The Bible as R-rated?

Beginning with the murder of Abel by his brother Cain, we are given a full picture of human noninnocence. We have seen so many Sunday school pictures of dutiful children in biblical garb that we forget how utterly unblinking the Scriptures are about human nature. Far from being a collection of inspirational stories, the Old Testament is replete with unedifying R-rated tales of every conceivable kind of crime and villainy, much of it committed by men and women of God’s own choosing.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 196

Why the weak church?

The drift away from the Bible has weakened the church. Many people are ready to believe but have been intimidated into thinking that no educated person with any pretense to cultural sophistication could actually take the testimony of the Bible seriously. The one antidote to this is a robust exposition of the apostolic gospel.—Fleming Rutledge, The Crucifixion, 30

Trust? Or obey? Which is it?

An old saint was once asked, “Which is more important: prayer or the reading of the Word?” He thought for a moment and then responded, “Which is more important to the bird, the right wing or the left?” That is a question I want to pose: Which is more important to a Christian, believing or obeying? For the sparrow flying through the air, both wings are equally important. With only one it is almost impossible to fly. So, we must believe God’s Word and we must obey it. By these two wings, a man will rise to God in faith and humble obedience to the Lord Himself.—A.W. Tozer, Experiencing the Presence of God, 106

Ecclesiastes—a modern version

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift , nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, not yet riches to men of understanding, not yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.—George Orwell, A Collection of Essays, 163

Book of Books, Our People's Strength

370 Book of Books, Our People's Strength

1. Book of books, our people’s strength
   Statesman’s, teacher’s, hero’s treasure,
   Bringing freedom, spreading truth,
   Shedding light that none can measure;
   Wisdom comes to those who know thee,
   All the best we have we owe thee.

2. Thank we those who toiled in thought,
   Many diverse scrolls completing;
   Poets, prophets, scholars, saints,
   Each his word from God repeating;
   Till they came, who told the story
   Of the Word, and showed His glory.

3. Praise we God, who hath inspired
   Those whose wisdom still directs us;
   Praise Him for the Word made flesh,
   For the Spirit which protects us.
   Light of Knowledge, ever burning,
   Shed on us Thy deathless learning.
                         Percy Dearmer
                         The Methodist Hymnal, 1964 edition

<idle musing>
You definitely should take the time to read the author's bio at the link above. Although his hymns were never very popular—this one occurs in about 25–30 hymnals—his other writings were more influential.
</idle musing>

The centrality of the incarnation

Now when we listen to the witness of holy scripture here we know we are faced with something we can never fully understand, but it is something that we must seek to understand as far as we can. One thing should be abundantly clear, that if Jesus Christ did not assume our fallen flesh, our fallen humanity, then our fallen humanity is untouched by his work — for ‘the unassumed is the unredeemed’, as Gregory Nazianzen put it. Patristic theology, especially as we see it expounded in the great Athanasius, makes a great deal of the fact he who knew no sin became sin for us, exchanging his riches for our poverty, his perfection for our imperfection, his incorruption for our corruption, his eternal life for our mortality. Thus Christ took from Mary a corruptible and mortal body in order that he might take our sin, judge and condemn it in the flesh, and so assume our human nature as we have it in the fallen world that he might heal, sanctify and redeem it. In that teaching the Greek fathers were closely following the New Testament. If the Word of God did not really come into our fallen existence, if the Son of God did not actually come where we are, and join himself to us and range himself with us where we are in sin and under judgement, how could it be said that Christ really took our place, took our cause upon himself in order to redeem us?—T. F. Torrance, Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ, 62

Make it so, Lord!

Wisdom from Sirach 40:

12 All bribery and injustice
will be wiped out,
      but good faith will last forever.
13 The money of the unjust
will dry up like a river,
      and it will crash like loud thunder
      in a rainstorm.
14 Generous people will rejoice,
      but those who sin will ultimately fail.
15 The offspring of the ungodly
won’t produce many branches,
      and they are polluted roots
      on sheer rock.
16 A reed by any water or riverbank
      will be pulled up before any grass.
17 Kindness is like an orchard of blessings,
      and an act of charity will last forever. (CEB)

To which I can only say, Even so, Lord Jesus, make it so!

Go to Bethel…

Amos [4:4–5] exposes the hidden darkness of these seemingly good activities and good people. Because the sacrifices and offerings have been acquired through violence and injustice, they sin and blaspheme God by thanking him with that which comes at the expense of God’s justice. Thus, the more they offer these sacrifices and offerings, the more they sin, and the more they indict themselves. With poetic flourish, Amos exposes the false exterior of the people’s thankful state and judges them for their true nature of injustice, false pretense, and delusion.—Kevin Chau, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 89-90

A little child

You probably know the story. Naaman, a powerful Syrian general, was a leper. A captive slave girl mentioned that a prophet dwelt in Israel who could cure him. Naaman traveled there, and Elisha told him to dip himself in the Jordan seven times. He grumbled at this, thinking it was beneath his dignity, but in the end he did it—and he emerged healed! Note the verb ירד (“to go down, dip”) and its similarity to the name “Jordan,” ירדן. Most likely this is a wordplay (found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible; e.g., Josh 3:13; 1 Kgs 2:8).

The beginning of the story emphasizes Naaman’s importance and power, and the little maid (נערה קטנה) is his polar opposite: no status, no office, no prominence (5:2). What a change then, when Naaman emerged from the Jordan the seventh time, with skin “like a נער קטן”— the same description (with masculine gender) as the little maid. The thought is, he became like her. On the surface this refers to his skin, but there is a deeper meaning as well.—George Schwab, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 59–60

Geography matters!

Some translations also miss an important clue in the Hebrew as to the battle’s location. Two different Hebrew words for “valley” appear; the first, עמק (“valley of Elah,” 17:2 NASB): denotes a broad, flat valley; the second, גיא (“with the valley between them,” 17:3 NASB) denotes a sharply sloped and narrow valley— “a ravine” (HCSB). Thus, while the valley of Elah is broad and spacious, it only pinches together in a few spaces—thus narrowing the choices for possible battle sites. Translations that render both Hebrew words “valley” miss the clue the narrator is providing for the battles precise location.

Furthermore, 1 Samuel 17:4 says Goliath initially “came out” or “came forth” (יצא) from the Philistine camp. But as David arrived, Goliath was literally “coming up” (עלה), not coming out (17:23, 25 NIV). Many translations gloss over this difference, but perhaps the writer was trying to convey something. I suggest he was; Goliath was likely ascending the Israelite side of the ravine (17:3), taunting Saul’s forces. This understanding of the text would explain why the text says, “The men of Israel fled from him” (17:24 NASB). Why would they flee, unless his coming up their side of the ravine made them fear his direct attack? If he stood out in the middle of the valley, they might be afraid, but they had no need to flee.—Bryan Beyer, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 51

What is there to fear?

"For those who have been redeemed by Christ, the universe has no ultimate terrors; they know that their Redeemer is also creator, ruler, and goal of all,"—F.F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. 63

Why almonds, of all trees?

Why almonds? There is no evidence that Aaron’s rod was made of almond wood. Nor did Hebrew have the expression, “You’re driving me nuts!” However, the word for “almond” (שָׁקֵד [šākēd]) is derived from the same root as the verb for “keep watch, be awake, be vigilant” (שקד). This is because the almond tree is “watchful/ awake” in the sense that it is the first tree to blossom every year while other trees continue their winter slumber. Now we can understand, for example, God’s object lesson to young Jeremiah, which otherwise does not make sense in English: “ ‘What do you see, Jeremiah?’ ‘I see the branch of an almond tree [שָׁקֵד],’ I replied. The LORD said to me, ‘You have seen correctly, for I am watching [participle of שקד] to see that my word is fulfilled’ ” (Jer 1:11-12).—Roy Gane, in Devotions on the Hebrew Bible, 31

I like this!

I'm in the midst of editing a commentary and they cited a text from Wisdom of Solomon. One of my jobs is to make sure that the version they are quoting from says what they say it does. In this case, they were quoting from Wis 13:1–2. In the process of checking it, I ran across the Good News Translation's version (I didn't even know that the GNT had done the apocrypha!). I really liked it, so I'm sharing it with you (don't you feel privileged!?):

1 Anyone who does not know God is simply foolish. Such people look at the good things around them and still fail to see the living God. They have studied the things he made, but they have not recognized the one who made them. 2 Instead, they suppose that the gods who rule the world are fire or wind or storm or the circling stars or rushing water or the heavenly bodies. 3 People were so delighted with the beauty of these things that they thought they must be gods, but they should have realized that these things have a master and that he is much greater than all of them, for he is the creator of beauty, and he created them. 4 Since people are amazed at the power of these things, and how they behave, they ought to learn from them that their maker is far more powerful. 5 When we realize how vast and beautiful the creation is, we are learning about the Creator at the same time.

6 But maybe we are too harsh with these people. After all, they may have really wanted to find God, but couldn't. 7 Surrounded by God's works, they keep on looking at them, until they are finally convinced that because the things they see are so beautiful, they must be gods. 8 But still, these people really have no excuse. 9 If they had enough intelligence to speculate about the nature of the universe, why did they never find the Lord of all things?

Sounds a good bit like Paul, doesn't it?

Expanding your horizons

Learning to read the Bible through the eyes of Christians from a different time and place will readily reveal the distorting effect of our own cultural, historical, linguistic, philosophical and, yes, even theological lenses. This is not to assert that the fathers did not have their own warped perspectives and blind spots. It is to argue, however, that we will not arrive at perspective and clarity regarding our own strengths and weaknesses if we refuse to look beyond our own theological and hermeneutical noses. God has been active throughout the church's history and we rob ourselves of the Holy Spirit's gifts if we refuse to budge beyond the comfort zone of our own ideas.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 35

Which tradition?

Many conservative Protestant interpreters, though uncomfortable to find themselves slumbering with Enlightenment and postmodernist bedfellows, will fail to discern or acknowledge the necessity of studying the fathers. The deep-seated Protestant suspicion of tradition and its confidence in the ability of renewed reason alone to understand Scripture will lead many to shy away from investing time and energy in exploring patristic thought, believing it better to focus on the world of the Bible itself. The intervening centuries, some will assert, have largely been characterized by distortion and error, especially in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox worlds. To return to the fathers as a source of interpretation appears to necessitate a return to Rome or Constantinople. For some, radical reformers such as Menno Simons seem much closer to the truth in their call for a return to the pristine world of the early first-century Christian community.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 31

<idle musing>
While that is true, beware of going to the opposite extreme and unthinkingly embracing the traditions of the fathers. And, while we're at it, beware of unthinkingly embracing the faith tradition you are a part of, too, whether it be Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, anabaptist, Brethren, Wesleyan, what have you. They all are now traditions! For that matter, the Enlightenment is a tradition, too. Think about that for a minute.
</idle musing>

Sola scriptura?

The slogan sola Scriptura, then, is the frank assertion and admission, as Anthony Lane puts it, “that the church can err.” The fathers themselves insisted that the church be held accountable to Scripture. At the same time, sola Scriptura has never meant that the only resources the Christian needs to understand God’s Word well are the Bible and the Holy Spirit. The ideal of the autonomous interpreter can more easily be laid at the steps of the Enlightenment than the Reformation. Rather, Reformers such as Luther and Calvin wisely considered the history, councils, creeds and tradition of the church, including the fathers’ writings, as a rich resource ignored only by the foolish or arrogant.—Christopher Hall, Reading Scripture with the Church Fathers, 13–14

<idle musing>
Indeed! And ignoring all those resources, as we have done in the US, has landed us in our current theology-free christian nationalist wasteland. Not that the blame is entirely there, but it definitely contributed!
</idle musing>

Hermeneutics (Tozer for Tuesday)

Here is a good working rule to help you rightly understand Scripture: If you do not have more than one verse to support what you read, do not teach it. Because, if it is not found in more than one verse in the Bible, chances are it is not found there either, and what you think is a passage teaching a certain thing does not teach it at all.—A.W. Tozer, Living as a Christian, 169

We might be wrong!

I had marked this passage earlier, but forgot to post it. So, mentally rewind about 100 pages!

Many people today who misread the Bible do so as a result of failing to properly translate its ideas. As a result, some people view the Bible’s text as containing a record of God’s absolute ideals, which were dictated to ancient Israel in an effort to alter their thinking to become like modern people, or at least more like modern people than they already were. This is because we see modern ideas as being better than ancient ideas. While it is reasonable for us to prefer modern ideas (if for no other reason than simply because they are ours), it is not reasonable to project our ideas onto God and ascribe them to him simply because we prefer them. This is why, if we wish to treat the text as a source of authority, it is so important to make sure that we are careful and consistent in describing what it actually says, instead of intuitively describing what we think it should say. We must never appropriate divine authority for ourselves, and we must never assume that our ideals and perspectives correlate with God’s.— The Lost World of the Israelite Conquest, 23–24

<idle musing>
Indeed! And a very difficult ideal to maintain. We all bring our own presuppositions and experiences to the text. It's impossible not to! The nineteenth century's neutral interpreter of the facts doesn't exist and never has or will. Joe Friday's, "Just the facts, ma'am," is an illusion.

Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try! It just means we should humbly acknowledge that we might be wrong. What a thought! But a little (better yet, a lot) of humility goes a long way. Hubris/pride always leads to a downfall.

Just an
<idle musing>

Inerrancy, again!

I just ran across this post on inerrancy and Russell Moore’s book. Go ahead and read it. I'll wait.

Good. She definitely is no fan of inerrancy, is she? Neither am I, but after reading it I mused as follows:

But isn’t there a place for the authority of scripture without inerrancy? Is it all or nothing? I’ve never believed in inerrancy, but I believe in the authority of scripture as prima scriptura—but the science nerd in me loves the findings of science. Perhaps the problem isn’t inerrancy itself, but the sola scriptura that it entails (or maybe it's the other way around, sola scriptura demands inerrancy)? I’m reminded of a line in Corrie ten Boom’s The Hiding Place where she says her father loved the findings of science and would pray to the God who set the atoms dancing and other such things. For me the findings of science incite the same feeling. Sometimes just as much as a cool new insight into a Greek or Hebrew text in scripture that I read—and sometimes even more!

Because I believe in prima scripture, though, I hold to a traditional view of morality. But—and this is where most people go off the rails—I don't see God as an angry parent, just waiting to club you into submission, or worse yet, an even more omnipotent version of Zeus on the rampage with his lightning bolt. I don't, and never have, believed in the popular version of penal substitution—and I definitely have problems with the "official" theological version of it. If you have to peg me, I would be a Christus victor person, but as Scot McKnight says in his A Community Called Atonement, theories of atonement are like a golf bag full of clubs. You don't hit a drive with a putter! And remember, the church didn't really have a "theory of atonement" for its first thousand years or so! The emphasis was on the redeeming, wooing, self-emptying love of God for humanity.

Ok, I've moved far from the origin of this and am riffing on my favorite topic now, which is the love of God for humanity as displayed in the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, followed by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit so that we can live in communion with him, now and forever. (That's mouthful, isn't it?)

Thoughts?

By the way, I know I've linked to this video before, but I really like it because it sums up the problems with much Western theology. It's only nine minutes long, and it's probably one of the best uses you can put nine minutes to (what a rotten sentence grammatically!).

He's got the whole world…

In the ancient Near East curses, “the punishing deity does not pursue his people in exile. He cannot, since it is the territory of another god,”—Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 23–27: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 3B (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 2322.

<idle musing>
But YHWH can and does. What does that say about YHWH? He's not territorial bound—the whole world is his dominion. As the psalmist says,

Where could I go to get away
from your spirit?
     Where could I go to escape
     your presence?
If I went up to heaven,
you would be there.
     If I went down to the grave,
     you would be there too!
If I could fly on the wings of dawn,
     stopping to rest only
     on the far side of the ocean—
          even there your hand would guide me;
          even there your strong hand
     would hold me tight!
If I said, “The darkness will definitely hide me;
     the light will become night around me,”
     even then the darkness
     isn’t too dark for you!
          Nighttime would shine bright as day,
     because darkness is the same
     as light to you!

Depending on how you see God, that can be very comforting—or terrifying!
</idle musing>