Comments»

1. DJ - February 8, 2009

A few observations:
1. Paul wrote to the church (born-again believers in Christ) in Ephesus, not just to the “people” of Ephesus. It was to those who were gathering as a fellowship in Christ’s name. It can’t be assumed that everyone was a true believer, but believers were the primary audience.

2. The church at Ephesus was probably primarily made up of Gentiles, not Jews, although there were certainly Jewish converts to Christianity. So, understanding the passage / individual words depends on how the words were generally used in the Greek-speaking world, not simply within the Jewish community.

3. Rob may have been stretching, especially concerning the word “wrath.” Etymology is not the primary factor in determining of any given word in a passage. The primary and deciding factor is always (and only) its usage in the literary and historical/cultural context. A classic example is “goodbye.” I believe that it comes from the phrase “God be with ye.” However, that’s not what it means now - so you can’t say, for example, that a given atheist really believes in God (despite his protests to the contrary) on the basis of the fact that he says, “Goodbye.” Etymology can be interesting and even helpful, but only depending on the context and how much the meaning evolved over time. Concerning “wrath,” it is not very helpful to appeal to Aristotle to provide the real meaning to someone in AD 50-60. It is obvious from the context that Rob is definitely spinning “wrath” to mean something that Paul did not intend - and then builds this part of his message on a meaning that the context doesn’t support. This reflects a theological interpretation (his pre-determined theology of God), rather allowing the text to inform his theology. This is inappropriate use of the Bible.

2. Nick - February 9, 2009

I’m not a scholar but I did some quick reading on porneo and orge for you. It appears that what Rob says about the history of porneo is true. But what is also true is that, in addition to prostitution, the word means illicit sexual acts; be it fornication, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, or incest. So, while the origin of the word may be true the bigger question is what does Paul mean by it? Paul was relentlessly cross-focused, using it to cause divisions, cease divisions, bring unity, and call Jew and Gentile alike to repentance. So, I wonder if we should be nuancing “sexual immorality” instead of seeing Paul’s list of things in that passage that are in our lives, repenting of them and, as Paul says later in that passage, being thankful instead.

As far as orge, I’d say the same thing. Maybe Aristotle used the word that way but Aristotle lived 300 years before Paul and wasn’t a Jew or a Christian. I’d be curious about what Paul means by wrath and if, in fact, it has something to do with man’s lost potential (as Rob says) or our sin and God’s holiness (as the Bible says).

So, when you ask is Rob stretching, even as a non-scholar I’d have to say that he is not stretching in terms of the possible definitions of the words but it certainly feels that he is giving the definitions HE wants to use rather than the ones the author intended…which could very well lead to giving the passages the meaning he wants instead of the on the Author intended. I would be cautious.

Hope that helps.

3. Erik Leafblad - February 9, 2009

Zack,

We met today at YouthFront. Thanks for being with us. It was fascinating stuff.

I read a little (a very small amount) of Greek, and I’ve consulted my massive lexicon, the one I was told is the industry standard.

As regards porneo – I think Bell is close to correct. I’m not sure about the etymology, but his likening this word to something like objectification and consumption of another human being sexually seems roughly on target. One of the words listed as an accurate translation apart from sexual immorality is prostitution, so I think he might be in the ballpark with his economic analogy. In short, I think he’s close enough for us to say he’s right.

Next, pleonexia – you have this as coarse joking, but me thinks it actually goes with greedy. This is its meaning, and I’m racking my brain as to how it could mean coarse joking. I think this should have been eutrapelia. He’s right that it at times can carry a positive notion, like wittiness or clever, and he goes on make some important comments, but coarse joking I think accurately captures the meaning, for coarse joking is not just sexual. I think he’s, again, in the ballpark, and thus within his rights, if I may put it thus, to interpret it this way.

Next, on inheritance Bell draws on the idea of participating with God in making something of the world. This is, for many scholars, a thoroughly Jewish way of looking at inheritance in terms of creating something of the world in which God has placed us. I think he’s probably, again, in the ballpark. The inheritance is life in the kingdom, which is to say a location wherein we will continue to live and move and have our being in Christ. This probably includes creative things too. His notion of partnership may be too strong a word, for it certainly isn’t an equal partnership between us and God. But I do think he’s right to emphasis our inheritance as a place in God’s kingdom and a place in actualizing that kingdom. When we do the negative things in this passage we simply reject that inheritance by living into it. Paraphrased: they have no inheritance because they put themselves beyond that inheritance…hence verse 7, don’t partner with them.

On wrath – I want to affirm with Rob that love/grace and wrath need to be connected, but I can’t agree with him that its just an “Aw, shucks, can’t you see?” The cross is wrath and its anything but an “Aw, shucks.” Yet, is the grounds upon which we are able to become children of light, and so it is grace. Socrates may have used orge in this way, but there just doesn’t seem to be much indication that it was used this way in Scripture. It is more indignation at disobedience, and as such elicits God’s most passionate disapproval, which is precisely Christ offering himself up to wrath on our behalf. It is stronger than Rob wants to let on, but in service of God’s grace, I think.

4. ray - February 9, 2009

zach … like i told you in the meeting today, i will not comment on the above post and whether or not bell is stretching. but i did want to thank you for coming in today to speak to us. i appreciate the freshness of your perspective. i would say more here — but since i do not know your audience i will leave it at that.

5. Micheal Palmer - February 10, 2009

Here are a few thoughts in response to your question, “Can this much really be known…?” I’ll address the other question later (”Is Rob stretching?”).

Ancient Greek is the best attested language from the ancient world. The number of literary works, personal letters, business records, legal documents, shopping lists, jokes, encantations, curses, blessings, etc. that have survived is absolutely astonishing in comparison with virtually any other language. This wealth of data does allow us to explore the meanings of particular words and phrases in ways that are not possible with many other languages from the same time period.

For the words discussed in your audio clips, we have a great deal of data, including usage in a wide range of texts written at or near the time of the text of Ephesians, explicit discussions by ancient authors regarding the meanings of these words, and usage of the same words over an long period of history.

Now to the other question: “Is Rob stretching?” This one is harder to answer. While we do have amazingly good data to inform our understanding of these words, there is still room for debate. I don’t know if Rob Bell would claim that his understanding of these words is the ONLY way they can be understood. From the clips you provide he seems to be saying that the text allows for this interpretation, even if others might also be possible.

Keep in mind also, that he is a Christian Pastor. He is using the text to motivate his congregation. If he feels that his reading of these terms is well founded, I doubt he would feel that he is “stretching.”

I have studied ancient Greek for many years and have written technical discussions on the subject. From the clips that you present, I cannot contradict Mr. Bell’s take on these terms. Still, not having heard the entire sermon, I also cannot endorse his argument. I would have to hear more to make that decision.

6. Zack - February 10, 2009

Thank you all for such substantial responses! Keep them coming — I’m getting my education.

7. Adam - February 12, 2009

After listening to the wrath/orge clip and seeing the discussion here, I think Rob Bell does the word justice. His actual description or wrath is “desire mixed with grief”. What I see lacking in the discussion above is a proper respect given to “grief”. Grief is the thing you do when someone dies. Supposedly, one of our strongest emotions?

We typically tie wrath with anger. If a person close to you dies and you grieve, it’s considered healthy. If a person close to you dies and you become angry it’s considered unhealthy. So, if disobedience is sin and sin leads to death, then it makes sense that God would grieve.

So, no, it doesn’t seem like stretching here.

8. Bill Pershing - March 15, 2009

I will have to admit at first I thought Rob was pushing the limits of the definitions of the words. But as I went back and reviewed things in the reference books….well he isn’t pushing but presenting a very clear definition of the words…

9. Sarah Dylan Breuer - April 27, 2009

I’ll answer your second question first:

We can know a great deal about how a lot of Greek words were used by writers in various cultural contexts in the first century CE. There are some words that occur in the New Testament that don’t occur much outside of it, and those terms are trickier to make a solid argument about. But in most cases, yes, someone could do a search of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG), for example, and take a look at where a particular word appears, as the TLG website says, among “more than 100 million words from 9,958 works associated with 2,314 authors.” And the database is growing.

However, the fact that a pastor COULD do that research doesn’t mean that a particular pastor actually did do the research. In my experience, the vast majority of “historical facts” cited from pulpits are at best something like the theological equivalent of urban legends — bad information that gets passed along because it coheres well with things preachers like to say. For example, I’ve heard in many sermons references to a gate to Jerusalem (or, in some tellings, Jericho) called “the eye of the needle,” which a camel could get through on its knees once its baggage was shed. Total fiction used to dodge implications of a difficult text.

I didn’t listen to much of Rob Bell’s stuff in this entry, but I can say at least that what I did listen to wasn’t in that category of ‘fiction convenient for preachers.’ I do think he’s stretching, though. To convince me that all of the material he cites (and, by the way, I wish he would cite his sources explicitly more often — somehow I doubt that the sermon is entirely original thought from his research using primary sources alone) is relevant in the interpretation of a particular text, he’d have to argue convincingly that the writer of that text was at least aware of all of those roots and previous usages of words.

On the other hand, as much as I applaud preaching based on solid scholarship, I think the ultimate test of a sermon’s quality is whether it serves effectively to equip the congregation for discipleship.

10. Michael - June 19, 2009

I would have to say that I have been studying human sexuality from a biblical viewpoint (not necessarily a “Christian” viewpoint, mind you) for about five years. I have amassed enumerable materials, spoken and e-mailed unimaginable numbers of individuals, scholars, ministries, checked out every book on the subject from the library, and spent every spare moment digging deeper into this subject than “Pastor” Rob could ever have imagined. I might not have a degree in this subject, but, for my own peace of mind, and the peace of mind of other believers in Jesus who have struggled their whole lives with sexual issues, abuses and problems, I have made this my life’s work.

In my research, I have found the following:

1. Adultery equals having sexual INTERCOURSE with anyone outside of the marriage covenant. This includes fornication. In the Hebrew, this means to commit adultery or idolatry. In the Greek, it means something completely different. The Greek word that is translated as fornication is porneo, which literally means a male prostitute, or one who dresses as a woman and has tresses (braids) like a woman, in order to attract other men. Although the word for adultery and the word for fornication are two different words, their root words are the same. Both mean to commit a FORBIDDEN sexual act outside the confines of a covenant marital relationship.

2. Sexual perversions of any other sort, such as having sex with animals, homosexuality of the sort that we see in our world today (which is more like a man allowing his rectum to be used as a vagina than the kind of homosexual behavior that existed during the apostle Paul’s lifetime, which was called pederasty, and which Paul did NOT condemn), or having sex with dead people.

Human sexuality, according to Augustine of Hippo (6th century), was evil. God himself called it good in Genesis 1:26-31. The FIRST commandment was to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” Let’s see, if I’m correct, sex was in the first chapter of the Scriptures, it was square in the middle of the Scriptures (in the Song of Solomon), and it is the major theme of the last book of the Scriptures (John’s Revelation), for the Bride and and Bridegroom will have a wedding feast and what do we think this Bride and her Bridegroom will be doing afterwards, according to Jewish tradition? They will be having sex. Together. Forever.

The other thing that I found in my studies was that the Jewish temples were designed after the human figure. (Hence Paul’s teaching that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit). The Holy of Holies represents the head; the Holy Place represents the torso; Solomon’s Porch represents the reproductive organs(the temple structure was 30 cubits high, but Solomon’s Porch was 120 cubits high - somewhat phallic, if you ask me)(Jesus cleansed Solomon’s Porch twice during his ministry - once at the start of his ministry, and once right before he became our sacrifice); the priestly cells along each side of the temple represent the arms; the five lavers per side of the temple, at the end of each row of priestly cells, are the five fingers per hand; Joachin and Boaz (the two pillars at the entrance to the temple) are the legs; at the top of these two pillars are two pomegranates, representing the testicles of a man and the ovaries of a woman; this figure, if viewed from the air, is kneeling in the brass sea, where sacrifices were made for the sins of mankind. It is interesting to note that this foreshadows Paul’s teachings regarding the body being the temple of the Holy Spirit and his instruction to offer up our bodies as living sacrifices.

I see nothing anywhere in the entire Scriptural record that would taint or make unholy anything that has to do with human sexuality done in the way God designed it. You and I might disagree about how God designed it, but I think we would both agree that sexuality was designed to be enjoyed by us, both for our pleasure and for our continuity as the human race.

I have also noticed, in my studies, that the “translators” of the Scriptures have taken many liberties that would never have been allowed by the Hebrew scribes of old. If THEY made a mistake or mistranslated one single word, they were put to death. If our own “translators” were held to that same standard, we wouldn’t have any
“translators” - they’d all be dead!

That was my input. Hope it encourages others to rethink their sexuality from a gloriously redeemed vantage point, rather than from Augustine’s. If God meant it for our pleasure, who are we to say otherwise?