In just about any introductory philosophy class one is bound to encounter what is known as the "Euthyphro" question. The aptly titled quandary - or, it is at least assumed to be a quandary by some - comes from a short Platonic dialogue (meaning written by the Greek philosopher Plato) by the same name in which Socrates inquires of his interlocuting guest - Euthyphro, from Greek meaning "right thinking" or "Mr. Straight Thinking" according to Aryeh Kosman - a perplexing question. Euthyphro claims that a pious act is one that is loved by the gods, to which Socrates responds with the question: But is an act pious because it is god-loved, or is it god-loved because it is pious? In other words, are pious acts made pious by the gods, or do the gods merely observe actions which are pious and then label them as such?
Now, some people have attempted to bring this question over into a theistic setting and claim that this same objection can apply to belief in a single God (forgetting the historical context of a Greek culture - Athens - which believed in a pantheon of gods many, many gods). As this pertains to the problem of evil - my current study - I will offer a brief account of this objection and then a brief response. Precisely what the objection is supposed to be can become complex to explain, but it is mostly an attempted refutation of Divine Command Theory - that morality is a set of commands from God. While I do not necessarily advocate DCT, I think that it must be devalued based upon legitimate objections and not this one in particular from the Euthyphro dialogue which I believe to fall short of accomplishing its goal.
So here is the Euthyphro question applied to theism: Are right acts right because God commands them, or does God command them because they are right? I will assume that the distinction between these two concepts is clear enough that I do not need to explore the nature of actions and passions.
My brief response to the Euthyphro question is that it is quite possibly an incoherent charge to level at theism. To begin, if God has existed from eternity (as is the theistic hypothesis), then certain moral facts have also - in a semi-Platonic sense - existed from eternity with Him; allow me to give an example. If we suppose that God is all that exists, that He has not yet created anything, then let us ask a question: If God were to create a Universe exactly like ours, and then command His creatures to torture innocent babies for fun, would this be wrong on God's part? I think that if we can assume it to be true that torturing babies for fun is wrong, then we can say that it is true that in a Universe like ours then torturing babies is wrong as a means of logical consequence (even for God). This is tantamount to saying that in a Universe like ours atoms are smaller than molecules. It is simply the way that things must work given the structure of existence. Hence, because certain observations we have made like these would be true as hypothetical statements even if our Universe did not exist, then it is possible that true statements about moral dilemmas exist as necessary and contingent truths which are dependent upon God to actualize certain Universes in order for the moral dilemmas to exist. So it would be true to say that if God created a Universe exactly like ours then it would be wrong for a person to torture innocent babies in that Universe, even though that Universe does not exist. The non-existence of that Universe, however, does not negate the truth of the hypothetical statement. This is equivalent to saying that in every possible Universe bachelors are unmarried males, because it is inconceivable that there is a possible Universe in which bachelors are married. Now, we have seen that it is possible for true statements about morality to exist without the actual instantiations of the moral situations themselves being realized.
The next thing to do is argue that the nature of morality - that is, why it would be hypothetically wrong to torture babies in a Universe exactly like ours - depends upon God. That is, in order to defend the claim that morality is both dependent upon God and not His arbitrary commandment, one needs to first demonstrate that morality is not arbitrary - it has perhaps become necessarily true as I have stated it - and then that things are still moral or immoral because of how they relate to God. This argument follows logically - I think - from the claim that it is possible for necessarily true statements about morality to exist. That is, if there are such things as necessarily true statements about morality then what else could we appeal to except God for explaining why they are necessarily true? If nothing else exists except God, then how can they be dependent upon anything else?
In any event, there are still problems with what I have written here which I will not explore, but I think the fact that on the hypothesis of theism that moral truths potentially exist eternally with God is at least one response to the Euthyphro question.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Friday, May 20, 2005
The Problem of Evil
This will be an introductory piece on the Problem of Evil as it is formulated to undermine the theistic belief in a God with these three characteristics: Omnipotence (all-powerful), Omniscience (all-knowing), Omni-benevolence (or morally perfect). This is sometimes called the Three-O, Tri-Omni, or O3 God. I am not mainly looking to expound the POE, its various formulations, and the contributions that have been made to it both historically and recently. Instead, I plan to use a brief introduction of the main ideas involved in the POE as a springboard for the putting forth of my own considerations.
The essential formulation of the POE can go something like this:
P1) God exists and has all three omni characteristics stated above.
P2) Evil exists.
P3) Something is wrong here.
To some degree all of those who are familiar with the claims of theism must also be familiar with the challenge that the existence of evil presents to those who believe theism to be an epistemically warranted belief (rational). If God truly is good, and truly is all-powerful, then why has he created a Universe in which suffering exists? This is the basic question, and the way that one then takes this objection and puts it into an argument can have many forms. Before a small book written by Alvin Plantinga (professor of philosophy at Notre Dame University) in the 1970s called God, Freedom, and Evil, many people apparently thought that they could demonstrate the existence of God to be logically incompatible with the existence of evil (understanding that by God I mean O3 Theism, and by evil I mean suffering of any kind as well as moral evil). They sought to show that the existence of God was logically impossible if evil also existed. Since Platinga’s significant contribution to discussions over the POE with this book, almost all philosophers have rejected the idea of logically disproving God’s existence. Instead they have focused on the probabilistic argument from evil, one which attempts to show that God’s existence is at least improbable given that evil exists. Again, most of these accounts have not been successful, if by success one means rationally persuasive. On the other hand, there is a certain emotional tug which probabilistic arguments from evil seem to exert upon the reader, especially when combined with particularly poignant examples of suffering or moral evil. They appeal to our understanding of what goodness is and what capability is, and make us consider whether or not we are still rational to believe that God exists.
Thus far I have not necessarily been attempting to elucidate many of the main areas of disagreement which surround the POE, such as formulations of probability theorem, what it means for something to be logically impossible, and the distinction between a theodicy and a defense. Instead I have been meaning to keep this piece still very much at the conceptual level because this is precisely where many of my own thoughts lie on the problem of evil. For right now the reader only needs to know the basic ideas which atheists and agonistics claim are inconsistent, that is, that a certain God exists and that he would allow evil to exist. In the future I will be posting to this blog my own thoughts as they are developed. I will be asking and exploring a question similar to this one: Are human beings epistemically warranted in claiming that God must have a reason for permitting evil to exist? What kinds of evil must he have a reason for, moral evil or suffering? What ramifications does drawing a distinction between these two kinds of “evil” have for the theist who wishes to offer a defense for God’s existence? Must God have a morally sufficient reason for permitting suffering, or for permitting moral evil?
These and more questions are those which will be explored in the near future. Stay tuned.
The essential formulation of the POE can go something like this:
P1) God exists and has all three omni characteristics stated above.
P2) Evil exists.
P3) Something is wrong here.
To some degree all of those who are familiar with the claims of theism must also be familiar with the challenge that the existence of evil presents to those who believe theism to be an epistemically warranted belief (rational). If God truly is good, and truly is all-powerful, then why has he created a Universe in which suffering exists? This is the basic question, and the way that one then takes this objection and puts it into an argument can have many forms. Before a small book written by Alvin Plantinga (professor of philosophy at Notre Dame University) in the 1970s called God, Freedom, and Evil, many people apparently thought that they could demonstrate the existence of God to be logically incompatible with the existence of evil (understanding that by God I mean O3 Theism, and by evil I mean suffering of any kind as well as moral evil). They sought to show that the existence of God was logically impossible if evil also existed. Since Platinga’s significant contribution to discussions over the POE with this book, almost all philosophers have rejected the idea of logically disproving God’s existence. Instead they have focused on the probabilistic argument from evil, one which attempts to show that God’s existence is at least improbable given that evil exists. Again, most of these accounts have not been successful, if by success one means rationally persuasive. On the other hand, there is a certain emotional tug which probabilistic arguments from evil seem to exert upon the reader, especially when combined with particularly poignant examples of suffering or moral evil. They appeal to our understanding of what goodness is and what capability is, and make us consider whether or not we are still rational to believe that God exists.
Thus far I have not necessarily been attempting to elucidate many of the main areas of disagreement which surround the POE, such as formulations of probability theorem, what it means for something to be logically impossible, and the distinction between a theodicy and a defense. Instead I have been meaning to keep this piece still very much at the conceptual level because this is precisely where many of my own thoughts lie on the problem of evil. For right now the reader only needs to know the basic ideas which atheists and agonistics claim are inconsistent, that is, that a certain God exists and that he would allow evil to exist. In the future I will be posting to this blog my own thoughts as they are developed. I will be asking and exploring a question similar to this one: Are human beings epistemically warranted in claiming that God must have a reason for permitting evil to exist? What kinds of evil must he have a reason for, moral evil or suffering? What ramifications does drawing a distinction between these two kinds of “evil” have for the theist who wishes to offer a defense for God’s existence? Must God have a morally sufficient reason for permitting suffering, or for permitting moral evil?
These and more questions are those which will be explored in the near future. Stay tuned.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
The Silence of God
A random thought for today – the silence of God.
Warning: This is a random thought, which typically is going to mean that I have not developed the concepts and claims stated below as thoroughly enough to put forth a compelling argument. Nonetheless, it was an idea I had which I would like to explore briefly and that someone else may build upon to use for himself.
I have been engaged in a study of the Problem of Evil in the last few weeks. I have been reading various essays and books from both sides of the issue, as is necessary if one is going to be a well-rounded and, to put it plainly, responsible Christian apologist. So far my favorite paper on the issue has been Paul Draper’s formulation using Bayesian probability theory to show that pain and suffering are less surprising on the hypothesis that God does not exist than on the hypothesis that He does exist. I, of course, disagree with his hypothesis, but nonetheless find it at least as compelling as the counterarguments of the theists I have read.
In the future I will be posting some of my own thoughts on this topic, but right now I am reading C.S. Lewis’ book The Problem of Pain and a point he makes struck me as being particularly interesting though unrelated (for the most part) to the POE. Between pages 27-29 Lewis explores the notion of what conditions are necessary in order for beings that are self-conscious to exist. He essentially elucidates a claim that I have heard elsewhere, which is that in order for knowledge to be possible a duality must exist of a knower and a knowee. That is, if a self-conscious and personal being is to have knowledge then it must exist and be the thing that knows, and then something else must exist and be the thing that is known. This is an important precondition of knowledge and a problem fortunately solved by the Christian formulation of the Trinity wherein God exists in eternity as a unity of three persons.
But these are side-notes to introduce the observation which I wish to make – that is they are a context to put it in. Lewis makes what I think is a very interesting observation in noting that if two human minds were to exist without some kind of separate ontological instantiation of each mind by itself, then it would be impossible for the two minds to tell each other apart. To put this in non-technical language, if two human minds somehow existed in a sort-of disembodied state in which the thoughts of both minds were immediately present to each other, then one mind could not distinguish between its own thoughts and those of its neighbor. Thus they would both be unaware of the other mind’s existence.
Now, as regards God and our interacting with Him, a similar situation might occur when we wish for God to speak to us more directly. This is why I have titled this short piece as the silence of God, because it seems to be a problem for Christians – very much including myself – that sometimes we wish God would speak directly to us and yet He doesn’t. Well, if Lewis’ speculations concerning the nature of two disembodied minds are correct, then if God speaks to us directly into our thoughts – as seems to be the case considering that few of us have heard Him speak audibly – then it is very difficult for us to distinguish God’s words from our own thoughts. Indeed, this is precisely what Lewis says when he observes that, “You may reply, as a Christian, that God (and Satan) do, in fact, affect my consciousness in this direct way without signs of ‘externality.’ Yes: and the result is that most people remain ignorant of the existence of both,” (27). Again, Lewis is talking about direct communication of God to us through our thoughts, and he says that we in fact confuse God’s thoughts with our own, and Satan’s thoughts with our own (which I think is about the only way to make sense of demon possession in the Bible, although that is another topic).
So I tentatively put forth a hypothesis that God does speak directly to us less than we might desire, though not because He does not have want to be present in our lives, but because He uses other human beings to speak to us, in order to teach us regarding Him, His will, our own lives, etc. as the issues are essentially unlimited. A reason He might do this is because if He were simply to tell us what to do then we would confuse His words with our own thoughts and be acting upon what we believed to be our own ideas that we had assented to when in fact they were God’s. Thus there would actually be no choice for God necessary, because He would be bombarding us with thoughts and thus controlling – or very nearly controlling – our behavior.
To state more clearly the point that I am making, allow me to invent a practical example whereby the unfolding of this process might be seen to take place. Say that you were praying to God for a job. In searching the newspapers, internet, and talking with friends, a few potential job offers come your way. At this point you could go with whichever job you had been offered, but you were unsure of which one it was that God desired for you to have. So you consult family and friends over the possibilities and eventually arrive a decision which, insofar as you are able to discern, is where God wants you. Absolute certainty you may not have, but you are about as sure as you can be under the circumstances.
In the situation described above, God could have put into your mind a thought along the lines of, “I am going to choose job X because of Y.” Now, if you had acted on this thought, where would the deliberation and assent to God’s will have been necessary on your part? What actual choice for God would have been necessary? Through the use of other people in your life God can speak just as clearly to you without having to directly interfere with your mental processes to make you do His will. In praying to Him, He may not speak audibly or put the thoughts directly into your head as you might wish, because this would be much easier, but again that would eliminate the need for you to actually choose the particular direction He wishes for you to go. Indeed, it might call into question whether or not Christians can be said to have free will. And since God does not seem to interfere with our free will except on a very rare occasion, then His lack of direct communication is perhaps not so unexpected.
Now, with all that I have said I believe that many problems arise. Nonetheless, I think it is still a possible interpretation of God’s seeming silence during our times of seeking His will, and I hope that it might be useful to someone out there.
Warning: This is a random thought, which typically is going to mean that I have not developed the concepts and claims stated below as thoroughly enough to put forth a compelling argument. Nonetheless, it was an idea I had which I would like to explore briefly and that someone else may build upon to use for himself.
I have been engaged in a study of the Problem of Evil in the last few weeks. I have been reading various essays and books from both sides of the issue, as is necessary if one is going to be a well-rounded and, to put it plainly, responsible Christian apologist. So far my favorite paper on the issue has been Paul Draper’s formulation using Bayesian probability theory to show that pain and suffering are less surprising on the hypothesis that God does not exist than on the hypothesis that He does exist. I, of course, disagree with his hypothesis, but nonetheless find it at least as compelling as the counterarguments of the theists I have read.
In the future I will be posting some of my own thoughts on this topic, but right now I am reading C.S. Lewis’ book The Problem of Pain and a point he makes struck me as being particularly interesting though unrelated (for the most part) to the POE. Between pages 27-29 Lewis explores the notion of what conditions are necessary in order for beings that are self-conscious to exist. He essentially elucidates a claim that I have heard elsewhere, which is that in order for knowledge to be possible a duality must exist of a knower and a knowee. That is, if a self-conscious and personal being is to have knowledge then it must exist and be the thing that knows, and then something else must exist and be the thing that is known. This is an important precondition of knowledge and a problem fortunately solved by the Christian formulation of the Trinity wherein God exists in eternity as a unity of three persons.
But these are side-notes to introduce the observation which I wish to make – that is they are a context to put it in. Lewis makes what I think is a very interesting observation in noting that if two human minds were to exist without some kind of separate ontological instantiation of each mind by itself, then it would be impossible for the two minds to tell each other apart. To put this in non-technical language, if two human minds somehow existed in a sort-of disembodied state in which the thoughts of both minds were immediately present to each other, then one mind could not distinguish between its own thoughts and those of its neighbor. Thus they would both be unaware of the other mind’s existence.
Now, as regards God and our interacting with Him, a similar situation might occur when we wish for God to speak to us more directly. This is why I have titled this short piece as the silence of God, because it seems to be a problem for Christians – very much including myself – that sometimes we wish God would speak directly to us and yet He doesn’t. Well, if Lewis’ speculations concerning the nature of two disembodied minds are correct, then if God speaks to us directly into our thoughts – as seems to be the case considering that few of us have heard Him speak audibly – then it is very difficult for us to distinguish God’s words from our own thoughts. Indeed, this is precisely what Lewis says when he observes that, “You may reply, as a Christian, that God (and Satan) do, in fact, affect my consciousness in this direct way without signs of ‘externality.’ Yes: and the result is that most people remain ignorant of the existence of both,” (27). Again, Lewis is talking about direct communication of God to us through our thoughts, and he says that we in fact confuse God’s thoughts with our own, and Satan’s thoughts with our own (which I think is about the only way to make sense of demon possession in the Bible, although that is another topic).
So I tentatively put forth a hypothesis that God does speak directly to us less than we might desire, though not because He does not have want to be present in our lives, but because He uses other human beings to speak to us, in order to teach us regarding Him, His will, our own lives, etc. as the issues are essentially unlimited. A reason He might do this is because if He were simply to tell us what to do then we would confuse His words with our own thoughts and be acting upon what we believed to be our own ideas that we had assented to when in fact they were God’s. Thus there would actually be no choice for God necessary, because He would be bombarding us with thoughts and thus controlling – or very nearly controlling – our behavior.
To state more clearly the point that I am making, allow me to invent a practical example whereby the unfolding of this process might be seen to take place. Say that you were praying to God for a job. In searching the newspapers, internet, and talking with friends, a few potential job offers come your way. At this point you could go with whichever job you had been offered, but you were unsure of which one it was that God desired for you to have. So you consult family and friends over the possibilities and eventually arrive a decision which, insofar as you are able to discern, is where God wants you. Absolute certainty you may not have, but you are about as sure as you can be under the circumstances.
In the situation described above, God could have put into your mind a thought along the lines of, “I am going to choose job X because of Y.” Now, if you had acted on this thought, where would the deliberation and assent to God’s will have been necessary on your part? What actual choice for God would have been necessary? Through the use of other people in your life God can speak just as clearly to you without having to directly interfere with your mental processes to make you do His will. In praying to Him, He may not speak audibly or put the thoughts directly into your head as you might wish, because this would be much easier, but again that would eliminate the need for you to actually choose the particular direction He wishes for you to go. Indeed, it might call into question whether or not Christians can be said to have free will. And since God does not seem to interfere with our free will except on a very rare occasion, then His lack of direct communication is perhaps not so unexpected.
Now, with all that I have said I believe that many problems arise. Nonetheless, I think it is still a possible interpretation of God’s seeming silence during our times of seeking His will, and I hope that it might be useful to someone out there.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Luke Ch. 8 vs. 16 - What the?
I have been reading in the Gospel of Luke recently, mainly in the interest of further familiarizing myself with the Biblical text rather than undertaking an comprehensive study of each book. Nonetheless I cannot help but want to understand everything that is happening, and sometimes this leaves me contemplating a perplexing verse for long periods of time. This happened today as I came across verse sixteen in chapter eight of Luke. The context is that Jesus has just explained a parable to his disciples which had been told to a fair amount of people in a crowd, some being confused apparently (this I infer from Christ’s quotation of Scripture, which you will need to read in order to understand the reference) but what Jesus said. After explaining the parable to his disciples, he seems to add a sort of explanatory note – or perhaps, a cautionary one – onto his elucidation of the parable in order that the disciples understand that he has no come to confuse people, or to create an secret-knowledge religion, but to reveal something. The NET Bible (www.netbible.org) has this translation for verses 16-18:
“8:16 ‘No one lights a lamp and then covers it with a jar or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a lampstand so that those who come in can see the light. 8:17 For nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing concealed that will not be made known and brought to light. 8:18 So listen carefully, for whoever has will be given more, but whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him.’”
Now, I was particularly confused by this last line, because on the surface it seems an odd statement, one of many in the N.T. On the assumption that these three verses are in fact clarifying the nature of how/why Christ is telling parables, however, then I might have a possibly correct interpretation. I might also be totally wrong, so you will have to judge.
The first question I asked myself is, “Why would God want to give to those that already have, and take from those that don’t have?” It is natural to ask such a question, I think, given what I believe to be true about God and that this verse seems to be referring to Him as the agent of giving and taking – although it is possible that I have misinterpreted that as well. But after asking myself this, another question came to me, “But what is he [Jesus] talking about? What is this thing that will be taken away from those that do not have, and given to those that already do have?” After pondering this for awhile, I reached the conclusion that Christ is most likely talking about revealed truth from God both about Himself, and about what He has done and is doing (i.e. truth regarding the Resurrection, the nature of Christian living, the outworking of ministry, and other items related to living as if we believed our religion to be true). To me this seems the best way to make sense of something which will be given to those that already have it, and taken from those that do not.
Hence I understand this verse as such: If people who already have a true knowledge of God (a personal knowledge, not a theological knowledge, an understanding which shows them how to relate to God through their lives) are active with it and receive it appropriately, then God will reveal more of Himself to them. If they do not receive knowledge of God in the appropriate way, that is they receive the knowledge and then alter it in their minds and believe the product of this alteration because it suits their desires, then God will withdraw Himself from the lives of these people. Thus, even though they think that they have knowledge of God and they continue to grow in a false “knowledge,” they are in fact becoming further distanced from Him and the truth is taken from them.
Now, one obvious difficulty with this interpretation is that I believe God is always active in trying to reach out to people – that is, in speaking to them however it is that He does so through the Holy Spirit – and I do not like the idea that God is actually speaking to people less because of how they respond to Him. However, this desire that I have for God to be acting in a certain way is not really grounded in any kind of Scripture, so if my interpretation of this verse is correct then I must either alter this other belief, or perhaps try to harmonize it with this set of verses.
“8:16 ‘No one lights a lamp and then covers it with a jar or puts it under a bed, but puts it on a lampstand so that those who come in can see the light. 8:17 For nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing concealed that will not be made known and brought to light. 8:18 So listen carefully, for whoever has will be given more, but whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him.’”
Now, I was particularly confused by this last line, because on the surface it seems an odd statement, one of many in the N.T. On the assumption that these three verses are in fact clarifying the nature of how/why Christ is telling parables, however, then I might have a possibly correct interpretation. I might also be totally wrong, so you will have to judge.
The first question I asked myself is, “Why would God want to give to those that already have, and take from those that don’t have?” It is natural to ask such a question, I think, given what I believe to be true about God and that this verse seems to be referring to Him as the agent of giving and taking – although it is possible that I have misinterpreted that as well. But after asking myself this, another question came to me, “But what is he [Jesus] talking about? What is this thing that will be taken away from those that do not have, and given to those that already do have?” After pondering this for awhile, I reached the conclusion that Christ is most likely talking about revealed truth from God both about Himself, and about what He has done and is doing (i.e. truth regarding the Resurrection, the nature of Christian living, the outworking of ministry, and other items related to living as if we believed our religion to be true). To me this seems the best way to make sense of something which will be given to those that already have it, and taken from those that do not.
Hence I understand this verse as such: If people who already have a true knowledge of God (a personal knowledge, not a theological knowledge, an understanding which shows them how to relate to God through their lives) are active with it and receive it appropriately, then God will reveal more of Himself to them. If they do not receive knowledge of God in the appropriate way, that is they receive the knowledge and then alter it in their minds and believe the product of this alteration because it suits their desires, then God will withdraw Himself from the lives of these people. Thus, even though they think that they have knowledge of God and they continue to grow in a false “knowledge,” they are in fact becoming further distanced from Him and the truth is taken from them.
Now, one obvious difficulty with this interpretation is that I believe God is always active in trying to reach out to people – that is, in speaking to them however it is that He does so through the Holy Spirit – and I do not like the idea that God is actually speaking to people less because of how they respond to Him. However, this desire that I have for God to be acting in a certain way is not really grounded in any kind of Scripture, so if my interpretation of this verse is correct then I must either alter this other belief, or perhaps try to harmonize it with this set of verses.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Colossians Ch.1 vs. 6 - Preach The Gospel, Not Yourself
Warning: This small exegesis contains some references to Greek which those unfamiliar with the language will not understand. The conclusions I will draw, however, will be explained without any knowledge of Greek necessary.
Here is the text of Colossians verse six according to the NASB and a link:
"...which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth..."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:6;&version=49;
Here is the same text for those NIV folk out there:
"...that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth..."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:6;&version=31;
It is interesting to observe how the NIV augments “God’s grace” with “in all its truth,” which I assume is due to the augmenting force of epignosis preceding it.
I was translating Colossians and came upon this passage which has a few interesting words in it. The first is karpophoroumenon, parsed as a masculine accusative singular, present middle participle from karpophreo, and the second is auxanomenon, which is a masculine accusative singular, present passive participle from auxano (both of these are parsed according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of 1889, pages 326 and 84, respectively).
The first word is translated by the NASB as “constantly bearing fruit.” This is perhaps a better translation than the NIV because it conveys the aspect of the present participle, which is a continuous action. The second word is translated “increasing,” though it is also a present tense participle and as such is subject to – theoretically – the same nuance of a continuous action, and thus could be translated “continually increasing.” In any event, this is an aside to my main point but nonetheless worthy of being pointed out.
The main observation that I wish to make depends upon whether or not Thayer’s Lexicon is accurately telling me that karpophoroumenon is a middle participle. Since I rely upon this volume to give me accurate translations, and I have not heard that it is in any way unreliable, and that this interpretation is corroborated by Blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgibin/c.pl?book=Col&chapter=1&verse=6&version=kjv
), I will assume it accurate. It is also important that auxanomenon be passive.
So I am almost at my observation. The significance of the middle voice in Koine Greek is stated by William D. Mounce (in his widely-used grammar) as, “The classical definition of the middle voice is that the action of a verb in the middle voice in some way affects the subject,” (emphasis original, The Basics of Biblical Greek, Second Edition, Zondervan 2003, Pp. 230). Hence Thayer’s suggests a translation of the middle voice for karpophoreo as “To bear fruit of one’s self,” (326). It also suggests the translation of the passive auxanomenon as “to grow, increase, become greater,” (84).
Thus, here is my observation. If the significance of the verbs in the statement can be taken a generally representative of Paul’s attitude concerning the growth and effectiveness of the Gospel (which would require more space than I have), then I yield these conclusions: 1) Based upon the middle voice and accusative case of the participle for the word translated as “constantly bearing fruit,” we can understand that the Gospel “bears fruit of itself,” as Thayer’s suggests. It is not that preachers or pastors, or cute stories, or nice-sounding lists of rules or “principles to live by” are the truths that change our lives. Rather, it is accepting the Gospel as true that will naturally yield to changes in the individual. (c.f. http://www.churchstaffresources.com/ to see the opposite of what Paul seems to be saying, I especially like the “More Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching and Teaching…” But I suppose that when you have not the tools to disagree with the culture you might as well absorb it entirely into the church). God of course works out in the individual’s life how this process is to take place regarding particular sets of behavior, but only He can show us how this is to be done because we are each very different (c.f. Phillippians Ch. 2 vs. 12-13).
The second conclusion I draw is based upon the passive participle translated as “growing” in verse six, or perhaps “continually growing” if this conveys continuous action better for you. If this can be taken as generally indicative of Paul’s attitude regarding the growth and effectiveness of the Gospel, then 2) We do not cause the Gospel message to be spread, we do not grow God’s Kingdom, only God does. Of course if the Gospel is receiving the action of “being grown” while the agent is not named, then one could stipulate human beings as being the cause of growth. But given that the Gospel “bears fruit of itself,” I am inclined to think of the truths of the Gospel as being more dependent upon God and what He has done than on what we are doing, thus I submit that He is a better explanation for the growth of the Gospel.
Now, all that having been said, what is a particular application of this material? Given that I can only speak for myself, I will do just that and say that my understanding would be that the church’s responsibility is to educate people regarding Christian beliefs and behavior, and then work through other means of exhortation towards fulfilling these duties. From much of the preaching I hear, the focus is motivation rather than education. The truth of the Gospel is focused on much less than it should be, and I understand the power of “If A is true then I should not do B” to be much harder to ignore than the power of a good anecdote. In any event, this is only a brief exegesis and the verse should be read in context by anyone wishing to explore my observations. If anything appears to contradict what I have said, or if simply the language that Paul uses cannot be taken to convey so much content, then junk my conclusions. After all, language is rarely subject to the kind of scrutinizing analysis that Biblical exegetes apply to the Greek N.T., therefore I would take care not to overemphasize.
Here is the text of Colossians verse six according to the NASB and a link:
"...which has come to you, just as in all the world also it is constantly bearing fruit and increasing, even as it has been doing in you also since the day you heard of it and understood the grace of God in truth..."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:6;&version=49;
Here is the same text for those NIV folk out there:
"...that has come to you. All over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing, just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and understood God's grace in all its truth..."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%201:6;&version=31;
It is interesting to observe how the NIV augments “God’s grace” with “in all its truth,” which I assume is due to the augmenting force of epignosis preceding it.
I was translating Colossians and came upon this passage which has a few interesting words in it. The first is karpophoroumenon, parsed as a masculine accusative singular, present middle participle from karpophreo, and the second is auxanomenon, which is a masculine accusative singular, present passive participle from auxano (both of these are parsed according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of 1889, pages 326 and 84, respectively).
The first word is translated by the NASB as “constantly bearing fruit.” This is perhaps a better translation than the NIV because it conveys the aspect of the present participle, which is a continuous action. The second word is translated “increasing,” though it is also a present tense participle and as such is subject to – theoretically – the same nuance of a continuous action, and thus could be translated “continually increasing.” In any event, this is an aside to my main point but nonetheless worthy of being pointed out.
The main observation that I wish to make depends upon whether or not Thayer’s Lexicon is accurately telling me that karpophoroumenon is a middle participle. Since I rely upon this volume to give me accurate translations, and I have not heard that it is in any way unreliable, and that this interpretation is corroborated by Blueletterbible.org (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgibin/c.pl?book=Col&chapter=1&verse=6&version=kjv
), I will assume it accurate. It is also important that auxanomenon be passive.
So I am almost at my observation. The significance of the middle voice in Koine Greek is stated by William D. Mounce (in his widely-used grammar) as, “The classical definition of the middle voice is that the action of a verb in the middle voice in some way affects the subject,” (emphasis original, The Basics of Biblical Greek, Second Edition, Zondervan 2003, Pp. 230). Hence Thayer’s suggests a translation of the middle voice for karpophoreo as “To bear fruit of one’s self,” (326). It also suggests the translation of the passive auxanomenon as “to grow, increase, become greater,” (84).
Thus, here is my observation. If the significance of the verbs in the statement can be taken a generally representative of Paul’s attitude concerning the growth and effectiveness of the Gospel (which would require more space than I have), then I yield these conclusions: 1) Based upon the middle voice and accusative case of the participle for the word translated as “constantly bearing fruit,” we can understand that the Gospel “bears fruit of itself,” as Thayer’s suggests. It is not that preachers or pastors, or cute stories, or nice-sounding lists of rules or “principles to live by” are the truths that change our lives. Rather, it is accepting the Gospel as true that will naturally yield to changes in the individual. (c.f. http://www.churchstaffresources.com/ to see the opposite of what Paul seems to be saying, I especially like the “More Movie-Based Illustrations for Preaching and Teaching…” But I suppose that when you have not the tools to disagree with the culture you might as well absorb it entirely into the church). God of course works out in the individual’s life how this process is to take place regarding particular sets of behavior, but only He can show us how this is to be done because we are each very different (c.f. Phillippians Ch. 2 vs. 12-13).
The second conclusion I draw is based upon the passive participle translated as “growing” in verse six, or perhaps “continually growing” if this conveys continuous action better for you. If this can be taken as generally indicative of Paul’s attitude regarding the growth and effectiveness of the Gospel, then 2) We do not cause the Gospel message to be spread, we do not grow God’s Kingdom, only God does. Of course if the Gospel is receiving the action of “being grown” while the agent is not named, then one could stipulate human beings as being the cause of growth. But given that the Gospel “bears fruit of itself,” I am inclined to think of the truths of the Gospel as being more dependent upon God and what He has done than on what we are doing, thus I submit that He is a better explanation for the growth of the Gospel.
Now, all that having been said, what is a particular application of this material? Given that I can only speak for myself, I will do just that and say that my understanding would be that the church’s responsibility is to educate people regarding Christian beliefs and behavior, and then work through other means of exhortation towards fulfilling these duties. From much of the preaching I hear, the focus is motivation rather than education. The truth of the Gospel is focused on much less than it should be, and I understand the power of “If A is true then I should not do B” to be much harder to ignore than the power of a good anecdote. In any event, this is only a brief exegesis and the verse should be read in context by anyone wishing to explore my observations. If anything appears to contradict what I have said, or if simply the language that Paul uses cannot be taken to convey so much content, then junk my conclusions. After all, language is rarely subject to the kind of scrutinizing analysis that Biblical exegetes apply to the Greek N.T., therefore I would take care not to overemphasize.
An Introductory Note
Given the potentially controversial title of my blog, I thought it important to elucidate a few points about my theology and beliefs. After this particular introductory post I will be cataloguing the latest random points I have to make about the latest random item of study that I have undertaken, although usually they are more close to carefully-chosen items of study than random ones, though they may seem random to others. So here in a nutshell is just a sampling of my beliefs:
1) I am loosely orthodox. But mostly pragmatically speaking. As to the nature and attributes of God which are communicated to us through Scripture, the natural world, and other people, I am sketchy as to whether my understanding of any of these concepts is so full as to grasp them in an infinite sense – which God would of course possess.
2) I believe that the claims of Christianity can and should be demonstrated through logical, inferential, and intuitional means (though, of course any argument actually involves all three of these). So I am not afraid to (a) defend my beliefs as true, (b) demonstrate that other beliefs which contradict my own are untrue by virtue of mine being true and (c) believe that the normal rules of epistemic warrant for a belief apply to Christianity. When I say “my beliefs” in this context I am referring to the traditional claims of Christianity, such as the physical resurrection of Christ, the existence of God, the possibility of miracles, the non-physical aspect of our existence, etc.
3) I am toying with the notion that Christians who are unwilling to develop their intellectual capacity in order to both, (1) defend the truth of our worldview and (2) be able to communicate it more clearly to others, are not fully responsible representatives of Christ. Many people claim that the philosophical skills necessary to defend Christianity are simply not a talent or ability they possess, but I have yet to hear a single person deny the importance of building relationships. In fact, I hear it so frequently that many times preachers make Christianity sound like a big social club. Since I, myself, could be just as easily inclined to say that building relationships with people is a skill that I lack, yet I do not do so for it is my responsibility to reach others through relationships, I do not accept the line of, “All that stuff just isn’t for me,” as an excuse.
1) I am loosely orthodox. But mostly pragmatically speaking. As to the nature and attributes of God which are communicated to us through Scripture, the natural world, and other people, I am sketchy as to whether my understanding of any of these concepts is so full as to grasp them in an infinite sense – which God would of course possess.
2) I believe that the claims of Christianity can and should be demonstrated through logical, inferential, and intuitional means (though, of course any argument actually involves all three of these). So I am not afraid to (a) defend my beliefs as true, (b) demonstrate that other beliefs which contradict my own are untrue by virtue of mine being true and (c) believe that the normal rules of epistemic warrant for a belief apply to Christianity. When I say “my beliefs” in this context I am referring to the traditional claims of Christianity, such as the physical resurrection of Christ, the existence of God, the possibility of miracles, the non-physical aspect of our existence, etc.
3) I am toying with the notion that Christians who are unwilling to develop their intellectual capacity in order to both, (1) defend the truth of our worldview and (2) be able to communicate it more clearly to others, are not fully responsible representatives of Christ. Many people claim that the philosophical skills necessary to defend Christianity are simply not a talent or ability they possess, but I have yet to hear a single person deny the importance of building relationships. In fact, I hear it so frequently that many times preachers make Christianity sound like a big social club. Since I, myself, could be just as easily inclined to say that building relationships with people is a skill that I lack, yet I do not do so for it is my responsibility to reach others through relationships, I do not accept the line of, “All that stuff just isn’t for me,” as an excuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
alt="" border="0" >