Ask not...

“But, for most of us, the problem is not that we are too eager to ask for the wrong things. The problem is that we are not eager enough to ask for the right things.”—N.T. Wright as quoted in Sermon on the Mount, page 242

<idle musing>
Maybe because we don't really believe we will get them? Or maybe because we don't think we deserve them? Either way, it is because we don't really understand who God is...
</idle musing>

Prophetic—over 50 years ago

I never could figure out why ministers feel they have to pat and paw over everybody to get them in, why they have to dilute and edit and modify and amend and trim down the gospel. It does not work this way. A trimmed-down, diluted, edited religion is not the religion Christ died to establish.—A.W. Tozer, Voice of a Prophet, pages 90–91

Book lust!

Ooohhh!!! I want!

Forestalling Doom
"Apotropaic Intercession" in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East
Alter Orient und Altes Testament - AOAT 417
by Marian W. Broida
Ugarit-Verlag, 2014
xx + 282 pp., English
Cloth
ISBN: 9783868351101
Your Price: $114.00
www.eisenbrauns.com/item/BROFOREST

Here's the description:

According to a common Ancient Near Eastern belief, misfortune resulted when irate gods, angered by human offense, ordained doom for individuals or nations. But divine decrees of doom were not always viewed as irrevocable. As we see in texts from the Ancient Near East, including the Hebrew Bible, the gods often gave advance notice of disastrous decrees via omens or, in some biblical stories, through YHWH’s own speech. Such warnings allowed humanity a chance to respond. Frequently, the response was intercession. Numerous ritual texts from the Ancient Near East and narratives in the Hebrew Bible depict humans interceding with the divine realm to ward off foretold doom on behalf of the gods’ intended targets. In this study, M.W. Broida concentrates on the direct discourse in apotropaic intercession by humans. These human utterances appear as oral rites in apotropaic intercessory rituals, or as quoted speech in biblical stories depicting apotropaic intercession. The ritual texts, in general, portray strategies thought to originate with the gods, use magical utterances as well as persuasion, and dispose of impurity as well as (or instead of) pleading the client’s case. In contrast, the biblical narratives depict intercessors in impassioned conversation with the divine, protesting YHWH’s injustice. These differences derive in part from genre (ritual texts vs. narratives) but also from different underlying theologies. The gods of the Neo-Assyrian and Hittite texts work with the intercessors to accomplish the necessary procedures, often magical in nature. YHWH, in contrast, typically rewards those who skillfully oppose his decisions using ordinary human speech.

Doesn't that sound luscious? Interlibrary loan...but it doesn't even show up in WorldCat yet! Oh the pain...it doesn't look like Eisenbrauns even has the book yet : (

Prevenient Grace

The doctrine of prevenient grace assumes the universal dimension of Christ's enlightening, enabling work. The work extends to "whosoever" would believe, rather than being limited to a chosen few, as a particular predestination interpretation of these passages [John 1:10–13] would assert. "All humankind" profits from Christ's enlightening presence. We are forced to this conclusion when we follow the exegetical principle that Scripture describes real effects, and not merely hypothetical, symbolic, or even exclusive ones not depicted there.—Prevenient Grace: God's Provision for Fallen Humanity, page 29

But God only said it once...

The phrase “new covenant” only appears in the Old Testament in Jer 31:31. This is clearly a classic case of the importance of weighing items rather than counting them when it comes to determining significance.— The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant, page 24

<idle musing>
Maybe he only needed to say it once because he figured we would be listening : ) Seriously, though, Gorman makes a good point here. Just as you don't count the number of manuscripts to decide a reading in textual criticism, you shouldn't count the number of occurrences of a word/concept in scripture either.
</idle musing>

Where's the power?

He [Balaam in Num 22:38] cannot and does not make any declaration based on his own authority. He can only speak God’s word. This provides the clearest evidence that Balaam’s activities, as well as any other cursing specialist’s, were dependent and limited. True power only emanates from the divine world. This point is driven home even more succinctly in Num 23:8 ‘How can I curse whom God has not cursed? How can I curse those whom Yahweh has not cursed?’ According to this scheme of things, fully effective maledictions must operate out of a coordination between the mortal and immortal worlds. Without that harmony, an anathema goes nowhere (Prov 26:2). It has no potency. And as Balak discovers, curses cannot be summoned without some kind of divine advocacy.— Cursed Are You!, pages 161–62

A whole new paradigm

By contrast, according to Acts, sacrificing to the gods, soothsaying, magic, and so forth, do not “make sense” for the early Christians. The reason is not hard to find: the wider predicament in which these practices made sense has disappeared. Thus the collision between the Christian mission and the larger Mediterranean world is both extraordinarily deep and “thick” for the reason that it entails multiple layers of a whole world of sense-making, that is, a social imaginary. In Lystra, for example, Paul and Barnabas’ call “to turn to the Living God” states the challenge to the locals’ pattern of worship and sacrifice to the gods not so much in terms of the practice itself, as if the goal were simply to get the Lystrans to substitute horn blowing for sacrificing, or in terms of the normative notions of pagan sacrifice (for it to work properly, you really ought to be doing it this way rather than that way), but in terms of a different total framework, one in which sacrifice to the gods becomes literal nonsense, or, in biblical language, idolatry.—World Upside Down, pages 145-146

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! This is key to understanding the radicalness of the gospel. It's just as radical today—if we will just listen to the Holy Spirit's nudges. Our culture is just as hung up on the wrong stuff, we just don't see it. Unless the Holy Spirit opens our eyes—and we have to be willing to let him!

And, given my Wesleyan/Arminian viewpoint, he is always nudging everyone of us. Always calling us home. Always giving us an unease with the status quo...
</idle musing>

God? or Mammon? How to tell

Anxiety is a barometer of one’s God: those with anxiety about “life” worship Mammon, while those without anxiety worship the providing God.— Sermon on the Mount, page 217

<idle musing>
Ouch! Indeed true, though, which is why scripture repeatedly tells us not to worry but to trust God...easy to say. Not as easy to do. But that's the true measure of our faith, isn't it?
</idle musing>

Not too popular

In looking at all these prophets, especially Elijah, we can see that they were notoriously hard to live with. Here was a man who let his faith in God cost him something. He did not go to church once a week and give an occasional donation. His was a deep and serious descent from the popular world of his day—the world of Jezebel and Ahab, and Baal, and the rest of them. His religion was a deep, radical, grave, treasonable descent; it was treasonable, because he stood against a king, albeit a wicked king.—A.W. Tozer, Voice of a Prophet, page 82

What's with the delay?

OK, here we go again. We've got Ben-Hadad coming back to battle the next year with a stronger army—fewer kings and more soldiers. Too many managers in the old one, I guess : ) Anyway, we've got this tiny little Israelite army surrounded by the Arameans—don't you love the poetic way that the Bible puts it?

Here's the rub. If the Israelite army is so outnumbered and outgunned, why do the Arameans wait seven days? You would think they would join battle right away. Again, the commentaries I consulted ignored it. Here's the text:

So in the spring of the year, Ben-hadad assembled the Arameans and marched up to Aphek to fight with Israel. Now the Israelites had already been assembled and provisioned, so they went to engage the Arameans. The Israelites camped before them like two small flocks of goats, but the Arameans filled the land.

Then the man of God came forward and said to Israel’s king, “This is what the Lord says: Because the Arameans said that the Lord is a god of the mountains but not a god of the valleys, I am handing this whole great army over to you. Then you will know that I am the Lord.”

The two armies camped opposite each other for seven days. On the seventh day, the battle began. The Israelites attacked and destroyed one hundred thousand Aramean foot soldiers in a single day. 1 Kings 20:26–29 CEB

<idle musing>
Well, I have a tentative answer (you knew that was coming, didn't you!). As I repeatedly say, in the ancient world, no battle was ever fought without consulting the gods. My theory is that the omens were bad. Bad omens, no battle.

Don't underestimate the psychological power of bad omens in the ancient world (or in the modern one, either—just take a look at the sports world...). Consider the interpretation of the Midianite dream in the story of Gideon (Judges 7:13–14); bad omen/portent = disaster.

I submit that the Arameans were waiting for good omens and the Israelites were waiting for the prophets to say it was time to attack...what do you think? Got a better idea? Just an
</idle musing>

Ever wonder about this?

I've been reading through Samuel–Kings lately. I love that section of the Old Testament; when I was a kid, I used to sit in church on Sunday mornings and read through it in my trusty RSV. But, as I was reading the other day, this struck me as strange. In 1 Kings 20:12, Ben-Hadad is drinking and he orders his men to get ready to attack—so they do. But, a bit later, they are still drinking! The commentaries I consulted don't say anything about it. Well, that's not quite true, one said that because Ahab didn't attack until around noon, they would be good and drunk. But that doesn't answer the question! Another one commented that we have Assyrian reliefs depicting drinking scenes like this. Again, it ignores the issue of why they are drinking in the first place. Here's the text:

Ben–Hadad heard this message while he and the kings were drinking in their tents, and he ordered his men: “Prepare to attack.” So they prepared to attack the city.

Meanwhile a prophet came to Ahab king of Israel and announced, “This is what the LORD says: ‘Do you see this vast army? I will give it into your hand today, and then you will know that I am the LORD.’”

“But who will do this?” asked Ahab.

The prophet replied, “This is what the LORD says: ‘The junior officers under the provincial commanders will do it.’”

“And who will start the battle?” he asked.

The prophet answered, “You will.”

So Ahab summoned the 232 junior officers under the provincial commanders. Then he assembled the rest of the Israelites,7,000 in all. They set out at noon while Ben–Hadad and the 32 kings allied with him were in their tents getting drunk. The junior officers under the provincial commanders went out first.

Now Ben–Hadad had dispatched scouts, who reported, “Men are advancing from Samaria.”

He said, “If they have come out for peace, take them alive; if they have come out for war, take them alive.”

The junior officers under the provincial commanders marched out of the city with the army behind them and each one struck down his opponent. At that, the Arameans fled, with the Israelites in pursuit. But Ben–Hadad king of Aram escaped on horseback with some of his horsemen. The king of Israel advanced and overpowered the horses and chariots and inflicted heavy losses on the Arameans. 1 Kings 20:12–21 TNIV

<idle musing>
So, here's my extremely tentative answer...Ben-Hadad checked the omens—no battle ever took place in the ancient world without checking the omens!—and the omens were good. In fact, they were so good that they decided to celebrate before the battle. Why else would Ben-Hadad be so hubristic as to tell his soldiers to take the attackers alive?

So, what do you think? Am I off the wall? Just an
</idle musing>

Words? what words?

LCCM Theory [Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models] advances the potentially controversial claim that words do not in fact have meaning. Meaning is held to be a function of an utterance, rather than a given mental representation associated with a word, or other linguistic (i.e., symbolic) unit. That is, meaning results from situated acts of communication, in which language plays a part, rather than being a discrete "thing" which can be assembled and manipulated.— How Words Mean, page 84

A comprehensive theory of atonement

In the new-covenant model I am proposing, the purpose (and actual effect) of Jesus’ death is all of the above and more, but that effect is best expressed, not in the rather narrow terms of the traditional models, but in more comprehensive and integrative terms like transformation, participation, and renewal or re-creation. The inclusion of terms like these in a discussion of atonement will seem odd to some readers, but I will introduce them because they capture the spirit of the new covenant promised by the prophets and inaugurated by Jesus’ death. It is precisely certain elements of the promised new covenant (which we will consider in the next two chapters), such as the coming of the Spirit and empowerment to fulfill the law, that are generally not considered to be aspects of atonement per se in traditional theories. This is, in part at least, why the traditional theories fall short of a fully biblical interpretation of the atonement.— The Death of the Messiah and the Birth of the New Covenant, pages 20-21

LInks to all the posts on cursing

OK, I've spread this stuff out over too many posts for it be be easy to follow, so here's a table of contents. Read it in the order that they appear if you want to follow the flow of thought. And make sure to read the comments, too. They are good.

How effective was cursing?
Divine Cursing
But it won't stick otherwise
That undeserved curse agains
More thoughts on cursing and the WOF movement
Proverbs 26:2 and the Hebrew text this is not essential to the argument and is more of a textual note than anything. Quite a bit of technical Hebrew and Greek jargon...
Final thoughts on cursing and WOF These are my final thoughts on the matter—at least for now...

Throughout this series, I've been writing about my reexamination of my theology that this book has precipitated. Well, I'm always in the process of reevaluating my theology, but this book gave a stronger kick than most. Granted, the book is highly technical; if you don't have at least a smattering of Akkadian and Hebrew (Hittite wouldn't hurt, either), most of it will go over your head. I've tried to make it accessible; I hope I've succeeded. That being said, I strongly encourage you to read the book—yes, all 500+ pages of it! Especially if you are from a Word of Faith type background. You will see the pagan underpinnings of much that you believe...

I've also battled with how much autobiographical stuff to share. I've got firsthand exposure to this. And I have good friends involved in it...I love them dearly. And I pray for them—the same prayer I pray for all: That God would reveal the fulness of himself to them and that they would walk in the power of the Holy Spirit. What better prayer can someone pray? We all need that. And so I close.

Final thoughts on cursing and WOF

Eventually, one learns that Šimei’s curse fell utterly flat and that he was never acting under Yahweh’s directive as David had feared. This the Israelites would know because David never did lose his throne to Absalom, and he was able eventually to reestablish control over his restive family. The point is transparent. Even though anyone could pronounce fierce maledictions, as did Šimei, they would mean nothing without heavenly patronage.— Cursed Are You!, page161

<idle musing>
Notice what David didn't do: he didn't call the resident ašipu and have them do a Šurpu incantation to ward off the curse! That's what would have been done in Assyria. And don't even think about Šimei's fate! It certainly wouldn't have been what it was in Israel!

Something is going on here. Something deep and theologically significant. Something that we can't grasp fully because we don't believe in the supernatural in a real way.

David is being cursed—publicly—by one of his subjects. And he takes it without retaliating or "claiming the blood" (figuratively speaking) or "breaking the power of that curse" or fretting about negative confession. Get this, because it is essential—he trusts YHWH to be his defender. He believes that if he is innocent, the curse won't get activated by YHWH—and nobody else can activate it! Only YHWH has the power to activate a curse. And he doesn't do it!

OK folks, bring this into the 21^st century. We are just as much, if not more, the heirs of the promise as David. We are filled with the Holy Spirit in a way that is deeper than David. We have access to far more truth about God than David did. And we don't trust God as much as David did! We think we have to take matters into our own hands and watch for attacks and "plead the blood" and invoke angelic protection and...oh you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, then praise God!

Do we really believe that we are seated in the heavenlies (Ephesians), that our life is hidden with Christ in God (Colossians), that we are more than conquerors through Christ (Romans)? Then why don't we act like it?

I look at the revivals of the 18^th and 19^th centuries. I don't see any strategic level warfare going on! I see prayer—deep, heartfelt prayer—but it is for the people and for God to move mightily. It isn't directed against the principalities and powers. They trusted God to take care of that!

Sure, I think they should have taken a bit more authority over the demonic. I read in Wesley's journal where they prayed over demonically possessed people for a whole night before they saw deliverance. I think they should have simply rebuked the demon as it says in the New Testament. But spiritual mapping? Nope. Sure, I think it is nice to be aware of what demonic powers are running around in an area. It helps me in my prayers—for the people! Not so I can rebuke some power or principality. Take a look at Jude. The archangel says, "May the Lord rebuke you!" Not, I rebuke you in Jesus' name. If the archangel didn't do it, what makes you think you can?

Hey, I've been involved in this stuff. I remember the first Fuller Seminary "Signs and Wonders" class. I was at Asbury Theological Seminary at the time. We were hoping Asbury would run one (by we I mean the charismatic element there at the time). I firmly believe in signs and wonders! I believe God still does that stuff. But if it doesn't result in transformed lives, then it is worthless. Worse than worthless, it is just a case of spiritual masturbation by the ones involved. It feels good, but there is no fruit. And it is addicting, just like masturbation is...

Oh, I know far more about this stuff than I care to talk about...and I'm still discovering areas that I need to throw out. My main concern is that I don't throw out the good along with the bad. Well, not really. My main concern is the people that I have taught over the years. I pray that God would keep them safe from the bad stuff and only bring to mind the good stuff. James is right, εἰδότες ὅτι μεῖζον κρίμα λημψόμεθα (knowing that we [teachers] will receive the harsher/greater judgment). Lord, have mercy!

Ok, have at it. Tear it apart. But do it only on a scriptural basis. Don't go bringing in the Acts of John—the church condemned it as heretical at an ecumenical council (it is a gnostic, docetic pseudepigraphic tale)—or some other pseudepigraphical book. Stick to scripture. And if you are of the Protestant persuasion, keep out the deuterocanonical books as well—Orthodox and Roman Catholic can use them : )
</idle musing>

We could use a dose of this

In Lystra and Philippi no less than in Athens and Ephesus, both the critiques and the reactions they evoke arise out of the identity of the God of Israel as on who is fundamentally distinct from the cosmos, or in more directly Jewish terms, who is the Creator, not the creation.—World Upside Down, page 141

Theist or deist?

Too often we believe like theists (a personal God) and act like deists (a distant, impersonal, noninteractive, uninvolved god). We say we believe in God, trust in God, and are sustained by God; but in our actions we do everything for ourselves, trusting in ourselves and anxious about the providence of God, which unravels our theism. We believe that God not only gives life but is life itself, and that belief means that every breath we take and every moment of life we live comes from and is sustained by the creator God. Without venturing into pantheism (all is God) or a softer version in panentheism (God is in all), the Christian faith affirms that all of life in the entire cosmos is from God and is sustained by God. God, then, is actively at work in all of life.— Sermon on the Mount, pages 215-216

<idle musing>
Amen! Good preaching! Are we practicing atheists? or are we truly theistic in our actions and thoughts?

I fear that far to often we are atheists—or at best deists. Lord, deliver us!
</idle musing>

Tozer on a windy Wednesday

What is desperately needed in the church today are men and women who are so obsessed with God that only God matters. I am tired of the toys and jingle-bell-boys and all of the entertainment from the world being siphoned into the church to try to entertain the church. If we can be entertained, then we have not truly experienced the conscious presence of God. We have not met the mysterium tremendum that will separate us from all other appetites and will give us such an obsession for God that only God matters.—A.W. Tozer, Voice of a Prophet, page 70

Say that again...

Word meanings cannot be pinned dow, as if they were dead insects. Instead, they flutter around elusively like live butterflies.—Jean Aitchison as cited in How Words Mean, page 65

Proverbs 26:2 and the Hebrew text

In a comment the other day, David pointed out that there is a qere/ketiv in Prov 26:2. For those of you who don't what that means, it means that the Hebrew text has the consonants of one word but a "footnote" that says it really should be a different word. Ketiv means "written" and qere means "spoken", so you say what the footnote says even though the text is different. The Masoretes were not willing to change the text, even when it was obviously wrong, so they developed this system. But the ketiv isn't always wrong, so each one has to be evaluated separately...

I checked the two most recent versions of the Hebrew Bible that I have, Biblia Hebraica Quinta and SBL's new Hebrew Bible Critical Edition.

BHQ didn't comment on it in the textual commentary, so I looked at the HBCE—I realize that most of you can't do that yet, but being the copyeditor does have a few advantages! : ) Here's what Michael Fox says:

לא 26:2 M^K MK G (οὐδενί) ≈ S (ܦܗܝܐ) T (לא) ]
לוֹ M^Q ≈ V (in quempiam) (aur)
G οὐκ ... οὐδενί is a double translation of the ketiv. V in quempiam (“on someone”) = M^Q. S’s ܦܗܝܐ (“go astray”) ≈ לא תבא = M^K. The ketiv is correct, since the analogies (a wandering bird, a flying sparrow) exemplify not coming (to a particular goal) rather than coming to someone. Also, לו has no relevant antecedent. However, a scribe may have thought that the noun “curse” implies an actant (a curser), and it is to him that the curse would return (as in Ps 109:17).

So what exactly does all that gobble de gook mean? : )

The ketiv, which is what the Septuagint (LXX) followed—as do most modern translations—says that an undeserved curse will not come to rest. In fact, the LXX goes so far as to make it emphatic by using a double negative, which Fox calls a double translation; personally, I think it is an intentional over-translation : ) The qere, on the other hand, is saying that an undeserved curse will return to the one who sent it forth! That is, it will come to rest on him where him is the implied originator. Grammatically shaky, at best, which is why Fox and most modern translations go with the ketiv. But, it does point out that the ancients were aware of the dangers of a thoughtless curse...witness Enkidu's worries from yesterday's post.

Isn't knowing all these languages fun!?