Image 01

W. Davd Phillips

Integrating Missional Thinking, Living, and Culture

Archive for the ‘Word’ Category

A Semiotic Scripture?

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

Last night, in one of the small groups I lead, we began the book of the Revelation. I have been called crazy by some for doing this and I realize this as I tread with fear and trembling into the journey.

As I was preparing for the introduction to our study, I came across a fascinating term used in Rev. 1:1. The English (NASB) says:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,

The term in question is translated by the NAS “communicated it”. The Greek uses sémainó, the verb form of a word that means sign. The root of this work is the same root word from which the term semiotics is derived, semeiotikos, which means an interpreter of signs. Semiotics, as a refresher, is the study of sign processes (semiosis), or signification and communication, signs and symbols.

In speaking of this term in Revelation 1:1, Robert Mounce in The Book of Revelation (New International Commentary on the New Testament) notes the following:

The revelation is said to be signified to John. The Greek verb carries the idea of figurative representation. Strictly speaking it means to make known by some sort of sign. Thus it is admirably suited to the symbolic character of the book. This should ward the reader not to expect a literal presentation of future history, but a symbolic portrayal of that which must yet come to pass. (65)

So the book of the Revelation is a “sign”-ified book. It requires a semiotician to understand it.

In Acts 11:28, a prophecy of Agabus is introduced in a similar way, with “he indicated through the Spirit.” The word “indicated” is the same word, sémainó. Agabus was an astute semiotician, as he understood the sign-ified message of the Spirit.

The verb sémainó occurs three times in John, all in the context of Jesus “indicating” by what death he would die (John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19); i.e., Jesus predicted his dead by using the phrase “lifted up” as a description of his impending crucifixion. Jesus was sign-ifying how he would die and people needed to be able to read the sign(s) he was giving them so that they would be able to understand what was happening. Jesus was looking for semioticians.

Finally, in Matthew 16:3, Jesus tells the religious leaders “Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times?” . The word for signs here is sémeion, the same root word used in the other passages. Jesus is chastising them for their inability to read the signs, in effect deriding them for not being semioticians.

Just after the event with the religious leaders, Jesus seems frustrated with his own disciples for being semioticians themselves. In verse 6, he says to them, “Watch out and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” They thought he was talking about bread. Then he says in verse 11, “How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” It was then that they understood the sign. Verse 12 states, “Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”

And then there is the confession of Peter in Matthew !6:13-20. Jesus asked the disciples:

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Based on the context, particularly because it is a context of signs, that God the Father finally allowed Peter to interpret the signs and he came to the conclusion that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

Signs require interpretation. The interpreter for the disciples in Matthew 16 was Jesus. The interpreter in Acts 11 was the Spirit. The interpreter in John was Jesus himself. And in Matthew 16:13-20, the interpreter was God the Father.

As a result, what conclusions would you draw from the New Testament?

The Language of God

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

This past Sunday was Pentecost Sunday. Most of my tribe does not celebrate Pentecost, primarily because I think we fear the mysterious nature of the Holy Spirit and also do not want to have anything to do with speaking in tongues. Also, we do not follow the Christian calendar, so we never really deal with it.

Pentecost is the reversal of the story in Genesis 11 of the tower of babble. In that story, the people were scared. The fear in their hearts motivated them to settle, not scatter. There is an emphasis in that story on settling and scattering. Scattering would lead to the break up of their family and cause them to enter into the mysterious nature of life as it was a journey into the unknown. They were seeking security.

They were scared to scatter so they settled, hoping that in settling they could grow into a great city-state, and making a name for themselves. In constructing this city-state, they wanted to build a tower that would give them access to God, access that would come on their terms. As God looked down on this, he was saddened. His attitude was “If they think they can do this, there is nothing they won’t try.” So he stopped it by inhibiting the people’s ability to understand each other. The lack of a similar language divided families, and as a result, the people gathered by the ability to understand and scattered to their own lands.

When we find the disciples and apostles gathered in a room in Acts 2, we begin to see the impact of Pentecost. The Spirit arrives and it appears these Christ-followers are able to speak in many languages and dialects. They are able to speak so that anyone who is present is able to understand in their own specific dialect. Was the event a miracle of speaking or hearing? Both. The text makes it clear that the apostles spoke in other languages. But it also makes it clear that the people heard in their own language and dialect. It’s all a matter of perspective. For the masses, they were able to hear-to-understand in their own dialect.

Here was a diverse group of people from different lands speaking and hearing in different languages. But they all understood what was spoken because of the language of God. The language of God was universal. The language of God was the Holy Spirit.

The sermon that followed and brought by Peter  was a call to embrace the mysterious:

17 ‘In the last days,’ God says,
‘I will pour out my Spirit upon all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy.
Your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
18 In those days I will pour out my Spirit
even on my servants—men and women alike—
and they will prophesy.
19 And I will cause wonders in the heavens above
and signs on the earth below—
blood and fire and clouds of smoke.
20 The sun will become dark,
and the moon will turn blood red
before that great and glorious day of the Lord arrives.
21 But everyone who calls on the name of the Lord
will be saved.’

All that would happen meant that the mysterious would become the new normal. Insecurity would become the new security. Spirit-led and Spirit language would be normal.

It is also important to note that the language of God always pointed them to Jesus. The language of God was not the Gospel. The language of God was not the scriptures. The language of God was the Holy Spirit, and He always pointed people to Jesus. He used the scriptures. He used the gospel. They were used to point people to Jesus. But the language of God was the Spirit.

And it is that Jesus who leads us to God. He is the only way to God.

The First Son of God was Adam. Now it’s us.

Monday, May 17th, 2010

It hit me like a ton of bricks. I have read this passage many times, but this time it was there in front of God and everyone. It shook me to the core, so much in fact that I had to pause and ponder its implications.

Going through the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3, Luke makes an astounding statement: the son of God is Adam. Read it with me:

34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (NAS emphasis mine)

Adam is called the son of God. But that was Jesus’ title! But wait, that is our title! At least those of us with the male genes. The women, of course, are called the daughters of God. (See I John 3:1, Romans 8:14)

So the first son of God (Adam) failed. The second son of God (Jesus) succeeded. Now the sons and daughters of God, those of us led by the Spirit, are being formed by the Spirit into the same nature as the Son of God, namely Jesus!

We really need to relearn that biblical anthropology!