Rejecting YHWH as king

In 1 Samuel 8 the elders of Israel gather and ask Samuel to appoint them a king to judge them. It is easy, as with most sins of Israel in the OT, to hear this and move quickly to identify what their sin is and wag your finger, while at the same time not really accepting how logical, even righteous, the sin may seem.

The chapter begins:

When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn son was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. Yet his sons did not walk in his ways but turned aside after gain. They took bribes and perverted justice. (vv.1-3)

There are three things worth noting here and in the verses that follow.

1. Samuel was old, and Israel respected him as a fair judge.
2. His sons had been appointed by Samuel to judge Israel and yet they were wicked, and exploited the people.
3. They wanted Samuel to anoint what would be in effect his successor.

Interestingly though, only one reason behind the elders decision is emphasised in 1 Samuel 8, and it is summed up in the repeated phrase: 'that we also may be like all the nations'(v.5 and v.20). Moses preached that it should be the nations that are jealous of Israel not the other way round; and they should be jealous because 'what great nation is there that has a god so near to it' (Deut 4:7).

The Great Evangelical Bible Swindle

For what it counts, I think Michael Jensen has provided a much needed call for change.

Quotable: Leithart on 1 John 4:8

[John] doesn't say, "The one who doesn't know love doesn't know God." He says, "The one who doesn't love doesn't know God." The test of knowing God is not "knowing love" but "loving." It's an active, pragmatic test, a test that has to do with practice.

(source)

A beautiful prayer

Apparently John Calvin began all of his lectures with the same prayer, which runs as follows:

May the Lord grant that we may engage in the heavenly contemplation of the mysteries of God's heavenly wisdom with ever increasing devotion to God's glory and our edification. Amen. (HT Michael Bird)

But in case you all think I've gone a bit serious on you recently and started lecturing myself, here is an example of how great my favourite Christmas present, and the greatest comic strip in history, is.

Calvin: I should be doing my homework now. But the way I look at it, playing in the snow is a lot more important. Out here I'm learning real skills that I can apply throughout the rest of my life.

Hobbes: Such as?

Calvin: Procrastinating and Rationizing.

• Further reading (for the serious reader)

Defending grammatico-historical exegesis

Sounds like an important title doesn't it. Basically it means interpreting the bible with the intention of finding out "what the biblical author really meant" (and from that then understanding what God is trying to communicate). Although historically it is a strongly a held way of interpreting the bible it is beginning to be criticised in some quarters.

Anyway I was just reading the Westminster Theological Journal for Fall 2006 (thank you OU), and in particular an article by Peter Enns. I thought I would quote a little from it in case anyone has time on their hands to read it.

I am not arguing, implicitly or explicitly, that Second Temple studies should control how we understand Paul over against the history of the Christian church. Rather, our increased understanding of that context should, with great joy, be brought into a deepening and broadening of how we understand Paul— even if that deepening and broadening presents challenges. The context does not control Paul, the Spirit does. But the "Paul" that the Spirit controls was a first-century Jew. And a deeper understanding of that environment cannot be ignored. Neither am I saying that the church "needs" to understand Second Temple Judaism in order to understand Paul. That is not the case, for myself or Machen or Vos, and it is quite off-topic. The issue is depth and breadth for those engaged in a serious study of Scripture. And for that purpose, what Machen and Vos model for us is this: it is not simply the OT that forms the only proper background for the study of Paul, but Paul's context, Second Temple Judaism, as well, To understand the Jewish background better is to understand Paul/better.

[...]

this historical study of Scripture is a reminder of how very near God is to us, how down and dirty he gets. We sire all prone, in an academic setting at least, to speak of God in "distant" language, as a concept, an idea, a principle, a subject of study—an occupational hazard. But we all need to be reminded—and at some times more than others—what is so foundational to the gospel, which are the lengths to which God went to bridge that distance.

(Bible in context: The Continuing Vitality of Reformed Biblical Scholarship. By: Enns, Peter. Westminster Theological Journal, Fall2006, Vol. 68 Issue 2, p203-218)

What I like about Enns on this subject is how keen he always is to bring God into the equation when he is so often tragically forgotten. In this article as in his book and other articles he draws a lot on "Calvin's" doctrine of accommodation which I have benefited so much from.

Further reading (more for me than you)

• Inerrancy and New Testament Exegesis, by RT France
• John Calvin’s Concept of Divine Accommodation: A Hermeneutical Corrective, by Michael Tinker
• Apostolic Hermeneutics and an Evangelical Doctrine of Scripture: Moving beyond a Modernist Impasse, by Peter Enns

Shepherds and sheep

Old Testament

Plight

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)

Cause of the Plight

"My people have been lost sheep. Their shepherds have led them astray, turning them away on the mountains. From mountain to hill they have gone. They have forgotten their fold." (Jeremiah 50:6)

"Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths" (Ezekiel 34:10)

Solution: step 1

"The wind shall shepherd all your shepherds, and your lovers shall go into captivity; then you will be ashamed and confounded because of all your evil." (Jeremiah 22:22)

"My anger is hot against the shepherds, and I will punish the leaders;[1] for the Lord of hosts cares for his flock, the house of Judah, and will make them like his majestic steed in battle." (Zechariah 10:3)

"Woe to my worthless shepherd, who deserts the flock! May the sword strike his arm and his right eye! Let his arm be wholly withered, his right eye utterly blinded!" (Zechariah 11:17)

" "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who stands next to me," declares the LORD of hosts. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; I will turn my hand against the little ones." (Zechariah 13:7)

Solution: step 2

"And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd." (Ezekiel 34:23)

"I myself will be the shepherd of my sheep, and I myself will make them lie down, declares the Lord God." (Ezekiel 34:15)

"Hear the word of the Lord, O nations, and declare it in the coastlands far away; say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, and will keep him as a shepherd keeps his flock.’" (Jeremiah 31:10)

"[the servant] will tend his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms; he will carry them in his bosom, and gently lead those that are with young." (Isaiah 40:11)

New Testament

Plight and its cause

"When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd." (Matthew 9:36)

[Herod the Great: Mark 6:14-29 "had John beheaded in the prison" is the context for Jesus' comment that "they were like sheep without a shepherd" (v.34)

Herod Antipas: Matthew 2:13-18: "Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men." is the context for for the quotation of Micah: "for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel" (v.6b)]

Solution: step 1 but with a twist

"Then Jesus said to them, 'You will all fall away because of me this night. For it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.’" (Matthew 26:31)

[Herod Agrippa I: "Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon, and they came to him with one accord, and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king's country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and delivered an oration to them. And the people were shouting, 'The voice of a god, and not of a man!' Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him down, because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and breathed his last." (Acts 12:20-23)]

Solution: step 1&2 combined in one person

"I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." (John 10:9-16)

Solution: step 2

"For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs of living water, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." (Revelation 7:17)

Pretty amazing stuff isn't it?

Matthew 2

Matthew 2 tells the story of the visit of the wise men to Jesus, and Herod’s subsequent butchering of babies living in Bethlehem, just before which Mary, Joseph and Jesus escape to Egypt before returning at the end of the chapter.

Saved from what?

Matthew 1 sets the scene a little in mentioning the deportation of Judah to Babylon and never mentioning the return (supporting Wright et al who consider that the Jews considered themselves still in exile). Even if the focus on the exile wasn’t intended in chapter 1 it is more likely we are meant to notice how a line of kings has become in Joseph a line of carpenters while someone else must be ruling in Jerusalem. In Matthew 2 we discover who is ruling over God’s people. Herod is revealed as paranoid, megalomaniac, hypocritical, and most of all brutally sadistic in his killing of innocent children. The leaders of Israel are often mentioned in the bible as shepherds and as long ago as Isaiah and Jeremiah are recognised as failing in their role. But Isaiah and Jeremiah painfully look forward to when a good shepherd will come, who will love his sheep and also not lead them astray (cf. Jer 50:6).

Saved by whom?

Matthew 2 clearly knows who will effect salvation for Israel. We already know Jesus was of a line of kings, and born in Bethlehem. The prophecy from Micah that Matthew quotes makes it clear what this means:

‘And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel.’”

The shepherd is here and good rule is round the corner for it is none other than lowly Jesus who is Israel’s hope.

Saved how?

This will have to be further elaborated through the rest of the book but it is suggested already in chapter 2. The lowly birth and origin of Jesus has seemed bemusing so far but in chapter 2 it starts to make sense. Jesus will save his people by being a different kind of king to Herod. He will not rule with a rod of iron only (cf Psalm 2) but will identify with his people in a way never before seen. To save his people from exile and foreign rule he will subject himself to the same, initially under Herod, then under Egypt, and finally under Rome (in the person of Pilate). In fact it is only by suffering with them under God’s judgment that Jesus can absorb the judgment that they are suffering so that he can take them with him to the other side of death and exile. In the past God saved his son from slavery in Egypt, but the same is happening again in Jesus. But it is not just being repeated but being ‘fulfilled’. Jesus as God’s son, is representing God’s other son (his people Israel) in his life and ultimately his death. But he is brought back from Egypt, as he comes up from baptism, and recognised as God’s son, no mere slave but blessed. The resurrection is the same story multiplied by infinity and we can join the same story by being joined with him in baptism, and death (Rom 6:4).

But we must never forget that Jesus represents Israel not just by being just like one of us (‘a stranger on a bus…’) but also by being our king (our shepherd). The wise men knew what this meant for how they should approach them.

…and they fell down and worshiped him. Then, opening their treasures, they offered him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.

Hope that made some sense!

Foundations of faith

The author to the Hebrews lists as foundational the following (Heb 6:1f):

• repentance from dead works
• faith toward God
• instruction about washings [or baptisms]
• the laying on of hands
• the resurrection of the dead
• and eternal judgment

When I read this I wondered to myself how many of us 21st century Christians would list the same things as foundational to our faith. Having said that, I think a fair number of Catholics and Charismatics might (with different understandings of what the words mean of course). Sadly you would not hear anything like that coming out of my mouth (reformation needed).

It is interesting though that understood in context the author's list is really an expression of faith in the story of a Christian's life, when we are so often told today that redemptive-historical is the New Testament way of describing faith. An interesting comparison is Tertullian (AD 155-220) who wrote the following summary of the teaching of Christ, or rule of faith:

Now, with regard to this rule of faith—that we may from this point acknowledge what it is which we defend—it is, you must know, that which prescribes the belief that there is one only God, and that He is none other than the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of nothing through His own Word, first of all sent forth; that this Word is called His Son, and, under the name of God, was seen “in diverse manners” by the patriarchs, heard at all times in the prophets, at last brought down by the Spirit and Power of the Father into the Virgin Mary, was made flesh in her womb, and, being born of her, went forth as Jesus Christ; thenceforth He preached the new law and the new promise of the kingdom of heaven, worked miracles; having been crucified, He rose again the third day; (then) having ascended into the heavens, He sat at the right hand of the Father; sent instead of Himself the Power of the Holy Ghost to lead such as believe; will come with glory to take the saints to the enjoyment of everlasting life and of the heavenly promises, and to condemn the wicked to everlasting fire, after the resurrection of both these classes shall have happened, together with the restoration of their flesh. (source)

Again, sadly, not like something you would come out of my mouth (except thanks to CofE liturgy when reading the creed). Like the earlier list of the author of Hebrews it is a story. However it is a different story. Nevertheless it is in perfect harmony with the biblical letter's whole argument, and a few verses later the link between the two stories is made (v.6).

The gospel is a many faceted jewel which can be described in a multitude of different ways. We should not try and make other Christian's sound the same but listen to all the different stories in wonderful harmony. But this embrace of diversity within the church does not remove all boundaries, or embrace 'multiple' gospels. As Tertullian saw his summary could raise 'no other questions than those which heresies introduce', and in extension we should reject all discordant notes in the different 'core stories' Christians tell, and recognise their danger.

Just wandering in thought...

Letter to "the Hebrews"

I've bought and have just read the introduction to Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle "to the Hebrews" by David A. DeSilva. Interesting reading so far, especially on the reason for the scare quotes in the title. DeSilva is convinced that that there is no reason to believe that the recipients of the letter were Hebrews (specifically that is). I have to say it is fairly convincing in its debunking of any reasons to believe the title given is unhelpful.

DeSilva believes that the pressures on the recipient church to apostatise are primarily social (regarding honour and shame within the society) rather than ideological.

I may come back to this, but that's all you are getting for now.

The pregnant Apostle

…my little children, for whom I am again in the anguish of childbirth until Christ is formed in you… (Galatians 4:19)

This was the text for the last sermon I heard in 2006 and it may have been the best I heard (live) the entire year. It was a very challenging sermon for assessing 2006 and making priorities for 2007.

The sermon was by a visiting missionary called Andrew King (he has a blog here, mp3 can be found here). Andrew pointed out the aim of Paul’s life was to see Christ formed in people. Similarly Christ formed in us and in others ought to be our primary goal. But, this is not something for us to be lackadaisical or dispassionate about. Paul was in the ‘anguish of childbirth’ that this occur and the lack of Christlikeness, the spoiled image of God that he saw in others was a consuming pain and passion for him. In fact, that it is only in this total abandonment for others that Christ is formed in us, never mind anyone else.

Grrr, I can’t encapsulate what I’m trying to recount so that it has the impact it had on me, but hopefully you get the gist.

On reflection the sermon reminded me of Bruce Longenecker’s point that Paul in Galatians is too often seen as interested in ‘the issue of the law’ when actually he is concerned for ethics (see my post here).

Older brother lostness

Tim Keller on the prodigal Son (and the prodigal's older brother). HT Justin Taylor. I love Tim Keller, he really knows how to make you think again about sin, and specifically your sin. Highly recommended.

Subjects begging for a book

... although there probably are already books on them. If so please do tell.

1. A Biblical Theology of Christ the prophet

We've all heard plenty on how Christ fulfils the Levitical (and Melchizedek's) priesthood. We know that Christ was great David's greater son, the King of the Jews, and all things will be put under him. Traditionally though there are three offices of Christ; priest, prophet and king. However, how much do you appreciate how Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy. I often hear some vague Barthian notions about Christ as the Word of God, and the ultimate revelation of God is in his death and resurrection, but what about the rich detail, and real connections with the OT? Specifically I have in mind Elisha's ministry which parallels Jesus' to an amazing degree. It seems to me a howling hole in historical Jesus studies, and Christology. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance, but does anyone know of any resources on this as I can't work it out on my own.

2. A study on the relationship of the signs and wonders of the Apostles and Moses

Beginning with Moses highlights a recent book on Signs and Wonders and a look down the contents is sadly unsurprisingly focused only on the NT and contemporary world. A search of occurrences of the phrase in the bible (e.g. in ESV) shows how the phrase was especially applied to the miracles and plagues that Moses performed in Egypt. It seems crazy to me to undertake a study of the miracles of Jesus and especially the Apostles without giving this serious thought. God’s works through Moses brought salvation a people and judgment to another and so demonstrated who was truly God. I can see many parallels with Jesus, the Apostles, the Jews, the Gentiles and sinners (cf. Leithart). Is there also a link here with Elisha, his miracles amongst the gentiles, and his condemnation of a corrupt nation?

As you can see my thoughts are garbled, I need help! But seriously though, this is not just idle speculation or intellectual games we are playing. All these ponderings are centred on Christ and a muffled desire to know him better, and the wish to have a wider vocabulary with which to praise him. Any suggestions are welcome.

A handful of quotes

John Piper's comments on Islam and the NPP have caused a mild stir in the blogosphere. Piper begins with identifying the key issue in Muslim-Christian dialogue:

Listening to an interview by Mark Dever with Thabiti Anyabwile, I heard Mark use an illustration that I found tremendously helpful. It relates to the question whether Muslims and Christians worship the same God under different names.

He said that we should picture two old classmates from college discussing a common friend from thirty years ago. They begin to wonder if they are talking about the same person. One of them is convinced they are, and the other keeps thinking this is not quite the way he remembers the friend. Finally, they decide to dig out an old yearbook and settle the issue. They open the book, and as soon as they see the picture of their classmate, one says, “No, that’s not who I am talking about.” So it was not the same person after all.

Mark said that Jesus, as he is revealed in the Bible, is the picture in the yearbook. When a Muslim and a Christian, who have been discussing whether they are worshiping the same God, look at God in the yearbook, it settles the matter: “No,” says the Muslim, “that’s not who I am talking about.”

Mark Horne has the most helpful post on the subject I have seen. By altering Piper's comments so they are about a mythical New Perspective on Moses rather than the NPP he shows how Piper's main concern that in interfaith dialogue the person of our God should be central actually demonstrates that the supposed side-lining of justification by faith in the NPP is not that big a deal after all. As Mark says: 'The Bible talks about the true religion v. false religion many times in the Bible without making that the key issue.' [note I've edited the above because of an embarrassing oversight earlier, see the comments]

The ever brilliant Peter Leithart comments that:

Unbelievers and pagans often understand the political import of Christianity more clearly than Christians. Jews persecuted the early Christians because they threatened to change Jewish customs, and thereby threatened the future of Israel. Romans persecuted Christians because they proclaimed that Jesus, not Caesar, was king. Innumerable modern believers have been slaughtered for the same reason. The gospel isn't "apolitical." It simply proclaims a different politics. Jesus called His disciples, as NT Wright puts it, to a "revolutionary way of being revolutionary."

Finally, my friend Steve Wenham pointed out a random commencement address which seems to have been banging around the web. The best bit is encapsulated in the following

So let's talk about the single most pervasive cliché in the commencement speech genre, which is that a liberal arts education is not so much about filling you up with knowledge as it is about quote teaching you how to think. If you're like me as a student, you've never liked hearing this, and you tend to feel a bit insulted by the claim that you needed anybody to teach you how to think, since the fact that you even got admitted to a college this good seems like proof that you already know how to think. But I'm going to posit to you that the liberal arts cliché turns out not to be insulting at all, because the really significant education in thinking that we're supposed to get in a place like this isn't really about the capacity to think, but rather about the choice of what to think about. If your total freedom of choice regarding what to think about seems too obvious to waste time discussing, I'd ask you to think about fish and water, and to bracket for just a few minutes your skepticism about the value of the totally obvious.

I will post something a bit better over the weekend.

Personal notes

• I've recently realised again how good it is to simply read scripture (specifically the Psalms) to God, rather than to learn about him and his ways. My recent reading has included a book by John Barton (not very good by the way), and he reminded me the bible is not only prophetic (he said 'not always) but is also liturgical (he said 'sometimes liturgical'). I have found difficulties with my understanding of scripture force themselves before my eyes more when I make the words my own, but this really can lead to more praise. The imprecatory psalms have been particularly difficult (I'm looking forward to reading this), but it is releasing to not agonise over them, but pray them with the confidence that God is righteous and trustworthy.

• Another recent and happy event is introducing a friend to John Piper and his sermons on Romans 8:28. There is nothing like a great God to set a heart aflame.

• Also I'm finally getting into the habit of learning to play the piano/keyboard. I'm only taking my first steps but it is a nice thing to return from work and make music (even if its banal). I used to play the violin many years ago but it seems I can still read music quite well.

• There have been sadder notes in my life recently, but I am already boring you all I'm sure, and it's best not to dwell.

Is bibliolatry a valid criticism?

Bibliolatry is not a criticism often taken very seriously by Evangelicals. Partly this is because it can be difficult to understand how to distinguish it from a high view of scripture. I think this quote demonstrates what it looks like in practice:

Many who reacted in anger to the Bishop of Durham's remarks about the empty tomb in 1985 were not, I believe, interested in what he had to say about the resurrection as such, but much more with the fact that he was contradicting statements made in the New Testament. That, rather than any doctrinal question, was what worried them. The fact that it was the resurrection about which historical questions were being raised was really a side-issue, for from such a perspective the resurrection is really no more important than any other event recorded in Scripture; it is the factual accuracy of Scripture as such that matters. It is at this point that one begins to see why some people would describe fundamentalism as a heresy – that is, a kind of single-issue fanaticism which destroys the structure of the Christian faith.

(p. 40, John Barton, People of the Book? The authority of the bible in Christianity, London: SPCK)

It's a damning indictment (I think). But are we acting any different in current debates?

Temple and tabernacle

I have often thought of the only notable difference between the tabernacle and the Temple to be the settled nature of the latter symbolising the rest that God through David provided for the people (if only a shadow of the reality). A more careful reading of the bible reveals my ignorance. In fact the anointing of David, and YHWH’s covenant with him is also central to the building of the temple. There are a number of ways this is demonstrated, and here are a couple I have picked up in recent reading.

1. The link to the king’s palace

One of the main differences between the tabernacle and the temple is that the king’s house is part of the temple area. 1 Kings 6:1 begins the record of the building of the Lord’s house, and this does not end until 7:51, which says that "all the work that King Solomon performed in the house of the Lord was finished." Between 6:1 and 7:51, though, the writer tells not only about the temple but about Solomon’s palace and other buildings that Solomon built for himself (7:1-8). The description of Solomon’s palace comes right in the middle of the passage talking about building talking about building the "house of Yahweh." The means that Solomon’s house and the temple are both parts of something called the "house of Yahweh." Nothing like this has happened in Israel before.

(p.156, Leithart, Peter J., A House for my Name: A Survey of the OT)

2. The two massive pillars at the entrance

It is possible that the two pillars that flanked the entrance of Solomon’s temple were large incense altars, perhaps symbolic reminders of the divine presence in the wilderness by means of the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night (Exod. 14:24; 33:9-10; Deut 31:15). But the two pillars also may have had yet another symbolic function. Since the Hebrew form of the name Jachin ("he will establish") appears also in 2 Sam. 7:12-16 ("he will establish David’s throne forever"), and Boaz ("in the strength of") appears in Ps. 21:1 ("in the strength of Yahweh shall the king rjoice"), it is possible that the pillars were also symbols of the relationship between the king and Yahweh. The pillars, located in the front of the royal chapel, may have functioned as symbols of the authority of the Davidic dynasty.

(DeVries, LaMoine F.; "Jachin and Boaz" in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible)

Let's start at the very beginning...

...A very good place to start

It's a famous quote, but worth repeating:

‘Indeed, the simple truth is that the resurrection cannot be accommodated in any way of understanding the world except one of which it is the starting point’

( p.11, Lesslie Newbigin, Truth to Tell: the Gospel as Public Truth, London, SPCK, 1991)

Thanks to Chris Wright to reminding me of it.

Another theory - this time with little basis

It is not in natural harmony with the aim behind this blog but here is another theory:

For quite some time I have been convinced that post-modernism is really just another bread of modernism and not as new as it claims. This has mainly been driven by my very limited reading of 19th and early 20th century writing, which suggests to me that the same ideas have been around for ages. I have heard it suggested this week that we ought to start to put a greater emphasis on the term 'post-colonialism', as a more helpful description of where our culture is, and is heading (although 9/11 I think may have changed some things).

The beauty of the term is that brings in the themes of culture, ethnicity, power, etc. which are so important to an understanding of our current climate. In contrast the term post-modernism doesn't is nothing like as rich.

It is just a theory, I haven't thought about it too much, and would appreciate a response by the more knowledgeable.

God forgive me

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 19:13f)

I was ashamed of the gospel at work today. I am usually unafraid of claiming to be a Christian, but today the pride that I secretly harboured about that was stripped away. Instead of being able to portray my beliefs as my own superior possession, I found myself in a corner where I had to be forced to identify with what was a child-like expression of faith, and not at all like the wisdom of the Greeks.

God forgive me.

Quotable: Brent Sandy on the language of prophecy

prophecy speaks to the heart as much as the head. If we think that by objectifying and exegeting every aspect of prophecy we can grasp the intent, we will have ignored one of the most important features of prophecy. The variety of expressions of future rewards allow us to preexperience a small part of what being in God's presence will be like....

As is evident from Revelation 2-3, prophetic language communicates with bright lights and a full range of colors. Its subject is photogenic, and images of the subject appear on a large screen with an infinite number of pixels. To read prophecy correctly means to stand in awe of the aesthetics of prophetic artistry and to catch a vision of what heaven will be like.

(p.31, D. Brent Sandy, 2002, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity.

Quotable: Leithart on post-exilic holiness and critical scholarship

Peter J. Leithart has been doing some reading and shares it with the blogosphere...

Hannah Harrington gave a very fine presentation on the holiness and purity terminology in Ezra and Nehemiah. She showed that these post-exilic texts display an expansion of holy space to encompass the whole city as well as an expansion of the duties of Levites, a closing of the gap between Levites and priests. These two changes are perfectly consistent, displaying a general trend of "up-grading" the holiness of Israel after the exile. The people of Israel become the new sanctum, which can be contaminated and against which sacrilege might be committed.

[...read more]

After a little further thought he then posts the following:

One of the most annoying things about critical biblical scholarship is the way that every discussion has to contribute to questions of composition, authorship, historical setting, etc. Harrington gives a very intriguing paper on holiness in Ezra-Nehemiah, but the whole thing is part of a "larger" argument about the common authorship of the two books.

Without a church to serve with edifying theological interpretation, scholars serve the pseudo-church of biblical scholarship.

Quotable: Longenecker on Galatians

In view of [the] profile of the agitators [judizers], it is tempting to think that Paul's letter to the Galatian Christians deals primarily with the issue of 'the law', not least since this seems to be the issue that has overwhelmed the Galatian communities. Such an impression, however, requires some qualification. While the Galatian Christians; regard for the law provoked Paul to write much on the subject, his deliberations on nomistic observance are framed within the context of prior convictions about the nature of Christian personal and corporate life. In particular, he surveys the Christian life in relation to two dimensions: a temporal and a qualitative dimension. With reference to the qualitative dimension, Paul demonstrates the Christian life to be intrinsically marked our by Christ-likenesss; in this context, his case relies on a portrait of self-giving as the essential component of Christian lifestyle.

Of these two dimensions, it is arguably the qualitative dimension, which focuses on cruciform lifestyle, that forms the backbone of the theological body of the letter. If that claim is over-stated it is only slightly so. Paul's strategy in Galatians is most effective when he exploits the full scope of the qualitative dimension. Although he employs various arguments concerning the law in Galatians, Paul's finest deliberations on the subject are informed by a belief that cruciform existence is intrinsic to Christian identity and is the most intimate form of relationship with God. Paul's instructions about the law follow in the wake of this pre-determined vision of Christian moral identity.

(pp. 65-66, Bruce Longenecker, ‘Galatians’, in J.D.G. Dunn (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to St Paul, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)

While I don't think Longenecker is spot on, he has an important point. After all Paul's argument (I think) hinges on vv. 3:1-9:

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"?

Faith is central in this passage, but so is the Spirit, and so by implication so is a transformed, cruciform, life.

Glorification

'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' (Rom 3:23)

I think the word 'so' should be included in there for to get Paul's meaning: 'All have sinned and [so] fall short of the glory of God' (cf. 2:7; 2:10). But the universality of this statement makes it strange that later Paul says that to Israel 'belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises' (9:4). And later still we find that there are those, 'not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles', which are prepared for glory (9:24). How is this so? Has Paul forgotten what he said in 3:23.

3:24, following on from the famous verse of universal condemnation, continues by saying that the same sinners: 'are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus'. Great stuff, but another question arises: what does it really mean to be 'glorified'? I think that (considering Romans 8, 9:4, 9:26 - as expanding on 9:23) the answer must be adoption. That is, to be made into the image of God's Son (to be 'in Christ Jesus'), and to enjoy his privileges - foremost among which is access to the Father.

Sorry for the ramble... but it came into my head to meander through Romans, following the word 'glory'.

It took blood and guts

2 Chron. 4

2 Chronicles 4 is a description of the temple furnishings. Previously the thing that has most stuck me about these descriptions is the ostentatiously lavish nature of the temple and the objects that filled it. This is certainly very important to the author, and points us to the glory of the God, that the furnishing attempts to mirror and honour. But reading the passage today all I could think of was blood. Almost all of the temple furniture is tied to the shedding of blood... to the butchering of animals. Of course I had always known it but I only really thought about it today - the temple courtyard must have stunk to high heaven (no pun intended).

The humongous sea, and the ten large basins, are described being used for washing by the priests. Exodus 30:17-21 makes clear that priests are to wash their hands before offering up the dead animal, but I don't think we should think of what goes on in Mosques, or RC churches. OT priests killed the animal before offering it up in the temple courts (not on the altar), and so no doubt would have been caked in blood which needed to be cleaned up before approaching a holy God. As well as the washing there were shovels, to deal with the mess left behind by the butchering and fire.

What can we learn about our God from something like this?

I remember a bible study in Hebrews from when I was in Poland when the leader proudly declared that today we were going to talk about 'BLOOD'. I think it was Hebrews 9 which contains 12 references to the word. Not very spiritual is it? The author of Hebrews declares:

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (9:22)

But Hebrews 9 is immensely concerned with spiritual things, as were the OT priests. They were concerned with how sinful people like us could enter the presence of God. The incredible personal sacrifice that animal sacrifices meant to the people of Israel, and the bloody way in which they were administered, showed how seriously difficult the priests thought this was. But as Hebrews points out even this costly arrangement did not really achieve anything spiritually lasting. The horrendous butchery of the OT was only ended by the even more horrendous killing of the Son of God.

Such is the seriousness of our sin. Trembling is in order. But also faithful rejoicing.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. (9:11-14)

How my thoughts on Paul's mission developed - a response to Peter Dray

Following my previous post on Paul's missionary strategy, Peter Dray (old friend and UCCF staffworker) made a bible reference packed comment. Foolishly he asked me to let him know how my thoughts develop, and this lead to the following obscenely long post...

Introduction (!)

In Acts Paul’s role as Apostle to the Gentiles is established by the risen Jesus’ declaration Ananias that ‘ he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel’ (Acts 9:15 – pointed out by Peter Dray).

My previous post should not be taken to be a denial of Paul’s mission to spread the gospel to the gentiles, but rather that he did not seek to achieve this through a pragmatic approach of preaching in cities where his voice would carry the furthest. I think it more likely that he fulfilled his mission to the gentiles, strangely to our Gentile Christian ears, by prioritising his preaching towards the Jews. Although this may be strange to our thinking it fits perfectly with the biblical storyline of how God sought to bring about the redemption of the world, the blessing of the nations, through the prioritising of (the electing of) one man (Abraham) and one people (the Jews). In the Old Testament the Jews were ‘entrusted with the oracles of God’ (Rom 3:2) but not for their salvation only, but for the nations too. Paul’s missionary strategy was rooted in the conviction that he must follow God’s method of bringing salvation to the world, un-pragmatic and foolish as it may seem to the world. And this meant not short-circuiting the Jews but entrusting them with the good news of Jesus, the King of the Jews, for the good of the gentiles.

A wander through Acts

The first two ‘missions’ of Paul in Damascus and Jerusalem, immediately following his commission, involve preaching to the Jews only. Sadly though, in common with many Jews throughout Paul’s ministry both the Jews of Damascus and the Greek-speaking Jews of Jerusalem reject God in Christ, and seek to kill Paul.

In Antioch (Acts 11) we have the first example of Paul preaching to gentiles as well as Jews, following others example, although not much detail is given of how this came about. At Salamis in Cyprus we only have record of him preaching ‘in the synagogues of the Jews’. In Paphos Paul and Barnabas’ reputation proceeds them and a gentile proconsul summands them so he can hear the word of God (Acts 11).

In Pisidian Antioch he teaches in the synagogue and is initially well received. In his teaching he makes a distinction between the rulers of the Jews who have rejected Jesus, and the Diaspora Jews (11:26). As in Cyprus, his preaching in the synagogue does not mean that word does not spread beyond the Jews, and the next Sabbath ‘the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord’. Sadly this fills the Jews with Jealousy, because of their possessiveness of God, a theme Paul picks up in Romans.

Paul then declares:

"It was necessary that the word of God be spoken first to you [Jews]. Since you thrust it aside and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying,

"‘I have made you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.’" (Acts 13:46-47)

Much as we may not understand why Paul would seek to preach first to the Jews, for Paul it is not a preference but a necessity. The Jews rejection of the gospel he preaches is a rejection of their God-given calling, as well as God himself. Isaiah 49:6 that he cites declares Israel’s vocation to bring salvation to the ends of the earth, they have rejected this vocation in their reaction to the crowds seeking the light declared by Paul. The light is no longer Israel, it is now the church, the body of Christ, and so Christ himself. God’s purposes have not been frustrated even though not all Israel are Israel, in fact the Jews rejection leads to salvation going to the gentiles as Paul now turns his missionary efforts to them. However as he told the Jews in Pisidian Antioch just because one group of Jews have rejected Jesus, this does not mean he gives up on them all and no longer thinks that he should speak the word of God first to the Jews in other cities.

In Iconium we only hear of them teaching in the synagogue, although both Jews and Greeks turn to Christ. At Lystra, Paul hears a man and this acts as a catalyst so that they preach the gospel to the gentiles there. In Philippi a few ‘chance’ events over just a few days lead to the gospel being proclaimed to, and received by, gentiles in the city. In Thessalonica ‘as was his custom’ (17:2) Paul preaches in the synagogue until the Jews rouse a mob and he has to escape the city. ‘When they arrived [in Berea] they went into the Jewish synagogue’ (17:10) too and received a much better reception. Athens is the only occasion I could find in Acts were the synagogue was not the centre of Paul’s missionary work for while he ‘reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons’ he also taught ‘in the marketplace every day’ and on invitation also in the Areopagus. Perhaps this disproves my contention but I actually think the exception proves the rule – but then I would.

In Corinth normality is restored and ‘he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks’ (18:4). But again, the Jews oppose him and he declares that from ‘now on I will go to the Gentiles’. And again, this strong opposition is not imputed to Jews of other cities and in Ephesus he spends three months in the synagogue before being forced to start a separate church because of opposition.

Peter Dray’s comments

Pete raises 1 Thess 1:7-8 which describes the influence of the church in Thessalonica (a important city of the region), and Acts 16:12 which mentions that Phillipi was a leading city of Macedonia. These both show that the cities Paul spent time in were important cities, and this may well be why Paul chose to visit them, but we have no evidence of this in the NT. However, we do have evidence that he sought to spread the gospel to the Jew first, and as I pointed out in my previous post immigrant Jews would be found mainly in the most important cities of the Roman empire.

Pete then says:

I'd also question whether Romans 1:16 is talking about an ongoing emphasis of Jew first, Gentile later. How does that affect the reading of 2:9 for instance, and also the discussion in chapters 9-11?

This made me think a little but I do think it is an ongoing emphasis. If there was a turning point in the ‘Jew first’ approach it is surely the rejection of Jesus that leads to his crucifixion, but I think I have shown that while Paul recognises the salvation-historical significance of this rejection, his approach in each of the cities of the Roman Empire demonstrates that he does not think that this rejection was final and ends the priority of Israel. The ordering of blessing, and so cursing, has not been altered by Jewish rejection of Jesus either now or at the final judgment (as I think Rom 1:16f; 2:9) demonstrate. Romans 9-11 is clear on this also. Gentiles are engrafted onto the Jewish olive tree but will never naturally belong there. While so far in this post we have focused on how Israel exists for the salvation of the world, in Romans 11 salvation-history has moved on and now feels the need to remind the gentile church that they have been saved ‘so as to make Israel jealous’ and so lead to Israel’s salvation.

Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. Just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all (Romans 11:25-32)

It is weird to our ears, and to Paul’s. True is the saying: ‘How unsearchable are [God’s] judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’, that follows this strange description of God’s plan for the Jews and gentiles.