Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bible. Show all posts
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Kirk on resurrection in Christianity Today
A splendid article I need to mull on later, and work out how to pass on all its good points when people ask me tricky questions, which happens from time to time!
Friday, 12 March 2010
no Psalm 8 without Hebrews
Jesus Christ is the one who makes most sense of that Psalm and indeed of everything.
And while we're on the subject of nostalgia, Hebrews and Psalm 8 were right there at the start of this blog (eke and mild and Hebrews 13). Glad to know I haven't moved on from what is important, but, rather, I ought to have moved further into it. Like the fractals, I hope to be going round and round, not in circles of emptiness, but in spirals of ever-increasing richness. That's what growing up is about, and thus what growing up into Christ all the more so. And, of course, it can't be done without Christian brothers and sisters, so praise the Lord for the church, too.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Romans 5
Something interesting came up when I was studying Romans 5 the other week in preparation for a sermon in our series at Hope (... then click on "Media").
In verses 12-21 a vast chiasmus opened up before my very eyes...
A B C D E D' C' B' A'
Note in particular the two ways [C and D] in which the gift of Christ affects fallen man, and how the content of A is developed through E and A'. Our attention is also drawn, in this difficult passage, to the central claim, which repays long meditation.
[A protasis (interrupted)]
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
[B what law does and did]
for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
[C transformative]
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
[D forensic]
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
[E alternate summary of protasis-apodosis]
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
[D' forensic]
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
[C' transformative]
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
[B' what law does]
The law was added so that the trespass might increase.
[A' protasis (complete) and apodosis]
But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
In verses 12-21 a vast chiasmus opened up before my very eyes...
A B C D E D' C' B' A'
Note in particular the two ways [C and D] in which the gift of Christ affects fallen man, and how the content of A is developed through E and A'. Our attention is also drawn, in this difficult passage, to the central claim, which repays long meditation.
[A protasis (interrupted)]
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—
[B what law does and did]
for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
[C transformative]
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
[D forensic]
Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
[E alternate summary of protasis-apodosis]
For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
[D' forensic]
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
[C' transformative]
For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
[B' what law does]
The law was added so that the trespass might increase.
[A' protasis (complete) and apodosis]
But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Saturday, 9 January 2010
The Law (Torah)
I was mulling on this again, as I preached on Romans 7 recently. Some very helpful chat with Mrs L…
What is the Law to us Christians? (And what do we even mean when we say, ‘the Law’? – that’s a big question that turns on some technical points and also on the big sweep of redemptive history.)
Are we bound by its commandments?
No
Is it a spur to holiness?
Not profitably so
Is it a measure or guide?
Perhaps
So can we read it with profit, and if so, what profit?
Good question!
Think about Galatians 5, on the fruit of the Spirit (the good life, as it were). “Against such things there is no law”. In other words, what does the Law have to do with our ethics now? It has nothing to do with measuring or defining the good, Spirit-filled life. As Colossians 2 says of the Torah (or what sounds like at least part of Torah), “such things have the appearance of wisdom… but are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh”.
But can we only say ‘we don’t need the Law for our ethics now, thanks’ because it has already had such a tremendous influence, direct and indirect, on Western culture for hundreds of years? Is it indeed the case that the Law is OK as a guide to secular national life, but not for Christian ethics?
Of course, since New Testament ethics is hardly radically opposed to Torah in many areas we will find an amazing similarity between the Spirit-filled life and the Law. But is that because both come, as it were, independently from the same source, rather than one being a development or part-adoption of the other.
Hey, I almost sound like a Lutheran or Dispensationalist in those musings!
What is the Law to us Christians? (And what do we even mean when we say, ‘the Law’? – that’s a big question that turns on some technical points and also on the big sweep of redemptive history.)
Are we bound by its commandments?
No
Is it a spur to holiness?
Not profitably so
Is it a measure or guide?
Perhaps
So can we read it with profit, and if so, what profit?
Good question!
Think about Galatians 5, on the fruit of the Spirit (the good life, as it were). “Against such things there is no law”. In other words, what does the Law have to do with our ethics now? It has nothing to do with measuring or defining the good, Spirit-filled life. As Colossians 2 says of the Torah (or what sounds like at least part of Torah), “such things have the appearance of wisdom… but are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh”.
But can we only say ‘we don’t need the Law for our ethics now, thanks’ because it has already had such a tremendous influence, direct and indirect, on Western culture for hundreds of years? Is it indeed the case that the Law is OK as a guide to secular national life, but not for Christian ethics?
Of course, since New Testament ethics is hardly radically opposed to Torah in many areas we will find an amazing similarity between the Spirit-filled life and the Law. But is that because both come, as it were, independently from the same source, rather than one being a development or part-adoption of the other.
Hey, I almost sound like a Lutheran or Dispensationalist in those musings!
Thursday, 19 March 2009
Psalm 145
Number 2 brother came up with an excellent insight into the structure of Psalm 145 when we studied it in homegroup on Tuesday night.
(1-2) Preamble, announcing the praising
(3-6) high level, general discussion of YHWH's greatness
(7-9) high level, general discussion of YHWH's compassion
(10-13) detail of YHWH's greatness (kingdom)
(14-20) detail of YHWH's compassion (love, closeness, provision)
(21) Conclusion, announcing the Psalmist's praise again
(1-2) Preamble, announcing the praising
(3-6) high level, general discussion of YHWH's greatness
(7-9) high level, general discussion of YHWH's compassion
(10-13) detail of YHWH's greatness (kingdom)
(14-20) detail of YHWH's compassion (love, closeness, provision)
(21) Conclusion, announcing the Psalmist's praise again
Study in Psalm 110
Outline the 4-part structure
Draw pictures of…
verse 1
verses 2-3
verses 5-7
Notice who is doing the speaking, who is addressed in each scene, where they are in relation to each other, what action is going on. This should bring up all sorts of questions and discussion about detail in the text. Notice particularly how the addressee changes in vv.5-7; the ‘you’ there is YHWH, as the Psalmist directly speaks to God about this ‘Lord’. Thus in the last picture the figures are sitting/standing in the same way as in the first]
What are the jobs of “my Lord” through the Psalm?
So who is this Lord?
for Melchizedek, read Genesis 14 and Hebrews 5:1-10 & Hebrews 7, noting that Melchizedek was king of {Jeru}Salem long before David…
Jesus confronts the authorities with Psalm 110 in Mark 12. Confrontation and legitimacy of rule are key points in the crescendo of clashes in the Temple courts – these are the very themes of the Psalm. By the time we get to Jesus’ use of Psalm 110 he has batted away the attacks and is going on the offensive himself
Re-tell the 4-part story outline of the Psalm to help you learn it.
Where are we in the Psalm?
Hopefully the volunteers of verse 3. This is a spiritual battle, Ephesians 6.
(1) YHWH makes ‘my Lord’ a triumphant ruler
(2-3) YHWH extends his rule, and he has a great army of volunteers(4) YHWH makes ‘my Lord’ a priest after Melchizedek
(5-7) ‘my Lord’ will shatter kings, bring judgement, and be refreshed and vindicated.Draw pictures of…
verse 1
verses 2-3
verses 5-7
Notice who is doing the speaking, who is addressed in each scene, where they are in relation to each other, what action is going on. This should bring up all sorts of questions and discussion about detail in the text. Notice particularly how the addressee changes in vv.5-7; the ‘you’ there is YHWH, as the Psalmist directly speaks to God about this ‘Lord’. Thus in the last picture the figures are sitting/standing in the same way as in the first]
What are the jobs of “my Lord” through the Psalm?
So who is this Lord?
for Melchizedek, read Genesis 14 and Hebrews 5:1-10 & Hebrews 7, noting that Melchizedek was king of {Jeru}Salem long before David…
Jesus confronts the authorities with Psalm 110 in Mark 12. Confrontation and legitimacy of rule are key points in the crescendo of clashes in the Temple courts – these are the very themes of the Psalm. By the time we get to Jesus’ use of Psalm 110 he has batted away the attacks and is going on the offensive himself
Re-tell the 4-part story outline of the Psalm to help you learn it.
Where are we in the Psalm?
Hopefully the volunteers of verse 3. This is a spiritual battle, Ephesians 6.
Study in Psalm 2
Outline the 4 scenes...
i.e.
(1-3) Rulers of nations conspire against YHWH and his annointed in order to rebel.
(4-6) YHWH scoffs; he has put his king in Zion
(7-9) YHWH’s decree of promise to his king
(10-12) Rulers beware! Destruction threatened, or blessing if you take refuge in the Son.
How do the people of the earth perceive YHWH’s rule?
Who does that sound like?
Zion – where is it and why is it significant?
Look at Genesis 14:17ff; Joshua 10:1-4; 2 Samuel 5:1-9 context.
What does YHWH promise to the Son/King?
Is there any hope for the enemies? That sounds quite harsh!
Re-tell the story of the Psalm (4 scenes are memorable) as a group
How “realistic” does this Psalm sound?
in David's day, at any point in the monarchy, or now?
How does that encourage us when we see the world in a mess?
How does this Psalm bring us to Christ? To put that another way, how do we understand it better through Christ?
The conspiracy against YHWH’s annointed did its worst [Acts 4:18-31] but Christ was raised and exalted! We have access to this king in heavenly Zion [Heb 12:18-29] because there is forgiveness, a refuge in him [of the many possible passages, we looked at 2 Cor 5:17-21].
Psalm studies
Here are some ideas for small group (or personal) study on the Psalms.
God's rule
33 (over everything)
2 (through the Messiah)
Why does evil flourish?
49 (or 10; simply reading one out loud, well, and looking in depth at the other works well. Sometimes we just need to listen to the Word.)
73 (a particularly good response to this problem)
Forgiveness
32/130
26 (note the 'problem' of the Psalmist saying he's totally righteous - how does that work?)
When God is far or near
42 & 43 (they're probably one psalm)
84
Persecution and enemies
56 (there's a nice ABCBA' pattern in this psalm; 1-2, 3-4, 5-9a, 9b-11, 12-13)
59/69
Praise
145 (carefully explore the reasons in the text, and remember similar in your own life)
Wednesday, 18 March 2009
Psalms
We have been studying the Psalms in homegroup for the last 6 weeks or so, and it's been wonderfully refreshing, as well as intellectually stimulating. For all their greatness, I had never really taken a sustained look at the Psalms in a small group context before. So, while I was familiar with many Psalm sentiments and a few of the earlier Psalms through general reading and devotional times, I had not really got my teeth into them in the context of a group.
Group learning is soooo helpful - and I say that as someone who loves reading by myself and does so avidly. Other people's insights and the dynamic of conversation around God's word is good for all of us, and it certainly was as we looked at the Psalms together.
Nex on the menu... eschatology!
Group learning is soooo helpful - and I say that as someone who loves reading by myself and does so avidly. Other people's insights and the dynamic of conversation around God's word is good for all of us, and it certainly was as we looked at the Psalms together.
Nex on the menu... eschatology!
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Mark Experience report!
Last Thursday night I met the director for the first time, discovered who I was playing in the first 25% of the gospel, and rehearsed hard, knackering my ankle in the process.
Last Friday night those of us who were not Jesus, Peter, Andrew, James, John or Pharisee discovered who we were playing in the next 25% of the gospel. Another solid 3 hours of rehearsing…
Last Saturday morning we got our parts for the second half of the drama and worked for another 3 hours. Last Saturday afternoon we ran the whole thing, which encouraged us in the face of slight ropeiness earlier in the day.
Last Saturday evening the massed ranks arrived for the first performance. 90 minutes later it was all over, bar the tea, coffee, biscuits and mingling. Second show on Sunday night after church. Perhaps 500 people in total came to see it.
Theatre in the round was fairly new to me, especially with such a small ‘stage’ in the middle – only big enough for 15 people to stand crammed next to each other in a huddle. Semi-improvisation is quite a scary way to go for te untrained, but that worked well. We got enough direction from Andrew Page and assistant Chris White where it was needed, and enough room to manouevre where appropriate.
The drama itself, based on the greatest story ever told, was very powerful. There was a lot of enthusiasm from the cast, and the rawness of amateurs on minimum rehearsal was usually a virtue. Some of the scenes were uproariously funny, and some were pin-droppingly tense. God was very good to us and helped almost everyone remember almost all of their lines. [On Sunday there was the added drama of a faint elderly gentleman who needed to be carried out after an hour. He was heavy! Although the tension was somewhat broken, we resumed after 10 minutes without a hitch.]
Audience feedback from Christians and non-Christians was overwhelmingly positive. Praise the Lord, this drama seems to have opened eyes to aspects of the truth that conversation and reading have not yet revealed to various friends and family members of the cast.
Last but not least, the experience of intense team work in drama was wonderful (or should that be wonderful, darling…?) This was something I missed out on as an undergraduate, despite having quite a few thesp friends so am grateful to have tasted it in near middle age. The post-play mood droop was significant, but survivable. I really hope this becomes an annual event and even more churches get involved. This kind of creative inter-church collaboration is just what we need to adorn the gospel of Christ
Last Friday night those of us who were not Jesus, Peter, Andrew, James, John or Pharisee discovered who we were playing in the next 25% of the gospel. Another solid 3 hours of rehearsing…
Last Saturday morning we got our parts for the second half of the drama and worked for another 3 hours. Last Saturday afternoon we ran the whole thing, which encouraged us in the face of slight ropeiness earlier in the day.
Last Saturday evening the massed ranks arrived for the first performance. 90 minutes later it was all over, bar the tea, coffee, biscuits and mingling. Second show on Sunday night after church. Perhaps 500 people in total came to see it.
Theatre in the round was fairly new to me, especially with such a small ‘stage’ in the middle – only big enough for 15 people to stand crammed next to each other in a huddle. Semi-improvisation is quite a scary way to go for te untrained, but that worked well. We got enough direction from Andrew Page and assistant Chris White where it was needed, and enough room to manouevre where appropriate.
The drama itself, based on the greatest story ever told, was very powerful. There was a lot of enthusiasm from the cast, and the rawness of amateurs on minimum rehearsal was usually a virtue. Some of the scenes were uproariously funny, and some were pin-droppingly tense. God was very good to us and helped almost everyone remember almost all of their lines. [On Sunday there was the added drama of a faint elderly gentleman who needed to be carried out after an hour. He was heavy! Although the tension was somewhat broken, we resumed after 10 minutes without a hitch.]
Audience feedback from Christians and non-Christians was overwhelmingly positive. Praise the Lord, this drama seems to have opened eyes to aspects of the truth that conversation and reading have not yet revealed to various friends and family members of the cast.
Last but not least, the experience of intense team work in drama was wonderful (or should that be wonderful, darling…?) This was something I missed out on as an undergraduate, despite having quite a few thesp friends so am grateful to have tasted it in near middle age. The post-play mood droop was significant, but survivable. I really hope this becomes an annual event and even more churches get involved. This kind of creative inter-church collaboration is just what we need to adorn the gospel of Christ
Thursday, 5 March 2009
The Mark Experience
Mark's gospel as a drama, with a cast of 15 from churches all over Cambridge. 90 minutes of excitement and compelling story, and truth of eternal significance.
This weekend at Emmanuel URC, site of many a fun concert.
I am in it! So I've learned the whole of the book - not word-for-word, but incidents, structure and gist of conversations. It's been really exciting, and easier than I feared. From a dramatic perspective things are less certain... it's the first time I've been in a play since Tom Stoppard's "Fifteen-Minute Hamlet" in which I was Queen Gertrude, and that was way back in 1992. For the Mark Experience I will be a host of minor roles, including (since I have man flu) the well-known man with a cough.
And immediately a man with a slight cough came to him, and immediately began to complain of other aches and pains... the disciples asked him, 'why couldn't we drive him out?'..."
[From Mrs L's apocryphal version of Mark's gospel!]
Tuesday, 20 January 2009
Job and Satan and source criticism
Susan Garrett (The Temptations of Jesus in Mark’s Gospel [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998]) points out that in Second Temple Judaism, the arch-enemy of God was known by many names, not just by the title satan [adversary/accuser], as found in the OT at 1Kgs 22:19, Job 1-2, Isaiah 6:2-3, Zech 3:4-7. There were names like ‘the tempter’, ‘the devil’, ‘Belial’, ‘Mastema’, ‘Sammael’, ‘the enemy’, ‘the angel of darkness’, ‘the ruler of this world’.
She then asks, and answers, Why was there such a bewildering variety of names and titles for this figure? The character of Satan as known in the first century was the end product of long reflection by the Jews on a number of ancient mythic traditions pertaining to the adversaries of Yahweh and mankind. (p.33) Jewish reflection on these diverse traditions occurred because of the seductive appeal of foreign cultures in general, and from the exilic period because of foreign occupation of their land and the need to call upon apocalyptic and cosmic battle ideas to explain their situation and give them hope.
Acknowledging the influence of the Genesis account and the Job-account (p.34, fn. 29) what happened to “Genesis” and “Job”?!) on ideas of Satan, Garrett cites a significant number of studies – and summarises their principal themes – that attempt at great length to trace these other pagan and mythological links and sources (pp.34-40).
This is all part of her discussion of traditions about testing, setting the scene for analysing Mark’s gospel. Only when one understands Satan’s composite nature (that is, blending elements from diverse mythic accounts) do certain tensions in the New Testament portrayals of this character become explicable. The most significant such tension is the seeming contradiction between Satan’s role as eschatological adversary who fights against God… and his role as servant of God, who carries out certain unpleasant duties for God… (p.35, her emphasis)
That claim is simply not true. Coming to an understanding of diverse sources behind the ‘Satan’ of the NT does not make the tensions explicable, it merely alleges their origins. It offers precious little by way of explanation – how did authors not spot these contradictions? Why did they let them stand? Unless the NT is seen simply as an uncritical reflection of the socio-religious beliefs of 1st century Palestine (and no one thinks that!) then an explanation of the apparent contradiction will take some theological work, not mere source criticism (which is shaky in its own right, let alone as an explanatory tool).
Furthermore, the digression in pp.34-40 onto divine warrior, cosmic battle, and heavenly court traditions casts no light on that particular tension. Garrett attempts to make all this relevant by alleging that the portrayal of satan as a member of the heavenly court in Job and Zechariah (and thus in the role of servant of God rather than enemy) is also not independent of the combat myths, which also presuppose a divine assembly of the gods (p.35, fn. 31). But all this serves to do is to make the claim that sources lie behind the OT. It does not explain how the writers made use of these sources, thereby implying an uncritical acceptance of whatever the sources portrayed. As if source criticism counted as exegesis! (What if we imagine another model: what if the sources were all fragmentary pagan witnesses to a theological truth faithfully synthesised in the Bible by Yahweh’s servants inspired by his Spirit? Just a thought…) Regarding this great tension, enemy-servant, we have it portrayed in the relationship between God and the human actors of the Pentateuch. Joseph’s brothers intended it for evil but God intended it for good (Genesis 50:20), while Pharaoh and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 5-). The question of explanation is a theological one to do with God’s sovereignty, not a source-critical problem of images of divine enemies in other cultures.
Strangely enough, having stirred up all this mud Garrett still concludes after all that Job was the most important influence on the NT portrayal of Satan (p.40). However, she fails to explain either the predominance of ‘Satan’/‘tempter’ in the NT (her evidence that Job was decisive) or the particular uses of much rarer alternative names. Perhaps, stripping the unsupported stuff away, all Garrett is really saying is that Christians and Jews had an understanding of Satan that was based on the biblical account. But she can’t bring herself to say it. Perhaps that would offer too muh succour to unreflective fundies like me!
And after promising much with her insistence on the influence of Genesis and Job, she returns to the vomit…
I have already suggested that the conflicting notions of Satan as opposed to God but nonetheless subordinate to God had their origins in distinct mythic or literary complexes (p.44). This is not only simplistic (one idea, once source; two ideas, two sources;… n ideas, n sources) but unnecessary, since the biblical data give enough of a picture. We might as well say that the notions are conveyed to us through the OT text (and are thus inaccessible by other means) and that the authors of those texts conveyed their notions sometimes using existing cultural material that is distinctive enough for a source-critic to spot. The question of the origins or substance of the notions, however, is something that cannot be decided on the grounds of alledged sources. Material is used by authors of literature to generate meaning. Continual harping on at how sources explain (clarifying tensions or paradoxes, p.49) the apparent contradictions [they don’t!] spoils Garrett’s sensible theological and literary discussions (pp.44-49) on how Jewish and Christian writers did use this material.
Mrs L described this section of Garrett (1998) as a house of cards when she first read it for her OBI study on Mark, and I think she was right (not to mention considerably more succinct than me).
She then asks, and answers, Why was there such a bewildering variety of names and titles for this figure? The character of Satan as known in the first century was the end product of long reflection by the Jews on a number of ancient mythic traditions pertaining to the adversaries of Yahweh and mankind. (p.33) Jewish reflection on these diverse traditions occurred because of the seductive appeal of foreign cultures in general, and from the exilic period because of foreign occupation of their land and the need to call upon apocalyptic and cosmic battle ideas to explain their situation and give them hope.
Acknowledging the influence of the Genesis account and the Job-account (p.34, fn. 29) what happened to “Genesis” and “Job”?!) on ideas of Satan, Garrett cites a significant number of studies – and summarises their principal themes – that attempt at great length to trace these other pagan and mythological links and sources (pp.34-40).
This is all part of her discussion of traditions about testing, setting the scene for analysing Mark’s gospel. Only when one understands Satan’s composite nature (that is, blending elements from diverse mythic accounts) do certain tensions in the New Testament portrayals of this character become explicable. The most significant such tension is the seeming contradiction between Satan’s role as eschatological adversary who fights against God… and his role as servant of God, who carries out certain unpleasant duties for God… (p.35, her emphasis)
That claim is simply not true. Coming to an understanding of diverse sources behind the ‘Satan’ of the NT does not make the tensions explicable, it merely alleges their origins. It offers precious little by way of explanation – how did authors not spot these contradictions? Why did they let them stand? Unless the NT is seen simply as an uncritical reflection of the socio-religious beliefs of 1st century Palestine (and no one thinks that!) then an explanation of the apparent contradiction will take some theological work, not mere source criticism (which is shaky in its own right, let alone as an explanatory tool).
Furthermore, the digression in pp.34-40 onto divine warrior, cosmic battle, and heavenly court traditions casts no light on that particular tension. Garrett attempts to make all this relevant by alleging that the portrayal of satan as a member of the heavenly court in Job and Zechariah (and thus in the role of servant of God rather than enemy) is also not independent of the combat myths, which also presuppose a divine assembly of the gods (p.35, fn. 31). But all this serves to do is to make the claim that sources lie behind the OT. It does not explain how the writers made use of these sources, thereby implying an uncritical acceptance of whatever the sources portrayed. As if source criticism counted as exegesis! (What if we imagine another model: what if the sources were all fragmentary pagan witnesses to a theological truth faithfully synthesised in the Bible by Yahweh’s servants inspired by his Spirit? Just a thought…) Regarding this great tension, enemy-servant, we have it portrayed in the relationship between God and the human actors of the Pentateuch. Joseph’s brothers intended it for evil but God intended it for good (Genesis 50:20), while Pharaoh and the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 5-). The question of explanation is a theological one to do with God’s sovereignty, not a source-critical problem of images of divine enemies in other cultures.
Strangely enough, having stirred up all this mud Garrett still concludes after all that Job was the most important influence on the NT portrayal of Satan (p.40). However, she fails to explain either the predominance of ‘Satan’/‘tempter’ in the NT (her evidence that Job was decisive) or the particular uses of much rarer alternative names. Perhaps, stripping the unsupported stuff away, all Garrett is really saying is that Christians and Jews had an understanding of Satan that was based on the biblical account. But she can’t bring herself to say it. Perhaps that would offer too muh succour to unreflective fundies like me!
And after promising much with her insistence on the influence of Genesis and Job, she returns to the vomit…
I have already suggested that the conflicting notions of Satan as opposed to God but nonetheless subordinate to God had their origins in distinct mythic or literary complexes (p.44). This is not only simplistic (one idea, once source; two ideas, two sources;… n ideas, n sources) but unnecessary, since the biblical data give enough of a picture. We might as well say that the notions are conveyed to us through the OT text (and are thus inaccessible by other means) and that the authors of those texts conveyed their notions sometimes using existing cultural material that is distinctive enough for a source-critic to spot. The question of the origins or substance of the notions, however, is something that cannot be decided on the grounds of alledged sources. Material is used by authors of literature to generate meaning. Continual harping on at how sources explain (clarifying tensions or paradoxes, p.49) the apparent contradictions [they don’t!] spoils Garrett’s sensible theological and literary discussions (pp.44-49) on how Jewish and Christian writers did use this material.
Mrs L described this section of Garrett (1998) as a house of cards when she first read it for her OBI study on Mark, and I think she was right (not to mention considerably more succinct than me).
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Isaiah 9-10
After the incredible prophecy of the child to be born, the everlasting Prince of Peace (vv.1-8), there is a more sober message. This message comes with greater immediacy – it’s not just in the future (1) but is already rooted, it has already begun: The Lord has sent a message against Jacob; it will fall on Israel (8).
(9:8-12) whatever the talk of proud rebuilding, Ephraim and Samaria [Northern Kingdom] will be destroyed by Aramean and Philistine.
(13-17) the people have not sought the LORD; the leaders mislead, and even the ‘victims’ [fatherless and widow] are guilty
(18-21) wickedness burns, and so the LORD’s anger burns; the people will turn against each other
(10:1-4) those who make unjust laws will soon have no one to turn to
(10:5-19) Assyria, agent of God’s wrath, is too proud, and so he too will be judged with fire. [Note that this is prmarily a judgement on the Northern Kingdom, but it will spill over against the South, Judah, too (10:10-12). There seems to be some hope for Judah in all this – the judgement is not so devastating against her… yet. It will have the effect of purging wickedness, as we will discover in 10:20ff.]
This judgement will not be a simple or clean affair, either. Four times the refrain is heard, Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised (12b, 17b, 21b, 10:4b).
This talk of divine wrath should make us uncomfortable, but lest we try to wriggle away by claiming there are moral problems for God (‘how can God be a God of wrath?’ many ask; ‘surely he should be on trial’…) we need to look at how humans are implicated in the exectution of God’s wrath. The obvious example is Assyria, like a club (10:5) or axe (15) in the LORD’s hand, and yet still with its own intentions and ideas of grandeur (7-11) without regard for the Almighty who rules over history. [Some version of compatibilism best explains the way the Bible always speaks of the interweaving of divine and human purpose and interaction.]
Secondly, back in chapter 9, more shockingly, we read of Israelite devouring Israelite: part of the judgement is that the people will be given over to their most selfish and brutish instincts (9:19b-21). Experiencing the wrath of God in history is not pleasant – but don’t blame God, for it is often humans who devour each other. Being given over to unrestrained human wickedness may sound fun initially (‘wahey! Lots of indulgence, please’) but very quickly it is not fun at all. Second half of Romans 1.
In history and in Jewish telling of it the Northern Kingdom and its inhabitants did not fare well. Read 2 Kings 17 for the condescending write-up of their destruction. The fall of Samaria does not even feature in the Chronicler's account of the divided monarchy period - the Northern Kingdom simply slips off the pages around chapter 28 of 2 Chronicles.
(9:8-12) whatever the talk of proud rebuilding, Ephraim and Samaria [Northern Kingdom] will be destroyed by Aramean and Philistine.
(13-17) the people have not sought the LORD; the leaders mislead, and even the ‘victims’ [fatherless and widow] are guilty
(18-21) wickedness burns, and so the LORD’s anger burns; the people will turn against each other
(10:1-4) those who make unjust laws will soon have no one to turn to
(10:5-19) Assyria, agent of God’s wrath, is too proud, and so he too will be judged with fire. [Note that this is prmarily a judgement on the Northern Kingdom, but it will spill over against the South, Judah, too (10:10-12). There seems to be some hope for Judah in all this – the judgement is not so devastating against her… yet. It will have the effect of purging wickedness, as we will discover in 10:20ff.]
This judgement will not be a simple or clean affair, either. Four times the refrain is heard, Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away, his hand is still upraised (12b, 17b, 21b, 10:4b).
This talk of divine wrath should make us uncomfortable, but lest we try to wriggle away by claiming there are moral problems for God (‘how can God be a God of wrath?’ many ask; ‘surely he should be on trial’…) we need to look at how humans are implicated in the exectution of God’s wrath. The obvious example is Assyria, like a club (10:5) or axe (15) in the LORD’s hand, and yet still with its own intentions and ideas of grandeur (7-11) without regard for the Almighty who rules over history. [Some version of compatibilism best explains the way the Bible always speaks of the interweaving of divine and human purpose and interaction.]
Secondly, back in chapter 9, more shockingly, we read of Israelite devouring Israelite: part of the judgement is that the people will be given over to their most selfish and brutish instincts (9:19b-21). Experiencing the wrath of God in history is not pleasant – but don’t blame God, for it is often humans who devour each other. Being given over to unrestrained human wickedness may sound fun initially (‘wahey! Lots of indulgence, please’) but very quickly it is not fun at all. Second half of Romans 1.
In history and in Jewish telling of it the Northern Kingdom and its inhabitants did not fare well. Read 2 Kings 17 for the condescending write-up of their destruction. The fall of Samaria does not even feature in the Chronicler's account of the divided monarchy period - the Northern Kingdom simply slips off the pages around chapter 28 of 2 Chronicles.
Sunday, 25 May 2008
Chiasm in John 9
Having been alerted to chiasmus everyhere in the Old Testament (David Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament, Peter Leithart, A House for My Name) and in chapter 1 of John’s Gospel (thanks to Tony’s time at a summer school at
I spotted this one in John 9, the healing of the man born blind. Read the story first, as it’s a true gem! The numbers in brackets refer to the size of each scene/unit, and demonstrate remarkable balance in length as well as in narrative content or movement. The man himself is a major figure in A, B, A’ and B’.
A Jesus (7)
B Pharisees (10)
C Pharisees/Parents (6)
B’ Pharisees (11)
A’ Jesus (7)
B’ intensifies the hostile questioning by the Pharisees, while A’ shows Jesus seeking the man out again with even more explicit intent and with conversation that goes beyond physical healing into spiritual healing.
Right in the middle of C is the phrase, anyone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ (verse 22). This verse echoes the theme verse of the gospel as a whole. In John 20:31 the apostle explains why he has written: so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and by believing have life in his name.
And is it too fanciful to see a mamma chiasmus in the book of Job (along with various parallelisms of course)?
A Job lives well (righteous and blessed)
B The heavenly court (Satan comes)
C Job loses his kids and goods
A’ Job lives well (does not curse God)
B’ The heavenly court (Satan comes again)
C’ Job loses his health
A’ Job lives well (does not curse God)
D Job and his ‘comforters’ [chs 3-27]
E Where/what is wisdom? [28]
D Job and Elihu [29-37]
B’’ God replies to Job [38-41]
A’ Job lives well (righteous and more blessed) [42]
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Hybels on leadership and 'business'
Courageous Leaderhip is a difficult book for me to evaluate. I don’t have Hybels’ experience in leading churches large and small, or his familiarity with the exciting world of wealthy, fast-moving American people. The stories, advice and soundbites that make up Courageous Leadership are inspiring and stirring, and often truly glorifying to God. It’s hard for me to know quite what in leadership practices and theories might be well suited to the church, to many churches, or at least to a very large church like Willow Creek.
The extent to which lessons learned from business might come into the leadership of the church will have to be resolved with less flimsy materials. Turning the whole thing on its head, much more provocatively, is Richard Higginson’s contention that
‘The Christian faith is actually a crucial piece of management data. It provides essential clues for understanding who people are, why things go wrong and how situations can be changed for the better. If that seems a bold claim, it chimes in with an observation which I hear increasingly often, that the best in modern management theory is really Christianity in secular guise.’ [Transforming Leadership: A Christian Approach to Management (London: SPCK, 1996), p.19.]
Thursday, 6 March 2008
No Bilezikian
While we're thinking about timeliness, here's the follow up to two earlier posts on Gilbert Bilezikian's egalitarian cheekiness, Yes Bilezikian and Hmm Bilezikian.
Arguing against the complementarian understanding of headship on pp.166-68 of Community 101: Reclaiming the Local Church as Community of Oneness, GB makes a few leaps on 1 Cor 11:3…
[It is] a statement about the headship of Christ to man (A), man to woman (B) and God to Christ (C). With total disregard for the biblical ordering of those three clauses a glib but popular interpretation of this verse turns it topsy-turvy to make it a hierarchy. A top-down God-Christ-Man-Woman chain of command is obtained by shifting the clauses around and by rendering “head” as authority – ABC becomes CAB!
However, the biblical order for these verses is not one of hierarchy (CAB) but of servanthood (ABC): The head of every man is Christ because at creation, when all things were made through him, he endowed the man with life (A); then, the head of the woman is man because her life was drawn from the man (B); and finally, the head of Christ is God because God provided the life of the Son at the Incarnation (C). With this sequence that culminates with God, Paul wanted to demonstrate a truth he stated in the immediate context: ultimately “everything comes from God”. (167)
Matthew 1:19 again
Thoughts from PJ on my mulling on Matthew 1:19 and whether it was because Joseph was righteous or despite that...
1. You assume that the outcome of J. being righteous/obedient to the
law would be death by stoning as (approximately) in John 7: 59 ff. We
should note that there was a debate in Jesus' time about acceptable
grounds for divorce. Matthew 19: 1-9 and Mark 10 do record an attempt
to trap Jesus but do so by forcing him to take a side in a
contemporary debate. Cf. the wording of the question in Matthew 22:
17. Supposedly, the divergence between Matthew 5: 31 and Luke 16: 18
(which does not mention the 'except for adultery clause) reflects this
debate in some way. I am not sure what I think about that. I cannot
find a reference for it now either. I did however find Dr David
Instone-Brewer's pages (through Tyndale House, but that just confused
me more <http://www.divorce-remarriage.com/>).
2. How does this point in Matthew relate to other discussions of
divorce in Matthew (5: 31 and 19: 1-9). When Marvin Wong preached on
Mark 10 in the summer, he mentioned John Piper's position paper on
divorce and remarriage, which attempts to show -inter alia- that
Matthew mentions the exception 'on grounds of adultery' (contra Luke
16: 18) in order to maintain Joseph's 'justness' in divorcing his
pregnant betrothed. See
<http://www.desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/articles/bydate/1986/1488/>.
3. We have two participles. Are they both causal or both concessive?
Or, is one causal and the other concessive?
I am not convinced that it is impossible for two adjacent participles
to have such divergent meanings as 'because' and 'although', but I
think it is more natural to take them as a pair.
Concessive: can we have 'although he was obedient to the law (of
Moses; thus should end the engagement)' and 'although he did not want
to subject her to public disgrace' and 'he planned to divorce her
quietly'?
There seems to be a disjunction here, i.e. the sentence as a whole
cannot be taken concessively. Righteousness -> divorce and his desire
to avoid scandal for Mary (wishful thinking in that culture?) ->
'quietly'.
There is no concession and hence we can disregard this option.
Causal: because J. was obedient to law (a) and because he did not want
to subject her to public disgrace (b), he decided to divorce her (a)
and to do so quietly (b) [OK, I have split up the verb and the adverb
into two verbal ideas for illustrative purposes].
Mixture (i): although J. was obedient and because he did not want...
This, I take it, avoids the problem of Joseph not having Mary stoned
to death (although I do not think deigmatisai could refer to
execution). It is however much harder to prove to be the correct
translation. I am never happy with an argument consisting only of 'it
means this because it must (even though it strains the grammar)'.
Mixture (ii): because J. was obedient and although he did not want...
This, as in my concessive and causal renderings, assumes that divorce
was the/a law-abiding option. Again, a *quiet* divorce is not in a
concessive relationship with wanting to avoid public disgrace. This is
perhaps the easiest option to reject as nonsense.
I will have to think some more about justifications for mixture (i).
Both causal is my current favourite, but it involves assuming that
obedience to the law made divorce (for adultery) the right thing to
do. If Piper is right, Matthew stands on that side of the debate.
Key points: consider the whole sentence and note the two ideas in
divorce quietly.
4. What would a quiet/secret divorce look like? The beginning of
Deuteronomy 24 says nothing about informing the elders vel sim.
5. What did Joseph know at this point? What did Mary say when she was
found pregnant? Joseph's dream happens subsequently in Matthew. From
Luke 1: 27 ff. we may speculate that Mary could have told Joseph about
Gabriel's visitation. Would he have concluded that she was a lying
adulteress or that she was deranged?
6. As you say, what does dikaios mean? 'Just under the law's
demands' as in Philippians 3 or 'doing the *right* thing' or 'doing
justly (in some bigger sense)'?
Clearly I'm going to have to think some more on this!
1. You assume that the outcome of J. being righteous/obedient to the
law would be death by stoning as (approximately) in John 7: 59 ff. We
should note that there was a debate in Jesus' time about acceptable
grounds for divorce. Matthew 19: 1-9 and Mark 10 do record an attempt
to trap Jesus but do so by forcing him to take a side in a
contemporary debate. Cf. the wording of the question in Matthew 22:
17. Supposedly, the divergence between Matthew 5: 31 and Luke 16: 18
(which does not mention the 'except for adultery clause) reflects this
debate in some way. I am not sure what I think about that. I cannot
find a reference for it now either. I did however find Dr David
Instone-Brewer's pages (through Tyndale House, but that just confused
me more <http://www.divorce-remarriage.com/>).
2. How does this point in Matthew relate to other discussions of
divorce in Matthew (5: 31 and 19: 1-9). When Marvin Wong preached on
Mark 10 in the summer, he mentioned John Piper's position paper on
divorce and remarriage, which attempts to show -inter alia- that
Matthew mentions the exception 'on grounds of adultery' (contra Luke
16: 18) in order to maintain Joseph's 'justness' in divorcing his
pregnant betrothed. See
<http://www.desiringgod.org/resourcelibrary/articles/bydate/1986/1488/>.
3. We have two participles. Are they both causal or both concessive?
Or, is one causal and the other concessive?
I am not convinced that it is impossible for two adjacent participles
to have such divergent meanings as 'because' and 'although', but I
think it is more natural to take them as a pair.
Concessive: can we have 'although he was obedient to the law (of
Moses; thus should end the engagement)' and 'although he did not want
to subject her to public disgrace' and 'he planned to divorce her
quietly'?
There seems to be a disjunction here, i.e. the sentence as a whole
cannot be taken concessively. Righteousness -> divorce and his desire
to avoid scandal for Mary (wishful thinking in that culture?) ->
'quietly'.
There is no concession and hence we can disregard this option.
Causal: because J. was obedient to law (a) and because he did not want
to subject her to public disgrace (b), he decided to divorce her (a)
and to do so quietly (b) [OK, I have split up the verb and the adverb
into two verbal ideas for illustrative purposes].
Mixture (i): although J. was obedient and because he did not want...
This, I take it, avoids the problem of Joseph not having Mary stoned
to death (although I do not think deigmatisai could refer to
execution). It is however much harder to prove to be the correct
translation. I am never happy with an argument consisting only of 'it
means this because it must (even though it strains the grammar)'.
Mixture (ii): because J. was obedient and although he did not want...
This, as in my concessive and causal renderings, assumes that divorce
was the/a law-abiding option. Again, a *quiet* divorce is not in a
concessive relationship with wanting to avoid public disgrace. This is
perhaps the easiest option to reject as nonsense.
I will have to think some more about justifications for mixture (i).
Both causal is my current favourite, but it involves assuming that
obedience to the law made divorce (for adultery) the right thing to
do. If Piper is right, Matthew stands on that side of the debate.
Key points: consider the whole sentence and note the two ideas in
divorce quietly.
4. What would a quiet/secret divorce look like? The beginning of
Deuteronomy 24 says nothing about informing the elders vel sim.
5. What did Joseph know at this point? What did Mary say when she was
found pregnant? Joseph's dream happens subsequently in Matthew. From
Luke 1: 27 ff. we may speculate that Mary could have told Joseph about
Gabriel's visitation. Would he have concluded that she was a lying
adulteress or that she was deranged?
6. As you say, what does dikaios mean? 'Just under the law's
demands' as in Philippians 3 or 'doing the *right* thing' or 'doing
justly (in some bigger sense)'?
Clearly I'm going to have to think some more on this!
Eternal life in the Old Testament
Scholars often claim that the Old Testament says very little about eternal life. This may be true, however Psalm 49 (Edwards) and Psalm 73 (Von Rad) have a lot to say about the subject, as in Karl Pfisterer notes in his Prism of Scripture (p.267) on Jonathan Edwards’ philosophy of history.
Friday, 11 January 2008
Philippians and the city (again)
PJ of Greek participle fame, along with his fine beard, has sent me another...
See these two for more on the context for this post.
---------
See these two for more on the context for this post.
---------
Some time ago, I mentioned that I had found an instance of politeuomai in Justin Martyr. I think that I never got round to sending you the reference. It is Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 67 (his discussion of the virgin birith): "[Jesus] was counted worthy of being chosen for the Christ, because he *lived* a perfect life and according to the law." The Greek, which I trust you will be able read soon (if not already?), may be displayed below.
καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ αὐτὰ ἐκείνοις λέγοντες, αἰδεῖσθαι ὀφεί-
λετε, καὶ μᾶλλον ἄνθρωπον ἐξ ἀνθρώπων γενόμενον λέγειν τὸν
Ἰησοῦν τοῦτον, καί, ἐὰν ἀποδείκνυτε ἀπὸ τῶν γραφῶν ὅτι αὐτός
ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, διὰ τὸ ἐννόμως καὶ τελέως πολιτεύεσθαι αὐτὸν
κατηξιῶσθαι τοῦ ἐκλεγῆναι εἰς Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ μὴ τερατολογεῖν
τολμᾶτε, ὅπως μήτε ὁμοίως τοῖς Ἕλλησι μωραίνειν ἐλέγχησθε.
I have not thought much about what this instance contributes to our understanding of the Philippians passage.
------------
Well, I'm not yet good enough at Greek to presume to find these nuances in this text in particular, but it seems to me that when Jesus lived his life according to the law, that living was a very full kind of living. It wasn't the mere 'existing' or 'abiding' (as distinct from his practices, habits, politics, etc.) for which we often use the word living in the modern age. Jewish life according to the law was deeply political - infused with ritual, worship, deference and much more besides. This living was rich - and it's not an accident that politeuomai is used. Conceptually, habitually, necessarily life was already-in-community(polis) back then. And if the Scriptures and the Christ lived like that - as citizens in the ancient sense - why can't we?
Chiasmus in James 4
PG and I are studying the letter of James together over breakfast (in theory) each week. Out of a recent study came this observation…
The opening of chapter 4 is chiastic, with its focus on the great claim that friendship with the world is emnity with God (v.4) and scriptural illustration of that and promise of rescue from the predicament (v.5).
(4-5) Friendship with the world = hatred of God / humble yourself = God will raise you
(6-9) Counter-instruction cascades…
Verse 10 then summarises the essence of the matter
As further illustration verses 11 and 12 remind us (as the Sermon on the Mount did) that it’s not enough merely to avoid certain obvious harmful actions, harmful words are just as bad – in fact they represent a grotesquely inappropriate attempt to become like the divine judge.
And, as PG said, at the last day no one will ever wish they had been more selfish or arrogant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)