Books I am Currently Reading...

This is a list of the books I am breaking my brain with in case anybody is interested:

1. Hagar, Sarah, and their Children by Phyllis Trible and Letty M. Russel.
2. Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation by Justo. Gonzalez.
3. From Paradise to the Promise Land by T. Desmond Alexander.
4. The Untold Story of the New Testament Church by Frank Viola.

A word of caution on the first book. It is written unashamedly from a liberal feminist perspective. So read it with a  grain of salt. Trible and Russel are very much liberal feminist theologians.

Luke's Opening Statement

Doubt has been cast over the reliability of Luke’s Gospel account.  At one time, it was argued that no census ever took place during the time of Quirinius, as governor of Syria, but recent archaeology has disproven that. It was also generally accepted, among critical scholars, that Pontius Pilate never existed. This has also been disproven. The new argument now is, just because Luke has all his events and places correct, it does not mean that he was writing a historical account. They likened it to a Tom Clancy novel. The author, Tom Clancy, writes novels based on real places, dates, and sometimes events, but this does not make his novels historical truth. Perhaps Luke’s own words might provide for us an understanding of the task he was undertaking and especially his purpose for writing.

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,   just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:1-4).

A lot of things could be understood from this opening statement. But for us to begin acknowledging the reliability of Luke’s account, our attention draws us to the phrase “many have undertaken to draw up account of the things that have been fulfilled among us…” It is interesting and vital to know that other accounts, besides the four gospel accounts, were written and circulated at the time. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the only people who put to writing the works and ministry of Jesus. The author Luke testifies to this. This means that the life and ministry of Jesus was a generally accepted fact, and the early Christians were doing their job in spreading his good news.

The verb phrase “have undertaken” comes from the Greek word έπίχειρησαν (epikeiresan) and most of the time its usage suggests literary compositions (Plummer). So, more than likely, there were written accounts already in existence and circulation at the time of Luke’s writing. What Luke is saying is that 1) he is not the only one writing an account of Jesus but that, 2) there were others as well.

Secondly, these other accounts have undertaken “to draw up” this story of Jesus.  That phrase is another very vital language in assuming the reliability of Luke’s testimony. It comes from the word αναταξασται (anataxasthai) which means to compile or to arrange in a row, so as to show the sequence of events (Arndt). In other words, these other accounts were recording, in chronological order, the events of the life of Jesus.

Third, these accounts were from “eyewitnesses who were there from the beginning.” These eyewitnesses are Luke’s guarantee for a true report. It reflects the conviction of the Christian faith that it is not rooted in speculation but in historical reality (Ellis). And it is comforting to know that these eyewitnesses were there from the very beginning, that is, they were there from the very birth of Jesus, as a little baby.  Otherwise, Luke wouldn’t start his account at Jesus’ birth.

And fourth to the fact that these accounts were “delivered” to Luke (παρέδοσαν, paredosan). This corresponds to the Jewish idea of a student receiving, as a successor, the teaching of his rabbi, or that of a scribe transferring his work to the one continuing it (Wyatt). There is an element of reverence, trust, honor, and reliability implied.

The point to all of these was for Theophilus, the recipient of Luke’s writing, to have “certainty of the things he was taught.” It is interesting what the Greek word for certainty is: ασφαλεια (asphaleia), the very word where the English word asphalt comes from (Rienecker). That couldn’t have paint a clearer picture of what Luke is trying to convey. He is writing something true, concrete, and very much reliable.

This is beside the fact that Luke himself “carefully investigated” all of these accounts and eyewitnesses himself: παρηκολουθεκοτι (parekolouthekoti), to follow along, to trace, or investigate (Meyer). This implies that Luke was not just writing everything he heard or read, but he was making sure to follow up the truth of those accounts before relaying it to Theophilus. The adjective ακριβως (akribos) points to the painstaking character of researches (Arndt).

This opening statement of Luke’s Gospel account makes clear his purpose for writing and of his method. His purpose was to give an account to Theophilus the origin and development of the Christian faith, and to strengthen what Theophilus had already know. His method was a thorough and careful investigation of earlier accounts and eyewitnesses. Such an emphasis have led many scholars to conclude that the Lukan writings (including Acts) does have a historical form to it. And because Conzelmann and Lindemann, in reference to Acts, calls it a “historical monography” it is safe to assume the first volume to Acts, which is Luke, deserves such a title too (Wyatt).

 

 

Met Auchean An Aramas Repwe Kuna Manaw? (1)

Sia tonong non ew minafon kaeo. A wes ach ewe lesson won auchean Bible study, iei sipwene tonong pwan lon ew minafon kaeo.

Ach ei lesson epwe sosot ponuweni ei kapas eis: "Met auchean an aramas repwe kuna manaw?"

Lon booken Luke 5:31 a aiti ngeni kich pwe ew chok sokkun aramas ra need emon doctor ika sousafei: ekewe chok ir mi semwen are samaw. Nge non Luke 5:32, a awewei ngeni kich tichikin ekkei mi semwen. Ese kapas faniten semwenin futuk, nge faniten semwenin ngun. Non ititin pwe a aiti ngeni kich an Kraist ese feito faniten chon pung pwe a feito faniten chon tipis. Wewen pwe chon tipis ir kei mi semwen.

Ekkei ruu (2) wokisin ra aiti ngeni kich popun an Sises war ngeni fonufan, pwe faniten chon tipis.

Pwata Sises a war ngeni fonufan?
1. I Timothy 1:15> A allukuluk ewe kapas pwe aramas repwe fokkun etiwa o luku; Kraist Jesus a feito lon ei fonufan pwe epwe amanawa chon tipis. Ngang (Paul) emon chon tipis mi ngaw seniir meinsin.
2.Lukas 19:10> Pun noun aramas (Jesus) a feito pwe epwe kuta o amanawa ekewe chon mwalechela.
3. Matthew 1:21> Epwe nounou emon att, iwe kopwe aita ngeni Jesus, pun ii epwe amanawa aramasan seni ar tipis kana.
4. Johannes 3: 17> Pun Kot esapw tinato Noun won fonufan pwe epwe apungu fonufan nge a tinato pwe epwe amanawa chon fonufan.

Lon Lukas 5:31-32 sia kaeo fengen pwe Sises a feito pwe epwe amanawa chon tipis. Sia pwan kaeo pwe Sises ese feito faniten ekewe chon pung. Emon mi pung ese need an epwe kuna manaw.

Nge non booken Rom. 3:10 paipel a afata ngeni kich pwe ESE WOR emon mi pung.

"Usun ekewe taropwe mi pin ra apasa: 'Esapw fokkun wor emon chon pung!' "(Rom. 3:10)

Kolfel 14: 2-3: "Ewe Samol mi lapalap a nenetiw seni lang won aramas meinisin, pwe epwe kuna ika a wor emon mi mirit, ika emon mi kuta Kot. Nge ir meinisin ra tokola, ir ra ingauppok. Esapw wor emon a fori mine a pung, esap fokkun wor emon."

Rom. 3:23> "Aramas meinisin ra tipis nge ra osun ewe lingen Kot."

Usun met Paipel a pwari ngeni kich: Oukich meinisin chon tipis. Oukich meinisin chon osupwangen ewe manaw Kraist a feito faan.

Nge met popun ika auchean sipwe pwan sinei pwe kich chon tipis?

Lukas 18:9-14 a aiti ngeni kich porousen ruemon mwan. Meni me nein ekewe mwan e ekieki pwe ese wor an tipis, mei pung non manawan? esapw ewe Pharisee? Ewer aa.
Nge meni me neir e pwarata pwe ii emon mi tipis? Ewe chon takises (tax-collector).
Io me nein kei mwan a kuna pung meren Kot? Ewe chon takises.

Auchean ach esina pwe kich chon tipis, ina poputan an Kot epwene angang non netipach me manawach. Mei auchea sipwe esina, pusin pwan wenechar non manawach pwe kich chon tipis. Kich chon nom fan nemenien tipis. Kich chon fotek ren tipis.

Ach ewe kapas eis: "Met auchean an aramas repwe kuna manaw?"

Aewin ponuwan: pwe aramas meinisin chon tipis.

To be continued...