I'm taking a break from bicycling. Yesterday I got a 1/2 mile into my ride when I realized I was lightheaded. Not so good. Went another 4 miles, turned around and came home. Just too hot, even at 6 a.m., and this time of year we have monsoon humidity that makes it worse. We'll be back to our near-perfect weather in another six weeks so until then I'm going to the gym each afternoon. Incredibly boring, but air conditioned.
I got a lot done today, learned about all kinds of things. I read an interesting article about the presence or absence of the definite article with the words translated "Holy Spirit" in the NT. Is there a difference in meaning between the two?
No particular reason for it, but this morning my brain tried thinking about government's role(s) starting from scratch. What are government's most basic and essential functions? There may be many good and important things it could do but what things must it do or be derelict?
I started with defense. A govt. should defend its citizens against attack from enemies without. If it won't do that, or at least make its best effort, they might just as well pack it in and turn the whole thing over to someone who will.
Next I mentally added policing to my list - protection from bad guys within. Think Romans 13 and govt.'s responsibility to punish evil doers.
I didn't get any further than that, but I'm pretty sure other things should go on the list. Just those two present enough challenging issues. For example, does the defense bit only kick in when there's been a direct attack? If not, how much of a threat does there have to be before military action is appropriate. Hitler didn't attack the U.S. but we joined the Allied Forces in combat against him. For the sake of discussion let's say Hussein did have WMD's and we suspected he planned to use them against the U.S. Would intervention have been appropriate? Or should we wait for....? Libya? Military force in Somalia on humanitarian grounds? Does the big kid have a moral obligation to look out for the playground wimp getting bullied?
The policing part isn't any easier. Some bad guys use guns and knives while others use different means, just as deadly. The ruthless profiteer will sacrifice the lives of his workers in unsafe factories or mines to make as much money as possible. Their deaths are a cost of doing business. His cousin will sell products to an unwitting public he knows are dangerous, even deadly, but his conscience ends where the bottom line is drawn and there's money to be made.
So should the govt. protect us against the thug only? Or should they also protect us from the profiteers who are just as deadly? What if they aren't deadly? What if they just take people's money - their life's savings?
This is hard stuff for my weak brain. But the effort to think through this stuff as much as possible seems worthwhile at this point in time.
So, how wide would you make those first two circles?
What other essential functions would you put on the list?
7 comments:
I think it's all in the preamble to the U.S Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And re: the greedy careless profiteer. He should be put out of business when he is sued by his victims. That's where "establish justice" comes in to play. Not everything can - or should - be proscribed and prescribed by our government.
Mike H.
In the twelve instances in the NT (Greek) where the word hagios (holy) precedes the word pneuma (spirit) the definite article (Greek) also precedes both words. The article you refer to must have included other parameters.
If there is indeed a difference, what difference does it make to you???
Larry - there are 51 places in the NT where "Holy Spirit" (pneumatos agiou) occurs without a definite article. Why? Is there any difference in meaning between those 51 and the higher number that include one - or occasionally two - definite articles? I'll only know after I've gone through those 51 looking for a common thread that distinguishes them from the others.
It matters to me because I believe the Bible is God's Word, down the the very words used (verbal inspiration). So the absence of a definite article is by divine design. If there is indeed a difference in meaning it's significant and has something to teach me about the Spirit and his work.
I remember, in Acts class, you had us make note of when "spirit" was capitalized or not. I can't exactly remember why...something about Holy Spirit power, I think.
See? You need to do a curriculum for Acts now. Please.
Craig,
It is not my intent to challenge the validity of scripture or its design. It was given by inspiration of God and is profitable in several aspects.
Allow me to rephrase my question. If it can be shown that two separate usages are intended by the use or absence of the definite article before the phrase “holy spirit”, how will that knowledge make a difference to you? If the use of the definite article indicates the “person” of the holy spirit and the absence of the definite article indicates the “power” of the holy spirit, does this change something in your life – does it make a difference?
As a thought. When looking at the 51 usages of “spirit holy”, with or without the definite article, also consider the significance of any noun-adjective combinations that have or lack the definite article. There may be some other goodies in the Word.
Larry, I don't know who you are and it doesn't make any difference. I've been thinking a lot about your "What diff. does it make to you???" comment.
I'm increasingly troubled by what I see as the egocentrism of contemp. Christianity that requires immediate relevancy from every sermon, lesson, study, etc.
Maybe it's b/c I'm a learning addict in almost every area. But esp. w/biblical truth I believe there is value just in knowing because it is knowing about God. He is the center of all things. Thus, the more I know about him (and his Word) the more I fulfill his design for me.
If no area of my life is practically impacted by the knowledge, so what? Why is that the standard of value?
And is there a connection between this egocentric Christianity and the near death of biblical and theological literacy in today's church? We are the poorer for it, as evidenced by the anemia of today's Christian.
FWIW
Craig,
For what it’s worth, I do read your blog regularly and with enjoyment. Have even shared some of your insights with others. I do like you’re your ongoing commentary on the life you’re living, sometimes with twinges of envy, sometimes not. Your writings are clear, easy and with wit – I do enjoy your wit most of all.
These latest comment you have provided seem to deviate considerably from the inceptive topic regarding the holy spirit (IMO). The three questions you ask therein, I will assume as rhetorical. If not, please understand that I am not skilled enough to step into the arena of egocentrism of contemporary Christianity.
I will look forward to your findings regarding the holy spirit, should you decide to share, particularly any difference those findings make to you in your Christian understanding, experience or expectation.
Blessings to you as you search along….
Post a Comment