I realized that the title of this post makes absolutely no sense to 99.999% of the world population, but there is probably 14 of you out there who will agree that, used in moderation, biblical word studies can be fun. Three great opportunities exist in the Gospel lesson for Sunday. If you know me, you understand that I haven't actually done these word studies because, quite frankly, I don't actually believe the title of this post, but for the 14 of you who do, I offer the following suggestion.
It seems only right to challenge Jesus in his word choice. Why does he change his question to the disciples? First he asks them, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" Then he asks them "But who do you say that I am?" The first question is easy, it is a pre-k/kindergarten level Sunday School question. Isn't it always easy to answer for other people. But more importantly here Jesus seems to be asking about somebody else, the Son of Man, as he is made known in Scripture and in the common life of 1st century Jews. The second question is much less general in nature; not about some ethereal Son of Man, but about Jesus himself. "Who am I?" Jesus asks. Or maybe he asks, "Who I am?" With the emphasis on the ego emi of I Am. It'd be interesting to know.
The second word study fun came from a footnote in my Study Bible. It noted, but didn't flesh out, that Jesus uses two different forms of the pronoun "you" in the following sentence, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." The red you is singular, indicating that Jesus is still talking directly to Peter - "YOU, Peter, will get the keys to the kingdom of heaven." The blue you(s) are plural as Jesus turns his focus from Peter to all of the disciples - "whatever Y'ALL bind... whatever Y'ALL loose" Read from 21st century America it feels like Jesus is installing a check and balance system; Peter gets the keys, but the community lays down the law.
Which leads to the third opportunity for word study. The English language is notoriously weak in its ability to interpret the nuance of ancient languages. Coupled with translators who are paid by a church which gets its power from binding and loosing we get, "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." But what it actually seems to say is, "whatever you bind on earth has been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth has been loosed in heaven." Seems like the job of our Church authorities isn't to tell heaven who to let in and who to keep out, but to discern what God's will is and make it so on earth (sounds like a familiar prayer our savior gave us). This has profound ramifications not just for the Magesterium in Rome, but for all forms of Christianity, not least of which including my own Anglican Communion as it struggles with binding and loosing in various corners of the globe.
See, I told you word studies can be fun.
1 comment:
OK. You have to know that you cannot put "word study" up and not have a response from one of the 14 or so. Here are the answers to your questions.
1) Jesus does not refer to the "I AM" or “ego eimi” in his question. The most literal translation of the question is actually a direct challenge to the disciples: "But YOU who do YOU say me to be?" The “I am” is an infinitive form of the verb.
(Parenthetically, Jessie heard a sermon [she went to a school teacher service at the church] that posited the theory that Jesus was seeking affirmation of his call. Who do you ask such a question? Your friends. What are people saying about me? Really? But what do YOU say about me? In that context, Peter’s exclamation may well surprise and affirm Jesus in the same instance. It definitely places his proclamation that God has revealed this to Peter in a different light. )
2) Umm. From the Greek I looked at, your study bible is in error. The verb s are 2nd person singular across the board. There is not a single separate pronoun used for the 2nd person- so you have to take the assumed subject from the 2nd person singular verbs.
3) You are undoubtedly correct on the failure of English to capture the nuance of ancient language (or modern for that matter). The verbs used for binding and loosing are in the perfect passive participle nominative neuter singular (thank God for BibleWorks) which makes your translation marginally correct. However, since they are participles they modify the verb “eimi” which is future middle/deponent indicative, 3rd person singular. So, the biblical translation is more accurate. “It will be bound” or possibly “it will have been bound”- but still in the future.
Thanks for the unwitting invitation to brush off the Greek dictionary
Post a Comment