reflects the deepest, most personal condition of one's soul. On the other hand, the relationship formed by conversion is much richer than those defined by contract. We do not simply make a kind of anti-Faustian bargain with God, but rather become adopted into his household and ultimately co-heirs with Christ.

===Verse 13-15===
In these verses Abraham is offered as the prototypical example of one who becomes an "inheritor of the promises." Notice that God makes an oath to Abraham, which we then inherit as a kind of chose in action. There are a couple of important things to think about in the choice of Abraham as the model. First, Abraham is the ur-founder of the Israelite nation, by identifying Christian salvation with the Abrahamic covenant we get continuity between Christ and the old testament prophets. Second, it is striking that Abraham's promise of infinite posterity is associated by Joseph Smith and the revelations of the Restoration with the promises of the temple. In Kirtland the "keys of the Gospel of Abraham" were restored to Joseph, and it is through the sealing ordinances that we recieve the same promises of cosmic fecundity and posterity. Likewise, in Abraham we get the most elemental story of eternal increase as blessing, a notion that Joseph Smith expanded through the doctrine of exaltation into enternal progression and eternal families, worlds without number. It is perhaps not accidental that the author uses Abraham as a bridge back to his discussion of Chirst, priesthood, and temple. Finally, Abraham shows up again in [[Heb 11]]'s discussion of faith.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[Heb 6:6-10|Previous (Heb 6:6-10)]] ||             || [[Heb 6:16-20|Next (Heb 6:16-20)]]
|}

2 Pet 1:1-5

2006-10-20T04:51:51Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ Climax of words and rhetoric

[[The New Testament]] > [[2 Peter]] > [[2 Peter 1|Chapter 1]]
{|
| [[1 Pet 5:11-14|Previous (1 Pet 5:11-14)]] ||             || [[2 Pet 1:6-10|Next (2 Pet 1:6-10)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* The Greek word translaed as "partakers" in verse 4 is koinonos, which means "partner," "associate," "companion," or "one who shares." It is closely related to the Greek word koinoneia, which is usually translated as "fellowship." As examples of its translation in the King James Version, koinonos is translated as "partners" in [[Luke 5:10|Luke 5:10]] and "companions" in [[Heb 10:33|Hebrews 10:33]].

* Verses 5-7 use a figure of speech called a Polysyndeton, which means, essentially, ''many conjunctions'', in this case, the repetition of the word "and" at the beginning of the successive clauses. The passage also exhibits both a Climax of Words and an upward (''anabasis'') Climax of Rhetoric:
Add to your faith
'''virtue'''; and to
'''virtue'''
'''knowledge'''; and to
'''knowledge'''
'''temperance'''; and to
'''temperance'''
'''patience'''; and to
'''patience'''
'''godliness'''; and to
'''godliness'''
'''brotherly kindness'''; and to
'''brotherly kindness''', charity.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[1 Pet 5:11-14|Previous (1 Pet 5:11-14)]] ||             || [[2 Pet 1:6-10|Next (2 Pet 1:6-10)]]
|}

Moro 10:27-34

2006-10-20T04:51:51Z

Steven Barton: /* Exegesis */fixed bad links

[[The Book of Mormon]] > [[Moroni]] > [[Moroni 10|Chapter 10]]
{|
| [[Moro 10:26-30|Previous (Moro 10:26-30)]] ||             || [[sp;        &nbsp|Next (sp;        &nbsp)]]
|}
== Questions ==
* In verse 31 it says for Jerusalem to "put on thy beautiful garments". What is meant by beautiful garments? Is it to be taken in the literal sense or is there a figurative meaning?
* In verse 33 what does it mean to be perfect in Christ? What do we need to do to be perfect in Christ?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==

Verses 30-33: Moroni's final words and the closing instruction of the Book of Mormon expound a message that constitutes the very essence of the gospel; perfection and sanctification by the grace of God through Christ.

The introduction uses phrases from [[Isa 52:1|Isaiah 52:1-2]], [[Isa 52:11|11-12]] and [[Isa 54:2|54:2, 4]], where, in the poetic language of Isaiah, the themes of deliverance from bondage and redemption were directed toward Israel as a nation. There the message, on the surface, was about the Babylonian captivity and national liberation. Here Moroni uses the passages to call the reader into the spiritual liberation and redemption offered to those who "come unto Christ." Here, to rise from the dust and put on the beautiful garments, is a call to come unto Christ and be delivered from bondage to sin and "be no more confounded." To "strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders" uses nomadic imagery of the forsaken wife and points to the reception of the eternal covenant blessings of Abraham.

The repeated phrase "in Christ" comes from Pauline theology and essentially means "through Christ" or "by means of Christ," but also describes the spiritual relationship and mystical union of the believer with the Savior.

An examination of the wealth of passages in scripture that encourage one to "come unto Christ" reveals a unified message that the believer, in return, partakes of some gift; the goodness of God, salvation, redemption, rest, living bread/water, resurrection, etc. It's not that the Savior has merely shown us the way or given us an example as the Master Teacher. There is more. He has something transforming to give to all who will come unto him. It follows then, that the perfection and sanctification that is "in Christ" is given by the grace of God to believers, that they may "become holy, without spot."

The phrase "deny yourselves of all ungodliness" seems to imply the "after all we can do" ([[2 Ne 25:23]]) aspect of salvation by grace, but to focus on a sinless existence as the formula for perfection misses the more transcending truth wherein we are made new creatures through the reception of the Spirit by coming unto Christ in the covenant of the Father.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{|
| [[Moro 10:26-30|Previous (Moro 10:26-30)]] ||             || [[sp;        &nbsp|Next (sp;        &nbsp)]]
|}

Heb 6:16-20

2006-03-11T20:04:29Z

Steven Barton: /* Verse 16 */ revised further for accuracy

{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* In verse 16 the writer places special emphasis on the word ''oath'' by transposing it from its expected position. In its expected position in Greek, ''the oath'' would fall in line with how it is translated in the KJV. Instead, ''the oath'' is transposed to the end of the sentence. To get the same affect in English we could translate this verse as: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, '''the oath'''." See [[Ex 22:11]].

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 16===
In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant to signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in [[Gen 15:10]], and [[Gen 15:17|15:17]], where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by passing between the cut-up animal pieces. cf. [[Jer 34:11]]) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next]]
|}

Heb 6:16-20

2006-03-11T17:55:21Z

Steven Barton: /* Verse 16 */ adding a plural

{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* In verse 16 the writer places special emphasis on the word ''oath'' by transposing it from its expected position. In its expected position in Greek, ''the oath'' would fall in line with how it is translated in the KJV. Instead, ''the oath'' is transposed to the end of the sentence. To get the same affect in English we could translate this verse as: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, '''the oath'''." See [[Ex 22:11]].

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 16===
In verse 16, the author suggests that oath taking is a way of certifying the reliability of a statement. Oaths were generally accompanied by penalty clauses. For example, a person might swear to do X and agree that if he did not do X, then the disappointed beneficiary of his oath could punish him. Thus, in the Ancient Near East covenants such as treaties were frequently accompanied by an oath after which the promisor would hack up some animal. The hacking up of the animal was meant to signify what the promisee could do the promisor if he broke his word. (An example of this procedure can be seen in [[Gen 15:10]], and [[Gen 15:17|15:17]], where God solemnizes his covenant with Abram by the cutting of animals and passing between the pieces.) In addition to penalties, one could invoke theological judgments. By taking an oath to do something, a person could become liable to damnation for breaking it. In a sense then, oaths are related to priesthood. Both of them are a special power that inheres in mankind to influence the action of God through ritual.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next]]
|}

Talk:Heb 6:16-20

2006-03-09T08:16:31Z

Steven Barton: Abram's Covenant

=="Paul" or "the writer"?==
Hi Steven, First, thanks for the interesting lexical notes. On this one, I think I get it but am not entirely sure. I think part of the problem is that I am not sure where the word "oath" would normally fall in Greek syntax. I am going to try rewriting it a little to make it say what I think you are saying. Obviously this is a bit dangerous since, as I say, I'm not sure I understand the point here. \Could you please check my revision and re-revise if needed? thanks, --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 08:12, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC)
PS also by using Paul as the subject of the sentence I'm not trying to make any claims about intentionality nor am I trying to stake out any position relative to authorship. I simply find this an easy way to discuss what actually happens in the text without always being forced into the passive voice.

Matthew, I think it's conventional to say "the writer" in commentaries for the reasons you cited. Perhaps this implicitly gives too strong a weight to the "Paul probably isn't the author" side of the argument, but I think it's more appropriate b/c there seems to be large enough scholarly consituency that doesn't believe Paul was the author to warrant it. However, I just looked this up in the the [http://scriptures.lds.org/bdp/plnpstls Bible Dictionary] where, although it mentions that the authorship is disputed, discusses the letter as though Paul wrote it. I guess following the Bible Dictionary convention would seem a logical policy on matters like this, in which case saying Paul here would be more appropriate. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 23:37, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to say "the writer." It can make a potentially huge difference if you assume, for example, that that author of Romans and the author of Hebrews are the same person.--[[User:Nathan Oman|Nathan Oman]] 00:56, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I feel like "the writer" is a bit stilted as if we are trying to be too careful about a point that doesn't really matter that much. Maybe this is just another way of saying that I don't understand the significance of the difference Nathan points to in whether we assume that Roman and Hebrews were written by the same person or different people. Maybe this isn't a parallel example, but here's how I think about it: I don't know if The Odyssey was written by Homer, and I don't know if the Iliad was written by Homer, I don't know if both were written by the same person, and I don't know if maybe there wasn't any single writer at all but rather that both texts are compilations of oral traditions to which many people contributed to in some way. But regardless, I don't really see why it matters that much to understanding either of these two book. To me it seems convenient to talk about Homer rather than say the writer or "either the writer, if there is a single writer, or the set of people who orally participated in composing this work" when we talk about these books.

That said, a) it looks like I am outnumbered, and b) I don't mind using the writer if other people think that is better but I thought I would throw out my reasoning first. If others think the writer is better, I'm happy to go along with that so we can spend our time instead discussing what the text means. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 01:19, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nate and Robert, and believe that saying "the writer" or "the author", at least in Hebrews, will avoid a perceived lack of scholastic credibility. But this is probably only the tip of the iceberg of critical issues that might arise on this wiki. From what I have observed, "Feast upon the Word" appears to be primarily devotional in nature (indeed, the site name so positions it). For this reason I believe it would be distracting to devote space to disputes regarding textual authorship, especially concerning the Documentary Hypothesis and Deutero/Trito Isaiah. These issues are best addressed in other forums. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:24, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

:OK, makes sense. Let's use "the writer" or "the author." --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 13:25, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

==Tone of site: scholarly or devotional?==

I think it's worth discussing the aims, focus and scope of this site a little more, esp. in light of the scholarly vs. devotional comment by Steven (we can always move the discussion to a more appropriate page, right?). I found this article entitled
[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/scholarship_eom.htm Bible Scholarship] by Stephen Robinson which I think is in the ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism''. Here's one excerpt that troubles me:

:Latter-day Saints insist on objective hermeneutics, that is, they maintain that the biblical text has a specific, objective meaning and that the intent of the original author is both important and largely recoverable. For this reason, LDS scholars, like other conservatives, have tended toward the more objective tools of Bible scholarship, such as linguistics, history, and archaeology—recognizing that these tools themselves have to be evaluated critically—and have generally avoided the more subjective methods of literary criticism.

I don't disagree that LDS scholars have tended to avoid literary criticism, but I don't understand why. (But then, I don't think I fully understand what is meant by literary criticism either—how is it different than "a close reading of what the text itself is saying"?) It seems to me that the "objective tools" that Robinson mentions are much more removed from the actual text of the scriptures than literary criticism is. So when Robinson says "Latter-day Saints insist on objective hermeneutics" I, as a Latter-day Saint, take issue. When I hear admonitions to study the scriptures from Mormon church leaders, I take it to mean studying the text of the scriptures, not "linguistics, history, and archaeology".

The one concern I do understand about literary criticism is that there may be more of a temptation to say "well, these are just stories that are meant to teach lessons, they didn't really take place" which could eventually lead to a "Christ and the atonement are nice literary conceptions, but are not to be taken as a literal person and event"—a view clearly counter to established Church teachings. Is this the main concern regarding a literary approach?

To me, "Feast Upon the Word" connotes a careful reading of the actual text of the scriptures. I think Steven is correct that there is also a devotional undertone to the name, though I think the undertone/connotation is more about having a reverence for the text of the scriptures that a pure scholarly approach does not presuppose. That is, the phrase "feast upon the word" is found in the scriptures as, presumably, an admonition to read the scriptures not only voraciously, eagerly and with zeal but, I would add, carefully, thoughtfully and with great attention to detail. After all, a successful [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feast feast] is "elaborately prepared" and, lest we be gluttons of the scriptures, I think this suggests that we should savor each word that is written, pondering all possible flavors and meanings, giving careful consideration to the context, construction, and presentation of each morsel. Something that, to me, seems very consistent with a literary approach.

I agree that a focus on authorship issues is a bit tangential to this notion of feasting upon the word. Discussing authorship itself could be a distraction from studying the text itself. However, inasmuch as authorship issues have bearing on the meaning of the text, I think they are relevant. But "linguistics, history, and archaeology" seem even more tangential and distracting to the text of the scriptures....

Sorry to get carried away here, end of diatribe. (...for now; I didn't even start into my problem with Robinson's claim that "the biblical text has a specific, objective meaning and that the intent of the original author is both important and largely recoverable", which I think is a very limiting way to read scripture.)

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 13:42, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I agree that Robinson's observation does present a limiting way to read scripture. However, I think he is characterizing LDS attitudes toward biblical scholarship, and I think he is largely correct in his perception, unfortunately. Overall, his article seems a good summary of LDS scriptural attitudes and might provide a good resource for content guidelines here at Feast Upon the Word. Generally, the content provided thusfar has set the tone for what should follow. I think the site is off to a great start. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 18:05, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

:Good point, the quote doesn't bother me if he's describing not proscribing. By the way, I stumbled on [http://openskyvisions.blogspot.com/ your new blog] (saw a link from ''BCC'' I think it was). Good luck with that, I'll be anxious to follow your posts, and I hope you don't mind if I try to add links here to some of your posts there. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 01:34, 9 Mar 2006 (UTC)

== Abram's Covenant ==

Nathan, There may be a minor innacuracy in your parenthetical text. The closest parallel to the covenant formula that you describe is in [[Jer 34:12|Jer 34:12-22]]. Here the people "cut the calf" and "pass between the parts" ([[Jer 34:18|vs. 18]]). In the covenant of Abram that you cite ([[Gen 15]]), however, it appears that it was God who "passed between those pieces" ([[Gen 15:17|vs. 17]]), not Abram. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:16, 9 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Heb 6:16-20

2006-03-08T18:05:08Z

Steven Barton: on Robinson's article

Hi Steven, First, thanks for the interesting lexical notes. On this one, I think I get it but am not entirely sure. I think part of the problem is that I am not sure where the word "oath" would normally fall in Greek syntax. I am going to try rewriting it a little to make it say what I think you are saying. Obviously this is a bit dangerous since, as I say, I'm not sure I understand the point here. \Could you please check my revision and re-revise if needed? thanks, --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 08:12, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC)
PS also by using Paul as the subject of the sentence I'm not trying to make any claims about intentionality nor am I trying to stake out any position relative to authorship. I simply find this an easy way to discuss what actually happens in the text without always being forced into the passive voice.

Matthew, I think it's conventional to say "the writer" in commentaries for the reasons you cited. Perhaps this implicitly gives too strong a weight to the "Paul probably isn't the author" side of the argument, but I think it's more appropriate b/c there seems to be large enough scholarly consituency that doesn't believe Paul was the author to warrant it. However, I just looked this up in the the [http://scriptures.lds.org/bdp/plnpstls Bible Dictionary] where, although it mentions that the authorship is disputed, discusses the letter as though Paul wrote it. I guess following the Bible Dictionary convention would seem a logical policy on matters like this, in which case saying Paul here would be more appropriate. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 23:37, 7 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to say "the writer." It can make a potentially huge difference if you assume, for example, that that author of Romans and the author of Hebrews are the same person.--[[User:Nathan Oman|Nathan Oman]] 00:56, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I feel like "the writer" is a bit stilted as if we are trying to be too careful about a point that doesn't really matter that much. Maybe this is just another way of saying that I don't understand the significance of the difference Nathan points to in whether we assume that Roman and Hebrews were written by the same person or different people. Maybe this isn't a parallel example, but here's how I think about it: I don't know if The Odyssey was written by Homer, and I don't know if the Iliad was written by Homer, I don't know if both were written by the same person, and I don't know if maybe there wasn't any single writer at all but rather that both texts are compilations of oral traditions to which many people contributed to in some way. But regardless, I don't really see why it matters that much to understanding either of these two book. To me it seems convenient to talk about Homer rather than say the writer or "either the writer, if there is a single writer, or the set of people who orally participated in composing this work" when we talk about these books.

That said, a) it looks like I am outnumbered, and b) I don't mind using the writer if other people think that is better but I thought I would throw out my reasoning first. If others think the writer is better, I'm happy to go along with that so we can spend our time instead discussing what the text means. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 01:19, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nate and Robert, and believe that saying "the writer" or "the author", at least in Hebrews, will avoid a perceived lack of scholastic credibility. But this is probably only the tip of the iceberg of critical issues that might arise on this wiki. From what I have observed, "Feast upon the Word" appears to be primarily devotional in nature (indeed, the site name so positions it). For this reason I believe it would be distracting to devote space to disputes regarding textual authorship, especially concerning the Documentary Hypothesis and Deutero/Trito Isaiah. These issues are best addressed in other forums. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:24, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

:OK, makes sense. Let's use "the writer" or "the author." --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 13:25, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussing the aims, focus and scope of this site a little more, esp. in light of the scholarly vs. devotional comment by Steven (we can always move the discussion to a more appropriate page, right?). I found this article entitled
[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/scholarship_eom.htm Bible Scholarship] by Stephen Robinson which I think is in the ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism''. Here's one excerpt that troubles me:

:Latter-day Saints insist on objective hermeneutics, that is, they maintain that the biblical text has a specific, objective meaning and that the intent of the original author is both important and largely recoverable. For this reason, LDS scholars, like other conservatives, have tended toward the more objective tools of Bible scholarship, such as linguistics, history, and archaeology—recognizing that these tools themselves have to be evaluated critically—and have generally avoided the more subjective methods of literary criticism.

I don't disagree that LDS scholars have tended to avoid literary criticism, but I don't understand why. (But then, I don't think I fully understand what is meant by literary criticism either—how is it different than "a close reading of what the text itself is saying"?) It seems to me that the "objective tools" that Robinson mentions are much more removed from the actual text of the scriptures than literary criticism is. So when Robinson says "Latter-day Saints insist on objective hermeneutics" I, as a Latter-day Saint, take issue. When I hear admonitions to study the scriptures from Mormon church leaders, I take it to mean studying the text of the scriptures, not "linguistics, history, and archaeology".

The one concern I do understand about literary criticism is that there may be more of a temptation to say "well, these are just stories that are meant to teach lessons, they didn't really take place" which could eventually lead to a "Christ and the atonement are nice literary conceptions, but are not to be taken as a literal person and event"—a view clearly counter to established Church teachings. Is this the main concern regarding a literary approach?

To me, "Feast Upon the Word" connotes a careful reading of the actual text of the scriptures. I think Steven is correct that there is also a devotional undertone to the name, though I think the undertone/connotation is more about having a reverence for the text of the scriptures that a pure scholarly approach does not presuppose. That is, the phrase "feast upon the word" is found in the scriptures as, presumably, an admonition to read the scriptures not only voraciously, eagerly and with zeal but, I would add, carefully, thoughtfully and with great attention to detail. After all, a successful [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feast feast] is "elaborately prepared" and, lest we be gluttons of the scriptures, I think this suggests that we should savor each word that is written, pondering all possible flavors and meanings, giving careful consideration to the context, construction, and presentation of each morsel. Something that, to me, seems very consistent with a literary approach.

I agree that a focus on authorship issues is a bit tangential to this notion of feasting upon the word. Discussing authorship itself could be a distraction from studying the text itself. However, inasmuch as authorship issues have bearing on the meaning of the text, I think they are relevant. But "linguistics, history, and archaeology" seem even more tangential and distracting to the text of the scriptures....

Sorry to get carried away here, end of diatribe. (...for now; I didn't even start into my problem with Robinson's claim that "the biblical text has a specific, objective meaning and that the intent of the original author is both important and largely recoverable", which I think is a very limiting way to read scripture.)

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 13:42, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I agree that Robinson's observation does present a limiting way to read scripture. However, I think he is characterizing LDS attitudes toward biblical scholarship, and I think he is largely correct in his perception, unfortunately. Overall, his article seems a good summary of LDS scriptural attitudes and might provide a good resource for content guidelines here at Feast Upon the Word. Generally, the content provided thusfar has set the tone for what should follow. I think the site is off to a great start. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 18:05, 8 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Heb 6:16-20

2006-03-08T08:24:07Z

Steven Barton: "the writer"

User:Steven Barton

2006-03-04T09:09:11Z

Steven Barton:

I am entirely fascinated with the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I study them as great works of literature.

Heb 6:16-20

2006-03-04T08:51:55Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ Syntax

{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* In verse 16 special emphasis is placed on the word "oath" by transposition from its expected syntax and placement at the end of the verse: "For men indeed by the Greater swear, and for the end of the argument they have confirmation, '''the oath'''." See [[Ex 22:11]].

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 6:11-15|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:1-5|Next]]
|}

John 1:1-18

2006-03-04T06:48:28Z

Steven Barton: /* Verses 1-2 */subhead

{| width="20%"
| [[Luke 24:51-53|Previous]] || [[John 1:6-10|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
===Verses 1-2===
The order of the words in the Greek exhibit a literary form known as Climax or Gradation:
In the beginning was
the Word: and
the Word was with
God: and
God
the Word was, and
the same [word] was in the beginning with God.

==Verses 4-5==
The Climax form is used again:
In Him was
'''life'''; and the
'''life''' was the
'''light''' of men. And the
'''light''' shineth in
'''darkness'''; and the
'''darkness''' comprehended it not.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Luke 24:51-53|Previous]] || [[John 1:6-10|Next]]
|}

John 1:1-18

2006-03-04T06:44:19Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ Climax

{| width="20%"
| [[Luke 24:51-53|Previous]] || [[John 1:6-10|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
==Verses 1-2==
The order of the words in the Greek exhibit a literary form known as Climax or Gradation:
In the beginning was
the Word: and
the Word was with
God: and
God
the Word was, and
the same [word] was in the beginning with God.
==Verses 4-5==
The Climax form is used again:
In Him was
'''life'''; and the
'''life''' was the
'''light''' of men. And the
'''light''' shineth in
'''darkness'''; and the
'''darkness''' comprehended it not.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Luke 24:51-53|Previous]] || [[John 1:6-10|Next]]
|}

Talk:Heb 5:6-10

2006-03-03T09:34:02Z

Steven Barton: /* Chiasmus? */ my response to Matthew's second question

==Chiasmus?==
The question about v. 6 and v. 10 references to Melchesdeck suggests a chiasmus to me. Here's my version:
: high priest after the order of Melchisedec (v. 6)
::prayer of salvation (v. 7)
:::learned obedience (v. 8)
::author of salvation (v. 9)
: high priest after the order of Melchisedec (v. 10)
I see this chiastic structure underscoring the passivity theme Nathan has been writing about through the obedient suffering of v. 8. It also implicitly links the prayer in v. 7 with salvation in v. 9 (this seems natural and obvious from an LDS perspective; do other faiths recognize Gethsemane as part of the atonement? an interesting implicit argument here...). Thoughts?

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 06:24, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

A chiastic arrangement, especially when spanning several verses, is generally used to provide structure, boundary and focus to a text as a distinct unit. If the theme of passivity is to be marked by a chiasm, the repeated elements should begin with verse 4, where the concept of passivity is introduced. If we mark verses 6 through 10 as a separate unit of thought, by virtue of the chiasm that you propose, we interrupt the logical argument being established beginning with verse 1 that Christ is a legitimate high priest. You have built your chiasm primarily upon the phrase "high priest after the order of Melchisedec." But you could have just as easily focused on being "called of God," which is a repeat from verse 4. Or for that matter, the "high priest" phrase takes us back to verse 1: "For every high priest taken from among men." In my opinion, we should consider verse 10 more as having an inclusionary function, wrapping up the entire section, where the author wishes to establish Christ as a high priest. If we view verses 1-10 as a unit, the presentation of the two authoritative Old Testament quotations (vs 5 "Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee," from [[Ps 2:7]], and vs 6 "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," from [[Ps 110:4]]) have a stronger impact when inumerated together as part of the whole.

It is also worth noting that, beginning with verse 11, the author makes a diversion of thought into a section of exhortation that runs through the end of chapter 6, at which point we find inserted the same phrase "made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," as if to bring us back on track with the discussion of Christ as the perfect priest, which is developed in chapter 7. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:01, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:Steven, I have very little confidence in my ability to analyze over-arching structures and the use of literary/poetic devices, I haven't done it very much, so I really appreciate the feedback on my attempt here. I tried working on this some more, but I think it's ultimately a failed attempt. But in case someone else can salvage something from it, here's how I was trying to write it:

::There are two pairs of verses that jump out to me, 4:15 and 5:3 about the high priest feeling our infirmities, and 5:6 and 5:10 about the high priests being after the order of Melchezideck. The first chiasmus gives us the initial comparison of Christ as the ultimate high priest to mortal high priests. The second chiasmus goes into more detail about how Christ acts as our high priest, with the distinguishing characteristic that he himself suffers (mortal high priests do not do this). The second chiasmus also serves to set up the next section by drawing a parallel between Christ's being called of God and our own calling from God to follow Christ—a subject that is continued in [[Heb 6|chapter 6]]:

::(A) the ultimate high priest (Christ) offers himself for us (4:14)
:::(B) the ultimate high priest (Christ) feels our infirmities (4:15)
::::(C) we can come to the ultimate high priest (Christ) for absolution from sin (4:16)
::::(C') we come to the mortal high priest for absolution from sin (5:1)
:::(B') the mortal high priest feels our infirmities (5:2)
::(A') the mortal high priest offers sacrifice for himself and for us (5:3)

::(a) Christ, as our high priest, is called of God (5:4-5)
:::(b) Christ is called to be a high priest after the order of Melchisedec (5:6)
::::(c) Christ prays for our salvation (5:7)
:::::(d) Christ learned obedience through suffering (5:8)
::::(c') perfected, Christ now authors our salvation (5:9)
:::(b') Christ is now referrred to as a high priest after the order of Melchisedec (5:10)
::(a') Like Christ, ye are called of God, but do not hear (5:11)

:The problem is the verses don't correspond that well to the ideas I try to assign to them....
:--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 03:01, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I don't think this is a failed attempt at all. In fact, the first section quite properly brings the Christ-as-priest material from the end of chapter 4 and unites it with chapter 5. If we view it as a chiasm, we then have to examine how the first 'half' relates to the latter portion. In this case, combining the two segments strengthens and sharpens the comparison between the ultimate priest and the human priest. This connection is critical to the author's position that Christ is a legitimate high priest.

It is significant to note also, that when using chiastic structure to make a contrast, the pivot point will typically fall in the center of the chiasm, as it does here. In this case, however, the contrast is used to unite, rather than divide. As noted in the main commentary, the author is "setting up" a contrast, and this contrast will be developed in chapter 7. Here, I believe, the author needs to first establish Christ as a legitimate high priest.

Your second section, 5:4-11, is also worth considering. I am less inclined to consider it an intentional chiasm, simply because the passage appears to me to be primarily a list of proof texts, which tends to diffuse the structure you propose. But I base my conclusion partly upon the suggestion by Brandenburger and Buchanan (AB 36, p99) that 5:7 and 5:8-10 are two early Christian confessions that are being quoted along with the Old Testament texts. My analysis, of course, may be completely wrong, and what you have outlined certainly has a great deal of merit. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:33, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

The first section I could believe is an intended chiasmus, it's vv. 4-11 that felt forced. I couldn't find the Brandenburger & Buchanan book you referenced with a quick Google search. Can you give any details or comments about the book? --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 14:18, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Robert, I over-abbreviated the reference. George Wesley Buchanan cites and agrees with Brandenburger in To the Hebrews, Anchor Bible, volume 36, page 99. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 16:31, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the reference. I'm trying to build a library and like to learn about different commentataries, sources, etc. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 13:18, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Steven, I too would guess that 5:4-11 is not an intentional chiasmus and your reasons seem appealing to me. Still in thinking them through it raises a couple of questions. These questionas are both off-topic. Still I am asking because I would be interested in hearing your thoughts since I know you have a lot of background in studying this stuff. I'm really looking to understand how to think about this stuff in other examples. These are both off topic because I don't think that the way you answer them really has a bearing on the question of whether this particular chiasmus is intentional.
:1) You say that you are influenced by the fact that Brandenburger & Buchanan say that what is going on here is quoting from other texts. I think what you are saying is that if someone is quoting someone else you are less inclined to see this as an intentional chiasmus. Even if you aren't saying that I'm wondering if this is something that we should think. I wonder why quoting a particular text makes the text that does the quoting less likely to fit into a literary structure (not sure if that is the right word for the general thing of which chiasmus is an example)? --especially since at the time I don't think people felt a strong academic responsibility to quote word for word in a way that allows giving credit (and I'm guessing we don't have the original text to know how close the borrowed work is to the original text)? My point is that first the author has a lot of flexibility about what text to quote and second the author has a lot of flexibility in terms of how to quote. This amount of flexibility I would have thought would allow the author to fit borrowed texts/ideas into a larger literary structure should they desire.
:2) You say you wouldn't think this is an intentional chiasmus because [...]. I wonder what the relationship is between intentionality of literary structure and strictness of fit? I wouldn't have assumed that the more strictly a text fits a particular literary structure the more likely it is to be intentional. Again, you may not be saying exactly this so I'm not interested so much as to whether I'm accurately describing what you are saying as I am in thinking through how the relationship should play out between intentionality and stritness of fit. (Some don't think intentionality matters at all. Maybe it doesn't, and I'm just curious.) Anyway, I tend to think (maybe naively?) that great writers who are in cultures with traditions of relying heavily on literary structures may compose works that use very specific literary structure (e.g. chiasmus) with very good fit without intentionally thinking "ok I said A, B, C, D, C, B ... I better an add an A here." It depends on the literary structure I suppose. It is hard to imagine someone composing sonnets without being aware that this is what they are doing.
--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:37, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, I see the series of quotations as a literary form in itself, much as a list of food and household sundries or a list of names with phone numbers would be easily recognized as a grocery list and telephone book, respectively. To weave the grocery list into the structure of, say, a sonnet would shift the focus and emphasis away from the list, and diffuse the clarity of the message. Now, that is not to say that a work with an overarching structure cannot employ a variety of smaller literary and poetic devices. Psalm 111, for example, is a perfect alphabetic acrostic, with a confining structure, yet still yeilds examples of parallelism:

::The works of his hands are faithful and just;
::all his precepts are trustworthy. (vs 7, NIV)

::The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
::all who follow his precepts have good understanding. (vs 10, NIV)

And yes, quotations can and do fit within larger literary structures (I can't think of a good example right now). But in the case of Robert's chiastic structure, I just saw two overarching structures conflicting with each other. And, again, I might be wrong viewing the passage as a "list" of proof texts.

Regarding your second question, I have much to say, but I need to come back in a day or two, when I have more time. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:37, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

:That helps. Thanks. I'm looking forward to reading more in a few days. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 09:18, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, in response to your second question, please bear with me if I ramble a bit. When it comes to the use of literary forms and devices, there is not a strict distinction between poetry and prose in the Bible. In fact, there is no word for "poetry" as a genre in biblical Hebrew. Instead, what we observe is a broad continuum of formality, structure, terseness, and elevated style, spanning a wide variety of texts. And we find still many passages with little or no formality or noticeable structure, sometimes within the same "genre." Take the 23rd Psalm, for example. It is considered one of the greatest examples of biblical "poetry," yet it contains nary a parallelism or other defining structure that we often associate with biblical poetry.

So, what we can say is that the biblical writers had a sense of style, and they would employ various literary devices at greater or lessor degrees as they saw fit, to heighten a text or to make it more or less formal or terse. The biblical texts do not demonstrate strict or consistent adherence to literary forms or patterns. It was really more about style than about following a template. (There are exceptions, of course, as with acrostics, which tend to require strictness. Yet even here, few of the biblical acrostics are perfectly constructed.)

Just as biblical writers developed their own sense of style, we modern writers of English prose exhibit very real stylistic patterns--avoiding repetition, piling up the "right" number of adjectives, connecting clauses and choosing strong verbs, all with an eye to balance and variety.

Quintessential to the biblical style of heightened language was the use of short parallel couplets that frequently exhibited a "seconding" or "parallel" aspect. These parallel couplets are ubiquitous in the Bible appearing in legal texts, in narratives as well as in sublime "poetry." This rhetoric device was so central to the biblical style, that the writer (or speaker) scarcely had to think about it.

As a natural means of adding variety, writers would often change the expected order of the clauses, which brings us to chiasmus, or inverted parallelism:

:out of Zion
::shall go forth Torah
::and the Word of the LORD
:from Jerusalem

Judging from the frequency that chiastically arranged couplets appear in the Bible, we are probably safe to conclude that, here too, the writer would whip these things out almost subconsciously, guided by an intuitive sense of style.

Now, considering how central parallelism was to the biblical style, it was natural for these repetitions to occasionally extend beyond the couplet, to three or four lines or more. It also followed that inverted parallelism was employed across a number of verses, often becoming an organizing element to a sequence of lines. The greater the boundary defined by the chiasm, the less subconscious and the more deliberate the construction would become. We would expect a larger chiasm to follow the form in a more strict manner because it is more intentional. But keep in mind that just as we are quite flexible in the composition of our modern, well written prose, the biblical writers likewise, demonstrate a very fluid sense of style. Many a translator has emended a text based on the preconceived notion that a passage must conform to a pattern. The texts themselves speak otherwise. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 09:34, 3 Mar 2006 (UTC)

== sic ==

What does this mean:
:The Lord [sic] is at your right hand;
Why the sic? just curious. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:31, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was to emphasize that Lord is capitalized in the original text. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 06:57, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I think I get it. Is this because the idea is that ''Lord'' should have been written ''LORD''? --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:34, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:I was only thinking Lord and lord. Actually three variations are used in the [http://bible1.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/bible.cgi RSV]: LORD (vv. 1, 2, & 4), Lord (v. 5) and lord (v. 1). In the KJV only LORD (vv. 1, 2, & 4) and Lord (vv. 1 & 5) are used. I'd love to see some commentary on these usages, my off-the-cuff guess is simply that LORD is God and that Lord and lord may refer to the servant of God. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 18:11, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)
::I remember reading something about this at one point. I'll look around for it. I think though that I will also remove the SIC. If we are afraid someone might edit it, I would prefer a note in the edit text that doesn't show on the front-end. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 23:52, 26 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I put the SIC in because from the context it seems to be refering to the Lord as god rather than the lord as the king of Israel. Normally, LORD is used to denote the tetragramaton (YHWH), and I suspect that the capitalization for this verse may be an error, but I haven't had time to check it yet.

--[[User:Nathan Oman|Nathan Oman]] 17:10, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:If it turns out that the conventions used by the RSV suggest that this is supposed to be "LORD" but was written instead as "Lord" then I agree that sic is appropriate. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 17:25, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:I just checked on this one and I believe "Lord" is correct. "LORD" in [http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1141102634-379.html#4 verse 4] is a translation of Yahweh ([http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1141102703-9573.html Strong #03068]). In [http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1141102734-8288.html#5 verse 5] "Lord" is a translation of Adonay ([http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1141102778-5702.html Strong #0136]). --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:01, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

==Verse 9==
===Being made perfect===
I think it's significant that Christ's perfection is mentioned here, and that we're then advocated to be "go on unto perfection" in [[Heb 6:1]]. It seems this is an important theme being developed throughout Hebrews. But I don't understand the contrast between the "doctrine of Christ" and "go[ing] on unto perfection" in [[Heb 6:1]] very well (presumably something related to the contrast between the Levitical and Melchezideck priesthoods, and possible the law of justice and works contrasted with the law of grace). I'd like to study this contrast and the development of this theme in Hebrews more. Here are the other references to perfection in Hebrews:

[[Heb 7:11]] (perfection can't be obtained by the Levitical priesthood), [[Heb 7:19]] ("the law made nothing perfect", [[Heb 9:9]] (mortal high priest is not perfected through his annual offering[?]), [[Heb 9:11]] (Christ brings a "more perfect tabernacle"), [[Heb 10:1]] (law can never "make the comers thereunto perfect"), [[Heb 10:14]] (Christ "hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified"), [[Heb 11:40]] (ancients "without us should not be made perfect[?]), [[Heb 12:23]] ("spirits of just men made perfect"), and [[Heb 13:21]] ("make you perfect in every good work to do his will").

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 14:57, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Heb 5:11-6:20

2006-03-03T05:40:29Z

Steven Barton: /* Related links */ link to teleios word study

{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 5:11-14|Previous]] || [[Heb 6:6-10|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* In verses 1-2 the author recapitulates the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. Why is the order of repentance and faith reversed from what we see in the Articles of Faith?

== Lexical notes ==
===Verse 2===
* ''"laying on of hands"'': This could refer to the gift of the Holy Ghost, the ordination of the priesthood, or to the sacrifice of animals (see John Gill reference below).

== Exegesis ==
===Verse 1===
The JST inserts the word "not" in front of "leaving." This insertion suggests a connotation of "leaving" that implies abandoning or jettisoning. However, one could also read "leaving" in the unaltered KJV as simply turning to something else, without jettisoning the first. Notice that the author suggests that the "foundation" he references is not sufficient for "perfection," which requires the greater teachings that he is about to impart.

===Verses 1-2===
Some have speculated that the list of "principles of the doctrine of Christ" contained here was an early catechism or statement of belief, analogous perhaps to the "first principles and ordinances of the Gospel" refered to in the Articles of Faith. The list seems to be:

::Repentance
::Faith
::Baptism
::The Laying on of Hands
::Resurrection
::Eternal Judgment

===Verse 3-6===
In these verses, the author justifies leaving behind the discussion of the first principles—"This we will do" ([[Heb 6:3|v. 3]])—by launching into an aside on the doctrine of apostacy. This discussion seems to be meant to justify why the audience of the letter cannot fall away from the truth. The move, however, is a rhetorical trick. The audience has in fact fallen away from the gospel, or at any rate is threatening to do so. Hence, the author uses his demonstration of the impossiblity of apostacy for his audience as an excuse to preach against apostacy precisely because it seems to be a real problem for his hearers.

The image of tasting the good word of God is striking. Joseph Smith employed the same image in the King Follett Discourse, where he refered to the truth as tasting good. There may be an oblique reference to the sacrament here, as the "word of God" could be a reference to Christ as the Word (see [[John 1:1]]) with our tasting being a reference to the Lord's Supper where he told his disciples that the bread has become his flesh and the wine his blood.

== Related links ==
===Verse 1===
* ''"perfection"'': [http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20april%201993.htm/new%20testament%20word%20studies.htm John W. Welch] provides a short word study on teleios.

===Verse 2===
* ''"laying on of hands"'': [http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=006&verse=002 John Gill] suggests this might refer to animal sacrifice.

===Verse 5===
* "[http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=2420 Endocannibalism in Sacrament Meeting]" at Times & Seasons (discussing the imagery of eating the body of Christ in the sacrament).

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 5:11-14|Previous]] || [[Heb 6:6-10|Next]]
|}

Talk:Heb 5:6-10

2006-03-01T08:37:15Z

Steven Barton: /* Chiasmus? */ answer to Matthew's first question

==Chiasmus?==
The question about v. 6 and v. 10 references to Melchesdeck suggests a chiasmus to me. Here's my version:
: high priest after the order of Melchisedec (v. 6)
::prayer of salvation (v. 7)
:::learned obedience (v. 8)
::author of salvation (v. 9)
: high priest after the order of Melchisedec (v. 10)
I see this chiastic structure underscoring the passivity theme Nathan has been writing about through the obedient suffering of v. 8. It also implicitly links the prayer in v. 7 with salvation in v. 9 (this seems natural and obvious from an LDS perspective; do other faiths recognize Gethsemane as part of the atonement? an interesting implicit argument here...). Thoughts?

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 06:24, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

A chiastic arrangement, especially when spanning several verses, is generally used to provide structure, boundary and focus to a text as a distinct unit. If the theme of passivity is to be marked by a chiasm, the repeated elements should begin with verse 4, where the concept of passivity is introduced. If we mark verses 6 through 10 as a separate unit of thought, by virtue of the chiasm that you propose, we interrupt the logical argument being established beginning with verse 1 that Christ is a legitimate high priest. You have built your chiasm primarily upon the phrase "high priest after the order of Melchisedec." But you could have just as easily focused on being "called of God," which is a repeat from verse 4. Or for that matter, the "high priest" phrase takes us back to verse 1: "For every high priest taken from among men." In my opinion, we should consider verse 10 more as having an inclusionary function, wrapping up the entire section, where the author wishes to establish Christ as a high priest. If we view verses 1-10 as a unit, the presentation of the two authoritative Old Testament quotations (vs 5 "Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee," from [[Ps 2:7]], and vs 6 "Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," from [[Ps 110:4]]) have a stronger impact when inumerated together as part of the whole.

It is also worth noting that, beginning with verse 11, the author makes a diversion of thought into a section of exhortation that runs through the end of chapter 6, at which point we find inserted the same phrase "made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," as if to bring us back on track with the discussion of Christ as the perfect priest, which is developed in chapter 7. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:01, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:Steven, I have very little confidence in my ability to analyze over-arching structures and the use of literary/poetic devices, I haven't done it very much, so I really appreciate the feedback on my attempt here. I tried working on this some more, but I think it's ultimately a failed attempt. But in case someone else can salvage something from it, here's how I was trying to write it:

::There are two pairs of verses that jump out to me, 4:15 and 5:3 about the high priest feeling our infirmities, and 5:6 and 5:10 about the high priests being after the order of Melchezideck. The first chiasmus gives us the initial comparison of Christ as the ultimate high priest to mortal high priests. The second chiasmus goes into more detail about how Christ acts as our high priest, with the distinguishing characteristic that he himself suffers (mortal high priests do not do this). The second chiasmus also serves to set up the next section by drawing a parallel between Christ's being called of God and our own calling from God to follow Christ—a subject that is continued in [[Heb 6|chapter 6]]:

::(A) the ultimate high priest (Christ) offers himself for us (4:14)
:::(B) the ultimate high priest (Christ) feels our infirmities (4:15)
::::(C) we can come to the ultimate high priest (Christ) for absolution from sin (4:16)
::::(C') we come to the mortal high priest for absolution from sin (5:1)
:::(B') the mortal high priest feels our infirmities (5:2)
::(A') the mortal high priest offers sacrifice for himself and for us (5:3)

::(a) Christ, as our high priest, is called of God (5:4-5)
:::(b) Christ is called to be a high priest after the order of Melchisedec (5:6)
::::(c) Christ prays for our salvation (5:7)
:::::(d) Christ learned obedience through suffering (5:8)
::::(c') perfected, Christ now authors our salvation (5:9)
:::(b') Christ is now referrred to as a high priest after the order of Melchisedec (5:10)
::(a') Like Christ, ye are called of God, but do not hear (5:11)

:The problem is the verses don't correspond that well to the ideas I try to assign to them....
:--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 03:01, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I don't think this is a failed attempt at all. In fact, the first section quite properly brings the Christ-as-priest material from the end of chapter 4 and unites it with chapter 5. If we view it as a chiasm, we then have to examine how the first 'half' relates to the latter portion. In this case, combining the two segments strengthens and sharpens the comparison between the ultimate priest and the human priest. This connection is critical to the author's position that Christ is a legitimate high priest.

It is significant to note also, that when using chiastic structure to make a contrast, the pivot point will typically fall in the center of the chiasm, as it does here. In this case, however, the contrast is used to unite, rather than divide. As noted in the main commentary, the author is "setting up" a contrast, and this contrast will be developed in chapter 7. Here, I believe, the author needs to first establish Christ as a legitimate high priest.

Your second section, 5:4-11, is also worth considering. I am less inclined to consider it an intentional chiasm, simply because the passage appears to me to be primarily a list of proof texts, which tends to diffuse the structure you propose. But I base my conclusion partly upon the suggestion by Brandenburger and Buchanan (AB 36, p99) that 5:7 and 5:8-10 are two early Christian confessions that are being quoted along with the Old Testament texts. My analysis, of course, may be completely wrong, and what you have outlined certainly has a great deal of merit. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:33, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

The first section I could believe is an intended chiasmus, it's vv. 4-11 that felt forced. I couldn't find the Brandenburger & Buchanan book you referenced with a quick Google search. Can you give any details or comments about the book? --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 14:18, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Robert, I over-abbreviated the reference. George Wesley Buchanan cites and agrees with Brandenburger in To the Hebrews, Anchor Bible, volume 36, page 99. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 16:31, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:Hi Steven, I too would guess that 5:4-11 is not being an intentional chiasmus and your reasons seem appealing to me. Still in thinking them through it raises a couple of questions. These questionas are both off-topic. Still I am asking because I would be interested in hearing your thoughts since I know you have a lot of background in studying this stuff. I'm really looking to understand how to think about this stuff in other examples. These are both off topic because I don't think that the way you answer them really has a bearing on the question of whether this particular chiasmus is intentional.
:1) You say that you are influenced by the fact that Brandenburger & Buchanan say that what is going on here is quoting from other texts. I think what you are saying is that if someone is quoting someone else you are less inclined to see this as an intentional chiasmus. Even if you aren't saying that I'm wondering if this is something that we should think. I wonder why quoting a particular text makes the text that does the quoting less likely to fit into a literary structure (not sure if that is the right word for the general thing of which chiasmus is an example)? --especially since at the time I don't think people felt a strong academic responsibility to quote word for word in a way that allows giving credit (and I'm guessing we don't have the original text to know how close the borrowed work is to the original text)? My point is that first the author has a lot of flexibility about what text to quote and second the author has a lot of flexibility in terms of how to quote. This amount of flexibility I would have thought would allow the author to fit borrowed texts/ideas into a larger literary structur should they desire.
:2) You say you wouldn't think this is an intentional chiasmus because [...]. I wonder what the relationship is between intentionality of literary structure and strictness of fit? I wouldn't have assumed that the more strictly a text fits a particular literary structure the more likely it is to be intentional. Again, you may not be saying exactly this so I'm not interested so much as to whether I'm accurately describing what you are saying as I am in thinking through how the relationship should play out between intentionality and stritness of fit. (Some don't think intentionality matters at all. Maybe it doesn't and I'm just curious.) Anyway, I tend to think (maybe naively?) that great writers who are cultures with traditions of relying heavily on literary structures may compose works that use very specific literary structure (e.g. chiasmus) with very good fit without intentionally thinking "ok I said A, B, C, D, C, B ... I better an add an A here." It depends on the literary structure I suppose. It is hard to imagine someone composing sonnets without being aware that this is what they are doing.
--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:37, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, I see the series of quotations as a literary form in itself, much as a list of food and household sundries or a list of names with phone numbers would be easily recognized as a grocery list and telephone book, respectively. To weave the grocery list into the structure of, say, a sonnet would shift the focus and emphasis away from the list, and diffuse the clarity of the message. Now, that is not to say that a work with an overarching structure cannot employ a variety of smaller literary and poetic devices. Psalm 111, for example, is a perfect alphabetic acrostic, with a confining structure, yet still yeilds examples of parallelism:

::The works of his hands are faithful and just;
::all his precepts are trustworthy. (vs 7, NIV)

::The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
::all who follow his precepts have good understanding. (vs 10, NIV)

And yes, quotations can and do fit within larger literary structures (I can't think of a good example right now). But in the case of Robert's chiastic structure, I just saw two overarching structures conflicting with each other. And, again, I might be wrong viewing the passage as a "list" of proof texts.

Regarding your second question, I have much to say, but I need to come back in a day or two, when I have more time. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 08:37, 1 Mar 2006 (UTC)

== sic ==

What does this mean:
:The Lord [sic] is at your right hand;
Why the sic? just curious. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 06:31, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was to emphasize that Lord is capitalized in the original text. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 06:57, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I think I get it. Is this because the idea is that ''Lord'' should have been written ''LORD''? --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:34, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:I was only thinking Lord and lord. Actually three variations are used in the [http://bible1.crosswalk.com/ParallelBible/bible.cgi RSV]: LORD (vv. 1, 2, & 4), Lord (v. 5) and lord (v. 1). In the KJV only LORD (vv. 1, 2, & 4) and Lord (vv. 1 & 5) are used. I'd love to see some commentary on these usages, my off-the-cuff guess is simply that LORD is God and that Lord and lord may refer to the servant of God. --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 18:11, 25 Feb 2006 (UTC)
::I remember reading something about this at one point. I'll look around for it. I think though that I will also remove the SIC. If we are afraid someone might edit it, I would prefer a note in the edit text that doesn't show on the front-end. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 23:52, 26 Feb 2006 (UTC)

I put the SIC in because from the context it seems to be refering to the Lord as god rather than the lord as the king of Israel. Normally, LORD is used to denote the tetragramaton (YHWH), and I suspect that the capitalization for this verse may be an error, but I haven't had time to check it yet.

--[[User:Nathan Oman|Nathan Oman]] 17:10, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:If it turns out that the conventions used by the RSV suggest that this is supposed to be "LORD" but was written instead as "Lord" then I agree that sic is appropriate. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 17:25, 27 Feb 2006 (UTC)

:I just checked on this one and I believe "Lord" is correct. "LORD" in [http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1141102634-379.html#4 verse 4] is a translation of Yahweh ([http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1141102703-9573.html Strong #03068]). In [http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1141102734-8288.html#5 verse 5] "Lord" is a translation of Adonay ([http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1141102778-5702.html Strong #0136]). --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 05:01, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

==Verse 9==
===Being made perfect===
I think it's significant that Christ's perfection is mentioned here, and that we're then advocated to be "go on unto perfection" in [[Heb 6:1]]. It seems this is an important theme being developed throughout Hebrews. But I don't understand the contrast between the "doctrine of Christ" and "go[ing] on unto perfection" in [[Heb 6:1]] very well (presumably something related to the contrast between the Levitical and Melchezideck priesthoods, and possible the law of justice and works contrasted with the law of grace). I'd like to study this contrast and the development of this theme in Hebrews more. Here are the other references to perfection in Hebrews:

[[Heb 7:11]] (perfection can't be obtained by the Levitical priesthood), [[Heb 7:19]] ("the law made nothing perfect", [[Heb 9:9]] (mortal high priest is not perfected through his annual offering[?]), [[Heb 9:11]] (Christ brings a "more perfect tabernacle"), [[Heb 10:1]] (law can never "make the comers thereunto perfect"), [[Heb 10:14]] (Christ "hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified"), [[Heb 11:40]] (ancients "without us should not be made perfect[?]), [[Heb 12:23]] ("spirits of just men made perfect"), and [[Heb 13:21]] ("make you perfect in every good work to do his will").

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 14:57, 28 Feb 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Heb 5:6-10

2006-02-28T16:32:33Z

Steven Barton: /* Chiasmus? */ added a comma

Talk:Heb 5:6-10

2006-02-28T16:31:17Z

Steven Barton: /* Chiasmus? */ reference

Talk:Heb 5:6-10

2006-02-28T08:33:57Z

Steven Barton: /* Chiasmus? */

Talk:Heb 5:6-10

2006-02-27T08:55:49Z

Steven Barton: /* Chiasmus? */ added passivity tie-in

Talk:Heb 5:6-10

2006-02-27T08:14:06Z

Steven Barton: /* Chiasmus? */ minor reword

Talk:Heb 5:6-10

2006-02-27T08:01:01Z

Steven Barton: /* Chiasmus? */

Isa 54:1-5

2005-12-15T05:14:01Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */notes on desolate, enlarge, curtains

{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 53:6-12|Previous]] || [[Isa 54:6-10|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==

Verse 1: "The desolate," Heb. shomamah, means desolate or deserted, usually used of land (cf. Isa. 49:8). Here the sense is that of an "abandoned" wife.

Verse 2: "Enlarge" (the place of thy tent) is in the second person feminine tense because it is addressed to the barren wife introduced in verse 1. The manual labor of tent preparation fell to the women, who were especially skilled at carding, spinning and weaving the goat hair into tent cloth. See Exodus 35:26.

Verse 2: "Curtains," Heb. yeri'ah, from a root what means to quiver, usually translated as curtain(s), here refers to the tent covering.

Verse 4: "Confounded" in English usually means to be confused or perplexed. Occasionally, it refers to being ashamed or abashed, which corresponds closer to the Hebrew word used here, which means to be humiliated, ashamed, or dishonored. "Confounded" is still a good translation. However the parallel with "Fear not" assumes a meaning of "humiliated" or "disconcerted," rather than "confused."

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 53:6-12|Previous]] || [[Isa 54:6-10|Next]]
|}

Isa 54:1-5

2005-12-14T08:13:28Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ added verse number

{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 53:6-12|Previous]] || [[Isa 54:6-10|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==

Verse 4: "Confounded" in English usually means to be confused or perplexed. Occasionally, it refers to being ashamed or abashed, which corresponds closer to the Hebrew word used here, which means to be humiliated, ashamed, or dishonored. "Confounded" is still a good translation. However the parallel with "Fear not" assumes a meaning of "humiliated" or "disconcerted," rather than "confused."

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 53:6-12|Previous]] || [[Isa 54:6-10|Next]]
|}

Isa 54:1-5

2005-12-14T08:12:39Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ confounded

{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 53:6-12|Previous]] || [[Isa 54:6-10|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==

"Confounded" in English usually means to be confused or perplexed. Occasionally, it refers to being ashamed or abashed, which corresponds closer to the Hebrew word used here, which means to be humiliated, ashamed, or dishonored. "Confounded" is still a good translation. However the parallel with "Fear not" assumes a meaning of "humiliated" or "disconcerted," rather than "confused."

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 53:6-12|Previous]] || [[Isa 54:6-10|Next]]
|}

Moro 10:27-34

2005-12-14T07:45:56Z

Steven Barton: /* Exegesis */ expanded the range of OT references

{| width="20%"
| [[Moro 10:26-30|Previous]] ||            
|}
== Questions ==
* In verse 31 it says for Jerusalem to "put on thy beautiful garments". What is meant by beautiful garments? Is it to be taken in the literal sense or is there a figurative meaning?
* In verse 33 what does it mean to be perfect in Christ? What do we need to do to be perfect in Christ?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==

Verses 30-33: Moroni's final words and the closing instruction of the Book of Mormon expound a message that constitutes the very essence of the gospel; perfection and sanctification by the grace of God through Christ.

The introduction uses phrases from [[Isa 52:1-2, 11-12|Isaiah 52:1-2, 11-12]] and [[Isa 54:2, 4|54:2, 4]], where, in the poetic language of Isaiah, the themes of deliverance from bondage and redemption were directed toward Israel as a nation. There the message, on the surface, was about the Babylonian captivity and national liberation. Here Moroni uses the passages to call the reader into the spiritual liberation and redemption offered to those who "come unto Christ." Here, to rise from the dust and put on the beautiful garments, is a call to come unto Christ and be delivered from bondage to sin and "be no more confounded." To "strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders" uses nomadic imagery of the forsaken wife and points to the reception of the eternal covenant blessings of Abraham.

The repeated phrase "in Christ" comes from Pauline theology and essentially means "through Christ" or "by means of Christ," but also describes the spiritual relationship and mystical union of the believer with the Savior.

An examination of the wealth of passages in scripture that encourage one to "come unto Christ" reveals a unified message that the believer, in return, partakes of some gift; the goodness of God, salvation, redemption, rest, living bread/water, resurrection, etc. It's not that the Savior has merely shown us the way or given us an example as the Master Teacher. There is more. He has something transforming to give to all who will come unto him. It follows then, that the perfection and sanctification that is "in Christ" is given by the grace of God to believers, that they may "become holy, without spot."

The phrase "deny yourselves of all ungodliness" seems to imply the "after all we can do" ([[2 Ne 25:23]]) aspect of salvation by grace, but to focus on a sinless existence as the formula for perfection misses the more transcending truth wherein we are made new creatures through the reception of the Spirit by coming unto Christ in the covenant of the Father.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Moro 10:26-30|Previous]] ||            
|}

Talk:Moro 10:27-34

2005-12-14T07:32:33Z

Steven Barton: more on strengthening the stakes

Hi Hsprunt,
Thanks for the interesting question. I had always assumed that beautiful garments were representative of a place of honor--like special clothing for a king or queen. In that sense I hadn't read it as literal but rather saying "wake up Jerusalem and take your place of honor so that God can give you the blessings he has promised." I don't see it as a mere coincidence though that "garment" is used here and we use the same word to refer to temple garments. I think in both cases the physical clothing represents a special position (to use the wrong word no-doubt but I can't find the right one) that sets the person apart and because of that special position allows the person to receive blessings that otherwise they would not be able to have. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:00, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hi [[User:Steven Barton|Steven]],
I'm not sure what you mean by midrashic. Can you explain?
--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 07:13, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Matthew, I am glad that you asked, because now that I think about it, midrash does not communicate precisely what I meant to say. And the word carries too much connotational baggage. In its most general sense midrash means to interpret scripture. The word Midrash comes form the Hebrew root 'darash', meaning to search or investigate. But midrash more often attempts to employ minute examination and interpretation of scripture, usually by the Jewish rabbis, to bring out the deeper or ethical meaning of the text. It can often result in peculiar, esoteric and often fanciful conclusions. Which is why midrash is probably not the right word here. It most often refers to rabbinic writings and interpretation methodologies. I suggest we simply remove the phrase altogether.

What I wanted to communicate was that Moroni was taking several scriptural phrases, originally used in a particular context, applying them on a deeper level and expounding and expanding the material. (Midrash can sometimes refer to this type of scriptural exposition.) --Steven Barton 09:02, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hi Steven, That's helpful. Thank you. Another question. What do you mean when you say:
:To "strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders" uses nomadic imagery of the forsaken wife and points to the reception of the eternal covenant blessings of Abraham.
I think I know what a nomad is and it makes sense to me (though I hadn't heard it before) that the imagery of strengthen thy stakes and enlarging thy borders is nomadic. However I'm not sure what it has to do with the forsaken wife.

On a related note when I read verse 31 it seems like Moroni is saying something like Jerusalem (the daughter of Zion--who has been confounded in the past) should strengthen and enlarge her tent in order to not be confounded any more. But I don't understand in this verse how strengthening the stakes in one's tent and enlarging it help prevent one from being confounded. Maybe your comment that this has to do with the imagery of the forsaken wife, is a key to an answer to that question?

By the way, I really like what you wrote here:
:The phrase "deny yourselves of all ungodliness" seems to imply the "after-all-that-we-can-do" aspect of salvation by grace, but to focus on a sinless existence as the formula for perfection misses the more transcending truth wherein we are made new creatures through the reception of the Spirit by coming unto Christ in the covenant of the Father.

--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 12:57, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Matthew. You asked,
:". . . how [does] strengthening the stakes in one's tent and enlarging it help prevent one from being confounded."

It is my belief that the words "that thou mayest no more be confounded" actually go back to the command, in verse 30, where we are exhorted to "come unto Christ and lay hold upon every good gift." God only commands us to enlarge our tents so that we may have room for the blessings that will be poured upon us.

In a nut-shell, I interpret the passage basically like this: "Come unto Christ, receive his redeeming gift by departing from bondage to sin, put on your robes of honor and make room for all the blessings God has promised to the children of Israel, that ye be ashamed and confounded no more." It is tempting to suggest that the garments refer to the priesthood and the enlarging of the tent points to missionary work, but we would miss the bigger, richer picture, I think.

I will add more exegesis to this subject later on the Isaiah 54 page (particularly material about the nomadic imagery and the forsaken/barren wife).
--[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 07:32, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Moro 10:27-34

2005-12-13T09:09:32Z

Steven Barton: minor edit

Talk:Moro 10:27-34

2005-12-13T09:08:43Z

Steven Barton: Response to Matthew

Moro 10:27-34

2005-12-13T09:05:38Z

Steven Barton: /* Exegesis */ removed midrash phrase

{| width="20%"
| [[Moro 10:26-30|Previous]] ||            
|}
== Questions ==
* In verse 31 it says for Jerusalem to "put on thy beautiful garments". What is meant by beautiful garments? Is it to be taken in the literal sense or is there a figurative meaning?
* In verse 33 what does it mean to be perfect in Christ? What do we need to do to be perfect in Christ?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==

Moroni's final words and the closing instruction of the Book of Mormon expound a message that constitutes the very essence of the gospel; perfection and sanctification by the grace of God through Christ.

The introduction uses phrases from [[Isa 52:1|Isaiah 52:1]] and [[Isa 54:2|54:2]], where, in the poetic language of Isaiah, the themes of deliverance from bondage and redemption were directed toward Israel as a nation. There the message, on the surface, was about the Babylonian captivity and national liberation. Here Moroni uses the passages to call the reader into the spiritual liberation and redemption offered to those who "come unto Christ." Here, to rise from the dust and put on the beautiful garments, is a call to come unto Christ and be delivered from bondage to sin and "be no more confounded." To "strengthen thy stakes and enlarger thy borders" uses nomadic imagery of the forsaken wife and points to the reception of the eternal covenant blessings of Abraham.

The repeated phrase "in Christ" comes from Pauline theology and essentially means "through Christ" or "by means of Christ," but also describes the spiritual relationship and mystical union of the believer with the Savior.

An examination of the wealth of passages in scripture that encourage one to "come unto Christ" reveals a unified message that the believer, in return, partakes of some gift; the goodness of God, salvation, redemption, rest, living bread/water, resurrection, etc. It's not that the Savior has merely shown us the way or given us an example as the Master Teacher. There is more. He has something transforming to give to all who will come unto him. It follows then, that the perfection and sanctification that is "in Christ" is given by the grace of God to believers, that they may "become holy, without spot."

The phrase "deny yourselves of all ungodliness" seems to imply the "after-all-that-we-can-do" aspect of salvation by grace, but to focus on a sinless existence as the formula for perfection misses the more transcending truth wherein we are made new creatures through the reception of the Spirit by coming unto Christ in the covenant of the Father.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Moro 10:26-30|Previous]] ||            
|}

Moro 10:27-34

2005-12-13T07:54:58Z

Steven Barton: /* Exegesis */ Come unto Christ

{| width="20%"
| [[Moro 10:26-30|Previous]] ||            
|}
== Questions ==
* In verse 31 it says for Jerusalem to "put on thy beautiful garments". What is meant by beautiful garments? Is it to be taken in the literal sense or is there a figurative meaning?
* In verse 33 what does it mean to be perfect in Christ? What do we need to do to be perfect in Christ?

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==

Moroni's final words and the closing instruction of the Book of Mormon expound a message that constitutes the very essence of the gospel; perfection and sanctification by the grace of God through Christ.

The introduction uses phrases from [[Isa 52:1|Isaiah 52:1]] and [[Isa 54:2|54:2]], where, in the poetic language of Isaiah, the themes of deliverance from bondage and redemption were directed toward Israel as a nation. There the message, on the surface, was about the Babylonian captivity and national liberation. Here Moroni uses the passages, in a midrashic way, to call the reader into the spiritual liberation and redemption offered to those who "come unto Christ." Here, to rise from the dust and put on the beautiful garments, is a call to come unto Christ and be delivered from bondage to sin and "be no more confounded." To "strengthen thy stakes and enlarger thy borders" uses nomadic imagery of the forsaken wife and points to the reception of the eternal covenant blessings of Abraham.

The repeated phrase "in Christ" comes from Pauline theology and essentially means "through Christ" or "by means of Christ," but also describes the spiritual relationship and mystical union of the believer with the Savior.

An examination of the wealth of passages in scripture that encourage one to "come unto Christ" reveals a unified message that the believer, in return, partakes of some gift; the goodness of God, salvation, redemption, rest, living bread/water, resurrection, etc. It's not that the Savior has merely shown us the way or given us an example as the Master Teacher. There is more. He has something transforming to give to all who will come unto him. It follows then, that the perfection and sanctification that is "in Christ" is given by the grace of God to believers, that they may "become holy, without spot."

The phrase "deny yourselves of all ungodliness" seems to imply the "after-all-that-we-can-do" aspect of salvation by grace, but to focus on a sinless existence as the formula for perfection misses the more transcending truth wherein we are made new creatures through the reception of the Spirit by coming unto Christ in the covenant of the Father.

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Moro 10:26-30|Previous]] ||            
|}

Moro 10:27-34

2005-12-12T08:00:10Z

Steven Barton: /* Exegesis */ beautiful garments, strengthen stakes, "in Christ"

Isa 52:1-5

2005-12-08T08:46:03Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ "Put on thy beautiful garments"

{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 51:21-23|Previous]] || [[Isa 52:6-10|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==

Verse 1: 
Put on thy strength, O Zion; 
Put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city:

The Heb. beged, translated here as garments, is a very generic term used throughout the Bible for clothing or raiment of any kind, ranging from the simplest sackcloth to the finest linens, and from the filthiest of rags to the robes of the high priest. In this case, its use in the construct state is more literally rendered, garments of beauty or robes of honor. The parallel with strength indicates that the sense is more than simply; "Put on your best clothes." The word for beautiful is tifarah (p-a-r), which has been translated variously as beauty, glory or honor. For example: Isa. 60:7, the house of my glory; Ex. 28:2, Aaron's holy (kodesh) garments were for glory and for beauty / honor (although it is not strictly a cultic term).

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 51:21-23|Previous]] || [[Isa 52:6-10|Next]]
|}

2 Ne 4:16-20

2005-09-18T03:17:59Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */Verses 18-20 arrangement

{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:11-15|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:21-25|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
* Verses 16 through 35 bear such a striking resemblance to the style and structure of the biblical poetic writings that the section is often referred to as the "Psalm of Nephi." For an analysis of similarities to Hebrew poetry, see the article by [http://home.comcast.net/~openskyvisions/PsalmOfNephiEssay.html Steven Barton].

* Verses 16-17 open the first stanza of the Psalm of Nephi. The unit appears to be a series of 3 couplets organized in chiastic form.

A. Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; 
B. And my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard.

C. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, 
c. My heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am!

b. Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; 
a. My soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.

This chiasm is a good example of the tendency to contrast antithetical
ideas when using chiastic form. Typically, the center point of a chiasm will
be the point at which an opposite idea is introduced.

Hence, 
:A. soul delighteth 
:B. heart pondereth 
:C. goodness of the Lord

is contrasted with:

:c. wretched man 
:b. heart sorroweth 
:a. soul grieveth

* Verses 18-20. If we ignore the arbitrary punctuation of Grandin and arrange the lines similar to a passage from the Psalms or Isaiah, the verses break out differently:

:I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me, 
:And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins. 

:Nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted,
:My God hath been my support; 

:He hath led me through mine afflictions in the wilderness, 
:And he hath preserved me upon the waters of the great deep.

In some ways, the thought groupings and punctuation are stronger when arranged in this manner.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:11-15|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:21-25|Next]]
|}

2 Ne 4:16-20

2005-09-18T02:16:50Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ Verses 16-17 chiastic arrangement

{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:11-15|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:21-25|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
Verses 16 through 35 bear such a striking resemblance to the style and structure of the biblical poetic writings that the section is often referred to as the "Psalm of Nephi." For an analysis of similarities to Hebrew poetry, see the article by [http://home.comcast.net/~openskyvisions/PsalmOfNephiEssay.html Steven Barton].

Verses 16-17 open the first stanza of the Psalm of Nephi. The unit appears to be a series of 3 couplets organized in chiastic form.

A. Behold, my soul delighteth in the things of the Lord; 
B. And my heart pondereth continually upon the things which I have seen and heard.

C. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the great goodness of the Lord, in showing me his great and marvelous works, 
c. My heart exclaimeth: O wretched man that I am!

b. Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; 
a. My soul grieveth because of mine iniquities.

This chiasm is a good example of the tendency to contrast antithetical
ideas when using chiastic form. Typically, the center point of a chiasm will
be the point at which an opposite idea is introduced.

Hence, 
:A. soul delighteth 
:B. heart pondereth 
:C. goodness of the Lord

is contrasted with:

:c. wretched man 
:b. heart sorroweth 
:a. soul grieveth

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:11-15|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:21-25|Next]]
|}

Talk:2 Ne 2:1-5

2005-09-18T01:17:50Z

Steven Barton: /*

* The Joseph Smith quote might be a little misplaced in the question for v. 3, but I thought I'd leave it in b/c it's in Jim Faulconer's original SS lesson material. Besides, I thought someone else might think of an appropriate place for it, so I didn't want to just cut it.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 23:41, 17 Sep 2005 (CEST)

* I was looking up the word [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=free|"free" in Webster's 1828 dictionary] and it has "Heb." listed after the entry. Does anyone have any idea what that means? At first I thought it mean the word was of Hebrew origin, but it seems to come from the [http://www.bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html|Indo-European root] [http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE422.html|"pri"]. Any ideas?? --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 01:04, 18 Sep 2005 (CEST)

As far as I know, the abbreviation "Heb." only refers to Hebrew. None of the Hebrew words for free, either ancient or modern, bear any resemblance to the English 'free'. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 03:16, 18 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Talk:2 Ne 2:1-5

2005-09-18T01:16:43Z

Steven Barton: comment on the abbreviation Heb in dictionary entry

* The Joseph Smith quote might be a little misplaced in the question for v. 3, but I thought I'd leave it in b/c it's in Jim Faulconer's original SS lesson material. Besides, I thought someone else might think of an appropriate place for it, so I didn't want to just cut it.... --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 23:41, 17 Sep 2005 (CEST)

* I was looking up the word [http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=free|"free" in Webster's 1828 dictionary] and it has "Heb." listed after the entry. Does anyone have any idea what that means? At first I thought it mean the word was of Hebrew origin, but it seems to come from the [http://www.bartleby.com/61/IEroots.html|Indo-European root] [http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE422.html|"pri"]. Any ideas?? --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 01:04, 18 Sep 2005 (CEST)

== comment on the abbreviation Heb in dictionary entry ==

As far as I know, the abbreviation "Heb." only refers to Hebrew. None of the Hebrew words for free, either ancient or modern, bear any resemblance to the English 'free'. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 03:16, 18 Sep 2005 (CEST)

2 Ne 4:16-20

2005-09-17T19:06:20Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */

Talk:Alma 36:1-5

2005-09-16T07:04:11Z

Steven Barton: Comment about poetry and prose in the Hebrew writings.

This is the longest Chiasmuth in the Book of Mormon. I have heard there are others, but where, and how many I have never been told. if anyone could enlighten me with some history and locations of the Chiasmuths, I would really appreciate it. --[[User:Jaromhanson|Jaromhanson]] 9 Sep 2005

== Comment about poetry and prose in the Hebrew writings. ==

We often think that when we see structural and stylistic elements that we have come to associate with poetry, that we are looking at actual poetry. But Kugel has pointed out that the biblical texts make no broad distinction between poetry and prose. In fact, there is no word for poetry in the Hebrew Bible. Instead, we find a wide variety of texts that employ "poetic" literary devices with more or less frequency in both passages that we have come to associate with poetry as well as those that we consider prose (cf. James L. Kugel The Idea of Biblical Poetry, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981, pp 59-95). It is not out of place, then, to find literary devices that we equate with biblical poetry--parallelisms and chiasmus--utilized in Alma 36, a passage which is primarily a simple narrative. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 09:04, 16 Sep 2005 (CEST)

Isa 52:6-10

2005-09-13T15:38:55Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ revised wording and italics

{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 52:1-5|Previous]] || [[Isa 52:11-15|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

"How beautiful upon the mountains," Heb. mah-nahvoo 'al-heharim. Literally the reading is, "How / beautiful are they (ie., the feet of the messengers) / upon / the mountains." The Hebrew word here for "beautiful" occurs only three times in the Old Testament, and only twice pronounced nahvoo (the other occurance is Song of Solomon 1:10). The verb (nun - alef - heh) is thought to mean "be comely, be fitting." This passage is probably the source of the city name Nauvoo.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 52:1-5|Previous]] || [[Isa 52:11-15|Next]]
|}

Isa 52:6-10

2005-09-13T08:24:56Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ How beautiful upon the mountains - wording revise

{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 52:1-5|Previous]] || [[Isa 52:11-15|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

"How beautiful upon the mountains," Heb. mah-nahvoo 'al-heharim. The Hebrew word for "beautiful" here occurs only three times the Old Testament, and only twice pronounced nahvoo (the other occurance is Song of Solomon 1:10).
The verb (nun - alef - he) is thought to mean "be comely, be fitting." Literally the reading is, "How beautiful are they (ie., the feet of the messengers) upon the mountains." This passage appears to be the source of the city name Nauvoo.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 52:1-5|Previous]] || [[Isa 52:11-15|Next]]
|}

Isa 52:6-10

2005-09-13T08:19:13Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */

{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 52:1-5|Previous]] || [[Isa 52:11-15|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

"How beautiful upon the mountains," Heb. mah-nahvoo 'al-heharim. The Hebrew word for "beautiful" here occurs only three times the Old Testament, and only twice pronounced nahvoo (the other occurance is Song of Solomon 1:10).
The verb (nun - alef - he) is thought to mean "be comely, be fitting." Literally the reading is, "How beautiful are they (ie., the feet of the messengers) upon the mountains." This appears to be the passage from which comes the name of the city Nauvoo.

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 52:1-5|Previous]] || [[Isa 52:11-15|Next]]
|}

2 Ne 4:21-25

2005-09-10T18:54:13Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */Added another hidden parallel

{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:16-20|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:26-30|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
Regardless of what language Nephi used to transmit the "Psalm of Nephi," there are, in the passage, enough Hebraisms and similarities to Hebrew poetry to conjecture a Hebrew language original. When we conclude so, we can make some interesting observations.

Verses 21 and 22. The two lines are linked by parallel elements of syntax and morphology. The parallelism of Hebrew poetry often extends beyond a rhythm of thought and ideas to that of morphology, syntax, and phonetics, resemblances which tend to be less obvious, especially in translation.

He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.
He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me.

If we translate the passage back into Hebrew, and arrange it into typical "verse" format, we observe that each line begins with the verb form "he hath" followed by a parallel in the Hebrew root aleph - yod - bet (enemy) with aleph - heh - bet (love). The two words have similar roots (in fact yod and heh are related root letters). The second half of each line begins with "unto" ("od" in the Hebrew) followed in the Hebrew by the infinitive construct verb form.

Thus vs 21b in Hebrew would read:
od kkelot bbesari (compare Ruth 2:23).
In vs 22, the phrase "the causing of them to quake" is awkward in English, but brings to mind the hiphil "causative" verb form in the Hebrew.
Verse 22b in Hebrew might read:
od ham'idu mippanai (compare Ps 69:23) [an alternative choice would be od hacharidu mippanai (compare Ezek 30:9)].

When we stack these together the correspondences in the first clause of both lines become more evedent:

he hath filled / aleph - heh - bet
he hath confounded / aleph - yod - bet

And in the final clause of both lines we have:

connective od / infinitive construct / of my flesh
connective od / infinitive construct / "from my face"

The parallel at the end of each line is not readily apparent in English, but the idium for "before me" in Hebrew reads literally from my face, which draws a connection to "of my flesh" in the first line. The syntactic link is further bolstered by the personal posessive suffix yod affixed as the final character of both lines.

As interesting as these musings might be (to some), we are tempted to ask the question, "Does a poetic interpretation effect the message conveyed by the text?" If we establish a parallel between these two lines, the answer is yes, because then we are justified in viewing them as one thought unit:

He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.
He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me.

As such, we have a much stronger statement than if the two lines were merely treated as successive lines among many others. As a unit, the verse has sharper contrast. As a unit, the statement is more emphatic! The lines together would be understood as:

He has filled me such that I am completely consumed with his love,
But my enemies he has so confounded that they tremble with fear!

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:16-20|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:26-30|Next]]
|}

2 Ne 4:21-25

2005-09-10T18:01:02Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ Added a visual of the parallel in the opening clauses

{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:16-20|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:26-30|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
Regardless of what language Nephi used to transmit the "Psalm of Nephi," there are, in the passage, enough Hebraisms and similarities to Hebrew poetry to conjecture a Hebrew language original. When we conclude so, we can make some interesting observations.

Verses 21 and 22. The two lines are linked by parallel elements of syntax and morphology. The parallelism of Hebrew poetry often extends beyond a rhythm of thought and ideas to that of morphology, syntax, and phonetics, resemblances which tend to be less obvious, especially in translation.

He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.
He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me.

If we translate the passage back into Hebrew, and arrange it into typical "verse" format, we observe that each line begins with the verb form "he hath" followed by a parallel in the Hebrew root aleph - yod - bet (enemy) with aleph - heh - bet (love). The two words have similar roots (in fact yod and heh are related root letters). The second half of each line begins with "unto" ("od" in the Hebrew) followed in the Hebrew by the infinitive construct verb form.

Thus vs 21b in Hebrew would read:
od kkelot bbesari (compare Ruth 2:23).
In vs 22, the phrase "the causing of them to quake" is awkward in English, but brings to mind the hiphil "causative" verb form in the Hebrew.
Verse 22b in Hebrew might read:
od ham'idu mippanai (compare Ps 69:23) [an alternative choice would be od hacharidu mippanai (compare Ezek 30:9)].

When we stack these together the correspondences in the first clause of both lines become more evedent:

he hath filled / aleph - heh - bet
he hath confounded / aleph - yod - bet

And in the final clause of both lines we have:

connective od / infinitive construct / of my flesh
connective od / infinitive construct / "from my face"

Note that the connection between lines is further established by each line ending (in the Hebrew) with a yod.

As interesting as these musings might be (to some), we are tempted to ask the question, "Does a poetic interpretation effect the message conveyed by the text?" If we establish a parallel between these two lines, the answer is yes, because then we are justified in viewing them as one thought unit:

He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.
He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me.

As such, we have a much stronger statement than if the two lines were merely treated as successive lines among many others. As a unit, the verse has sharper contrast. As a unit, the statement is more emphatic! The lines together would be understood as:

He has filled me such that I am completely consumed with his love,
But my enemies he has so confounded that they tremble with fear!

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:16-20|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:26-30|Next]]
|}

2 Ne 4:21-25

2005-09-10T09:10:47Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */ Linking two sucessive lines by morpholgy and syntax

{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:16-20|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:26-30|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''
Regardless of what language Nephi used to transmit the "Psalm of Nephi," there are, in the passage, enough Hebraisms and similarities to Hebrew poetry to conjecture a Hebrew language original. When we conclude so, we can make some interesting observations.

Verses 21 and 22. The two lines are linked by parallel elements of syntax and morphology. The parallelism of Hebrew poetry often extends beyond a rhythm of thought and ideas to that of morphology, syntax, and phonetics, resemblances which tend to be less obvious, especially in translation.

He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.
He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me.

If we translate the passage back into Hebrew, and arrange it into typical "verse" format, we observe that each line begins with the verb form "he hath" followed by a parallel in the Hebrew root aleph - yod - bet (enemy) with aleph - heh - bet (love). The two words have similar roots (in fact yod and heh are related root letters). The second half of each line begins with "unto" ("od" in the Hebrew) followed in the Hebrew by the infinitive construct verb form.

Thus vs 21b in Hebrew would read:
od kkelot bbesari (compare Ruth 2:23).
In vs 22, the phrase "the causing of them to quake" is awkward in English, but brings to mind the hiphil "causative" verb form in the Hebrew.
Verse 22b in Hebrew might read:
od ham'idu mippanai (compare Ps 69:23) [an alternative choice would be od hacharidu mippanai (compare Ezek 30:9)].

Structurally, in the final clause of both lines we have:

connective od / infinitive construct / of my flesh
connective od / infinitive construct / "from my face"

Note that the connection between lines is further established by each line ending (in the Hebrew) with a yod.

As interesting as these musings might be (to some), we are tempted to ask the question, "Does a poetic interpretation effect the message conveyed by the text?" If we establish a parallel between these two lines, the answer is yes, because then we are justified in viewing them as one thought unit:

He hath filled me with his love, even unto the consuming of my flesh.
He hath confounded mine enemies, unto the causing of them to quake before me.

As such, we have a much stronger statement than if the two lines were merely treated as successive lines among many others. As a unit, the verse has sharper contrast. As a unit, the statement is more emphatic! The lines together would be understood as:

He has filled me such that I am completely consumed with his love,
But my enemies he has so confounded that they tremble with fear!

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

----
{| width="20%"
| [[2 Ne 4:16-20|Previous]] || [[2 Ne 4:26-30|Next]]
|}

Isa 53:1-5

2005-08-20T08:26:01Z

Steven Barton: /* Related links */

{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 52:11-15|Previous]] || [[Isa 53:6-12|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add questions''

== Lexical notes ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add related links''

* A less beautiful translation that attempts to better communicate the poetic structure of the chapter is [http://home.comcast.net/~openskyvisions/Isaiah_53.html here]

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Isa 52:11-15|Previous]] || [[Isa 53:6-12|Next]]
|}

Talk:Heb 7:21-25

2005-08-20T05:49:55Z

Steven Barton:

Hi Steven,

As I see it your question is asking how the Latter-day Saint understanding of Priesthood is consistent with Heb 7:24? Is that right? I read through the external link. If I understand correctly, I think your answer comes down to two different uses of the word priesthood. Would you feel comfortable suggesting a short answer using the lexical notes and exegesis sections? Then you could refer readers for more detail to the external link. My concern is that without this some (including myself originally) might misread the question as a suggestion that LDS belief is inconsistent with the scriptures. Re-reading through your external link I don't think that is what you are saying.
--[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 16:58, 19 Aug 2005 (CEST)

PS one more thing. In my earlier question to you (before I revised it) I said that your article said that LDS belief and the scripture are not consistent. When I re-read it I realized I had misread. I should have read more closely the first time or at least reserved judgement until I had a better understanding. Please accept my appologies. --[[User:Matthewfaulconer|Matthew Faulconer]] 19:29, 19 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Nice article Steven. I wrote what I hope is a good summary in the exegesis that addresses Matthew's concerns. A couple notes:

* Most LDS readers will read "unchangeable" in their scriptures which doesn't have a non-transferable connotation. This is why I added the Greek translation link which mentions this connotation, but since there are two definitions listed and the first doesn't necessarily have this connotation, I think most readers will still question whether the text really connotes non-transferable....

* I was cautious in tone regarding Melchizedek and associations of eternity. I don't think this is something most LDS members have heard of. Are there any specific sources that could be added to substantiate this eternity connotation in rabinnic or ancient Hebrew texts?

* I think the 'priestly duties' point about the priesthood is interesting. Are there any other sources to read more about this?

--[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 19:10, 19 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Robert, you wrote a better summary than I could have. (I will make only a slight change in one word in your statement, from priesthood to priestly, which I think conveys a nuance that helps to reiterate my point.) Thank you.

Regarding the eternal aspect of Melchizedek; John Welch gives an excellent overview of the diverse material on Melchizedek through the ages in his article (currently) titled "The Melchizedek Material in Alma 13:13-19". Here is an excerpt:

. . . there have come about as many interpretations of Melchizedek as there have been heresies and orthodoxies, for few systematic biblical commentators have passed over this intriguing figure without accommodating him in one way or another. The importance ascribed to him varies with the system in which each interpretation stands. In some views he is regarded merely as a political figure who established certain legal precedents, while in others he becomes a central eschatological figure who will lead the war against Satan in the final battle against evil. Elsewhere he is raised to membership in the Godhead by one early Christian sect, while he is defamed as a bastard by Jewish apologists who found his unpedigreed preeminence in the Pentateuch disquieting. Gnostics and Christian mystics have ascribed cosmological powers to him, whereas Protestants have dismissed any notion that he was anything more than a feudal Canaanite king.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=6

Commenting on Heb. 7:8, George Wesley Buchanan pointed out that there would be no reason for the writer of Hebrews to state that the Levites, who "receive tithes," were "mortal men," unless it was contrasted with Melchizedek. Let me quote directly from his work:

Of Melchizedek "it is attested that 'he lives.'" When the subject is left undetermined in reference to a statement or testimony, the author regularly means "God," "the scripture," or "the Holy Spirit" says or testifies, but there is no basis in the scripture quoted, or in any of the proof texts from scripture used by the author, which would justify the claim that Melchizedek "lives." The only apparent quotation that might justify this claim is in the little poem quoted in 7:3. There the subject, which the author held to be Melchizedek, was said to have no end "of life" (''zoes''). That seems to have been used as a proof text to show that Melchizedek "lives" (''ze''), just as "without geneology" was used to prove Melchizedek was not from the geneology of the Levites (7:6). If this is the correct analysis of the data, then the author evidently held the poem to have doctrinal status very nearly that of the scripture. If we only had access to the source from which this poem was taken, many points would be clearer. George Wesley Buchanan, To the Hebrews. Translation, Comment and Conclusions, The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1972), p. 121-122.

The point about priestly duties is my own conclusion based on the understanding that the transition from the Jewish priestly system to the Christian priesthood was still in flux at the time that Hebrews was written. --[[User:Steven Barton|Steven Barton]] 06:56, 20 Aug 2005 (CEST)

Heb 7:21-25

2005-08-20T04:57:47Z

Steven Barton: /* Lexical notes */

{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 7:16-20|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:26-28|Next]]
|}
== Questions ==
* ''Click the edit link above and to the right to add lexical notes''

== Lexical notes ==
'''Unchangeable priesthood''' - The Greek word [http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=531&version=kjv aparabatos] in v. 24 has been translated "unchangeable" in the KJV ("permanent" in most other translations, "never pass" in [http://www.v-a.com/bible/hebrews-7.html this Aramaic version]), but has an additional connotation of "not liable to pass to a successor."
This raises the question of whether the priesthood can be ''passed on'' to others. [http://home.comcast.net/~openskyvisions/Non-transferablePriesthood.html Steven Barton] discusses two uses of the term ''priesthood'' in the scriptures and argues that v. 24 is referring to Christ's unique priestly calling to atone for sins, a calling that is not transferrable to anyone else. In support of this interpretation is the reference in v. 21 to Melchizedek who is associated with immortality in rabbinic and early Hebrew writings. According to Barton:

:Many ancient people thought of Melchizedek as a being that popped in and out of the world and lives on still. Christ's priestly duty, then, was "after the order of Melchizedek," meaning (in Hebrews) that Christ's sacrifice was eternal (like Melchizedek). His role as true high priest and mediator has not been given to another, because (like Melchizedek) "he lives" (Heb. 7:8,25).

== Exegesis ==
''Click the edit link above and to the right to add exegesis''

== Related links ==
* See the article: ''Non-Transferable Priesthood'' by [http://home.comcast.net/~openskyvisions/Non-transferablePriesthood.html Steven Barton]

----
{| width="20%"
| [[Heb 7:16-20|Previous]] || [[Heb 7:26-28|Next]]
|}