What Is an "Evangelist" in the NT Sense?

D. A. Carson:

I have come to suspect . . . that we are in danger of reading back into the Greek word εὐαγγελιστής [e.g., 2 Tim. 4:5] what the English transliteration "evangelist" means. If instead we understood εὐαγγελιστής in terms of its cognates εὐαγγέλιον and εὐαγγελίζω, then a εὐαγγελιστής is simply someone who proclaims the εὐαγγέλιον, the gospel. If we are not thinking of "the gospel" in some simplistic or reduced sense, then an "evangelist" (in the Greek sense), precisely because he or she focuses on proclaiming the gospel, will inevitably provide at least some such proclamation to outsiders, and thus be doing evangelistic work, the work of an "evangelist" in the contemporary sense. Nevertheless, such an "evangelist" will still be proclaiming the gospel even when such proclamation is not directed toward outsiders with the aim of their conversion. In short, an "evangelist" in the New Testament sense is simply a gospel-preacher, an announcer of the gospel.

—D. A. Carson, "What Is the Gospel?—Revisited," in For the Fame of God's Name: Essays in Honor of John Piper (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 166.

Greek NT "Utter Chaos"

Struggling to know exactly how to translate a portion of a Pauline epistle this morning, I consulted an authoritative grammar, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Blass, Debrunner, and Funk (known as BDF). Here's what BDF said (§§ 467):

“The construction 1 T 1:3ff. is reduced to utter chaos by interminable insertions and appended clauses.”

Well, small wonder, then, that I had a little trouble. "Reduced to utter chaos," they say. The authorities on these matters call this tough bit of text "utter chaos."

It probably just needs a verb supplied from the context, as it seems all English translations have done. In any case, I find it encouraging that the authorities and the experts note the difficulties at precisely the point where I myself am finding difficulties.  

The Basics of Greek Aspect Theory

Due to relatively recent advancements, aspectual theory has become an important consideration for anyone working in the Greek New Testament. I have no intention here to canvass the issues, debates, and positions on aspect theory. What I want to do instead is simply provide a perspective on aspect as presented by my first-year Greek instructor Professor Jon Laansma. It has proved to be a valuable reference point for me as I continue to think about Greek verbs and poke around in discussions of aspectual theory. Professor Laansma was one of the clearest teachers I've ever had, communicating his subject matter with crystal clarity, never leaving me in doubt about what he was talking about and what I needed to know.

What follows comes from the handouts Professor Laansma gave to his first-year Greek class at Wheaton College in 2007:

Aspect: the speaker's presentation of an action to the hearer. It is a matter of choice (it is subjective). It is a matter of how one chooses to talk about an action. Aspect does not describe an action realistically. It does not tell us that an action is or was actually ongoing, momentary (i.e., punctiliar), and so on. It only presents the action from a certain viewpoint. 

Laansma then describes the different kinds of aspect:

Imperfective aspect [present and imperfect tenses]: presents the action as a process; looks at the action from the inside, as if we are watching the action unfold. "I am hitting the ball." We cannot infer from the use of this aspect alone, however, that the action was or is of an ongoing nature (although it may often be). The action could be "point-in-time"—such as "to hit the ball"—but presented as a process, contemplating the action as if watching it happen. 

Perfective aspect [aorist tense]: presents the action as a simple and undifferentiated whole; looks at the action from the outside, as if we see it all at once. "I studied four years." We cannot infer from the use of this aspect alone that the action was or is momentary or point-in-time, although it may be. In fact, this aspect tells us the least about the nature of the action itself. 

Stative aspect [perfect and pluperfect tenses]: presents the action as an entire state of affairs coming to fruition; looks at the action as if from both the inside and the outside. "I have hit."

Future aspect [future tense]: presents the action from the viewpoint of expectation or intention, implying futurity in most contexts. 

Describing how the imperfect tense (imperfective aspect) and the aorist tense (perfective aspect) often function in the literature, Laansma says this:

Some grammarians argue that what distinguishes the imperfect and present tenses is not time (present vs. past) but space (foreground vs. background; here vs. there; nearness vs. remoteness). What is not debated is that the imperfect tense is usually used in narrative contexts for background (vs. foreground) action, and it usually refers to past-time action. Like the imperfect tense, the aorist tense [perfective aspect] is used most often in narrative literature to refer to background material (though it is extremely common throughout the NT), usually with a past-time reference. Yet the aortist tense is also used for present and even future time action, as well as for timeless statements. The time reference of aorist tense verbs is therefore dependent on context, and the aorist tense is not a past time tense. The decision of time-reference depends on word choice and context.

Lastly, he says this of the stative aspect:

The stative aspect expresses the speaker's personal choice to present the state of the (grammatical) subject from the speaker's viewpoint. The focus is broadened from the action of the verb as such to a whole state of affairs dependent on that action and in which the subject of the verb is involved. Thus we have in our mind's eye not merely the action happening on the street [as with the perspective of the imperfective aspect; Laansma is deploying a parade analogy here], but the whole complex of arrangements and events surrounding the parade [the view of the parade master]. It is this complex state of affairs that is analogous to the perspective taken with the stative aspect. This aspect draws the most attention to the action of the verb and thus demands careful attention whenever used.

There you have it. Greek aspectual theory basics. Thanks Professor Laansma!

The Minister and His Greek Testament

From "The Minister and His Greek New Testament," originally published in The Presbyterian 88 (February 7, 1918), Machen speaks pretty straightforwardly about the decline of Greek among ministers:

The widening breach between the minister and his Greek Testament may be traced to two prinicipal causes. The modern minister objects to his Greek New Testament or is indifferent to it, first, because he is becoming less interested in his Greek, and second, because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament.

—J. Gresham Machen, Selected Shorter Writings (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004), 210.

Preacher: Acquire Other Languages

C. H. Spurgeon on the value of learning languages to the expositor of sacred Scripture:

The acquisition of another language affords a fine drilling for the practice of extempore speech. Brought into connection with the roots of words, and the rules of speech, and being compelled to note the differentia of the two languages, a man grows by degrees to be much at home with parts of speech, moods, tenses, and inflections; like a workman he becomes familiar with his tools, and handles them as every day companions.

I know of no better exercise than to translate with as much rapidity as possible a portion of Virgil or Tacitus, and then with deliberation to amend one's mistakes. Persons who know no better, think all time thrown away which is spent upon the classics, but if it were only for the usefulness of such studies to the sacred orator, they ought to be retained in all our collegiate institutions.

Who does not see that the perpetual comparison of the terms and idioms of two languages must aid facility of expression? Who does not see moreover that by this exercise the mind becomes able to appreciate refinements and subtleties of meaning, and so acquires the power of distinguishing between things that differ—a power essential to an expositor of the Word of God, and an extempore declarer of his truth.

Learn, gentlemen, to put together, and unscrew all the machinery of language, mark every cog, and wheel, and bolt, and rod, and you will feel the more free to drive the engine, even at an express speed should emergencies demand it.

—“The Faculty of Impromptu Speech,” in Lectures to My Students, Book I, 160-161.

Hosea 1:1-11 (LXX) and The Message of Hosea

Here is my rendering of the LXX of Hos. 1:1-11 from Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum (vol. XIII, Joseph Ziegler, ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984) followed by my outline of Hos. 1:1-11 (LXX; 1:1-2:2, MT) and my summary of Hosea's message in the context of the book. The LXX here seems to be quite close the the Vorlage of the MT.

Translation

¹ The word of the Lord that came to Hosea the son of Beeri in the days of Uzziah and Jotham and Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.

² The beginning of the word of the Lord in Hosea: And the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a promiscuous woman and children of promiscuity, for the land will commit flagrant whoredom from following the Lord.”

³ And so he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore to him a son.

⁴ And the Lord said to him, “Call his name 'Jezreel,' for yet a little while and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu and turn away the kingdom of the house of Israel.”

⁵ And it shall be in that day, I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.

⁶ And she conceived again and bore a daughter. And she said to him, “Call her name ‘No Mercy,’ for I will by no means continue to have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will surely oppose them.

⁷ But I will have mercy on the sons of Judah and deliver them by the Lord their God, and I will not deliver them by bow or sword, nor by war or chariots, nor by horses or horsemen.

⁸ And she weaned No Mercy and conceived again and bore a son.

⁹ And he said, “Call his name ‘Not My People,’ for you are not my people, and I am not your ‘I AM.’”

¹⁰ And the number of the sons of Israel was as the sand of the sea, which shall not be measured or numbered. And yet it will be in the place where it was said to them “You are not my people,” they shall also be called—“sons of the living God!”

¹¹ And the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel will be gathered together at the same place, and they shall appoint for themselves one ruler, and will go up from the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.

Outline
I. Superscription (1:1)
II. The Beginning of the word of the Lord in Hosea (1:2-9)
 A. Hosea ordered to take to himself a whore and children of whoredom (1:2-3)
 B. First child: Call his name “Jezreel” (1:4-5)

 C. Second child: Call her name “No Mercy” (1:6-7)
 D. Third child: Call his name “Not My People” (1:8-9)
III. “Not My People”: “Sons of the Living God” who appoint one ruler (1:10-11)

Summary 

The book of Hosea introduces the Book of the Twelve. Hosea “seems particularly well suited to its introductory role,” says Sweeney, for it “begins by raising the question of the disrupted relationship between YHWH and Israel by comparing it to the disrupted marriage of the prophet to his wife Gomer.”[1] The other bookend of the Twelve, Malachi, forms an inclusio with Hosea[2] and calls Israel to return to the Lord and observe the covenant. These two themes—a ruptured covenant relationship between the Lord and his people and the restoration of that relationship—summarize well the Twelve as well as Hosea as a whole.[3]

More specifically, “the analogy between Hosea’s marriage and Yahweh’s relationship with Israel is the subject of Hosea 1-3, and then Hosea 4-14 addresses the behavior that has been figuratively depicted as adultery in the first three chapters.”[4] Hosea was called to the prophetic office during the reign of Jeroboam II, that is, some time prior to 745 BC, when Assyria was the regional superpower. This period for Israel and Judah was marked by economic boon and political stability—and Baalism that threatened the exclusive worship of YHWH (Hos 2:8, 13, 16-17; 4:13-15, 18; 9:1; 13:1-2, NETS).[5] His ministry likely lasted until just before the fall of Samaria in 721 BC; the heart of Hosea’s oracles denounces Israel’s idolatry in the provocative terms of spiritual whoredom.[6]

But the message was not limited to what Hosea proclaimed verbally. Hosea’s life and marriage were a dramatization of YHWH’s marriage to his adulterous covenant people. Hosea was called not only to proclaim a message, but also shockingly and jarringly to be the message. This painful divine word, vividly portrayed, spoke the Lord’s judgment on Israel’s spiritual harlotry—exile under the foreign powers with whom Israel had played the whore (Hos 1:11; 2:14-15; 3:4-5; 7:11; 8:8-10; 12:1; 14:3, NETS). Yet already in the first eleven verses of the book, judgment and exile are not the final word. Despite Israel’s disgusting infidelity, a beautiful restoration hope is held forth (1:10-11).

---

[1] Marvin Sweeney, “Sequence and Interpretation in the Book of the Twelve,” in Reading and Hearing the Book of the Twelve (eds. James Nogalski and Marvin Sweeney; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2000), 49-64.

[2] The covenant infidelity depicted and indicted in Hosea is described multiple times with the form μοιχαλίς (“adulteress”). This noun, as Jobes points out, is used a number of times in the LXX, but only in Hos 3:1, Mal 3:5, and Ezek 23:45 does it describe God’s people violating the covenant. The Mal 3:5 LXX usage translates a masculine plural participle (מנאפים, “adulterers”) with a feminine plural accusative (μοιχαλίδας, “adulteresses”). Observing this, Jobes states that the Greek translator has clearly interpreted Mal 3:5 through Hosea’s usage of the adulteress imagery, forming an inclusio, since Hosea is always first and Malachi always last in the Twelve. Karen Jobes, “The Minor Prophets in James, 1 & 2 Peter, and Jude”in Minor Prophets in the New Testament (eds. Maarten J. J. Menken and Steve Moyise; New York: T & T Clark, 2009), 135-153.

[3] Jeremias has argued that Hosea and Amos are also related and probably never circulated independently. Jörg Jeremias, “The Interrelationship Between Amos and Hosea,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (eds. James W. Watts and Paul R. House; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 171-186. In the LXX, Amos follows Hosea in all the extant manuscripts. Both prophets ministered in the eighth century BC. Both spoke into the northern kingdom a message of impending judgment. And yet their messages—to the same target audience—were different, at least in emphasis. So how are they related? They are related as root and fruit. Hosea strikes primarily at the corrupt root in Israel, namely, idolatry. The people had played the whore with foreign deities and nations. And Amos primarily strikes at the corrupt fruit of social injustice and oppression. Hosea, like Amos, also addresses social injustice, but he more explicitly roots this in a lack of faithfulness, steadfast love, and the knowledge of God.

[4] James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 235.

[5] N. E. Lennart Bostrom, “Hosea,” NDBT: 236-239.

[6] Ibid., 237.

Owen's Hermeneutics: A Breath of Fresh Air

In the modern West, there is almost universally such a strong sense of progress that the past is incessantly despised or looked upon with condescension. I don't think the fields of linguistics and hermeneutics are exempt either. Older handlers of language are frequently spoken of as apes that simply plopped noncontextual dictionary definitions into the meaning of words in a given context, ignoring like idiots the obvious, namely, the larger linguistic structures of which the words partake.

Now in saying this sort of thing, I don't want to dismiss the real instances of progress that have been made, nor ignore the shortcomings or bone-ignorance of the past. But I do want to say that our sense of progress is a bit overblown, and oftentimes overweeningly arrogant. Moreover, and this is my chief concern, important methods and approaches and lessons are sometimes lost.

What follows now is a small sampling (three statements) from John Owen's work on the Spirit, from the third volume of his Works, with my brief commentary along the way. The first one particularly pleases me.

Here is Owen on hermeneutics: "Scripture is able of itself to manifest its own intention and meaning unto humble and diligent inquirers into it" (47).

This sort of statement is conspicuously absent in modern

The LXX and the Protestant Doctrine of Scripture

It is no news that the NT widely uses the Septuagint (LXX) and that this was the OT of the Church until the Reformation when the Hebrew (Masoretic Text, MT) became the Church's OT. But this continues to blow me away. And perhaps it ought to blow away some of our assumptions about the Hebrew Bible.

Now, briefly (there is so much to think about and say, so perhaps more later), what does this awesome fact have to say about our doctrine of Scripture? What are the implications?

Greek, Hebrew, and the Love of Christ

"The main point is, with all and above all, study the Greek and Hebrew Bible, and the love of Christ" (John Wesley, 1703-1791).