"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5
While being born of the Spirit is pretty clear, I've heard the argument before that Jesus is only referring to one's physical birth when he speaks of "water" or amniotic fluid, so to speak. The point of said argument being to somehow cheapen baptism as a necessity for Salvation. Personally, I see three issues with this Baptism avoiding interpretation.
Issue #1 Per Christ's teaching, Baptism is of Water and The Spirit.
Looking back at the general context of John, a mere two chapters earlier Jesus, Himself, was baptized. Jesus, Himself, did not start His public ministry until he had been baptized. However, what is key to note is that the Holy Spirit was there when Jesus was baptized. The description of John the baptist reveals an immediate collusion of Baptism with the Holy Spirit. "And John bore witness, "I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him." John 1:32 This wording is nearly the same in all four of the Gospels. See Mark 1:10, Matthew 3:16, and Luke 3:22 for the others. Essentially, when John speaks of one who will come to baptize with the Spirit, he speaks of baptism not to the exclusion of water but with it. Though, just to be clear, baptism is not the only place for the Spirit to act.
Issue #2 Grammatical Context
I am taking people at their word for this, but apparently in Greek the word format is such that you could not rephrase the sentence to say "Unless you are born of Water and Unless you are born of The Spirit". The wording is such that the words "Water" and "Spirit" are locked under the heading of a singular event. That is to say that the singular event referred to (Baptism) comprises two parts simultaneously occurring and not two events at separate times of life.
Issue #3 Context
The most compelling argument for me is this; "After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized." John 3:22 Think about it for a moment and then go back and re-read John 3. Right after having a talk with Nicodemus on water and The Spirit, Jesus goes off and spends time baptizing. Coincidence? I think not. He was definitely trying to let us know something.
Go and set the World on Fire
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
10 Commandments
First of all, Trivial Argument Alert:
I've been told that we Catholics have the numbering of the 10 commandments wrong. So, I've been trying to look back and understand why the split in numbering.
First of all, the data for the 10 Commandments is found in Exodus 20: 1-17. Looking at that in my NRSV and RSV Bibles, I see the verses set off into 10 neat paragraphs that match up with the protestant numbering. I am, of course, mildly taken aback by this and found myself wondering what was the Catholic logic behind this difference. Most issues between Catholics and Protestants seem to drop into semantics so I wonder if it is somehow present because of things "lost in translation". Though unconfirmed, I have a hunch that Hebrew is mainly not written with paragraph type separations, but that our modern conventions in English have tacked that on. *pauses and does some looking* No, apparently that is not the case, Hebrew seems to have paragraph-like separations.
In looking at the data, something occurred to me that I was surprised about. I was wondering where we got the term "ten commandments" from. I mean, I had presumed it's biblical origin while at the same time not knowing where. A quick search at blueletterbible.com yielded three locations Exd 34:28B, Deu 4:13, and Deu 10:4.
Location 1: Exodus 34:28B reads: ... And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Location 2: Deu 4:13 reads: And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Location 3: Deu 10:4 reads: And he wrote on the tables, as at the first writing, the ten commandments which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them to me.
I was intrigued to note that the Hebrew words use the same root form "dabar" for both words and commandments (the bold words above). The implications of the usage of the word "word" for commandments depends entirely on how Hebraic traditions perceived "words" within the 10 commandments. Since I really don't know any Hebrew though my investigation must stop here short of major speculations.
Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention one thing: The 10 commandments other name is the Decaloque or literally "10 words". There might be more to this.
New information: The Ten Commandments are iterated in two places in the OT: Exodus and Deut 5:6-21. I invite you to take a look at the split of the paragraphs here. There are 11 paragraphs. The what would have been #10 in Exodus is split into two parts here. This means that at the very least the splitting of the last two commands is at the very least Biblical in origin. The discrepancies in the numbering seems to stem from the confusion of the two different iterations of the Ten Commandments.
Now to take a look at the different origins of the different forms of the Ten Commandments. After spending some time searching now, the only link that I found that had a detailed amount of information to say on this topic is: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NUMBERNG.HTM by James Akin, a Catholic Apologist. His presentation of the data is most succinct and I would recommend that you read his article in it's entirety unlike me who only ran across it once.
However, because I don't expect anyone to really look at that link in it's entirety. I will state as best as I can the most compelling argument for me as to the difference between the two organizations of the 10 commandments.
The Ten Commandments have a different format because St. Augustine(350-430) reorganized them for memorization by the youth. This does not mean that we read Exodus and Deuteronomy's accounts of the Ten Commandments in Augustine's format. Rather, we use the un-numbered scripture un-altered, but use the "normal" Catholic format for memorization purposes. We use both. Which is better do you think? I say neither, they both have their purpose and role that is all.
Also, I would like to point out that St. Augustine's organization of the Ten Commandments occurred around the same time as the Canon of Scripture was decided upon.
The last objection I would like to try and answer is that the Catholic Church omits the second commandment. This obviously is not the case. Catholic's believe that the point of the first commandment is that "You shall have no other God's before Me" and that the following paragraph was a further emphasis for the superior hierarchical value of the first commandment. Biblically speaking because of the numerous Holy examples of "graven images" in the OT such as the Golden Serpent, the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon's Temple the 2nd Commandment must have had a specific implication. I believe the specific "word"(dabar) was that you shall make no idols and that what follows is a description not of things that are idols but forms that an idol may take but doesn't necessarily take. Obviously the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant are a "form of" something that "is in heaven above" which would then make God a contradictory being. I would propose however that it is not God who is contradictory (because Truth never contradicts Himself) but us. We must align ourselves to God.
One last note: It is important for me to state here that the Catholic Church's order for the Ten Commandments is not set in stone. The Ten Commandments in the format that has Protestants protesting is mainly a memorization tool and not a dogmatic tradition, though a useful tradition none-the-less. For further reading see the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm In other words, the emphasis is on the spirit and the meaning of the Ten Commandments and not on having to know the exact wording (though that can hardly be thought of as harmful).
Now, Go and Set the World on Fire
I've been told that we Catholics have the numbering of the 10 commandments wrong. So, I've been trying to look back and understand why the split in numbering.
First of all, the data for the 10 Commandments is found in Exodus 20: 1-17. Looking at that in my NRSV and RSV Bibles, I see the verses set off into 10 neat paragraphs that match up with the protestant numbering. I am, of course, mildly taken aback by this and found myself wondering what was the Catholic logic behind this difference. Most issues between Catholics and Protestants seem to drop into semantics so I wonder if it is somehow present because of things "lost in translation". Though unconfirmed, I have a hunch that Hebrew is mainly not written with paragraph type separations, but that our modern conventions in English have tacked that on. *pauses and does some looking* No, apparently that is not the case, Hebrew seems to have paragraph-like separations.
In looking at the data, something occurred to me that I was surprised about. I was wondering where we got the term "ten commandments" from. I mean, I had presumed it's biblical origin while at the same time not knowing where. A quick search at blueletterbible.com yielded three locations Exd 34:28B, Deu 4:13, and Deu 10:4.
Location 1: Exodus 34:28B reads: ... And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.
Location 2: Deu 4:13 reads: And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.
Location 3: Deu 10:4 reads: And he wrote on the tables, as at the first writing, the ten commandments which the LORD had spoken to you on the mountain out of the midst of the fire on the day of the assembly; and the LORD gave them to me.
I was intrigued to note that the Hebrew words use the same root form "dabar" for both words and commandments (the bold words above). The implications of the usage of the word "word" for commandments depends entirely on how Hebraic traditions perceived "words" within the 10 commandments. Since I really don't know any Hebrew though my investigation must stop here short of major speculations.
Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention one thing: The 10 commandments other name is the Decaloque or literally "10 words". There might be more to this.
New information: The Ten Commandments are iterated in two places in the OT: Exodus and Deut 5:6-21. I invite you to take a look at the split of the paragraphs here. There are 11 paragraphs. The what would have been #10 in Exodus is split into two parts here. This means that at the very least the splitting of the last two commands is at the very least Biblical in origin. The discrepancies in the numbering seems to stem from the confusion of the two different iterations of the Ten Commandments.
Now to take a look at the different origins of the different forms of the Ten Commandments. After spending some time searching now, the only link that I found that had a detailed amount of information to say on this topic is: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/NUMBERNG.HTM by James Akin, a Catholic Apologist. His presentation of the data is most succinct and I would recommend that you read his article in it's entirety unlike me who only ran across it once.
However, because I don't expect anyone to really look at that link in it's entirety. I will state as best as I can the most compelling argument for me as to the difference between the two organizations of the 10 commandments.
The Ten Commandments have a different format because St. Augustine(350-430) reorganized them for memorization by the youth. This does not mean that we read Exodus and Deuteronomy's accounts of the Ten Commandments in Augustine's format. Rather, we use the un-numbered scripture un-altered, but use the "normal" Catholic format for memorization purposes. We use both. Which is better do you think? I say neither, they both have their purpose and role that is all.
Also, I would like to point out that St. Augustine's organization of the Ten Commandments occurred around the same time as the Canon of Scripture was decided upon.
The last objection I would like to try and answer is that the Catholic Church omits the second commandment. This obviously is not the case. Catholic's believe that the point of the first commandment is that "You shall have no other God's before Me" and that the following paragraph was a further emphasis for the superior hierarchical value of the first commandment. Biblically speaking because of the numerous Holy examples of "graven images" in the OT such as the Golden Serpent, the Ark of the Covenant and Solomon's Temple the 2nd Commandment must have had a specific implication. I believe the specific "word"(dabar) was that you shall make no idols and that what follows is a description not of things that are idols but forms that an idol may take but doesn't necessarily take. Obviously the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant are a "form of" something that "is in heaven above" which would then make God a contradictory being. I would propose however that it is not God who is contradictory (because Truth never contradicts Himself) but us. We must align ourselves to God.
One last note: It is important for me to state here that the Catholic Church's order for the Ten Commandments is not set in stone. The Ten Commandments in the format that has Protestants protesting is mainly a memorization tool and not a dogmatic tradition, though a useful tradition none-the-less. For further reading see the Catechism of the Catholic Church: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2.htm In other words, the emphasis is on the spirit and the meaning of the Ten Commandments and not on having to know the exact wording (though that can hardly be thought of as harmful).
Now, Go and Set the World on Fire
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)