January 23, 2012
Rainer and Geiger: Simple Church 2nd Edition
This has been on my reading list for a few years, but finally made it to the top of the pile in preparation for our year-in-review Sunday at Christ Church HP coming up next month. I acknowledge that I was predisposed to agree with the authors' conclusions, since I can feel my body tensing and my brow furrowing anytime I hear a proposal for a new ministry program, although I can't quite put my finger on why I feel this way.
My biggest question while reading the book was finally addressed in the final portion of the postscript. Throughout, the authors' assumption seems to be that the primary reason to pursue a simple church is because of the correlation they see between simplicity and vibrancy (basically, consistent growth). As I read their research however, I realized that, from my perspective, the primary benefit of simplicity is not vibrancy, but the ability to implement a missional strategy. If I attend a program at the church building five nights a week, the chance that I will interact in any meaningful way with unbelievers in the community is pretty small. This is an especially challenging tension for pastors. On the one hand, we encourage others to get out there and make connections with friends and neighbors, but at the same time, it's nearly impossible to model this ourselves because of the pressure we feel to manage the slate of programs that depend on our support. A commitment to simplicity means this hypocrisy need not exist.
Although the authors insist that they are not advocating for a particular system or model, the one they put forward most often as a positive example is: 1) connect with God through worship services; 2) connect with others through small groups; 3) serve. There's no question that this is a simple process and that it moves people in the right direction. My only question is whether #1 is really a realistic starting point for those of us who are in a post-Christian or even an anti-Christian environment. Ninety percent of people in Highland Park would never make attending our worship service a first step. Our process needs to be equally simple, but needs to acknowledge that relationship-building will almost certainly need to come first, if gathering together to worship God through his son Jesus Christ is ever to become a reality.
Rainer and Geiger: Simple Church 2nd Edition
This has been on my reading list for a few years, but finally made it to the top of the pile in preparation for our year-in-review Sunday at Christ Church HP coming up next month. I acknowledge that I was predisposed to agree with the authors' conclusions, since I can feel my body tensing and my brow furrowing anytime I hear a proposal for a new ministry program, although I can't quite put my finger on why I feel this way.
My biggest question while reading the book was finally addressed in the final portion of the postscript. Throughout, the authors' assumption seems to be that the primary reason to pursue a simple church is because of the correlation they see between simplicity and vibrancy (basically, consistent growth). As I read their research however, I realized that, from my perspective, the primary benefit of simplicity is not vibrancy, but the ability to implement a missional strategy. If I attend a program at the church building five nights a week, the chance that I will interact in any meaningful way with unbelievers in the community is pretty small. This is an especially challenging tension for pastors. On the one hand, we encourage others to get out there and make connections with friends and neighbors, but at the same time, it's nearly impossible to model this ourselves because of the pressure we feel to manage the slate of programs that depend on our support. A commitment to simplicity means this hypocrisy need not exist.
Although the authors insist that they are not advocating for a particular system or model, the one they put forward most often as a positive example is: 1) connect with God through worship services; 2) connect with others through small groups; 3) serve. There's no question that this is a simple process and that it moves people in the right direction. My only question is whether #1 is really a realistic starting point for those of us who are in a post-Christian or even an anti-Christian environment. Ninety percent of people in Highland Park would never make attending our worship service a first step. Our process needs to be equally simple, but needs to acknowledge that relationship-building will almost certainly need to come first, if gathering together to worship God through his son Jesus Christ is ever to become a reality.
November 10,2011
Should I be afraid of being cursed by someone I know?
Does my enemy have any authority to call a curse down upon me? Should I be worried that a hardship that I am enduring is the result of a curse? One of the significant differences between God's people in the Old Testament and the other ancient peoples who surrounded them was their understanding that God was not bound to honor the formulaic words of a blessing or a curse. That God has the authority to curse (although used rarely) is clear from a number of passages including his cursing the serpent in Genesis and the lengthy conditional curses on Israel in Deuteronomy. However, it is also clear that God will never issue a curse simply because someone has uttered a particular phrase or participated in a particular ritual. In 1 Samuel 14, Saul attempts to curse any man who eats before he (Saul) avenges himself against his enemies. That his curse consisted of mere words, however, becomes evident when Jonathan, Saul's own son, helps himself to a generous portion of honey without any negative consequences. In fact, the the only consequences he experienced were positive, since he became less exhausted than the other men.
Living in fear of curses, while typical for most of the ancient near east as well as many people today, should not be the norm for God's people. In 2 Samuel 16, king David provides us with a good example of how to respond to curses. When he was cursed repeatedly by a man from Saul's family, he was presented with the chance to cut off the head of the man who was cursing him. David, though, basically asked, what would be the point of doing that? If the cursing is ultimately coming from God, then I have more to worry about than this pesky loud-mouthed fellow, but if the cursing is merely of human origin, then I have nothing to worry about whatsoever.
When we come to the New Testament, we still find no reason to fear curses from our enemies. Usually, the word "curse" simply means to say something mean about someone else. Hence, we are challenged to "Bless those who curse you." The only curse that demands our fear is the curse proclaimed by God for such actions as preaching a different Gospel (Galatians 1) and eating and drinking the communion meal in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11). Thankfully, the most frightening curse, the curse of sin, has been broken once and for us, freeing us to live a life where the threat of being cursed is no threat at all, and allowing us to sing:
No more let sins and sorrow grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make his blessings flow,
Far as the curse is found.
Should I be afraid of being cursed by someone I know?
Does my enemy have any authority to call a curse down upon me? Should I be worried that a hardship that I am enduring is the result of a curse? One of the significant differences between God's people in the Old Testament and the other ancient peoples who surrounded them was their understanding that God was not bound to honor the formulaic words of a blessing or a curse. That God has the authority to curse (although used rarely) is clear from a number of passages including his cursing the serpent in Genesis and the lengthy conditional curses on Israel in Deuteronomy. However, it is also clear that God will never issue a curse simply because someone has uttered a particular phrase or participated in a particular ritual. In 1 Samuel 14, Saul attempts to curse any man who eats before he (Saul) avenges himself against his enemies. That his curse consisted of mere words, however, becomes evident when Jonathan, Saul's own son, helps himself to a generous portion of honey without any negative consequences. In fact, the the only consequences he experienced were positive, since he became less exhausted than the other men.
Living in fear of curses, while typical for most of the ancient near east as well as many people today, should not be the norm for God's people. In 2 Samuel 16, king David provides us with a good example of how to respond to curses. When he was cursed repeatedly by a man from Saul's family, he was presented with the chance to cut off the head of the man who was cursing him. David, though, basically asked, what would be the point of doing that? If the cursing is ultimately coming from God, then I have more to worry about than this pesky loud-mouthed fellow, but if the cursing is merely of human origin, then I have nothing to worry about whatsoever.
When we come to the New Testament, we still find no reason to fear curses from our enemies. Usually, the word "curse" simply means to say something mean about someone else. Hence, we are challenged to "Bless those who curse you." The only curse that demands our fear is the curse proclaimed by God for such actions as preaching a different Gospel (Galatians 1) and eating and drinking the communion meal in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11). Thankfully, the most frightening curse, the curse of sin, has been broken once and for us, freeing us to live a life where the threat of being cursed is no threat at all, and allowing us to sing:
No more let sins and sorrow grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground;
He comes to make his blessings flow,
Far as the curse is found.
October 26, 2011
C. John Collins: Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?
Whenever we take a position on a controversial subject, we have to recognize and own the 'cost' that comes with our position. This came up, for instance, within the context of our men's small group last week as we made it to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus. If I hold to a compatiblistic notion of free will, then I need to explain how God is not ultimately responsible for sin in the world. Conversely, if I hold to a libertarian notion of free will, I need to explain how I can know that God will ultimately win in the end.
When it comes to thinking about whether Adam and Eve really existed, the 'cost' of believing in a literal Adam and Eve is well known. In fact, just this week the New York Times labeled the traditional view 'anti-intellectual.' It is generally assumed, therefore, that the cost of believing in a traditional Adam and Eve is that one has to explain away the consensus view among biologists and anthropologists. In this case, the consensus view is that it is genetically impossible for human beings to have originated from one original pair.
What Collins does a particularly good job of in his book is pointing out the often-ignored fact that there is also a 'cost' to taking a purely naturalistic approach to human origins. Specifically, if sin and death occur naturally among human beings (because of an unbroken evolutionary link to non-human animals), then why does our common human experience suggest that sin and death are enemies that we long to get rid of? If sin and death were present from the very beginning, then what hope do we have that God will be able to eliminate them at the end of history? Our hope for a sinless eternal state depends heavily on Plantinga's assertion that this world is 'not the way it's supposed to be.'
C. John Collins: Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?
Whenever we take a position on a controversial subject, we have to recognize and own the 'cost' that comes with our position. This came up, for instance, within the context of our men's small group last week as we made it to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart in Exodus. If I hold to a compatiblistic notion of free will, then I need to explain how God is not ultimately responsible for sin in the world. Conversely, if I hold to a libertarian notion of free will, I need to explain how I can know that God will ultimately win in the end.
When it comes to thinking about whether Adam and Eve really existed, the 'cost' of believing in a literal Adam and Eve is well known. In fact, just this week the New York Times labeled the traditional view 'anti-intellectual.' It is generally assumed, therefore, that the cost of believing in a traditional Adam and Eve is that one has to explain away the consensus view among biologists and anthropologists. In this case, the consensus view is that it is genetically impossible for human beings to have originated from one original pair.
What Collins does a particularly good job of in his book is pointing out the often-ignored fact that there is also a 'cost' to taking a purely naturalistic approach to human origins. Specifically, if sin and death occur naturally among human beings (because of an unbroken evolutionary link to non-human animals), then why does our common human experience suggest that sin and death are enemies that we long to get rid of? If sin and death were present from the very beginning, then what hope do we have that God will be able to eliminate them at the end of history? Our hope for a sinless eternal state depends heavily on Plantinga's assertion that this world is 'not the way it's supposed to be.'
August 24, 2011
Nehemiah in Biblical Theology
Possible approaches to Nehemiah:
1) Nehemiah is a story about building a wall.
2) Nehemiah is about how to be a good leader or about “overcoming challenges.”
Questions for these approaches:
1) Most importantly, how does chapter 13 fit into either approach?
2) How does the absence of Nehemiah from the middle of the book fit into either approach?
3) The author has apparently arranged his material according to something other than chronology.
Do either of these approaches explain how the book is arranged?
So, a problem arises when these two approaches become the lens through which we read the book. Is building the wall a major element of the book? Yes. Are the examples of strategizing, leadership, and overcoming challenges extraordinary? Yes. But, do they make sense of the way the book is structured? Are they the main point? Are they the reason the Holy Spirit inspired these words and are they the reason the book is found in the Bible? Probably not.
How to understand Nehemiah as a part of the post-exilic period: (see Brian Kelly’s article in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology)
- Ezra/Neh stretches from about 538-430BC
- Obviously, it is a very selective work – only a few strategic events are included
- What are the significant events of this period?
1) Return from Babylon and rebuilding the temple
2) Ezra’s reforms: teach and enforce the law of Moses
3) Nehemiah’s reforms: building the wall and social reforms
- Post-exilic times are significantly different than pre-exilic times:
1) The pre-exilic state is gone
2) The monarchy is gone
3) The community is much smaller
- How was ‘Israel’ able to preserve its identity?
1) First – by maintaining continuity with the pre-exilic period
- There is a temple in the style of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 6:4/1 Kings 6:36)
- The new temple is furnished with the pre-exilic vessels returned by Cyrus
- Worship is modeled after the worship prescribed by the Mosaic law or by David
- So, the second temple is depicted as the legitimate continuation of the first
- They also participated in the old festivals like the Feast of Tabernacles in Neh 8
- The people understood their own return from captivity as a second exodus
- Ezra 1 (the return from Babylon) is textually related to Exodus 12 (going up out of
Egypt)
- People made an effort to establish their line of descent – this shows they are legitimate
heirs of old Israel
2) Second – by maintaining tight boundaries
- One goal was to protect from religious syncretism
- The basis of the policies was religious, not racial
- Marriage was confined to within the Jewish community
3) Third – by letting Scripture shape their identity
- The reforms were not simply legalistic, but involved profoundly religious motives
of repentance and worship
- This community became a 'people of the book' much more than the pre-exilic Jews had
been
- What happened to the hope of the prophets? (The glorious and peaceful future for Israel foreseen
in Ezek 37:24-28 and elsewhere)
- The people have been restored as God promised, but the achievement is only partial. The
restored community does not fully represent the fulfillment of God’s purpose for his people.
- Many things are far from ideal in the community’s present circumstances
- We see the propensity of the community to fall back into sin, despite the experience of exile
and the work of reform
- With Jesus’ coming, the unfulfilled hope of the prophets began finally to be realized
Making sense of the anti-climactic ending (see commentary by Williamson):
- There’s a feeling of ‘now, and not yet’
- The prophetic expectations are met, but there’s a surplus that keeps them looking forward to
something greater.
- According to Calvin: When [God] restored the Jews to liberty, and employed the ministry of
Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, these things were fulfilled. Yet at the same time they ought to be
continued down to the coming of Christ, by which the Church was gathered out of all parts of the
world. But we ought also to go forward to Christ’s last coming, by which all things shall be perfectly
restored.
- The book of Nehemiah points to its own failure in some respects
- So it shows a need for a radically new approach, an approach found in Jeremiah 31 (a new
covenant)
- But – don’t take too critical of an attitude: "The major topics dealt with in ch 13, (Sabbath
observance, preservation of a strong cultural, and hence religious, solidarity, and exemplary
leadership of the community’s religious life) were all at the heart of Judaism’s distinctive identity at
its best; without this, its witness to the world would have been lost, and there would simply have
been no context within which the work and teaching of Jesus could have had any meaning."
Nehemiah in Biblical Theology
Possible approaches to Nehemiah:
1) Nehemiah is a story about building a wall.
2) Nehemiah is about how to be a good leader or about “overcoming challenges.”
Questions for these approaches:
1) Most importantly, how does chapter 13 fit into either approach?
2) How does the absence of Nehemiah from the middle of the book fit into either approach?
3) The author has apparently arranged his material according to something other than chronology.
Do either of these approaches explain how the book is arranged?
So, a problem arises when these two approaches become the lens through which we read the book. Is building the wall a major element of the book? Yes. Are the examples of strategizing, leadership, and overcoming challenges extraordinary? Yes. But, do they make sense of the way the book is structured? Are they the main point? Are they the reason the Holy Spirit inspired these words and are they the reason the book is found in the Bible? Probably not.
How to understand Nehemiah as a part of the post-exilic period: (see Brian Kelly’s article in the New Dictionary of Biblical Theology)
- Ezra/Neh stretches from about 538-430BC
- Obviously, it is a very selective work – only a few strategic events are included
- What are the significant events of this period?
1) Return from Babylon and rebuilding the temple
2) Ezra’s reforms: teach and enforce the law of Moses
3) Nehemiah’s reforms: building the wall and social reforms
- Post-exilic times are significantly different than pre-exilic times:
1) The pre-exilic state is gone
2) The monarchy is gone
3) The community is much smaller
- How was ‘Israel’ able to preserve its identity?
1) First – by maintaining continuity with the pre-exilic period
- There is a temple in the style of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 6:4/1 Kings 6:36)
- The new temple is furnished with the pre-exilic vessels returned by Cyrus
- Worship is modeled after the worship prescribed by the Mosaic law or by David
- So, the second temple is depicted as the legitimate continuation of the first
- They also participated in the old festivals like the Feast of Tabernacles in Neh 8
- The people understood their own return from captivity as a second exodus
- Ezra 1 (the return from Babylon) is textually related to Exodus 12 (going up out of
Egypt)
- People made an effort to establish their line of descent – this shows they are legitimate
heirs of old Israel
2) Second – by maintaining tight boundaries
- One goal was to protect from religious syncretism
- The basis of the policies was religious, not racial
- Marriage was confined to within the Jewish community
3) Third – by letting Scripture shape their identity
- The reforms were not simply legalistic, but involved profoundly religious motives
of repentance and worship
- This community became a 'people of the book' much more than the pre-exilic Jews had
been
- What happened to the hope of the prophets? (The glorious and peaceful future for Israel foreseen
in Ezek 37:24-28 and elsewhere)
- The people have been restored as God promised, but the achievement is only partial. The
restored community does not fully represent the fulfillment of God’s purpose for his people.
- Many things are far from ideal in the community’s present circumstances
- We see the propensity of the community to fall back into sin, despite the experience of exile
and the work of reform
- With Jesus’ coming, the unfulfilled hope of the prophets began finally to be realized
Making sense of the anti-climactic ending (see commentary by Williamson):
- There’s a feeling of ‘now, and not yet’
- The prophetic expectations are met, but there’s a surplus that keeps them looking forward to
something greater.
- According to Calvin: When [God] restored the Jews to liberty, and employed the ministry of
Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah, these things were fulfilled. Yet at the same time they ought to be
continued down to the coming of Christ, by which the Church was gathered out of all parts of the
world. But we ought also to go forward to Christ’s last coming, by which all things shall be perfectly
restored.
- The book of Nehemiah points to its own failure in some respects
- So it shows a need for a radically new approach, an approach found in Jeremiah 31 (a new
covenant)
- But – don’t take too critical of an attitude: "The major topics dealt with in ch 13, (Sabbath
observance, preservation of a strong cultural, and hence religious, solidarity, and exemplary
leadership of the community’s religious life) were all at the heart of Judaism’s distinctive identity at
its best; without this, its witness to the world would have been lost, and there would simply have
been no context within which the work and teaching of Jesus could have had any meaning."
August 23, 2011
The message of the Bible in five minutes
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Among everything that God created, human beings received the privileged designation of bearing God’s own image. The first humans, Adam and Eve, lived at peace with God until they rebelled against him after being tempted by a serpent. From that time on, sin and death spread throughout the world. Cain killed his brother Abel, and humanity became so wicked that God destroyed almost everything with a flood. In a way, he uncreated what he had previously created. God chose to save Noah and his family along with many animals in an ark. The descendants of Noah, however, continued to rebel against God, even trying to make themselves equal with God by building a tall tower at Babel.
Out of this mess, God called out to Abraham and promised to institute a recovery plan for humanity through him and his descendants. This included Abraham’s son Isaac, who was born when Abraham and his wife Sarah were ridiculously old, and Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, who was surprisingly chosen by God instead of his older brother Esau. After wrestling with God one night, Jacob was given the name Israel. He had twelve sons and his favorite was Joseph, who was sold by his other brothers and ended up in Egypt. After a famine struck the land, Joseph was able to provide food for his family and they all settled in Egypt. Eventually, these Israelites became enslaved to the Egyptians and God raised up Moses to lead them out of Egypt. On their way out, God defeated Pharaoh and the Egyptian army by drowning them in the Red Sea. The Israelites camped at Mt. Sinai where Moses met with God and received his law, including the ten commandments. God also had the people build a tent, called the tabernacle, where his presence could dwell among them. In order to approach their holy God, the Israelites needed to offer sacrifices because they were sinful and could never live up to God’s perfect standard. After leaving the mountain, the Israelites traveled to the edge of the land of Canaan, which was promised to their ancestor Abraham. They sent spies into the land who reported that the inhabitants were giants and that they could never be defeated. Because they did not believe God’s promise to them, that generation of Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty more years and then died. Joshua, not Moses, was to lead the people into the promised land. He did this by defeating the locals, including the city of Jericho.
Once the people had settled in their new land, they were ruled by a series of morally disappointing judges including the strongman, Samson. Eventually, the people asked for a king and Samuel, the final judge, anointed Saul as king. Saul served the Lord for a time but then became disobedient, and God chose David as king, a man after God’s own heart. The nation of Israel achieved its greatest success under David and his son Solomon, but after Solomon’s wives lead him away from God and after his son Rehoboam pridefully oppressed the people, the nation declined and eventually split in two. The northern kingdom called Israel had wicked king after wicked king, and because they served idols instead of God, they were taken into captivity by the Assyrians who were the world power at the time. The southern kingdom, called Judah, was always ruled by a descendant of David, because God had promised to rule his people through David’s family forever. Although the Jews had some good kings and a number of prophets who warned them to stay faithful, they too eventually turned away from God and were taken captive by the Babylonians, who were the world power following Assyria. After Babylon fell to the Persian empire, many Jews returned to their homeland to rebuild the temple which Solomon had built to replace the tabernacle and to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, the capital city. The Jews, however, never again experienced the success and prosperity they had enjoyed under David and Solomon. They also never experienced the glorious days foreseen by the prophets before they went into exile.
After a new superpower arose, the Romans, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. His arrival marked the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth because God would rule his people through him. This rule, however, came about in a much different way than expected, because Jesus was crucified on a cross like a criminal and after three days, rose from the dead. After appearing to his disciples, he ascended into heaven and sent the Holy Spirit to make his presence known among his followers. These followers spread the good news, also known as the gospel, starting in Jerusalem and spreading throughout the entire known world, all the way to Rome itself. They proclaimed that Jesus’ death on the cross paid for the sins of the world, and that anyone who trusted in Jesus for his or her salvation would become a son or daughter of God. Some day, at a time we can never predict, Jesus will return again to this earth and permanently establish his kingdom when every knee shall bow to him and every tongue confess that he is Lord. At that time, God will undertake a new act of creation, removing evil and pain from this world entirely and his presence and glory will fill all of the new heaven and new earth.
The message of the Bible in five minutes
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Among everything that God created, human beings received the privileged designation of bearing God’s own image. The first humans, Adam and Eve, lived at peace with God until they rebelled against him after being tempted by a serpent. From that time on, sin and death spread throughout the world. Cain killed his brother Abel, and humanity became so wicked that God destroyed almost everything with a flood. In a way, he uncreated what he had previously created. God chose to save Noah and his family along with many animals in an ark. The descendants of Noah, however, continued to rebel against God, even trying to make themselves equal with God by building a tall tower at Babel.
Out of this mess, God called out to Abraham and promised to institute a recovery plan for humanity through him and his descendants. This included Abraham’s son Isaac, who was born when Abraham and his wife Sarah were ridiculously old, and Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, who was surprisingly chosen by God instead of his older brother Esau. After wrestling with God one night, Jacob was given the name Israel. He had twelve sons and his favorite was Joseph, who was sold by his other brothers and ended up in Egypt. After a famine struck the land, Joseph was able to provide food for his family and they all settled in Egypt. Eventually, these Israelites became enslaved to the Egyptians and God raised up Moses to lead them out of Egypt. On their way out, God defeated Pharaoh and the Egyptian army by drowning them in the Red Sea. The Israelites camped at Mt. Sinai where Moses met with God and received his law, including the ten commandments. God also had the people build a tent, called the tabernacle, where his presence could dwell among them. In order to approach their holy God, the Israelites needed to offer sacrifices because they were sinful and could never live up to God’s perfect standard. After leaving the mountain, the Israelites traveled to the edge of the land of Canaan, which was promised to their ancestor Abraham. They sent spies into the land who reported that the inhabitants were giants and that they could never be defeated. Because they did not believe God’s promise to them, that generation of Israelites wandered in the wilderness for forty more years and then died. Joshua, not Moses, was to lead the people into the promised land. He did this by defeating the locals, including the city of Jericho.
Once the people had settled in their new land, they were ruled by a series of morally disappointing judges including the strongman, Samson. Eventually, the people asked for a king and Samuel, the final judge, anointed Saul as king. Saul served the Lord for a time but then became disobedient, and God chose David as king, a man after God’s own heart. The nation of Israel achieved its greatest success under David and his son Solomon, but after Solomon’s wives lead him away from God and after his son Rehoboam pridefully oppressed the people, the nation declined and eventually split in two. The northern kingdom called Israel had wicked king after wicked king, and because they served idols instead of God, they were taken into captivity by the Assyrians who were the world power at the time. The southern kingdom, called Judah, was always ruled by a descendant of David, because God had promised to rule his people through David’s family forever. Although the Jews had some good kings and a number of prophets who warned them to stay faithful, they too eventually turned away from God and were taken captive by the Babylonians, who were the world power following Assyria. After Babylon fell to the Persian empire, many Jews returned to their homeland to rebuild the temple which Solomon had built to replace the tabernacle and to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, the capital city. The Jews, however, never again experienced the success and prosperity they had enjoyed under David and Solomon. They also never experienced the glorious days foreseen by the prophets before they went into exile.
After a new superpower arose, the Romans, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. His arrival marked the presence of the Kingdom of God on earth because God would rule his people through him. This rule, however, came about in a much different way than expected, because Jesus was crucified on a cross like a criminal and after three days, rose from the dead. After appearing to his disciples, he ascended into heaven and sent the Holy Spirit to make his presence known among his followers. These followers spread the good news, also known as the gospel, starting in Jerusalem and spreading throughout the entire known world, all the way to Rome itself. They proclaimed that Jesus’ death on the cross paid for the sins of the world, and that anyone who trusted in Jesus for his or her salvation would become a son or daughter of God. Some day, at a time we can never predict, Jesus will return again to this earth and permanently establish his kingdom when every knee shall bow to him and every tongue confess that he is Lord. At that time, God will undertake a new act of creation, removing evil and pain from this world entirely and his presence and glory will fill all of the new heaven and new earth.
August 10, 2011
Jesus, the hope of the Psalms (brief notes from Aug 7 sermon)
Thesis 1: The book of Psalms was structured by its final author in a way that encourages us to read the whole book with an eye towards God’s anointed king.
1-2: These stand out from the rest of Book 1 because they lack headings. Psalm 1 begins with the same “blessed are those..” formula that concludes Psalm 2. Together, these considerations suggest that Psalms 1-2 have been strategically placed as an introduction, forming the eye-glasses through which the rest of the psalms are read: delight in God’s law (Ps 1) and submitting to God’s chosen king (Ps 2).
72: Stands directly between the psalter’s introduction (1-2) and conclusion (145). Also is strategically
placed as the end of Book 2. Echoes Nathan’s promise to David that his descendants would rule on
the throne forever (v5). Echoes God’s promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through
him; only here, we see that the ‘him’ is properly applied to God’s chosen king (v16). Also, alludes to
God’s promise to Eve that her seed would defeat the seed of the dust-licking serpent (v9).
89: Strategically placed at the end of Book 3. Asks, when is this messianic king finally going to show
up? (v38-39)
145: Concludes the psalter by highlighting the Kingdom of God (v11-13). We know though, from the introduction (Ps 2), that God has chosen to rule through his messianic king.
146-150: Five ‘hallel’ psalms, appended as a doxology to the psalter.
----------
Thesis 2: The Psalms prepare us for a messianic king who is also a suffering servant.
22 – my God my God, why have you forsaken me?
31 – into your hands I commit my spirit
41 – (the strategic ending of book 1) – all my enemies whisper together against me; even my close friend whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me
69 – You know how I am scorned, disgraced and shamed; all my enemies are before you; they put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst
BUT, the psalms also promise a transition from suffering to exaltation, because according to Ps 118 – the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone
16 – my heart is glad and my tounge rejoiced; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abondom me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay
110 – (the most alluded to psalm in the NT) – the Lord says to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a foostool for your feet; the Lord has sworn and will not change his mind; you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek (So the messianic king will not only be anointed as king, but as priest as well)
And finally, 132 – the lord swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke, one of your own descendants I will place on your throne if your sons keep my cov and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne forever and ever
Jesus, the hope of the Psalms (brief notes from Aug 7 sermon)
Thesis 1: The book of Psalms was structured by its final author in a way that encourages us to read the whole book with an eye towards God’s anointed king.
1-2: These stand out from the rest of Book 1 because they lack headings. Psalm 1 begins with the same “blessed are those..” formula that concludes Psalm 2. Together, these considerations suggest that Psalms 1-2 have been strategically placed as an introduction, forming the eye-glasses through which the rest of the psalms are read: delight in God’s law (Ps 1) and submitting to God’s chosen king (Ps 2).
72: Stands directly between the psalter’s introduction (1-2) and conclusion (145). Also is strategically
placed as the end of Book 2. Echoes Nathan’s promise to David that his descendants would rule on
the throne forever (v5). Echoes God’s promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed through
him; only here, we see that the ‘him’ is properly applied to God’s chosen king (v16). Also, alludes to
God’s promise to Eve that her seed would defeat the seed of the dust-licking serpent (v9).
89: Strategically placed at the end of Book 3. Asks, when is this messianic king finally going to show
up? (v38-39)
145: Concludes the psalter by highlighting the Kingdom of God (v11-13). We know though, from the introduction (Ps 2), that God has chosen to rule through his messianic king.
146-150: Five ‘hallel’ psalms, appended as a doxology to the psalter.
----------
Thesis 2: The Psalms prepare us for a messianic king who is also a suffering servant.
22 – my God my God, why have you forsaken me?
31 – into your hands I commit my spirit
41 – (the strategic ending of book 1) – all my enemies whisper together against me; even my close friend whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me
69 – You know how I am scorned, disgraced and shamed; all my enemies are before you; they put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst
BUT, the psalms also promise a transition from suffering to exaltation, because according to Ps 118 – the stone the builders rejected has become the capstone
16 – my heart is glad and my tounge rejoiced; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abondom me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay
110 – (the most alluded to psalm in the NT) – the Lord says to my Lord, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a foostool for your feet; the Lord has sworn and will not change his mind; you are a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek (So the messianic king will not only be anointed as king, but as priest as well)
And finally, 132 – the lord swore an oath to David, a sure oath that he will not revoke, one of your own descendants I will place on your throne if your sons keep my cov and the statutes I teach them, then their sons will sit on your throne forever and ever
July 22, 2011
John Sailhamer: The Meaning of the Pentateuch
This book certainly took a long time to finish! I think part of the problem was that I never really wanted it to end. Each idea seemed to be about 95% in line with what I expected, but about 5% totally out of left field. The reviews that have been published during the past months already note the strange repetitiveness of the work, so I'll focus on a couple of things that I found most helpful and formative in my thinking on not only the Pentateuch, but on the entire Bible.
The thing that sticks out above everything else is Sailhamer's emphasis on the compositional strategy that we observe in the text. Of course, this only works if are able to put aside the assumption that the Pentateuch is simply a collection of sources clumsily mashed together. Seriously, do we really think that no one noticed that there were two versions of the creation story until the dawn on the age of biblical criticism? Sailhamer works from the assumption that the Pentateuch is the remarkable work of some late editor/author, possibly the same author who determined the shape of the entire OT. The attractive thing about this proposal is that it allows us to ask, what was the main idea that that author was trying to convey by how he arranged things?
Sailhamer's answer to this question leads us to another area where his work is very helpful, and that is to the issue of the messianic nature of the Pentateuch. The author/editor has used the Pentateuch's strategically-placed poems to draw our attention to the "latter days" and to the king from Judah's line that those days will bring. In other words, the messianic message of the Pentateuch is not completely dependent on our being able to prove that the seed in Genesis 3 is singular, or anything like that. Instead, the anticipation for a future king is embedded in the very organizational structure of the Pentateuch. My goal for the Aug 7 sermon at CCHP will be to use that same argument with the book of Psalms. How did the final editor of the book use his organizational strategy to emphasize the coming king?
John Sailhamer: The Meaning of the Pentateuch
This book certainly took a long time to finish! I think part of the problem was that I never really wanted it to end. Each idea seemed to be about 95% in line with what I expected, but about 5% totally out of left field. The reviews that have been published during the past months already note the strange repetitiveness of the work, so I'll focus on a couple of things that I found most helpful and formative in my thinking on not only the Pentateuch, but on the entire Bible.
The thing that sticks out above everything else is Sailhamer's emphasis on the compositional strategy that we observe in the text. Of course, this only works if are able to put aside the assumption that the Pentateuch is simply a collection of sources clumsily mashed together. Seriously, do we really think that no one noticed that there were two versions of the creation story until the dawn on the age of biblical criticism? Sailhamer works from the assumption that the Pentateuch is the remarkable work of some late editor/author, possibly the same author who determined the shape of the entire OT. The attractive thing about this proposal is that it allows us to ask, what was the main idea that that author was trying to convey by how he arranged things?
Sailhamer's answer to this question leads us to another area where his work is very helpful, and that is to the issue of the messianic nature of the Pentateuch. The author/editor has used the Pentateuch's strategically-placed poems to draw our attention to the "latter days" and to the king from Judah's line that those days will bring. In other words, the messianic message of the Pentateuch is not completely dependent on our being able to prove that the seed in Genesis 3 is singular, or anything like that. Instead, the anticipation for a future king is embedded in the very organizational structure of the Pentateuch. My goal for the Aug 7 sermon at CCHP will be to use that same argument with the book of Psalms. How did the final editor of the book use his organizational strategy to emphasize the coming king?
July 6, 2011
Issues in Nehemiah
In my reading this morning, I encountered a textual-critical issue that struck me as particularly problematic:
1. Nehemiah 8 appears to have originally followed either Ezra 8 or Ezra 10
2. The grammar and original literary setting of Nehemiah 8:9 and 8:10 (singular verbs) suggest that,
at some point, the name "Nehemiah" was added to the text that already contained the name "Ezra."
Point #1 is of no concern for those who hold a high view of Scripture. In recent years, I have come more and more to appreciate the inspired work of the final editors of the OT texts. Of particular interest to me are the editors of the Pentateuch (see John Sailhamer) and the book of Psalms (see VanGemeren). At the time these texts were finalized, the period of canonical inspiration was still wide open, according to the traditional view. There is no reason, for instance, to insist that Moses wrote prophetically about his own death when nothing in the text demands such a conclusion.
The problem with Nehemiah 8, then, is not that the Ezra and Nehemiah memoirs were edited and rearranged for theological purposes at some later time. Instead, the problem is that the inspired editor portrays Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries, working side by side and participating together in the covenant renewal ceremony. If the text originally described the work of Ezra's reforms however, Nehemiah would still have been up in Susa serving wine to the king.
I understand why the editor put Nehemiah 8 in its present place: the covenant renewal ceremony is a theologically fitting climax to the reforms of both Ezra and Nehemiah. But why Nehemiah's name is clumsily included remains a mystery. So often, the biblical authors/editors aren't given the benefit of the doubt (like the editor of Genesis being accused of failing to notice that he included multiple stories of Abraham pretending Sarah was his sister, even though the text itself explains that Abraham made a habit of employing this strategy). In this situation though, the problem concerning the addition of the name "Nehemiah" does not seem to be simply a product of some scholarly bias against the text.
Issues in Nehemiah
In my reading this morning, I encountered a textual-critical issue that struck me as particularly problematic:
1. Nehemiah 8 appears to have originally followed either Ezra 8 or Ezra 10
2. The grammar and original literary setting of Nehemiah 8:9 and 8:10 (singular verbs) suggest that,
at some point, the name "Nehemiah" was added to the text that already contained the name "Ezra."
Point #1 is of no concern for those who hold a high view of Scripture. In recent years, I have come more and more to appreciate the inspired work of the final editors of the OT texts. Of particular interest to me are the editors of the Pentateuch (see John Sailhamer) and the book of Psalms (see VanGemeren). At the time these texts were finalized, the period of canonical inspiration was still wide open, according to the traditional view. There is no reason, for instance, to insist that Moses wrote prophetically about his own death when nothing in the text demands such a conclusion.
The problem with Nehemiah 8, then, is not that the Ezra and Nehemiah memoirs were edited and rearranged for theological purposes at some later time. Instead, the problem is that the inspired editor portrays Ezra and Nehemiah as contemporaries, working side by side and participating together in the covenant renewal ceremony. If the text originally described the work of Ezra's reforms however, Nehemiah would still have been up in Susa serving wine to the king.
I understand why the editor put Nehemiah 8 in its present place: the covenant renewal ceremony is a theologically fitting climax to the reforms of both Ezra and Nehemiah. But why Nehemiah's name is clumsily included remains a mystery. So often, the biblical authors/editors aren't given the benefit of the doubt (like the editor of Genesis being accused of failing to notice that he included multiple stories of Abraham pretending Sarah was his sister, even though the text itself explains that Abraham made a habit of employing this strategy). In this situation though, the problem concerning the addition of the name "Nehemiah" does not seem to be simply a product of some scholarly bias against the text.
June 28, 2011
Questions From This Week:
"If the Bible tells us to trust only in God, how can I trust my spouse (or any loved one)?"
When I first heard this question, I assumed it basically boiled down to two different meanings of the word 'trust.' We trust God in an ultimate sense (he'll never let us down), but we can trust people too, as long as we recognize their fallibility. There are some clues, though, that point to the fact that this line is often blurred.
Have you ever been to the store to buy your spouse an anniversary card? (hopefully a rhetorical question) Good luck finding one that doesn't convey this type of message: "You're all I need. Without you, I might as well curl up in a ball and die." That may sound very romantic, but it had better not be true! There is no way any of us can live up to that kind of pressure. If I am my wife's reason for existing, then that's not very good news for her or for me. As Tim Keller points out in "Counterfeit Gods," it is tempting for a Christian to make his spouse into an idol. It's certainly a more pious-sounding idol than drugs or alcohol, but any idol is still an idol. According to Psalm 146:3-4, one problem with making my spouse into an idol is that our existence is so fleeting:
"Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish."
I should desire to be a husband who can be trusted. Let my yes be yes, and my no, no. But, I should not desire to be a husband who can be trusted for salvation. That is something I am not able to provide, because the one who can be trusted for salvation can literally take my breath away at any moment. Knowing this, it would not be wise to encourage my wife to find her purpose, value, and meaning in life in me.
Questions From This Week:
"If the Bible tells us to trust only in God, how can I trust my spouse (or any loved one)?"
When I first heard this question, I assumed it basically boiled down to two different meanings of the word 'trust.' We trust God in an ultimate sense (he'll never let us down), but we can trust people too, as long as we recognize their fallibility. There are some clues, though, that point to the fact that this line is often blurred.
Have you ever been to the store to buy your spouse an anniversary card? (hopefully a rhetorical question) Good luck finding one that doesn't convey this type of message: "You're all I need. Without you, I might as well curl up in a ball and die." That may sound very romantic, but it had better not be true! There is no way any of us can live up to that kind of pressure. If I am my wife's reason for existing, then that's not very good news for her or for me. As Tim Keller points out in "Counterfeit Gods," it is tempting for a Christian to make his spouse into an idol. It's certainly a more pious-sounding idol than drugs or alcohol, but any idol is still an idol. According to Psalm 146:3-4, one problem with making my spouse into an idol is that our existence is so fleeting:
"Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When his breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish."
I should desire to be a husband who can be trusted. Let my yes be yes, and my no, no. But, I should not desire to be a husband who can be trusted for salvation. That is something I am not able to provide, because the one who can be trusted for salvation can literally take my breath away at any moment. Knowing this, it would not be wise to encourage my wife to find her purpose, value, and meaning in life in me.
