Obedience? Or politics?

In the first book of Samuel, the sea-people represent in some sense Israel’s fear. Thus, one of the central issues of chap. 7, as in so many other passages of the Old Testament, is the issue of trust. In whom does Israel put their trust? The foreign gods of a technologically more advanced people, a tangible symbol such as the ark, or their covenant God who delivered their fathers from Egypt? The reader knows from chaps. 4–6 that Philistine power rests on idolatrous loyalties that cannot save. Israel has little choice than to take refuge in Yhwh. Samuel’s intercession is in some sense detached from the world of warfare and politics, it is an act of obedience and courage in the face of a real danger and threat.—Standing in the Breach, page 188

He will hear!

Samuel’s intercessory prayer is emphasized by the comment that he cried out to Yhwh on behalf of Israel. This time, it is not the people who cry out in the face of danger (cf. 1 Sam 12:10, Ps 107), but their mediator. Here we find employed the most fundamental terminology to describe the dynamics of intercessory prayer: Israel urged Samuel not to cease to cry out to the Lord for them. Samuel cried out to Yhwh on behalf of Israel and Yhwh answered him (1 Sam 7:9). Miller argues that not only is the cry from trouble and suffering “one of the thematic threads of the Scriptures,” but so is the certainty that God will “hear and respond to that outcry.”—Standing in the Breach, page 184

A recurring theme

After Samuel disappeared from the biblical text for more than two chapters, he finally reappears in the narrative without introduction (1 Sam 7:3). Back on the scene, Samuel demands three things of Israel: (1) that they remove all foreign gods and turn radically from idolatry (2) that they renew their commitment to Yhwh (3) that they serve Yhwh alone (1 Sam 7:3). Samuel’s postulations echo Moses’ covenant faith as we find it expressed in Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 6:4–5, 10:12–22). Thus, Samuel affirms the core claim of Mosaic covenantal faith: to turn (שוב [shuv]) from idolatry and to recommit themselves wholeheartedly to Yhwh. Only then, God will deliver them from the oppression of the Philistines.—Standing in the Breach, page 179

What was he doing all night?

[First Samuel] Chapter 15, among other things, illustrates what Samuel meant when he declared that he, as a prophet, considers it as sin (חטא [ḥt']) against the Lord not to intercede for those entrusted to him (1 Sam 12:23). In characteristic fashion, the prophet is not only informed about Yhwh’s intention but is also commissioned to deliver the will of God (cf. Amos 3:7). In this case, Samuel is sent to inform Saul that God has rejected him as king because of his disobedience. In response to Yhwh’s strict words, Samuel spends the entire night in prayer with the Lord (1 Sam 15:11). Chapter 15 raises issues of great theological delicacy, such as the power and discernment of genuine repentance, election, and covenant obedience, divine mutability, and the limits of prophetic intercession.—Standing in the Breach, page 177

<idle musing>
What was Samuel doing all night? Another model of what a true prophet looks like. He's given a message to deliver, but before he delivers it, he spends the whole night interceding, asking God to be merciful—at least that's how I read it, based on Samuel's comment in 1 Sam 12:23. That doesn't seem to be the way some of these so-called prophets work today.

Even if you can get them to say anything other than "God will bless you with abundant material blessings," all they will do is stand on a hill and pronounce curses.

I know of exceptions, real prophets who almost sweat blood interceding, but they are the exception, not the rule.
</idle musing>

It's in your hands

We have seen that Moses’ intercessory activity enabled Israel to make a new start. But ultimately, it is the people’s choice that will determine their future (the same dynamic is found in Numbers 13–14, where after a temporary pardon, it is up to the new generation whether they want to follow Yhwh or not). As faithful mediator, Moses stands in the breach before Yhwh in order to obtain pardon for them. He does not stop there, for with prophetic vigor equal to when he defended the people before God, Moses admonishes the people to change their sinful ways and recommit themselves to God and His ways (cf. Deut 10:12–20). This twofold ministry of representing the people before Yhwh and of representing Yhwh before the people is reminiscent of the later prophets. In fact, both aspects mark the genuine prophet (cf. 1 Sam 12:23; Jer 27:18; Ezek 13:5, 22:30).—Standing in the Breach, page 170

<idle musing>
This is beginning to sound like a refrain, isn't it? The intercessor stands in the gap, then rebukes the people. If the people respond in repentance, i.e., they change their hearts and their ways, then judgment doesn't fall.
</idle musing>

High standards

The narrative states several times that God was going to destroy Israel (cf. Deut 9:8, 14, 19, 20). It was only through Moses’ sacrificial and persistent prayer that YHWH showed mercy, changed His annihilative intensions, and renewed the covenant with them (Deut 9:19, 10:10; cf. Exod 32:10–14, Ps 106:23). Thus, the theology of this narrative seems to suggest that God’s grace and mercy must first be invoked and claimed in prayer (Exod 34:6–9). Not just by anyone, but by a faithful mediator.—Standing in the Breach, page 170

<idle musing>
OK, you "name it and claim it" people: There's the standard. Can you meet it?

I suspect not, because the goals of most are self-centered, not God-centered. You can't be a faithful intercessor without being God-centered. And if you are God-centered, the only things you want to claim are ones that will bring the maximum glory to God, not to self. And that basically disqualifies 99% of what most people in the U.S. want.
</idle musing>

Ouch! That hurts

Just ran across a (longish) post that attempts to explain why 81% of self-identifying evangelicals voted for, and largely continue to support, the current POTUS.

Donald Trump is what we evangelicals already are, or at least are becoming. It explains why he is so supported among us. Even after a cavalcade of circus-like activity coming from the White House since his inauguration, he still retains his support. Why? Why not, I say, if he matches what we actually value. We love entertainment, ourselves, power, and money. Trump gives us those things. We need to admit it. We love these values even more than the Son of God they obscure behind them. We might fill out surveys and claim differently, but we don’t live that way.

<idle musing>
Ouch! Unfortunately, as he points out in the main body of the post, it is true. The keynotes of traditional Evangelicalism of the 18th through mid-20th century (as highlighted by Bebbington) have been eclipsed by the love of self, which manifests itself in the love of entertainment, power, and money. The exact opposite of what conversion used to mean.

Lord, have mercy! Bring revival to your church!
</idle musing>

Moses as a type

The twofold prophetic role anticipates Jesus’ life and ministry. As one who is part of the divine council, he speaks with divine authority (Matt 5:21–22; John 5:19–30, 12:49–50, 17:8). As for Jesus’ intercessory prayer, as one who was tested in every way, yet without sin, Jesus can advocate on behalf of humanity in a unique way before the throne of God (cf. Heb 4:15, John 17).—Standing in the Breach, page 168

Why?

Moses speaks to the people as one who has intimate knowledge of Yhwh’s nature and purposes. Not only does his prophetic utterance presuppose intimate knowledge of the divine, but Moses’ intercessory prayer also testifies to a deep understanding of Yhwh’s attributes and plan. The intercessor can influence the divine decision-making and rebuke the people with divine authority because he has a “place” at the divine council (cf. Exod 24:2–4, 15–18; Deut 5:27, 31).—Standing in the Breach, page 168

No, it's more than that!

Often the prophet’s prime or sole responsibility is mistakenly perceived as receiving and communicating God’s words (judgment or salvation), but the biblical picture of the prophetic office is clearly twofold. It entails both the communication of God’s will and the representation of the people’s concerns before God. The prophets usually spoke with as much fervor and zeal to the Lord in prayer as to the people in judgment oracles. The reality of judgment and threat usually go hand in hand with intercessory prayer. Only the office of the prophet allows for this dialectic role.—Standing in the Breach, page 167

<idle musing>
If there is one thing you take away from reading this book, this is it. Prophets don't primarily foretell or even forthtell. Prophets primarily intercede.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I have so much of a problem with the current rage of "personal prophecy." Where's the intercession? How can you intercede when all you ever prophecy is "good stuff?" It reminds me of the false prophets in Jeremiah.

Of course, it didn't end so well for Hananiah, did it? (See Jeremiah 28.) Just an
</idle musing>

Me, at book exhibits

This is me, at book exhibits (ARC = Advance Reading Copies)

You've got to go there to see the whole thing...

Fix it!

Restoring a breached wall by doing righteous community work is a longterm process. When the hour of destruction is advancing, it is the prophets’ duty to stand temporarily in the breach in prayer, before the gradual process of restoring the divine-human relation can begin. Deuteronomy 9–10 gives exactly expression to this dynamic. First, in prophetic fashion, Moses draws attention to Israel’s sin by shattering the covenant tablets (Deut 9:15) and hastens to defend the breached wall from YHWH’s destructive wrath (“For I was afraid that the anger that the Lord bore against you was so fierce that he would destroy you” Deut 9:19). After having successfully fended off the first attack (Deut 10:10–11), the mediator urges Israel to repair the wall by recommitting themselves to fear YHWH and to love their neighbor (Deut 10:12–22).—Standing in the Breach, page 166

<idle musing>
Indeed. That's one reason I have a problem with "declaring the powers bound" thinking. If there is no repentance, you can rebuke demons all day long and it won't have any effect. Repentance is essential to repair the walls. Yes, we need to stand in the breach as intercessors, but we also need to call people to repentance—and live lives that reflect holiness ourselves!

I like how the CEB translates repentance: change your hearts and minds. Too often in the US Evangelical community, conversion has been nothing more than a change of mind. No change in behavior, just a mental assent to a set of beliefs.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. That's selling out the biblical definition for cheap grace, easy believism. I'm with the early Anabaptists here: no change in lifestyle equals no salvation. That's one reason Wesley organized his converts into bands and societies: to keep people accountable and to promote "scriptural holiness throughout the land." We could do a lot worse—and are : (
</idle musing>

Judgment will catch up!

[E]ven after their most grievous offense was pardoned, they continued to be rebellious (cf. Deut 9:22–24). The continuous intercessory activity of Moses indicates, however, that his prayer, though powerful and effective, provides only a temporary solution to Israel’s predicament. It appears that Moses’ summons to a change of heart suggests itself as a more permanent solution to Israel’s rebelliousness. Their stubbornness, in the long run, can only be remedied through circumcision of heart (Deut 10:16), a metaphor for an inner renewal of the covenant relationship, a decisive act of committed obedience.—Standing in the Breach, page 165

<idle musing>
At the risk of overextending the application of this, I would say we're on the same path in this country...there's a limit to what intercession can do. At some point, individuals have to decide whether they want God or not. Contrary to what some think, you do reap what you sow. And violence always begets violence, just as hatred always begets hatred.

Unfortunately, the current evidence is that the choice is "not."

But we are called to pray anyway.
</idle musing>

Faithfulness hurts

The fact that YHWH responds favorably to Moses’ threefold appeal reveals not only that mercy depends on YHWH’s character and His promises but also that God allows Himself to be persuaded by His faithful servant to let love triumph over justice. This is not to deny the fact that YHWH has the freedom of disciplining His rebellious son, but the outcome of Moses’ prayer strongly suggests that one of the central purposes of Israel’s election is God’s commitment to fellowship with His people. This is a commitment that in times of rebellion costs Him dearly.—Standing in the Breach, page 163

The stakes are high

In spite of the fact that Israel has been obstinate and rebellious from the moment of birth (Isa 48:4; cf. Deut 9:7, 24), YHWH is determined to glorify Himself by delivering Israel from exile and thereby show once again that He is God of gods (cf. Isa 52:5–6). This is a costly undertaking on God’s part because the restoration and preservation of God’s name (and covenant) is ultimately only possible by way of self-sacrificial commitment to His people. Thus, it has become clear that Moses raises a problem, which reaches to the very heart of God’s internal dilemma. How is one to consolidate divine justice with divine grace and loving commitment? There is no way that one can or should try to resolve this tension because it belongs to the very essence of God’s being (cf. Exod 34:6–7, Num 14:18). The fact, that YHWH allows, even invites, Moses to participate in this dilemma in faithful prayer speaks volumes for YHWH’s solidarity for His people. We have seen that Moses at no point excuses or belittles Israel’s rebellion and disobedience, but he juxtaposes it with YHWH’s history of loving and faithful commitment to them and with the fact that YHWH’s name would be at stake if Israel were annihilated.—Standing in the Breach, pages 161–62

Where does the punctuation go?

In John 1:3–4, that is. Is there a stop at the end of verse 3? Or does it come at the end of the phrase, with the relative pronoun and participle going with verse 4?

Here's the Greek:
3 πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων·

I had never noticed it before, but NA27 (and I assume NA28) have the stop before the relative pronoun. Here's what Metzger says:

1.3-4 οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν {B}

Should the words ὃ γέγονεν be joined with what goes before or with what follows? The oldest manuscripts (P66, 75* א* A B) have no punctuation here, and in any case the presence of punctuation in Greek manuscripts, as well as in versional and patristic sources, cannot be regarded as more than the reflection of current exegetical understanding of the meaning of the passage.

A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took ὃ γέγονεν with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take ὃ γέγονεν with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical use of the passage.

Interestingly, Metzger disagreed with the Committee

[On the other hand, however, none of these arguments is conclusive and other considerations favor taking ὃ γέγονεν with the preceding sentence. Thus, against the consideration of the so-called Page 168 rhythmical balance (which after all is present in only a portion of the Prologue, and may not necessarily involve ὃ γέγονεν) must be set John’s fondness for beginning a sentence or clause with ἐν and a demonstrative pronoun (cf. 13.35; 15.8; 16.26; 1 Jn 2.3, 4, 5; 3.10, 16, 19, 24; 4.2, etc.). It was natural for Gnostics, who sought support from the Fourth Gospel for their doctrine of the origin of the Ogdoad, to take ὃ γέγονεν with the following sentence (“That which has been made in him was life” – whatever that may be supposed to mean). It is more consistent with the Johannine repetitive style, as well as with Johannine doctrine (cf. 5.26, 39; 6.53), to say nothing concerning the sense of the passage, to punctuate with a full stop after ὃ γέγονεν. B.M.M.]

So, the CEB translates it thus:

3 Everything came into being through the Word,
and without the Word
nothing came into being.
What came into being
4 through the Word was life,
and the life was the light for all people.

Not sure which I prefer, but it does make one pause to think...

The tension

The covenant relationship, by its very nature, makes certain demands on both sides of the party (Deut 26–30), by which life and blessing can be gained or lost depending on the human response. Childs helpfully comments: “Election was not a privilege to be enjoyed, but a calling to be pursued.” [fn: Childs, Biblical, 445. He draws attention to the fact that the same tension is still found in Romans 9–11, particularly 11:22: “Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.”] … there is a tension between Israel’s special status and the breached covenant. This dynamic is clearly in the background of Moses’ prayer. The Scriptures witness to this subtle but fundamental tension between election and covenant. On the one hand, YHWH, in sovereign love, choses people on His own initiative. This divine call is unchangeable because it depends on God’s loyalty. On the other hand, the chosen people have entered a covenant relationship that requires obedience. It is a real relationship that depends on both covenant people and covenant God. This dynamic tension cannot and should not be resolved because it is the dynamics of love.—Standing in the Breach, pages 152–53

Slaves, but freed ones

YHWH’s legal claim to the ownership of Israel is based on His act of sovereign redemption. The verb פדה carries the sense of ransoming an enslaved party. Hence, on one level an acquisition of slaves has taken place, and on another level, Israel does not remain merely a “material” property which changed its owner, because the verb פדה is closely associated with the ֵgō'ēl (“redeemer”). In other words, YHWH is portrayed not as slave trader but as faithful and generous redeemer who ransomed Israel from bondage. There might even be a sense that the redeemer is obliged to ransom his near of kin, that is, His son (cf. Exod 4:23).—Standing in the Breach, page 149

Booklust

I just saw this at Evangelical Text Criticism.

A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-Based Genealogical Method
Tommy Wasserman, Peter J. Gurry

Must get! By the way, go to the Evangelical Text Criticism blog and vote for the cover. I chose B

It's a lonely road

This act of humble self-abasement does not only come as a sharp contrast to Israel’s rebellious attitude, but also raises the question of why Moses would do this. After all, he has just condemned Israel’s behavior by shattering the covenant tablets? This brings us back to the twofold role of the prophet. On the one hand, he confronts and rebukes the people’s sin with divine authority, and on the other hand, he entreats YHWH with reverent boldness on behalf of the people. This puts the mediator in an uncomfortable position, as he is caught up between announcing judgment and pleading with YHWH for mercy and pardon in an act of costly intercession. Muffs comments, “Only boundless spiritual bravery allows the prophet to suffer the great loneliness of one who stands in the breach and at the same time to call on the people that does not listen.” [Muffs, Love and Joy, 32].—Standing in the Breach, pages 142–43

<idle musing>
A.W. Tozer said that it was a lonely road to travel for those who were totally sold out to God. Moses is one of the first to exemplify that. Later prophets will travel the same road—think of Jeremiah!
</idle musing>