Epiginoskein

I wonder...

2010-02-27T12:11:00.001-08:00

I've been blogging for close to five years now, and I am starting to wonder if it is worth my while. Originally, I intended to use my blog as an opportunity to keep my writing sharp while I prepared for seminary. I do think it was helpful in that regard. However, now that I'm in a PhD program, I find myself having less time and less of a desire to blog.

My thinking on this is threefold:

First, blogging in general is dangerous. It is easy to publish stuff without a great deal of thought. This really came home to me this past week. I watched people publish inappropriate material and have it hurt them or other people. Inappropriate material comes in all forms and types. It is not just the "rants" that I am thinking of right now. I am also thinking of sandbagging other scholars without reading their books, publishing material that was not intended to be public, etc. Because there is no peer review process, it is simply too easy to do this sort of thing, and once it is out there with your name on it, it's out there.

Imagine a future employer googling your name and discovering one of your less careful posts. I've seen this sort of thing happen.

Second, academic blogging can also be dangerous. Once you have put your ideas out there, anyone can pick them up and claim them as their own. This is why I have become more and more reticent about publishing my thoughts on the Hebrew Bible, New Testament, etc. I may want to use some of my work in my dissertation, but if I put it out there ahead of time, it is possible that someone might steal my idea. I know I sound paranoid, but I think caution is in order.

Third, I have become somewhat cynical about blogging. Many bloggers (myself included) can easily develop an inflated sense of scholarly worth based on sub-par work ("Hey everyone! Look how many hits I got on that post! I must be amazing!"). Similarly, much that passes as blogging is basically a modified form of academic narcissism ("I did this today... I read this..."). I wonder how many people really want to know what I've been reading.

Perhaps I am being too hard on the medium, but I am seriously considering putting my blog to bed. If anyone has any thoughts/arguments on why I should continue blogging, feel free to comment. I haven't officially decided yet, but I am leaning towards stopping.

Dooyeweerd, Derrida, (and Vanhoozer... Sort of)

2010-02-07T13:08:00.000-08:00

The other day I was rereading some of Herman Dooyeweerd's Prolegomena to his A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, when I came across Dooyeweerd's most famous paragraph (trust me, it's worth it to read beyond the fold!):

"This universal character of referring and expressing, which is proper to our entire created cosmos, stamps created reality as meaning, in accordance with its dependent non-self-sufficient nature. Meaning is the being of all that has been created and the nature even of our selfhood. It has a religious root and a divine origin." (I:4)

Given that I've also been reading Kevin Vanhoozer's discussion of Derrida (in his Is There a Meaning in This Text?), I find this paragraph more striking than ever. While deconstructionism is busy suggesting that everything is a text subject to the vicissitudes of interpretation (and thus always lacks meaning), Dooyeweerd (who, incidentally, agrees with post-modernity about the naivete of Enlightenment epistemologies) begins his work with an appeal to God as the source of all meaning. I find this very telling. For Dooyeweerd the cosmos itself is inherently meaningful because God has spoken it into existence. Likewise, reality is stamped with dependence. Apart from God's activity, reality lacks existence and meaning. Because of this divine origin, Dooyeweerd can presuppose the meaningfulness of being and of writing because there is something (Dooyeweerd would say, "Someone") beyond the boundaries of created reality.

Vanhoozer has commented time and again in his book on how deconstructionism begins with the assumption that God, and thus the "author," is dead. As a result deconstructionists complain that any attempt to find "meaning" in a text via the "author" is nothing more than a power play. Indeed, to the deconstructionist any attempt to differentiate between a "good" reading or a "bad" reading of a text is inherently oppressive and authoritarian. Readers (in this view) should be allowed to play freely with a text, creatively constructing their own meaning.

Now, at a certain level, I can sympathize (and even agree) with the deconstructionists' point, but at another level, this all feels like a teenage temper tantrum to me: "How dare you tell me what to do! You're destroying my life with all of your rules! What right do you have to come in here and tell me how to live my life?" I'm not trying to trivialize someone like Derrida's concerns, but every now and then all the talk about getting rid of the "authoritarian author" strikes me as a tad childish. I realize that if there is no God left in the universe, then there can be no final arbiter of interpretation. Yet, if one starts with the assumption of God's initial and continual creative activity, it is hard not to conclude that certain aspects of deconstructionism (nota bene: I said "CERTAIN" aspects) are little more than an expression of fallen humanity's resistance to submission to the Divine Author.

In summary, then, it would seem that a philosophical system like Dooyeweerd's would stand directly opposed to some of the central assumptions of deconstructionism.

Luther's works...

2010-02-06T13:08:00.000-08:00

Today I picked up the 4 volume set of the Selected Writings of Martin Luther (1517-1546) edited by Theodore Tappert and published by Fortress Press for $10 at Half Priced Books here in Ft. Worth! Talk about a deal! While I'm not a Lutheran, I think that this should be a fine investment.

4QInstruction Fragment 2, Column iii...

2010-01-28T17:49:00.000-08:00

For those of you who wonder what I spend hours a day doing as a PhD student, this is proof that I'm not twiddling my thumbs :).

Below the fold are the first seven lines (with one word from the 8th to finish the sentence) of the third column of fragment 2 of 4Q416 (i.e., 4QInstruction, one of the Qumran Sectarian Documents) with my glosses and parsing provided. This section of text is much more coherent than the previous, and thus provides easier reading.

4Q416 f2iii:1‏ [וכ°ל -- ]כ֯ה֯
1. [...] of you

‏ וזכור כי ראש אתה֯ [ -- . ]° ומחסורכה
2. Remember (> 2ms Qal Imperative, זכר) that you are poor [...] and your poverty

‏ לוא תמצא ובמעלכה ת°°°[ -- ]°יׄם פ֯ו֯קד לכה
3. You will (or shall) not find (> 2ms Qal YQTL, מצא), and in your treachery you... [...] ... being entrusted (> 3ms Pual QTL, פקד) to you.

‎‏ אל תשלח ידכה בו פן תכוהׄ [ו]בׄאשו תבער גויתכה. כׄאׄ[שר לקח]ת֯וׄ כן השיבהו
4. You shall not put forth (> 2ms Qal YQTL, שלח) your hand into it lest it is scorched (> 3fs Niphal YQTL, כוה) [and] your body is burned (> 3fs Niphal YQTL, בער) with fire. Just [as you to]ok it (> 2ms Qal QTL, לקח), thus you shall return it (> 2ms Hiphil Imperative, שוב).

‎‏ ושמחה לכה אם תנקה ממנו. וגם מכל איש אשר לוא ידעׄתה אל תקח הון
5. And you will have joy if you are innocent (> 2ms Niphal YQTL, נקה) of it. Also, from any man whom you do not know (> 2ms Qal QTL, ידע), you shall not take (> 2ms Qal YQTL, לקח) wealth.

‎‏ פן יוסיף על ריׄשכה. ואם שמו בראוׄש֯כ֯ה למות הפקידהו ורוחכה אל תחבל
6. Lest he (or it) add (> 3ms Hiphil YQTL, יסף) to your poverty. But if he places it (> 3ms Qal QTL, שים) in your top place (?) until death, entrust it (i.e., deposit it > 2ms Hiphil Imperative, פקד), and you will not ruin (> 2ms Piel YQTL, חבל) your spirit with it (or perhaps "your spirit will not be ruined (> 3fs Qal YQTL) with it"--However, this would seem to be a problematic use of אל. Cf., Williams, §401-405.)

‏ בו. ואז תשכב עם האמת ובמותכה יפר֯[ח לעו]ל֯ם זכרכה ואחריתכה תנחל
7. And then you shall lie down (> 2ms Qal YQTL, שכב) with the truth (or "the mothers"), and in your death (or "when you die" if participle or infinitive), your memory will spr[out (or blossom > 3ms Qal YQTL, פרח) for etern]ity, and your future lot (or "your end of days"--perhaps eschatological overtones. See BDB, s.v.) will inherit (> 3fs Qal YQTL, נחל) joy (from line 8).

Qumran lines for the fun of it...

2010-01-22T14:18:00.000-08:00

Just for the fun of it, I thought I'd post some of the stuff I'm translating in my Qumran class. Below the fold is the first four lines/verses from a scroll found in the 4th cave at Qumran. Anything in brackets has been reconstructed (in these four lines that's about everything). Keep in mind that the text is in fragments (that's why it does not make sense). Part of the reason why this particular text is in such poor shape is because it was the outside layer of this scroll (4QInstruction) and thus it suffered more from moisture, insects, etc. than the inner layers (i.e., what comes later):

4Q416 f2i:
1 ‏ [ -- לב]לׄתיׄ
‎2 ‏ [...ואיש עול אל תחשוב עזר וגמ אין שונא ...]ל֯תיׄ
‎3 ‏ [... רשע מעשיו עם פקדתו ודע במה תתהלך עמו ...]°קהׄ ‎
4 ‏ [... אל תמיש מלבכה ואל לכה לבדכה תרחב נפשכ]ה בׄראשכה.

My gloss/translation:
1. To not...
2. [... and you shall not consider (or think) a man of injustice a help, nor (or "and also" + negative) shall there be one hating...]...
3. [... the wickedness of his deeds with his punishment. And know in what way you should walk with him...]
4. [... You shall not depart from your heart, and do not broaden your soul for yourself alone (i.e., don't be greedy)] in your poverty.

It is odd translating fragments of a text. Without context it is difficult to know what is going on. Another thing of interest is the fact that none of the Hebrew (or Aramaic) has any vowel pointing. This makes it intriguing to observe the various readings people will come up with.

Take for example an earlier fragment in this same text (4Q415 f9:1):

7. [-- יחד ממשל זכר את נׄ[קבה
8. [--]רוחה המשל בה כ֯

One could translate it a few different ways depending on the vocalization (i.e., what vowels you add where):

7. together dominion, male with fe[male...]
together from a proverb, male with fe[male...]
together, male dominating fe[male...] (this is Florentino Garcia Martinez's reading)

8. Cause her spirit to have dominion within her...
her spirit. Have dominion over her... (Martinez's reading)
her spirit of the proverb is in her like...
her spirit. The proverb is with/in her like...

I liked my second vocalization of 7 (i.e., the "proverb" one); however, within context it probably does not work given the problems it causes for line 8 (i.e., one would have to go with the 3rd or 4th translations of line 8 to be consistent, and they seem a bit awkward, and translation 3 may actually not work--I'm not sure the first noun in a construct chain is allowed to have a pronominal suffix on it... Though apparently it occurs in Gen. 9:24 (בנו הקטן)).

All of this gives you a sense of how much wiggle room there is in some of this work. Nonetheless, this does not mean all readings are created equal. Some are definitely better than others.

Spurgeon quote....

2010-01-13T09:49:00.000-08:00

I just ran across this great quote from Spurgeon:

"If anyone asked me if I believed in perfect men, I should have to say that I have seen too many of them to believe in them."

An All-round Ministry, 211.

My personal pet peeve... The Young, Restless, and Reformed are NOT Neo-Calvinists!

2010-01-08T11:28:00.000-08:00

Okay... So I was reading a blog post about ecumenism between Protestants and Catholics in Germany during WWII. At the end of the post, the author references how he wished "neo-calvinists" and emergents could learn to get along better.

I assume by "neo-calvinist" that he meant those who are big followers of John Piper, Mark Driscoll, etc. (basically the "young, restless, and Reformed" group).

I have heard people thoughtlessly throw this label out before, and it just galls me. Piper, Driscoll, and all of the hip Calvinists are not (I repeat, NOT) neo-Calvinists. Neo-Calvinism as a movement originated in the Netherlands in the late 19th, early 20th century out of the work of Abraham Kuyper. It continued on in the philosophical work of Herman Dooyeweerd and Dirk Vollenhoven. Today, the movement continues on in the work of people like Al Wolters, Sylvia Keesmaat, the late (?) Gordon Spykman, Roy Clouser, and others. In addition, at least three institutions of higher learning here in North America are decidedly in this tradition: Dordt College, Redeemer University College (Ancaster, ON Canada), and the Institute for Christian Studies (which has strayed a bit from its roots, but that's a different story).

The central tenets of neo-Calvinism include a strong conviction that Christ's lordship extends over all of creation (and thus, all lawful callings are good and Christ-honoring--i.e., pastors, missionaries, theologians, etc. don't have a leg up on anyone), a suspicion of dualistic theoretical constructs and categories (especially Platonic influences within the Christian faith), an affirmation of creation as structurally good but able (through human sin) to be misdirected (vs. again Gnostic/Platonic versions of Christianity which devalue the "material" world), and a determination to think Christianly about all things (politics, biology, ethics, agriculture, etc.). (And yes, N.T. Wright has been influenced by neo-Calvinism--I always find it intriguing listening to people trying to figure out where he gets his antipathy towards Gnosticism, etc.)

While Piper, Driscoll, et al. may be in favor of many of these things, they work out of a very different stream of Calvinism. Their heroes tend to arise from British and Puritan Calvinism which has some significant differences with its continental counterpart (for one thing it tends to be heavily dependent upon Scottish Common Sense philosophy). Perhaps, it would be more accurate to refer to them as Neo-Puritan (though that term may be taken already as well! :).

In any event, the next time you hear someone say something about these "neo-calvinists," ask them who they are referring to and chide them (gently) for being sloppy in applying labels.

Again, let's be perfectly clear. The Young, Restless, and Reformed are NOT "neo-calvinists!" Sorry, but the name has already been taken. We neo-Calvinists have already had it for the last century or so.

Okay, so that's my personal pet peeve :)

Story as Torah...

2009-12-23T12:12:00.000-08:00

In his book Story as Torah, Gordon Wenham sets out to propose a methodology for reading Old Testament narratives ethically. Wenham points out that Jewish and Christian interpreters have always done this in their attempts to "instill ethical principles in their hearers" (1). While I'm unsure about looking for "models" or "examples" in biblical narratives to imitate (cf. Sidney Greidanus' book Sola Scriptura which critiques the "we-need-to-have-courage-like-David" approach to scripture), I think Wenham is correct to underscore the moral/ethical worldview of the implied author (i.e., the author that the real author projects into the text). Surely as part of a normative text, the narratives contained in the Torah have ethical goals for their readers. (Again, to avoid a moralistic emphasis, I'm using the term "ethical" in a deliberatively broad way--i.e., encompassing core beliefs which create certain patterns and habits of behavior.)

Having just started the book, I look forward to seeing how Wenham works out and applies his methodology. In the meantime, I thought I would share a wonderful little quote from chapter 3 where Wenham is busy dealing with the rhetorical features of Genesis. Speaking of the similarities between Adam and Noah in the narrative, Wenham writes:

[After the flood] It is not long before the ubiquity of sin is illustrated. The blameless Noah falls victim to the fruit of the vine. The ironic similarities to and differences from Adam's eating of another fruit show that we are dealing with another fall. For example, whereas Adam's fruit made him aware of his nakedness so that he tried to cover it up, Noah's fruit led him to uncover himself unwittingly. As in Adam's case the son's behaviour is even more reprehensible than the father's and leads to dissension among the three brothers. And just as Cain's descendants appear to be the ungodly line in Genesis 4, Ham's descendant Canaan is cursed by Noah.

This is a wonderful insight into the text. While many people catch the New Adam language surrounding the flood, etc., I don't think I have heard anyone outline all of the other ironic similarities and dissimilarities.

Wyoming upsets Fresno State!!!!

2009-12-19T20:31:00.000-08:00

My team actually won!!!!!

Pratt on interpreting as Christians...

2009-12-18T16:57:00.000-08:00

As someone who will seek ordination after finishing my studies, I am extremely interested in how one can apply biblical scholarship within an ecclesiastical setting. This is especially true of preaching. I am always thinking about how my studies in the Hebrew Bible can be fruitful in the pulpit.

One of the key issues with preaching the Hebrew Bible is how to interpret/apply it as Christians. Too often we moralize its stories and lift up certain characters as models of good or bad behavior. Ironically, in doing so we often forget to make the most important hermeneutical move that we can make as Christians: bringing the Hebrew Bible into contact with the person and work of Jesus Christ. As Christians, by definition we think that the world, time, reality, etc. all revolve around Jesus. Yet when we seek to apply the stories of the Hebrew Bible, it is easy to sidestep the Messiah and draw some homiletical analogy between Ancient Israel's situation and our own. While that's all fine and good as it goes, such is not a distinctly Christian move.

Let me explain with a brief example from my own preaching experience. Early in my seminary career, I preached a sermon on Jacob and Laban's argument at Mizpah (Gen. 31). Following good procedure, I sent a recording of it to my pastoral mentor. A couple of weeks later, I got a call from him, and he was full of praise. Phrases like "well done" came out quickly, but after this short burst of praise, he paused and said, "However, there's one thing that bothers me about this sermon. You only mentioned Jesus once, as something of an add on. Minus that one place you could have preached this entire sermon in a synagogue." He then went on to encourage me to always make Christ central in all of my sermons.

Initially, I was not quite sure what to think of this comment. At one level, I understood where he was coming from, but on another level I kept thinking, "But isn't it eisegesis to cram Jesus into every passage?" Looking back now on this incident a few years later with (hopefully) a bit more perspective and wisdom, I think understand now what my mentor was saying. My preaching professors at Calvin Seminary used to say it best: "We do not preach a text. We preach the gospel of Jesus Christ." Now, to be sure one can easily abuse this principle. One has only to think of the ghastly "Jesus-is-the-answer-to-every-question" kind of sermons. Nonetheless, as Christians we confess that Jesus Messiah is the center of history, the One that the Hebrew Scriptures anticipate. Thus, our preaching must reflect this if it is to be distinctly Christian.

Yet the question still remains: how does one do this without succumbing to shallow "Jesus-is-the-answer" cliches? Richard Pratt, Jr. in his book He Gave Us Stories offers a helpful suggestion. He writes:

In much the same way, the lordship of Christ colors everything we read in Old Testament stories. The basic Christian confession "Jesus is Lord" (Romans 10:9; 1 Corinthians 12:3) forms a pivotal hermeneutical consideration whenever we direct these texts to modern life. Christ brought the world into existence (Colossians 1:16); He sustains it day by day (Colossians 1:17); He is the end of all things (Romans 11:36). As followers of Christ, we must strive to see how every Old Testament narrative reveals His lordship over us. Every application is a personal response to Christ Himself.

How can we make Christ the center of our applications? Interconnections between the original meaning of Old Testament narratives and Christ are vast. No single approach will cover all relevant issues. Yet one helpful strategy is to ask how Old Testament stories anticipate Christ's three offices: Prophet, Priest, and King. (346)

Expanding on this later in the light of redemptive history, Pratt elaborates:

Distinctions among the inauguration, continuation, and consummation of the Christian theocracy present us with three options every time we apply Old Testament stories to our day. We may look at the past, present, or future work of Christ on our behalf. We may ask: 1) How does the passage offer insight into Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King in His first coming? 2) How does it apply to the present continuation of Christ's prophetic, priestly, and royal offices? 3) How does the passage shed light on the consummation of Christ's prophetic, priestly, and royal ministry at His second coming? (354)

I think Pratt is onto something here, and I look forward to trying this strategy out in the coming years in my sermon preparation.

To the right you will see Political Jesus and the Mighty Magenta...

2009-12-17T18:53:00.001-08:00

I thought it was about time that I updated my blogroll to the right. For all of those interested, I have added Rod's blog over at Political Jesus. Rod, a colleague here at Brite, always gives one plenty of good food for thought and has been graciously reading and commenting here at Epiginoskein since before I moved to Texas.

I have also added my good friend Mike Fox's blog: Fox's Wanderings. Here at Brite Divinity School, he is simply known as the Mighty Magenta. Ask him about it sometime. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to elaborate :)

Anyway, Dear Reader, check out both of their blogs.

God came down...

2009-12-16T09:24:00.000-08:00

In reading Richard L. Pratt Jr.'s book He Gave Us Stories this morning, I ran across this passage which brought a smile to my face:

The writers of Old Testament narratives chose their words because of their denotations and connotations. Consider one verse from the story of the Tower of Babel: "But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building" (Genesis 11:5). What did Moses mean when he wrote that God "came down" (yrd)? We find clues by considering the other words he might have selected. For instance, why did he say "came down" (yrd) instead of "went up" ('lh)? Apparently he wanted a word that denoted a downward movement. Why did he say "came down" (yrd) instead of "came" (bw')? "Came" (bw') would have sufficed since the readers knew that God dwells in heaven. But Moses chose "came down" (yrd) because of its denotative specificity. Finally, the word "came down" (yrd) may also have been chosen because of its emotive connotation. In the previous verse, Moses had said that the tower "reaches to the heavens" (Genesis 11:4). It is likely that he chose "came down" (yrd) for its satirical consequences. The people building the tower thought they had reached heaven, but the Lord had to come down just to see it.

It just cracks me up thinking of the author of Genesis sitting pen in hand smirking as he scratches onto the scroll "God came down."

Some wisdom from Avigdor Bonchek...

2009-12-15T15:13:00.000-08:00

With classes done for the semester, I'm trying to get a bit of a jump start on next semester. So I've been doing some reading for my independent study on Narrative Criticism in the Hebrew Bible. The first book I read was Avigdor Bonchek's wonderful little book Studying the Torah. As a conservative Jew, Bonchek has an intriguing take on exegesis. Not surprisingly many of his "keys" for interpretation mirror traditional Christian hermeneutical rules. For example, one of his overarching keys to a proper reading of Torah is to always read the Torah in context. Likewise his third "key" of finding similarities between texts within the whole of Torah sounds a great deal like the traditional Christian understanding of the "analogy of scripture" (though, to be sure, there are some differences).

However, while I was reading the book I was especially struck by Bonchek's second overarching key: the Law of Parsimony. Basically, what this means is that a reader of scripture ought always to go with an interpretation that is the simplest, most concise, and deals with any questions about the text in a clear way. To put it another way, always use the principle of Occam's razor when interpreting. If a particular reading of a text is convoluted and has to do textual jumping jacks to make sense, avoid it.

Granted, there are plenty of places in scripture where one has to embrace a convoluted reading. However, as whole I think Bonchek's on to something. If we have to do too much special pleading for our reading of a certain text, one has to wonder how accurate it is.

In closing let me leave you with a wonderful quote from Bonchek on reading the Torah:

The Torah uses words sparingly. Phrases are chosen with a premeditated conception and a fine-tuned sensitivity to what the reader needs to hear in order to understand its message. At the same time, the Torah is quite subtle in its method of conveying its message. A sharp eye and sensitive ear are necessary to mine its meaning.

But even more important than this reading skill is one's basic attitude toward the Torah-text. Essential to productive and creative In-Depth Interpretation of the Torah is a deep-seated respect for the significance of every word and every nuance in the text. The attitude that nothing in the text is for naught is the springboard which impels us in our search for meaning in the Torah. This attitude hardens into firm conviction the more one successfully probes the depths of Torah interpretation. (15-16)

Merry Christmas to me...

2009-12-12T09:38:00.000-08:00

The Accordance Premier Scholar's pack is on the way! I'm excited about having an exegetical software that is native to the Mac operating system. (I've been using Libronix on the PC side of my mac (via Bootcamp), and it has been helpful. However, since I remain a loyal Mac owner, I've decided to take the plunge and go with the simplicity and beauty of Accordance.)

Now to get a word processing software that works with right to left scripts (i.e., Hebrew, Arabic, etc.). Word for Mac has been a complete headache when it comes to typing in Hebrew. I'm thinking about either Pages or Mellel. Whatever I end up with, I want it to be my software for the next 3 and 1/2 years (i.e., all the way through my dissertation). Does anyone out there have any suggestions?

1 down 3 more to go...

2009-12-07T11:11:00.000-08:00

Today I handed in my last paper of the Fall 2009 semester and thus officially finished my first semester of PhD coursework. I'm feeling pretty good right now. All the stress lifted as I placed the paper in my prof's mailbox. I am thankful that I started all of my papers early in the semester. It gave me time to refine my thoughts and precluded any last second hurrying.

I have to say that after one semester of study, I think one of my former prof's at Calvin Seminary was spot on when he counseled me: "Nevada, the key to getting done with a PhD is just doing it: butt to chair. Sit down and do the work." Most of a PhD is a willingness to work, and has much less to do with "native talent" (whatever that means!).

Anyway, that's one semester of coursework down and three more to go!

Reading the end of Mark through the lens of the beginning...

2009-11-25T16:52:00.000-08:00

I have recently been reading Richard Horsley's book, Hearing the Whole Story: The Politics of Plot in Mark's Gospel. Today I ran across this quote regarding the end of Mark:

"In the open ending of the story (16:7-8), the women who find the tomb empty are told to "go tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee." But they do not say anything to anyone because they are afraid. We are left with no reason to believe that the twelve disciples ever "got the message" and went back to Galilee. Indeed, other New Testament literature feeds our doubts about this. Paul's letter to the Galatians and the book of Acts portray Peter and the other disciples as heading a community of Jesus-believers in Jerusalem." (81)

What bothers me about this is the fact that Horsley seems oblivious to the beginning of Mark's gospel: "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Given this beginning, wouldn't it be more contextually intuitive to assume that in the end the women disciples succeeded where the male disciples failed. The open ended nature of Mark's gospel assumes that the reader has already read the beginning. Thus, we know that eventually the women disciples spoke about what happened. They did not remain silent for long, and the good news of their resurrection message eventually made its way not only to the male disciples but also to the written page.

To me, Horsley misses a golden opportunity to read Mark's gospel within its own context. Instead, he ends up moving outside of Mark's narrative world to buttress his (weak) thesis. Incidentally, this is a move which he castigates traditional Christians for doing when they read Mark within the canonical context of the other three gospels.

3 names for God...

2009-11-25T08:59:00.001-08:00

In one of my classes our professor asked us to write a brief reflection on our favorite names for God (we're studying the way that the Psalms "name" God). Below the fold is my response. Now I turn it back on you, O dear reader: what are your favorite names for God and why?

I suppose my favorite name for God is simply YHWH. There is something mysterious about it. It is a name which is ever allusive. It is never quite definable. Some, of course, have pointed out its affinity with the Hebrew linking verb hayah (היה––cf. Exodus 3:14). St. Thomas even builds his impressive scholastic ontology on this connection arguing that God is Being. Etienne Gilson elucidates: “Being is Being, an absolute positing of that which, lying beyond every object, contains in itself the sufficient reason of objects.” In other words, St. Thomas and the neo-Thomists find the name YHWH to be the source not only of all Christian philosophical reflection but also the Source of all that exists. Because God is, other things can be. However, even with this beautiful philosophical discussion playing around the edges, the name YHWH still cannot quite be grasped. Just when the Thomists think they have it in hand, it bolts and dances about in poetic obscurity. YHWH is God’s self-name and thus will always avoid any boundary which might seek to contain it.

Closely related to the name YHWH is my second favorite name for God: I AM, the English translation of God’s self-disclosure once again derived from Exodus 3:14. Although I realize that these two names are basically identical, I still find them to be two of my favorite expressions for God. Every time I hear the name I AM, I get goosebumps. This happens especially when I am reading through St. John’s gospel and come across passages where Jesus appropriates the name for himself (e.g., John 8:58: αμην αμην λεγω υμιν, πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι—“Most assuredly I say to all of you, before Abraham was born, I AM.”). As an interesting side note: I find it fascinating that Bruce Waltke uses the name I AM almost exclusively throughout his Old Testament Theology. He writes:

God’s name is a sentence, and in his own mouth means “I AM,” and in the mouth of Israel, “HE IS.” His personal name paradoxically invites the hearer to enter into intimacy in his protective nearness and to stand in awe of him in his eternal being in contrast to human mortality. He is both “I am here” and “I am eternal.” Therefore, in this theology I choose to translate God’s name.

My third favorite name for God is “Most High” (אלין). It emphasizes to me God’s transcendence, or what Karl Barth would call God’s “Holiness.” I find it comforting to think of God as the High God governing creation. None can lift a finger without the Most High’s song of command. Intriguingly, this particular name probably comes from the Canaanite pantheon. Evidence of this can be seen not only in Ugaritic but also in Genesis 14 where Melchizedek, the priest of “God Most High” blesses Abraham (It is also interesting that Abraham corrects Melchizedek a few verses later and says that it is “YHWH, God Most High, who posses heaven and earth.”).

Ps. 139

2009-10-27T11:17:00.000-07:00

Below the fold is a brief reflection I wrote on Ps. 139 for my Psalms class. It is nothing exceptional, but I thought some might find it interesting. :)

Psalm 139 is surrounded by an inclusio. Verse 1 states that YHWH searches and knows the psalmist (יהוה חקרתני ותדע). Verse 23 rounds out the inclusio with two imperatives begging God to search the psalmist and know his/her heart (חקרני אל ודע לבבי). Some might quibble that v. 24 contains more elements following the repeated words, and thus the inclusio is not perfect. However, such a move misses the point and fails to see the beautiful progression of the psalm. As Robert Alter has demonstrated, psalms move forward colon by colon, section by section. The inclusio of Psalm 139 demonstrates this principle. There is a movement from an indicative statement of God’s watchfulness over the psalmist’s life to an imperatival plea for God not only to continue watching but also to give the psalmist rest/guidance in the way of eternity (ונחני בדרך עולם). Notice again how this mirrors the indicative statement in v. 10: גם שם ידך תנחני. If God is watching over the psalmist and “knows” his/her every move, then the psalmist wants God to act on that knowledge. It is almost as if the psalmist says, “if you are going to smother me with attention, you might as well take care of me.”

I have already alluded to it, but the verb ידע (“to know”) along with its noun cognate is key throughout this psalm. The verb appears six times, and the noun form appears once (vv. 1b, 2a, 4b, 6a, 14d, 23b, 23d). “You know,” sings the psalmist, “when I sit down and when I get up.” “If a word is on my tongue, that too you already know” (vv. 2, 4). Intriguingly, the psalmist also speaks of her/his own personal knowing, but it is always within the context of the wonders of God. While God knows all things, the psalmist can only cry out, “such knowledge is too wonderful for me” (v. 6). Later, while pondering the wonders of God’s actions in the womb, the psalmist rejoices that his/her “whole being knows your wonderful deeds very well” (v. 14).

A final thing that stood out to me is how the psalmist clusters together verbs with the same person, gender, and number. Verses 1-5 contain all 2nd person masculine singular verbs. Verses 6-9 contain nearly all 1st person common singular verbs. Verses 10-22 are more of a mix with 3rd person verbs dominating (15 out of 29 verbal forms are 3rd person). In contrast, vv. 23-24 are even more uniform than vv. 1-5. Each verb in this section is a 2nd masculine singular Qal imperative. From this one could almost posit the following structure:

Section 1: “You” (address to God; vv. 1-5)
Section 2: “Me” (the psalmist’s observations regarding him/herself; vv. 6-9)
Section 3: “It/They” (the psalmist’s observations regarding God’s works; vv. 10-22)
Section 4: “You” (address to God; vv. 23-24)

The main problem, of course, with such a structure is that it has a hard time accounting for vv. 19-22 which almost have an imperative edge to them and thus should be included with vv. 23-24. Nonetheless, it is interesting how the psalmist tends to cluster the verbs together.

Jeroboam's New Clothes...

2009-10-02T16:57:00.000-07:00

Have you every wondered why the author of 1 Kings bothers to mention Jeroboam's "new garment" in 1 Kings 11:29-30?

Notice the Hebrew in v. 29c:

והוא מתכסה בשלמה חדשה

"Now he had covered himself with a new cloak (שלמה)"

The author is punning Solomon's name (שלמה). While the vowels are different and the first consonant is a shin rather than a sin, everything else is identical. In addition, given that Solomon's name is derived from "Shalom" or peace (שלם), the author is engaging in clever polyvalent wordplay.

Because of Solomon's sin, God will tear up Solomon's (shelomoh) kingdom in the same way that Ahijah rends Jeroboam's new "salmah." Furthermore, this rending will destroy the positive peace (Shalom) of the land. Thus, Ahijah's actions presage the coming civil wars and unrest that will characterize the land in every way.

Yet there is still the beautiful promise to David which God will not break repeated in vv. 32, 34, and 36:

ולבנו אתן שבט אחד למען היות ניר לדויד עבדי כל הימים לפני בירושלם העיר אשר בחרתי לי לשום שמי שם

"But to his son, I will give one tribe in order that there will be a light for David, my servant, always before my face in Jerusalem, the city which I have chosen for myself to put my name there." (v. 36)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who keeps covenant!

No...

2009-09-25T16:28:00.000-07:00

I wonder... If your God never says no to you or to your desires, is your God "God" or simply "you" writ large?

An Hebrew/Aramaic question...

2009-09-23T20:59:00.001-07:00

For those of you out there who have knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic:

I was reading through 1 Kings 11:17 when I noticed the following:

ויברח אדד הוא ואנשים אדמיים מעבדי אביו אתו לבוא מצרים והדד נער קטן

"And Adad (אדד) fled, he and the men of the Edomites, those serving his father, with him to enter Egypt. Now at the time, Hadad (הדד) was a little boy."

My question is: is this simply an instance of mispelling (i.e., the "Adad" version--the "Hadad" is attested in vv. 14, 19, etc.) or is this a sort of Aramaism (i.e., in Aramaic ה 's and א 's are sometimes interchangeable)? If it is the latter, do you think it is proof of a final redaction dated in the post-exilic/Persian period or of a scribal "slip" in that era?

Ps. 63...

2009-09-22T09:15:00.000-07:00

Here's a weekly reflection paper that I just turned in for my "Thomas Merton and the Psalms" class. Thought you all might enjoy it.

Psalm 63 seems to consist of what one could call three main sections (though they are not rigidly defined) centering around the three progressive conditions of the psalmist’s “life” or “soul:” “my soul thirsts” (v. 1), “my soul is sated” (v. 5), and “my soul clings” (v. 8). After a brief prologue (v. 1a), the psalmist confesses (as “David”) the first condition of his soul in its desire for God. Even as he sits dry-mouthed in the sun-baked desert of Judah, a deeper thirst consumes David. His life is desiccated without the sweet springs of Elohim. Even as his throat (נפש) croaks with thirst for this living water, his flesh faints in the wastelands.

It is only in the presence of God that David finds relief (v. 2). “Thus, I gazed on you in the holy place to see your power and your glory.” I am curious what the psalmist intends by “the holy place.” If this is actually a psalm of David, it would have to be a high place, a mount in the desert, or perhaps the tabernacle. More likely if this is an example of prosopopoeia, it is probably a not-so veiled reference to the temple. However, one could also translate the word (קדש) abstractly as “holiness.” In that case, David, in such a state of holy desire, is granted a vision (note the verb חזה) of Elohim’s power and glory.

Whatever it means, the sight of God’s power and glory draws a cry of praise from David’s lips: “Surely, your loving-kindness is better than life! …Thus, I will bless you all my life and lift up my hands to your name.” This brings the psalmist to the second condition of his soul: “my soul is sated with marrow and fatness” (v. 5). The life that had been drying up is now soaked in abundance. The very sight of God slakes his thirst. Once again there is a cry of praise, but this time it flows into reflection and meditation during the night watches. The result is further confidence in God: “surely, you are my help, and in the shade of your wings, I will give a ringing cry” (v. 7).

This brings David to the third and final condition of his soul: “my soul clings to you” (v. 8). What follows is a description of God’s protection from those who seek to destroy his soul (vv. 9-10). God will feed them to swords and foxes to insure their descent into Sheol. Undoubtedly, given the superscription of the psalm, this section is meant to conjure up images of Saul panting after David’s life.

Verse 11 concludes the psalm with a note of irony: “However, the king will rejoice in Elohim. All those swearing by Elohim will praise because Elohim shuts the mouth of deceptive words.” While King Saul pursues David, David pursues God and as such is the True King.

Horton hears a Wright...

2009-09-20T11:42:00.000-07:00

A bad pun... I know, but I could not help it.

Anyway, I finally got around to finishing Michael Horton's second volume Lord and Servant in his "Covenantal" series. Moving on I have been reading his third volume, Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ. I was eager to read this book, because I had seen that Horton would interact with N.T. Wright and James D.G. Dunn on the question of the New Perspective on Paul.

Let me just say that I have not been disappointed after 100 pages. Horton's critique of the New Perspective is by far the best that I have read. While he does not spend a great deal of time actually working through specific texts, that is not his intention. Horton's main goal appears to be to offer a comprehensive narrative structure which can engage Wright, et al's comprehensive narrative structure. In addition, Horton actually has read Sanders, Wright, Dunn, etc. (something which, ahem, many critics of the NPP have never bothered to do). This lends weight to his work and allows him to engage the NPP without resorting to tired cliches about the sacrosanct nature of the Westminster Confession (seriously, if you are not happy with the NPP, please bother to pull out your Greek NT and actually apply Sola Scriptura). Because of this, Horton can actually interact with Wright without resorting to name-calling.

Horton's main critique of Wright and the NPP is that it subscribes to "monocovenantalism." Essentially, this means that the NPP is oblivious to the fact that there are two covenants in the Old Testament: the Abrahamic and the Sinaitic. The former is a royal grant covenant based entirely upon the Sovereign's own free initiative without conditions laid out for the covenant vassal. In contrast, the latter is a conditional suzerainty treaty which, though founded in the Sovereign's gracious initiative, also includes conditional stipulations. Horton points out that Wright, et al. collapse these two covenants together. As a result they cannot account for the possibility that "works of the law" could refer to more than ethnic boundary markers. Indeed, it is intriguing that Horton actually finds E.P. Sanders' understanding of Paul more convincing that later NPP advocates (though of course he thinks Sanders has misunderstood Paul with regard to the law).

For Horton, Paul is actually going after covenantal nomism's (i.e., the name Sanders gave Second Temple Judaism's "pattern" of religion) understanding of the relationship between the two covenants. He argues that Paul opposed covenantal nomism's attempt to stay in the one covenant through works of the law. Rather, to him, Paul saw the Sinaitic covenant as only offering a curse because of Israel and the world's inability to keep the law. Thus, salvation could only come through the Abrahamic/Davidic covenant which is purely gracious. This covenant produced the Messiah who takes the curse of the Sinaitic covenant upon himself and offers Divine favor through his death and resurrection.

Perhaps one of the most intriguing things has been watching Horton point out how Sanders' (and others') own theological convictions are at play in their scholarship. He notes that Sanders has a hard time accepting that Paul could be fighting against some form of "works-righteousness" because he cannot believe that for Paul human salvation is entirely gracious (Sanders' holds that there must be some "synergy" between God's work and humanity's). Thus, Paul cannot be criticizing "synergism" within Second Temple Judaism.

One other thing that I find humorous is Horton's puzzlement over who Wright and Dunn are actually critiquing when they rant against 17th century interpretations of justification. He notes time and again how they seem to be confused about what the Reformed tradition has actually said (there is even a time or two where he points out that they criticize the Reformed tradition for views which actually belonged the 17th century Roman Catholics).

In conclusion, I find Horton's thesis intriguing and will have to spend more time mulling it over in relation to actual texts. One way or another, I wish Wright would have engaged this book rather than Piper's.

For those of you who fall within Horton's camp, what are some decent 17th-18th century Reformed books which outline this view of the "Two Covenants?" Is Herman Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants a good starting point? I have also recently ordered John Owen's Biblical Theology (hat tip to Andrew on that one). I also intend to check out Jon Levenson's work on the covenants from a Jewish perspective and maybe go back and look at Meredith Kline again.

James 3... A Thought or Two...

2009-09-18T10:18:00.000-07:00

How many times have you heard James 3:6 (i.e., "The tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness...") quoted as a proof text against gossip, slander, etc.? While it is definitely true that the Scriptures have no place for unrighteous speech, James 3 is actually a little more specific.

Notice the context of chapter 3: "Do not let many of you become teachers, my brothers and sisters, knowing that we will receive the greater judgment." It is only after this preamble that James enters into a discussion about the dangers of the tongue. Finally, in vv. 13-18 he comes back to the issue of leadership in the church:

"Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace." (NASB)

So, James' discussion on the burning tongue comes between two sections on church leadership. His point then is not to target general problems with slander. Rather, his concern is with how religious leaders use their tongues. They will receive the greater judgment because of what they know and because of what they can do with that knowledge through their speech. They can set whole churches on fire with a single word. They can bless God in one breath and cut down a fellow Christian in the next. As those who exercise the authority of the keys of the kingdom, their words can give life and take it away.

Think of how many times a pastor has made a negative offhand statement about a particular person, only to find out later that his (or her) parishioners have gone out looking for wood and nails to crucify that person. Think also of how a pastor can destroy a parishioner with a cruel word ("I know why your baby died. You had an abortion three years ago and now God is punishing you."--I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but sadly there are many pastors who should be ran out of their churches for pastoral abuse). Think of the heresy hunts that get started because a pastor is jealous of another's success. Think of the cults that get started when a pastor or teacher promotes something out of accord with the witness of Scripture.

James' point is sobering. As someone who will eventually be ordained and who will teach the Scriptures, such passages make me tremble. We are not dealing with something that is indifferent. May God have mercy on all of us who preach and teach! May He teach us not to "stumble in a word" (James 3:2).

A synagogue chant...

2009-09-11T14:59:00.000-07:00

Here's Michael Card's rendition of a synagogue chant (in Hebrew) of Ps. 121:1-4. I have had it on the mind lately because we just went over it in one of my classes. Enjoy!

You know you're a Calvinist when...

2009-09-11T14:56:00.000-07:00

... you're writing a paper on Romans 7, finally get around to reading what Calvin had to say on the subject, and find that you've basically written a modern, covenantal, apocalyptic version of his understanding of Romans 7.

More on this to come...

Arrogant Worms...

2009-08-29T20:49:00.001-07:00

The Arrogant Worms are always classic... I had to post this :)

Romans 1...

2009-08-29T20:34:00.000-07:00

Today I was reading through Romans 1 in Greek for a class assignment when I found a couple of things that piqued my interest. Below is my little "reflection paper" for class:

As I read through Romans 1, Paul’s choice of verbs in v. 25 intrigued me. Paul writes: “such ones exchanged the truth of God for the lie and reverenced (εσεβασησαν) and served the creature rather than the creator who is blessed forever, amen.” What is so interesting about this is that “σεβαστος” (sebastos) is the Greek form of the Latin “Augustus.”

I cannot help but wonder if this is a jab at the imperial cult. After all, Paul does not need to use two verbs here. He could have simply used λατρεω. Furthermore, he is writing to Christians living in Rome, the center of the imperial cult. Surely, if anyone would have caught such a reference or wordplay, it would have been them.

This might also give insight into why Paul deals with the issue of shame in v. 16. Paul is not ashamed of the ευαγγελιον (gospel) of Jesus even though it seems strange and foolish compared with the ευαγγελιον of Caesar.

A second thought I had while reading chapter one focused on v. 17. The phrase “εκ πιστεως εις πιστιν” (faith unto faith) has always seemed ambiguous to me, and if I recall correctly, there are a variety of viewpoints as to its exact meaning. My thought (which I am sure someone has suggested before) is that perhaps the phrase reflects the movement in v. 16 from Jew to Greek. In this reading, v. 17 would go something like this: “For the righteousness of God is revealed in it from the faith of the Jews to the faith of the Gentiles.” One could almost speculate on the existence of a chiasm then in the two verses:

A: “For it is the power of God unto salvation for everyone believing.”
B: “To the Jew first and also to the Greek.”
C: “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed.”
B’: “From faith (Jewish) to faith (Greek).”
A’: “Just as it is written: ‘the just one will live by faith’” (i.e. everyone regardless of ethnicity).

However, to be frank, I am not sure if the chiasm really works. A’ seems a bit weak, and as has been pointed out time and again, it is easy to find a chiasm anywhere.

Just for the record...

2009-08-26T21:02:00.000-07:00

Just for the record, I think that I can now officially call myself a doctoral student. Today was my second day of classes. This semester I have four classes:

1) Critical Introduction to the New Testament (one of the two "required" courses for the PhD in Biblical Interpretation) with Dr. Warren Carter. This looks to be an excellent class. We get to read several of the major trend setting NT books (e.g. Bultmann, Hays, Sanders, etc.).

2) The Wisdom of Solomon with Dr. Leo Perdue. This class will be a reading class where we work through the book in Greek. It should be fun!

3) Thomas Merton and the Psalms with Dr. Steve Sprinkle and Dr. Toni Craven. This will be a team taught course combining Hebrew Poetry with reading in Thomas Merton. As a fan of Merton's biography and of the Hebrew Bible, I'm looking forward to this course (in addition we get to meet once a week to read the week's Psalms together in Hebrew!).

4) Romans with Dr. Victor Furnish. This is the only class I haven't attended yet (it's tomorrow), but it also looks to be excellent.

It feels good (and a little weird) to finally be able to call myself a PhD student :)

Rutledge comes through again...

2009-08-25T20:27:00.000-07:00

I have recommended Fleming Rutledge's sermons a number of times on this blog. I realize that some will not in good conscience be able to read her sermons because of their views on women in the ministry. However, I beg those of you with such views to make an exception in her case. You will be blessed! She has such a great Barthian flavor (I'm sure she is a bit shocking to many in her denomination)! Here's a wonderful quote I ran across last night in a sermon entitled, "Doubting and Believing:"

"So we have a real choice. We can choose a god who suits us in every particular because he is a projection of ourselves, whose voice is essentially our own voice magnified. This god will have no nail prints in his hands. This goddess will have no wound in her side. If we don't like tornadoes and premature deaths and other things that happen in the world, we can absolve our man-made gods from responsibility, since they are part of the world and not creators of it. The Bible sets before us a baffling, even an infuriating God who is really God, rather than a domesticated household pet. Our God is a God who permits us to doubt, to complain, to shake our fist, to shout at him, to ask repeatedly the ultimate question, "Why?" Ultimately the divine answer does not come in the form of a "why." It comes in the form of a "Who." Even in the midst of pain, grief, and doubt, I believe we can hold on to the promise that God has entered our pain and been wounded by it, actually been killed by it, yet has been raised triumphant from the dead never to die again, having power to grant his divine life to all who come to him. And we proclaim to you today not our own voice, but the living Word of God, which is unique and trustworthy. When Thomas makes his confession, Jesus says to him, "Thomas, have you believed because you have seen me?" Then the Lord looks straight through Thomas, across and down the centuries to the believers and doubters yet to come, to you and to me: "Blessed are they who do not see and yet believe" (John 20:29)."

From Help My Unbelief, p. 215-216.

Geerhardus Vos and Kathy Ehrensperger...

2009-08-24T18:42:00.000-07:00

A few posts ago, Andrew over at the Reformed Reader suggested I look at Geerhardus Vos' essay "The Idea of Biblical Theology." Well, I pulled out my copy of Vos' Shorter Writings, and I had already read it. However, Vos is always worth another read, and I found this beauty of a quote:

"...I should mention as a desirable fruit of the study of Biblical Theology, the new life and freshness which it gives to the old truth, showing it in all its historic vividness and reality with the dew of the morning of revelation upon its opening leaves. It is certainly not without significance that God has embodied the contents of revelation, not in a dogmatic system, but in a book of history, the parallel to which in dramatic interest and simple eloquence is nowhere to be found. It is this that makes the Scriptures speak and appeal to and touch the hearts and lead the minds of men captive to the truth everywhere. No one will be able to handle the Word of God more effectually than he to whom the treasure-chambers of its historic meaning have been opened up. It is this that brings the divine truth so near to us, makes it as it were bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, that humanizes it in the same sense that the highest revelation in Christ was rendered most human by the incarnation." (23)

This quote, in turn, reminds me of something that Kathy Ehrensperger emphasizes in her book That We May be Mutually Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies. In regard to Paul's letters, she writes:

"We therefore should not abstract Paul's letters from their contextual particularity into a set of universal doctrines; we should interpret them "as gospel for particular situations, 'enfleshing' itself into human particularity." It might not be merely accidental that the church passed Paul's thoughts along to us in the form of letters. This form seems to conform to Paul's way of thinking and doing theology as a direct and multiform response to various contingent situations. Thus Leander Keck has noted: "It is precisely the particularity of the occasions that make Paul's letters perennially significant."" (135)

What, you may ask, do these two quotes have to do with each other? Well, they both point out the historical particularity of Scripture. Vos is emphasizing that it is in historical particularity that the gospel warms people's hearts. Ehrensperger, while being a little too anti-systematic theology for my taste, is saying something very similar. If we too quickly abstract Paul's letters into systematic categories without reference to their their historical particularity and provenance, they lose the power to convict and comfort us.

My preaching Professor, Dr. Mary Hulst, used to drill one thing about practical application in sermons into our stubborn little minds. She always said: "If you are general and abstract in your applications [e.g. "God loves us," "God is faithful"], they won't apply to anyone. However, if you are specific in your applications [e.g. giving a specific, concrete example of God's love or faithfulness], they will apply to everyone."

The gospel comes to us in particular historical events, and that is its power.

The New Perspective on Paul and St. James...

2009-08-17T21:17:00.000-07:00

Tonight I was reading James 2 in Greek, and I noticed how St. James uses the word "works" (εργα) within a "law" (νομος) context throughout the chapter. While I am partial to the new perspective on Paul's argument that in St. Paul's writings the phrase "works of the law" (εργα του νομου) refers to Torah "boundary markers" (i.e., Sabbath, diet, circumcision, etc.), St. James does not appear to use "works" in this way. Someone may object that he never actually uses the phrase "works of the law," but such an objection seems facile at best. Clearly, St. James in working within a "legal" setting (i.e., he uses plenty of "righteous" words (δικεο-) and repeatedly makes mention of the "law" (νομος)).

Furthermore, St. James actual use of the word "works" is in reference to deeds which are in keeping with the moral law (i.e., deeds of mercy and the avoidance of classism, adultery, and murder). I suppose one could argue that while the antecedent of "works" in this case is different than Paul's (ethnic vs. moral), St. James is still dealing with works as boundary markers (i.e., those things which distinguish True Jesus-followers from False Jesus-followers). Thus, "works" would still function for St. James and St. Paul in the same way (despite referring to different kinds of works).

I'm not sure what to think of this, especially considering the likely early date of the epistle. It would seem odd that St. Paul and St. James would use the same terminology for different kinds of "works" (though perhaps I am misrepresenting the NPP position by making the Pauline use exclusively "ethnic"). At the same time, there does seem to be a formal similarity in how "works" function for both authors as boundaries for distinguishing between people.

I don't know... It's late, and I'll have to ponder this one some more :)

Let me know your thoughts.

A gem from J. Gresham Machen

2009-08-17T17:16:00.000-07:00

I've recently been reading J. Gresham Machen's Christian and Liberalism written during the 1920's, and I ran across this quote which mirrors part of my previous post ("A Bee in My Bonnet"):

"In no branch of science would there be any real advance if every generation started fresh with no dependence upon what past generations have achieved. Yet in theology, vituperation of the past seems to be thought essential to progress. And upon what base slanders the vituperation is based! After listening to modern tirades against the great creeds of the Church, one receives rather a shock when one turns to the Westminster Confession, for example, or to that tenderest and most theological of books, the "Pilgrim's Progress" of John Bunyan, and discovers that in doing so one has turned from shallow modern phrases to a "dead orthodoxy" that is pulsating with life in every word. In such orthodoxy there is life enough to set the whole world aglow with Christian love."

Again, in quoting this, I'm not suggesting that theology cannot make advances, but I do think Machen is on to something. Sometimes I wonder if fascination with "the new" is the result of the Enlightenment myth of progress.

10 Honest Things About Nevada...

2009-08-14T07:56:00.000-07:00

Well, Rod over at Political Jesus has tagged me with a meme. I am supposed to tell 10 honest things about myself. This is my first crack at one of these things, and I rarely write about non-academic stuff on this blog, so enjoy this anomaly! (You may find out some crazy things about me :)

1. Growing up I wanted to work for Disney or Dreamworks as an animator. In pursuit of that goal, in high school I spent a great deal of time painting, sculpting, and trying my hand at home-made animated movies. Though I couldn't get my hands on a camera that could take pictures of individual cells/frames (i.e., in animated movies there are approximately 24 frames of pictures per second, though usually each picture is photographed twice which results in around 12 actual pictures per second--give or take, depending on how fast the animator wants the action to go), I improvised with a home movie camera which could give me about 1/3 second shots. With my "movie" shot, I would play it back in the video camera, run the video fast-forwarded through my tv and tape it on my vcr. The result was a crude but effective style of animation.

2. I grew up on a ranch raising Texas Longhorn cattle. As a result I am decent at roping and good with a bullwhip (though I only had one horse that I dared use it off of while riding... A good way to get yourself bucked off! :). In addition, I have trailed cattle in all kinds of weather (including blizzards!!).

3. I owned a 70 Honda 3rd hand motorcycle/dirt bike which I bought when I was in 4th-5th grade (I got it for $100. My school teacher's high school age son was in trouble and needing the money had to sell it). While eventually I got good at zipping through the hills on the thing, I ran into a yard fence on my first day of ownership and broke its lone headlight (which I never replaced). I had that dirt bike up through high school and only had the oil changed a few times (I was not nor ever have been a gearhead).

4. I attended a one room country school until the 6th grade. My first grade year I literally made up 1/4 of the student body. There was no bus, and my mom would drive us ever day (about 20 minutes one way). We steadily got more kids until I was in 4th or 5th grade when we had somewhere around 19, and then my mom was hired as the teacher's aid to work with kindergarten and 1st grade.

5. Which brings me to my next "honest fact," from 6th to 12th grade, I was homeschooled. I have blogged before about the pro's and cons of homeschooling here. In the end, my parents' reasoning on the subject was three-fold: 1) My 4th-5th grade teacher was quitting (my parents really liked her), 2) I was basically teaching myself with that many kids needing attention (in that little country school, we had several emotionally disturbed children, a few who had learning disabilities, and one FAS little boy), and 3) we lived a good hour away from town and any other schools.

6) I taught myself the basics of New Testament Greek while I was in high school. Being home-schooled, I had opportunities which most people never had. I recall looking through a home-school catalogue, seeing a Greek New Testament, and thinking to myself, "Wow, it'd be cool to be able to read the New Testament in its original language." My mother, always a lover of learning herself, procured it for me along with a basic grammar. Eventually, I got my hands on a more advanced grammar and would recite verb conjugations to myself out loud downstairs (my mother upstairs could hear me "chanting in an unknown tongue" and promptly dubbed me her "monk" son).

7) I played Roller Hockey from 6th-12th grade. My team won the state championship several times (not terribly impressive considering the other teams were usually kids with little practice, minimal pads, etc.). I was not the best player (somewhere in the upper 1/4 of the team), but I was probably, to be honest, one of the best skaters. As a result, I was hard to take down. Since high school, I've rarely played hockey (though I did participate this past winter in Calvin Seminary's annual "pond hockey" event which my team won! :)

8) I grew up in rural poverty. I had no idea how poor my family really was until college when I realized that my family lived below the poverty level most of my life. When you're a kid, you always just assume that everyone sort of lives the way you do. I was aware that most kids had more "stuff" than me, but I never really "got it." Some of you may be thinking to yourself, "Poverty, right..." Well, let's just say that for the first few years of my life, my parents spent their summers in a mountain cabin with no plumbing or running water, and their winters in a trailer. Now, by the time I got to high school, I would say that my family had pulled out of it, but before that things were always nip and tuck in terms of money.

9) I was a huge Petra fan as a kid. I had nearly every album (no small feat considering they had been together as a band since the 70's) and had every song memorized.

10) My church background is wild and wooly. I grew up in a small fundamentalist baptist church in Southern Montana. About the time I was in Jr. High, my parents decided we need to try something different, so we began attending a non-denominational semi-Pentecostal church. That lasted for a couple of years until a former pastor shared his new found "Calvinism" with us. What followed was a couple of years in a hyper-Calvinist cult (yes, from a sociologist's perspective it was a cult) which my family eventually got kicked out of because my father refused to take any more verbal/emotional abuse. After that, while my family was Reformed Baptist in outlook, we attended a small Presbyterian church. In college, I attended a Reformed Baptist church, a Christian Reformed Church, and a United Reformed Church (catch the Reformed theme? :). After college, I finally changed my mind on infant baptism and officially joined the Christian Reformed Church (my wife's home church).

Well, there are ten things you may not have wanted to know about me :)

A note on E.P. Sanders...

2009-08-12T09:38:00.000-07:00

Recently, as I have worked through the reading list for one of my upcoming classes, I read a good portion of E.P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism. What I found intriguing is that Sanders does not believe that Paul was a "covenantal nomist." Instead he argues that Paul's "pattern of religion" can be described as "participationist eschatology" (522). However, as the New Perspective on Paul controversy has rehashed time and again, he does think that Paul shares with covenantal nomist the same view of grace and works. He writes: "salvation is by grace but judgment is according to works; works are the condition of remaining ‘in’ [the covenant], but they do not earn salvation” (543). This does not mean that Jews (or according to Sanders, Paul) thought that one had to be completely perfect to stay in the covenant, rather in Sanders' estimation the only way to get kicked out of the covenant is to sin in the extreme.

Furthermore, Sanders dismisses 4 Ezra (with its clear legalism) as being an anomaly in Palestinian Judaism.

I just thought it was interesting that with all the talk about "covenantal nomism" in the NPP debates Sanders himself did not think Paul could be properly categorized as a covenantal nomist.

A bee in my bonnet...

2009-08-09T15:28:00.000-07:00

Okay, so I've been a bit annoyed by two groups of people in the blogosphere this week. Let's call them the "Systematic-Historical-Theology-Lovers" (SHTL) and the "Biblical-Studies-No-Theology-Group" (BSNTG). On the one hand, the SHTL are busy around the blogosphere laying down the law and letting everyone know who the heretics are. From this group we get little gems like "if N.T. Wright (or anyone associated with the New Perspectives on Paul) would simply study Post-Reformation Protestant Scholasticism, he would quickly see the error of his ways and repent in sackcloth and ashes." As if 17th century Protestantism has the last word on everything! There may have been some glorious and helpful things going on in both the church and the academy at that time, but that does not mean that everything in the Biblical text has been mastered. The SHTL remind me of a story Prof. John Stek told in Old Testament Club at Calvin Seminary a few years ago:

"We were here at Calvin studying for the ministry many years ago, and one day our systematics professor tells us with all seriousness: 'Gentlemen, [women were not allowed in the program at the time] it has all been figured out and already put together. Berkhof and Hodge's systematic theologies are the zenith of all theological and Biblical study. Now all that remains is for you boys to preach and teach their systems.'"

No doubt a bit extreme, but I sometimes I wonder if the SHTL secretly believe this. As will soon become clear, I have no problem, for the most part, with systematic theology and have tremendous respect for historical theology, but it drives me crazy when people cannot charitably evaluate any theological work after B.B. Warfield. More often than not, the SHTL's ire is directed toward the discipline of Biblical Theology.

Then, on the other hand, there is the BSNTG (the "Biblical-Studies-No-Theology-Group"). These people revel in their non-adherence to historic creeds and/or confessions. From them we get little gems like: "Systematic and Historical Theology is worthless. Just read your Bible (preferably in Greek and Hebrew)," or "We've outgrown those old creeds. As enlightened experts in the field of Biblical Studies, we now see that doctrines like the Trinity are so 325 and 451 C.E." or "If it's new it's true. If it's old, it's naive and cold."

The BSNTG despises anything not written in the field of Biblical Studies within the last 200 years. "St. John Chrysostom, who's he? St. Jerome? He probably didn't even know Hebrew!" [I'm being deliberately sarcastic here to make my point--as many of you, no doubt, know quite well. Chrysostom was a brilliant exegete, and St. Jerome's critical acumen would shock post-Enlightenment historical critics, etc. Believe it or not, Christian scholars of the first 1800-1900 years of Church history actually thought about things and did not simply buy "the party line."]

Like its counterpart (the SHTL) on the other end of the spectrum, the BSNTG tends to be unbelievably smug in its assertions. Unlike the simpleton church goers which surround them, they are scholars who can gently pat the little old ladies at church on the back and tell them: "Well, your pastor may have told you that, but we now know from recent monographs on the subject that..."

Both the SHTL and the BSNTG reek of immaturity and foolishness. I say this fully aware of my own faults and failings, both as a Christian and as a scholar (i.e. I know I have displayed this same immaturity and foolishness in the past and no doubt will display it again in the future). It frustrates me how arrogant we can become. On both sides we seem predisposed to avoid the path of wisdom. The SHTL refuse to listen to anything which may force them to drop Berkhof and Hodge and pick up a Greek New Testament or Hebrew Bible. The BSNTG refuse to believe that anyone prior to the rise of Higher Criticism had any intelligence.

What we need is a healthy dialectical relationship between Systematic/Historical Theology and Biblical Theology. We must use the discipline of Biblical Theology every generation to work through the Biblical text in all of its complexity and richness. This will keep us fresh and wedded to the text. At the same time, we must bring our fresh readings before the historical witness of the Church. For over two thousand years, Christian thinkers have pondered these texts, and it is the height of folly and the epitome of arrogance to ignore their wisdom. Once we have done this, the truly difficult part begins: what of the fresh reading or tradition do we keep, and what do we leave behind? I have no illusions on the difficulty of such a process, but we must keep in mind that everything worthwhile requires sweat and tears.

So if you fall more into the SHTL crowd, the next time you find yourself saying, "If every body would just read the Puritans, everything would be alright," please pick up a copy of Walter Brueggemann's Theology of the Old Testament, E.P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism, or N.T. Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God and read it (or them) with a bit of Christian charity (i.e. reading to see where it's right, not where it's wrong). I dare say you will be shocked at what you find (e.g. E.P. Sanders is actually competent in his field and actually knows something about 1st century Palestinian Judaism). You don't have to agree with it, but show some wisdom and maturity in recognizing that Bible is inexhaustible and will never be completely mastered.

If you fall more into the BSNTG crowd, the next time you find yourself saying something like, "How can people be so naive to think that the Bible teaches the Trinity or the impassivity of God," please pick up John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, Herman Bavink's Reformed Dogmatics, or Philip Schaff's 38 volume set of the Early Church Fathers and read it (or them) with a bit of Christian charity. I dare say that you will be shocked at what you find (e.g. "Impassivity" does not mean that God doesn't "feel" anything or does not interact with his creatures in a dynamic way. It simply means that God does not change. He does not decide one minute to keep covenant and the next to ignore the covenant.).You don't have to agree with it, but show some wisdom and maturity in recognizing that Bible is inexhaustible and that people began plumbing its depths long before you were born.

It's done...

2009-08-06T07:59:00.000-07:00

Well, my German class is officially over. Roughly, 5 weeks of slogging (sort of sounds like ziehen's past tense: zog... Ha, ha, funny German joke... okay, not really :) through the grammar and memorizing several hundred vocabulary words (which I will probably forget due to the fact that online dictionaries are so helpful!). In addition to the final exam, we were required to translate the first few pages of an article in our field. I chose Walter Zimmerli's "Heiligkeit" Nach Dem Sogenannten Heiligkeitsgesetz (For those non-German speakers/readers out there: "Holiness" in the So-called Holiness Code). Zimmerli argues (at least in the first few pages! :) that the term "holiness" has an abundance of meanings which precludes a monolithic understanding of the "holiness code."

I hope to keep German up. I have a feeling that it will be helpful in the future (Hmm... the Germans and OT scholarship... How have they not defined the field?)

I also had the pleasure of meeting some more fellow students here at Brite (i.e. fellow swimmers in German). One of whom, Mike Fox, blogs here.

Finally, I hope to blog a bit about some books I'm reading for an upcoming PhD class in the next few weeks.

1 Kings and tradition history...

2009-07-24T18:36:00.000-07:00

Andrew's comment on my last post dovetails nicely with some things I have noticed in 1 Kings 5 (the preparations for the construction of the temple).

It seems clear to me that the final redaction of the text is post-exilic and definitely pro-Solomon. If one were to identify the particular "strain" of tradition-history at work in the chapter, I would hazard to guess that it is some sort of "P" (Priestly) source. I say that based on the vocabulary and thematic emphasis of the chapter.

To begin with the vocabulary seems to have a post-exilic tinge to it. In verse 4 (English: 4:24) the author states twice that Solomon ruled over everything "beyond the river" and over all the kings "beyond the river" (עבר נהר). What is striking about this phrase is that it appears consistently in Ezra-Nehemiah as a administrative term for the Persian territory which included the province of "Yehud." For example, it occurs in its Aramaic form in the letter to King Artaxerxes drafted against the temple restoration project: "To Artaxerxes, the king, (from) your servants, the men of beyond the river..." (Ezra 4:11:עבר נהרה). The examples of this particular phrase could be repeated ad nauseum.

A second example is in v. 18. I am a little more tentative about this one. The use of the word adversary here ("satan," שטן) seems, at least to me, to be show a post-exilic flavor. The term is used often (as is well known) in the post-exilic book Job, and at least once in an infinitive form in Zech. 3:1, which was clearly composed during the Persian period.

The other reason for my suspicion of a post-exilic final redaction of 1 Kings 5 comes from its thematic material. Solomon is described as one almost like a new Adam (n.b.: the early chapters of Genesis are often attributed to the post-exilic "P" source). Verse 13 recites how he "spoke about the beasts (בהמה), the birds (עוף), the creeping things (רמש), and on the fish (דגים)" (in addition to his learned forays into forestry). Each of these specific terms are used in Genesis 1.

Furthermore, chapter 5 is obsessed with Solomon's preparations for building the temple. While the core material is probably much older, it is not surprising that the narrative would show signs of post-exilic editing. Persian period prophecy revolves around the need to rebuild the temple (cf. Zechariah and Haggai). An orthodox redactor would no doubt be at special pains to magnify the glory of Solomon's temple and God's blessings upon Solomon's efforts, especially remembering how easily the exiles were scared off of the project.

Just some thoughts... Let me know what you think (that means you especially Andrew :)

A thought or two on 1 Kings...

2009-07-16T18:18:00.000-07:00

The past few weeks I have started reading through 1 Kings for devotions. I find it intriguing that the Biblical text rarely comments on the succession narrative contained in ch. 1-3. The text never exactly tells us if Nathan and Bathsheba's actions are all "on the up and up." They tell the aged David that he had promised to put Solomon on the throne (e.g. 1:17: אתה נשבעת ביהוה אלהיך לאמתך כי שלמה בנך ימלך אחרי והוא ישב על כסאי -- "You swore by YHWH your God to your maidservant that Solomon your son will "rule after me and he will sit on my throne.""). However, the author of 1 Kings never lets us readers know whether this is actually true. Indeed, from the way the rest of Israel rallies to Adonijah, one cannot help but wonder if it had long been assumed that Adonijah would take the throne.

The authorial ambiguity lends complexity to the story. The fact that David is old and mentally incapable of ruling is emphasized by his lack of "knowledge" of Abishag (1:4: והמלך לא ידעה-- "But the king did not know her"-- I realize the possible sexual connotations of the statement, but given Adonijah's political move in the next verse, I think "feeble-minded" is the intention here). Such a situation lends itself easily to deception, and because of this I am of the opinion that Nathan and Bathsheba actually lied to David.

Furthermore, the author does not comment on the justness of David's admonitions to Solomon to have Joab and Shimi assassinated, etc. We are never told if YHWH approves of all of this. To be sure, YHWH blesses Solomon, etc., but we never hear that YHWH believed the succession was carried out properly.

Now, I grant that just the opposite could be posited as well. It is equally possible that David did promise the throne to Solomon, and Adonijah is taking advantage of the situation to thrust himself into the spotlight. That's the beauty of the text's ambiguity. It plays with our imaginations, and forces us to realize that the characters are not two dimensional. By not commenting on the characters' actions it allows room for a host of possible scenarios with different motives and schemes drifting to the surface. Solomon's ascension to the throne may have had more to do with deception than right. Adonijah may have been taking what his by right (i.e. no one is completely "good" or "bad" in the story).

In some sense, I suppose this is all obvious, but I never really started noticing the Hebrew Bible's reticence to comment on the actions of some of its chief characters until I read a good chunk of Meir Sternberg's The Poetics of Biblical Narrative.

Μη μεριμνησητε...

2009-07-04T19:50:00.000-07:00

Well, we're here in Fort Worth now! The move went well overall, and I am very thankful to everyone who helped load and unload (in 103 degree heat) the truck.

But moving is not without its bumps. My car had been acting up before the move, and upon taking it to the dealer here in TX, I was informed that it needs $1500-$2000 worth of work. Still trying to decide what to do, and stressed at being completely new in town (i.e. not knowing where everything is, etc.).

As all of this was rattling through my head this evening I read the following words in St. Paul's letter to the Philippians:

(sorry about the lack of accents--below is my gloss)

χαιρετε εν κυριω παντοτε παλιν ερω χαιρετε.
το επιεικες υμων γνωσθητω πασιν ανθρωποις.
ο κυριος εγγυς.
μηδεν μεριμνατε, αλλ' εν παντι τη προσευχη και τη δεησει μετα ευχαριστιας τα αιτηματα υμων γνωριζεσθω προς τον θεον.
και η ειρηνη του θεου η υπερεχουσα παντα νουν φρουρησει τας καρδιας υμων και τα νοηματα υμων εν Χριστω Ιησου.

"Rejoice in the Lord at all times. Again I will say, rejoice!
Let your gentleness be made know to all people.
The Lord is near.
Do not be anxious, but in everything by means of prayer and entreaty with thankfulness make your requests known to God.
And the peace of God, the kind which supercedes any thought, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." (4:4-7)

I realize, of course, that the context of the letter is persecution and not a problematic car, but still the force of St. Paul's words comforts me. God is good and will take care of everything. Or as our Lord put it:

μη ουν μεριμνησητε εις την αυριον η γαρ αυριον μεριμνησει εαυτης. αρκετον τη ημερα η κακια αυτης.

"Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow for tomorrow will be anxious about itself. Sufficient for the day is its own evil."
(Matt. 6:34)

French...

2009-06-19T14:40:00.000-07:00

A quick personal update:

I have been working hard at French for the past two weeks and am around 52% done with my French reading grammar. I am hoping that I will be able to finish up before I start Theological German at Brite. It would be excellent if I could pass the French exam and have both of my modern foreign languages done! For those of you intimidated by learning to read French, let me recommend Karl Sandberg and Eddison Tatham's French for Reading. It's well put together and intuitive in its layout.

Meanwhile, packing is going apace. My books are cataloged and packed (approx. 865 volumes, 40 some pages of bibliographic data--not too shabby!).

Oh, and here's a picture of me experiencing the joy of my first raw oyster during a recent family trip to Florida! :)

2 Samuel 24 and Exile...

2009-06-18T12:48:00.000-07:00

The past week or so I have been reading Leo Perdue's book Wisdom Literature: A Theological History. A good read, and I have found his discussion of the provenance of the book of Job to be intriguing. Essentially, he argues that the book's final redaction dates to the exile and expresses a sapiential challenge to the traditional cause and effect law of cosmic retribution (i.e. Proverbs). As the sages lamented in exile they questioned whether God was really just (after all much of the punishment was due to the inept nature of the Davidic line--Why were they punished for their leaders' faults).

So what does this have to do with 2 Samuel 24? Glad you asked. With Perdue's categories rattling around in my brain, I read 2 Samuel 24 the other day in Hebrew, and a light went on.

As the concluding chapter to the books of Samuel, 2 Samuel 24 is jarring. The two volumes have been dedicated to proclaiming the high place of YHWH's Annointed (משיח). Yet they conclude with a final note of kingly misconduct (some might question whether human or divine). YHWH is angry with the people and so instigates David to number them. Once David has done so, he recognizes his sin (of relying on the number of his armies rather than on YHWH) and begs for forgiveness. In the end, the people are punished for David's fault with a devastating plague.

Scholars can argue about the possibility of two literary traditions being combined here, but I'm much more interested in why this strange little story made it into the canon--and made it into the canon right here at the end of the books of Samuel (2 Sam. 23 would have made a more heroic ending).

Speculating a bit, I can't help but wonder if it was intended (within the exilic/post-exilic community) to offer a word of prescient hope. The experience of the "plagued" people in 2 Sam. 24 mirrors the experience of the post-exilic community. The Davidic line had proved generally worthless, and the people had gone into exile both because YHWH was angry with them and because of the sins of their Davidic leaders.

Yet the conclusion of 2 Samuel 24 might have offered a glimmer of hope. With the plague spreading, YHWH relents from his anger and stays the hand of his angel (the language is reminiscent of Egypt/Exodus). At the same time, David, reminding YHWH that it is his sin not the people's, offers himself in place of Israel. Then at YHWH's behest he builds an altar at the spot where the plague had stopped.

Could it be that the author(s) of the Deuteronomistic History placed this odd story at the end of 2 Samuel as a veiled reference to the coming exile with the hope that a son of "David" might once again offer himself in the place of Israel/Judah. In addition, perhaps they hoped that YHWH would relent once again from his anger and bring an end to exile.

At the very least, if my speculations are at all accurate (which they may not be!), we find here an instance of careful foreshadowing anticipating the dismal end of 2 Kings.

Again, let me state that I am guessing on all of this. :)

Coldplay and puppets...

2009-06-12T13:56:00.001-07:00

I just had to share this...

2 Samuel 23: A smoothed redactional seam?

2009-06-09T12:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I finished reading the "Words of David" in 2 Samuel 23, and I noticed something interesting about the movement between the poem and the following prose. Perhaps, it is coincidence, but given the care that the scribes languished on the Hebrew text, I doubt it.

2 Sam. 23: 7 ends in Hebrew as follows:

ובאש שרוק ישרפו בשבת

"With fire they will surely be burned in their place (or dwelling/sitting)."

With that the poem ends, but notice the following line (i.e., beginning of v. 8):

אלה שמות הגברים אשר לדוד ישב בשבת

"These are the names of the warriors who were with David: He-who-sits-in-the-place..."

Most versions simply transliterate the name (e.g., Josheb-basshebeth, NASB, NRSV). But I wonder if this obscures a clever redactional hint. V. 7a relates how a person who touches the worthless (בליעל) must be full or armed with iron and the wood of a spear (ימלא ברזל ועץ חנית). Because 7b is disjunctive the waw might then signal a causal or result connection between the two clauses (i.e., "The one who touches them, he must be covered with iron and have a beam of a spear, so that they might surely be burned with fire in their place.").

Confronted with the end of the poem, the first of David's mighty men mentioned then has a name which echoes where the worthless are destroyed. I wonder if this is a subtle way for the author of 2 Samuel to remind readers that, yes indeed, this list of David's warriors is a list of those who don iron and wield the beam of a spear against the worthless enemies of David.

If such is the case, it is another example of a careful smoothing (dare I say artistic?) of a redactional seam.

Stromata article...

2009-05-26T14:57:00.000-07:00

If anyone is interested, Stromata, the student journal of Calvin Theological Seminary, has published my paper on Zechariah 2 (i.e., my writing sample for grad school). It starts on p. 35 (and yes, the editors accidentally misspelled my last name).

Click here.

Some may find it interesting... Others may find it hopelessly boring :)

Closing one chapter of my life...

2009-05-21T08:34:00.000-07:00

I am pleased to say that this coming Saturday (May 23) I will graduate from Calvin Theological Seminary with an Master's of Divinity degree. To be honest, I am very proud of this achievement. I do not come from an academic family, and I grew up in rural poverty in Southern Montana. As a result, I am the first person in my family since a great-uncle (grandmother's brother) to earn a master's degree (my younger sister will follow suite in a year or two), and I will be the first person ever in my family to enter a PhD program.

As I look back over the years, I can see how God has blessed me with these amazing opportunities, and I am grateful. My parents were instrumental in all of this. My father taught me how to work, and my mother instilled in me a love of learning.

This summer I look forward to starting a new chapter in my life at Brite Divinity School. My Theological German textbooks are already sitting in my apartment, and I've been dipping a toe into French. Life moves on, and God is good.

Just thought I'd let you all know :)

N.T. Wright and substitutionary atonement...

2009-05-20T05:19:00.001-07:00

Well, I've been working my way through N.T. Wright's newest book, Justification: God's Plan & Paul's Vision. So far it has been a good read. Having read John Piper's book which started all of this, it is intriguing to watch Wright work out a reply. My sense is that Wright and Piper are working at very different levels. In fact, there is a part of me that wishes that someone other than Piper had written the first book. To be frank, Piper is not quite in Wright's league, and he has his own idiosyncratic ideas which sometimes get in the way of a good dialogue (e.g., his Edwardsian terminology and categories). As a result, there are times where Wright gets hung up on Piper's strange word choices, etc.

Nonetheless, it has been helpful to see Wright engage his Reformed critics, and overall (so far), I think he has done an admirable job. My one quibble is with Wright's odd attempts at shadow boxing with non-existent positions on justification. Again and again, Wright reminds us that we have to be careful to distinguish between "justification" and "salvation." Yet, oddly enough I know of no thoughtful "old perspective" thinker who thinks that the two are identical. In fact, most theologians take great pains to emphasize that justification is a legal declaration. Now, to be sure, I understand what Wright is getting at (i.e., in popular parlance people tend to conflate the two and so get all hot and bothered when Wright redefines justification), but he needs to be more nuanced at this point. Otherwise, his critics will argue that he does not even understand their position.

On another note, I thought I would pass on this quote from the book. For those of you who are determined that Wright does not believe in substitutionary atonement, please read this carefully (Wright is in the process of describing Pauline Christology):

"Fourth, this faithful obedience of the Messiah, culminating in his death "for our sins in accordance with the scriptures" as in one of Paul's summaries of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:3), is regularly understood in terms of the Messiah, precisely because he represents his people, now appropriately standing in for them, taking upon himself the death which they deserved, so that they might not suffer it themselves. This is most clearly expressed, to my mind, in two passages: Romans 8:3...and 2 Corinthians 5:21a..." (105)

Comparing the Baal Cycle to Isaiah 25...

2009-05-11T11:54:00.000-07:00

Below the fold is a section from my paper on the Baal Cycle (see previous post for the vocalization and translation). Attempting to use the comparative method responsibly, I compare the imagery associated with Death (or Mot) swallowing everything to the description of YHWH's feast given in Isaiah 25. The footnotes follow the bibliography at the end.

Section III: The Biblical Parallel:
Intriguingly, the Baal Cycle’s image of Môt or Death swallowing all things finds a historical parallel in Isaiah 25:6-8 (i.e., YHWH swallowing up death). At the outset, it may seem bold to claim such a historical parallel between lines 67.ii.2-20; vi.5-7 and Isaiah 25:6-8. To begin with, there is a significant time gap between the Ugaritic literature and the Biblical texts. While the Ugaritic epics were likely “committed to writing during the reign of Niqmaddu II (ca. 1350 BCE),”[30] the Biblical writings were composed much later. For example, the prophecy of Isaiah ben Amoz (i.e., Isaiah 1-39),[31] which contains the supposed parallel text under consideration, dates from somewhere around the mid-eighth century BCE. That puts approximately six centuries (or more) between the two bodies of literature.

However, such a significant time gap does not necessarily preclude some historical connection. In fact the possibility of direct or indirect historical contact seems likely. Geographically, only a few hundred miles separate Israel and the city of Ugarit, and both areas are on the Near Eastern trading route running from Egypt up over the Fertile Crescent to the area surrounding Babylon. In addition, when Ugarit “reached its political and economic zenith in the thirteenth century BCE,” Israel was just entering Canaan.[32] Given Ugarit’s cosmopolitan status, it seems highly likely that the flow of trade up and down the coast of Palestine led to an interaction between the new inhabitants of Canaan and the established city to the north. Furthermore, the various indigenous tribes in Canaan would have had similar contact with Ugarit. Given that these tribes were not completely destroyed in the conquest (cf., Judges 2:3), they also could have provided a mediated historical connection between the two cultures. In addition with the destruction of Ugarit in the 1100’s BCE, it seems likely that at least some fugitives from the city would have moved south creating even more opportunities for cultural contact. Thus, it seems reasonable to suppose that the proper historical conditions exist for a historical connection between the two cultures.

It should be clear at this point that I favor a contextualist approach towards the Biblical data. While I have serious doubts about any history of religions scheme which proposes that Israel’s monotheism developed out of Canaanite polytheism, I am inclined to believe that the Bible does reflect the Ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu both in terms of form and content.
Thus, while it is difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the historical relationship between the two texts, I maintain that the following things can be observed. First, at the very least, Isaiah 25 and the Baal Cycle share a common collection of cultural imagery. Both speak of deities enthroned on their respective mountains (e.g., Is. 25:6-7; ANET, V AB: C; I AB: vi: 12; etc.). In addition, both poems[33] connect Death in some fashion with swallowing up (for more on this see below). Finally, both deities appear to hold a banquet. Baal, it seems, sets one up in a failed attempt to pacify Môt,[34] while YHWH sets up a banquet where he will swallow up Death. It should be noted that this parallel is speculative. The tablets containing Môt’s alleged invitation to the feast are heavily damaged.

Second, it appears that these (allegedly) shared cultural images and/or themes lie more at a conceptual level than a textual level. The two texts share images and themes but very little vocabulary. In fact, there is only one cognate word: môtu (Ugaritic), or māvet (מות—Hebrew). If these two texts shared a relationship of direct textual borrowing (or possibly a common source), one would expect there to be more examples of cognate vocabulary.[35]

Third, given the similar cultural imagery, the lack of cognate vocabulary, and the significant time gap between the two poems, it seems far more likely that Isaiah 25 shares the conceptual world or tradition of the Baal Cycle as it was mediated through popular Israelite religion.[36] No doubt this religious tradition had undergone changes in the intervening centuries, but it is likely that the main themes and images of the Baal Cycle were preserved in the hamlets and villages of Israel both by the Hebrews and their Canaanite neighbors.[37]

At this point someone might suggest that the relationship between these two texts is historically tenuous, and thus the suggested parallel is at best typological. This prompts the third observation: despite the lack of cognate vocabulary, the parallel imagery displays a high level of conceptual complexity. To begin with, it is curious that Isaiah chooses to use the verb (בלע) “swallow” in vv. 7 and 8. If there was no historical conceptual connection between the Baal Cycle and Isaiah 25, this word choice makes little sense (one wonders why Isaiah did not simply use a word like: השמיד, “destroy”).[38] This is especially true in v. 7. Both the NIV and the NRSV notice the awkward construction in Hebrew (ובלע בהר הזה פני־הלוט הלוט על־כל־העמים). They both translate it “He will destroy…” However, this translation misses the poetic intensification: “He will swallow (בלע) the shroud à He will swallow (בלע) death.” The shroud and death overlap, and because Isaiah is determined to use the word “swallow” in v. 8, he finds it poetically necessary to use it in v. 7. Again, if there is no historical connection at play here, why is the author of Isaiah 25 so determined to use the language of swallowing and eating?[39]

This is best explained, it seems to me, as an intentional polemic against current popular Israelite religion. Given the final canonical shaping of the book, this makes good sense. Take for example, Isaiah 44’s stinging critique of idolatry or Isaiah 2:6-22’s frustration with the house of Jacob for how it is “full of superstitions from the East” and practices “divination like the Philistines” and clasps “hands with pagans” (i.e., “embraces their customs”).[40] Read within this context, the average Israelite who read or heard this poetry would have understood it as a critique of popular religion. While Baal whimpers before Môt and eventually finds himself swallowed up, YHWH swallows Môt without a second thought. Indeed, such a contrastive parallel presents a playful irony: YHWH will swallow and eat the god who is known for his voracious appetite.[41] While Israel and Judah are looking to all of the wrong places for help (2:22), YHWH alone is able to offer the people salvation.

Now, having suggested what appears to be a fruitful solution to this oddity (i.e., “בלע” in v. 7), another problem emerges. If Isaiah 25:8 is alluding to or drawing on a shared cultural image, why is Death (or “Môt”) definite in Hebrew? One would expect “המות” to be indefinite (i.e., מות) if it is a proper name. Gesenius states clearly that, “the article cannot be prefixed to a proper name.”[42] However, that is not the end of the matter. Gesenius also notes that the article is generally used “when terms applying to whole classes are restricted (simply by usage) to particular individuals.”[43] Intriguingly, as an example he notes “בעל” refers to “lord” and “הבעל” refers to “Baal…[the] proper name of the god.”[44] I would tentatively suggest that something similar is going on in Isaiah 25:8. The presence of the article may actually specify the particular “death” Isaiah has in mind: Môt.[45] So what at first glance appeared to be a problem, now turns out to be possible and a potential reinforcement for a case of historical shared cultural imagery.

In conclusion, it appears that the Baal Cycle provides an illuminating historical parallel for Isaiah 25. Because the proper historical conditions are in place for such a parallel, and the two texts share conceptual/mythological imagery (not to mention the presence of the definite article before the word “death”), it is reasonable to suppose that the two texts are historically connected. While it is difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the historical connection, the reason for the connection appears to be a polemic against idolatry.

Bibliography

Childs, Brevard S. Isaiah. The Old Testament Library. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Gordon, Cyrus H. Ugaritic Textbook. Rome, Italy: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965.

Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. Vol. 1, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. New York: Brill, 1996.

Longman III, Tremper, and Raymond B. Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994, 2006.

Oswalt, John N. The Book of Isaiah: Ch. 1-39. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986.

Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts. 3rd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Schniedewind, William M. and Joel H. Hunt. A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture, and Literature. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Sweeney, Marvin A. Isaiah 1-39 with An Introduction to Prophetic Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, vol. XVI. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996.

VanGemeren, Willem A. Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990.

Young, Edward J. The Book of Isaiah. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.

-----------------------

Footnotes:
[30] William M. Schniedewind and Joel H. Hunt, A Primer on Ugaritic: Language, Culture, and Literature (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 13.
[31] For the purposes of this paper, I am assuming that Isaiah 1-39 is at the very least a redactional unity. The problem of the “Isaiah Apocalypse” (i.e., Is. 24-27) and its exact dating is beyond the purview of this paper. Even if the Isaiah Apocalypse dates to a later period, it only further establishes my point that several centuries intervened between the composition of the Ugaritic literature and Biblical texts.
[32] Schniedewind, 28.
[33] Notice that both texts also fall within the same genre, a necessary prerequisite for fruitful comparative work.
[34] See The Context of Scripture, 266, fn. 223.
[35] One could, of course, hypothesize that the author of Isaiah 25 was aware of the Baal Cycle and chose to paraphrase his source. However, this seems needlessly speculative and presents a problem given the chronological large gap between the two texts.
[36] Which may have assimilated the conceptual world through the mediation of Canaanite culture.
[37] I am making two assumptions here: first (again), that the pantheon described in the Baal Cycle actually did influence the Canaanite tribes to the south of Ugarit; second, that in general agricultural communities can resist change for surprising lengths of time.
[38] It could be argued that the “swallowing” imagery simply signals the complete destruction of death. After all, בלע is commonly used to refer to destruction in the broader Hebrew Bible and more narrowly in the six other occurrences of the word in Isaiah (e.g., 2 Sam. 20:20, Job 2:3, Jer. 51:34, Num. 16:30, Ps. 21:9, Ps. 69:16 (Heb.), Ps. 124:3, Prov. 1:12, Is. 3:12, 9:15, 19:3, 28:4, 28:7, 49:19, etc.). However, this still begs the question of why the imagery in this particular pericope is so focused on swallowing or eating. Of course, one might respond that the imagery is simply incidental to the feasting described in vv. 6-8. Yet such a response cannot explain why this is the only time in the Hebrew Bible that the words ‘בלע’ and ‘מות’ occur together (granted, there places in which synonyms for ‘death’ occur with ‘to swallow’—e.g., Ps. 69:16, Num. 16:30, Prov. 1:12; however, even these instances reflect Môt-like imagery (i.e., the Deep swallowing the Psalmist and the descent into Sheol).
[39] The Reformed exegete, Edward J. Young also notes the oddity of the veil being swallowed: “Isaiah uses a strange characterization; God is said to swallow the face of the covering.” E.J. Young, The Book of Isaiah (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969) 2:194.
[40] See also Is. 17:8’s prophecy that the Asherah poles of Damascus will be abandoned and 10:11’s anger with Assyria for its pride: “As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols, kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria—shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?” In addition, Schniedewind notes that Isaiah knows of Mt. Zaphon (cf., Is. 14:13) (p. 7).
[41] Willem VanGemeren suggests that there are other “mythopoetic” motifs in the book of Isaiah (e.g., Is. 27:1’s description of YHWH’s destruction of Leviathan). See Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word: An Introduction to the Prophetic Literature of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), 267-268 and thus 491, n. 61.
[42] Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, §125a.
[43] Ibid., §126d.
[44] Ibid. The same phenomenon is visible in the plural word “gods” when the definite article is used to specify the true God.
[45] E.J. Young has a different take: “Isaiah uses the definite article with death, to stress the fact that it is well known that death has been a terror to mankind.” 2:196.

2 Samuel 20...

2009-05-04T12:53:00.000-07:00

Just a couple thoughts on 2 Samuel 20 (i.e., Joab murders Amasa):

1) It is clear that there is a fair amount of word play going on surrounding the Hebrew word "עמד" (to stand). David tells Amasa to call together the men of Judah and "stand here" (NRSV, v. 4: "and be here yourself"). Then one of Joab's young men (נער) "stands" by Amasa, and tries to rally the people to follow Joab (v. 11). However, everyone was just "standing" there looking at Amasa wallowing in his blood (v. 12). (As a second instance of word play, just as Joab "spills" (שלך) Amasa's innards, the young man "spills" a garment over him so that the people won't look at the corpse).

2) I am curious if any of the gospel writers drew on the imagery of this episode when describing Judas' betrayal of Jesus. In the same way that Joab takes advantage of a kiss to kill Amasa, a political rival, Judas uses it to hand Jesus over to the chief priests who view Jesus (at least in some sense) as a political rival. The cold expediency of the moment is shocking in both stories when the parties in question should have been on the same side (i.e., Amasa and Joab were both out to put down a rebellion which Sheba had fomented; Jesus and the Priests, et al., were both looking for the coming of God's dominion). However, this is all speculation on my part... Nonetheless, it might be a fruitful study in intertextuality (or lack thereof).

N.T. Wright on blogging...

2009-05-01T12:55:00.001-07:00

I just picked up N.T. Wright's newest book on Justification and ran across a wonderful statement that I thought I'd share.

"It really is high time we developed a Christian ethic of blogging. Bad temper is bad temper even in the apparent privacy of your own hard drive, and harsh and unjust words, when released into the wild, rampage around and do real damage. And as for the practice of saying mean and untrue things while hiding behind a pseudonym--well, if I get a letter like that it goes straight in the bin. But the cyberspace equivalents of road rage don't happen by accident. People who type vicious, angry, slanderous and inaccurate accusations do so because they feel their worldview to be under attack. Yes, I have a pastoral concern for such people. (And, for that matter, a pastoral concern for anyone who spends more than a few minutes a day taking part in blogsite discussions, especially when they all use code names: was it for this that the creator God made human beings?)..."

--from N.T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision (Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2009), 26-27.

Baal Cycle: Lines 67.ii.2-20; vi.5-7

2009-05-01T12:10:00.000-07:00

Below the fold is my initial vocalization and translation of my assigned section of the Baal Cycle. I will be presenting it in class in about a week with a discussion of its place in the Cycle and its usefulness in understanding Isaiah 25:8. Sadly, I am unable to get blogger to retain all of the footnotes, so I have copied them on at the end. Essentially, they parse each of the verbal forms and deal with grammatical issues.

Baal Cycle: Lines 67.ii.2-20; vi.5-7
A Brief Study in Comparison with Isaiah 25:8

Section I: Vocalization and Translation:

ii. 2-20
2) šaptu laʾarṣi šaptu lašamîma
A lip to the earth, a lip to the heavens

3) lišâna lakabkabîma yaʿrubu[1]
(his) tongue to the stars. Baal will enter

4) baʿlu bakabidihū bapîhū yaridu[2]
his heart. He will go down his throat (lit.: his mouth)

5) kaḥarûri[3] zêti yabûli ʾarṣi wapirî
like olive-bread, the produce of the land and the fruit

6) ʿiṣîma yiraʾunū[4] ʾalʾiyānu baʿlu
of trees. Powerful Baal fears him.

7) ṯatiʿa[5] annanū[6] râkibu[7] ʿarpâti
The rider of the clouds is very afraid of him

8) tbaʿā[8] rgumā[9] labini ʾilîma Môti
“Go say[10] to the son of the gods, Mot

9) ṯuniyā[11] layadîdi ʾIli ģazri
Repeat to El’s beloved, the Hero,

10) taḥumma ʾalʾiyāni baʿli hawāta ʾalʾiyāni
the message of Powerful Baal, the word of the most powerful of

11) qarrâdîma bahṯa labini ʾilîma Môti
heroes: ‘Hail to Mot, son of the gods!

12) ʿabdukā ʾanā wadūʿâlamikā
I am your servant and am such a one forever.[12]’”

13) tabiʿā[13] walâ yaṯabā[14] ʾilâmi ʾidêkā
The gods departed and did not sit down (i.e. tarry, delay).[15] Then (or “next”)

14) lûyatanā[16] pânîma ʿimma bini ʾilîma Môti
Truly, they set (their) faces to the son of the gods, Môt.

15) tôka qarêtihū hamârayi maka kussîʾu
toward his city, Water Pit (or Flood). Behold[17] (or “there it is!”) the throne

16) ṯibitiya[18] ʾarṣu naḥlatihū tiššaʾā[19]
of his sitting, the land of his inheritance. They lift up

17) gâhumā wataṣîḥā[20] taḥumma ʾalʾiyāni
their voices and they cry out the message of the powerful

18) bini baʿli hawāta ʾalʾiyāni qarrâdîma
son, Baal, the word of the most powerful of heroes:

19) bahṯa binu ʾilîma Môtu ʿabdukā ʾanā
“Hail, O son of the gods, Mot! I am your servant

20) wadūʿâlamikā šâmiẖu[21] binu ʾilîma Môtu
and am such a one forever.” Mot, the son of the gods, is rejoicing.

vi. 5-7
5)………………….. maģênayā[22]
…………..We two came

6) lanuʿmayi ʾarṣi dabari[23]
to the loveliness (or happiness) of the desert-grassland.

7) layasâmati šadî šiḥlamemôti[24]
to the beauty of the field at death’s shore.

---------------
Footnotes

[1] G, Yaqtulu, 3 ms from ʿrb (to enter, to set (of sun)).
[2] G, Yaqtulu, 3 ms from yrd (to descend).
[3] G Participle, ms passive from ḥrr.
[4] G, Yaqtulu, 3 ms from yrʾ (to fear, be afraid) with a 3ms pronominal suffix. The two alephs in the consonantal text are unusual. However, they are not impossible. Cyrus Gordon writes: “there are sporadic examples of vocalic representation; i.e., where an aleph-sign is used as a vowel letter without designating consonantal aleph…Observe also that a is vocalic in yraun.” Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (Rome, Italy: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1965), 18. Gordon then suggests that yraun be vocalized as the infinitive absolute yarâ⁾unū. It is unclear to me why one would vocalize yraun as an infinitive acting as a regular verb when it can be vocalized as simply as a regular verb.
[5] G, Qatala, 3 ms from ṯtʿ (to fear, be afraid).
[6] Here the energic ending and the pronominal suffix appear separated from the verb.
[7] G, Active Participle, ms from rkb (to ride).
[8] G, Imperative, dual from tbʿ (to depart).
[9] G, Imperative, dual from rgm (to say).
[10] Note: Baal is speaking to Gapn and Ugar, thus the dual case endings throughout.
[11] G, Imperative, dual from ṯny (to repeat).
[12] Lit. “and one of your eternity.”
[13] G, Qatala, 3 m dual from tbʿ (to depart).
[14] G, Qatala 3 m dual from yṯb (to sit, dwell).
[15] The Context of Scripture translates line 13 as “Be off and do not tarry, O gods.” William W. Hallo, ed., The Context of Scripture, vol. 1, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (New York: Brill, 1996), 266. In this case the vocalization would be: tba⁽ū (dual: tba⁽ā) walâ yṯibū (dual: yṯibā) ⁾ilûma.
[16] G, Qatala, 3 m dual from ytn (to give, set, put).
[17] If the text is vocalized as “mûku” then the translation would be “Low is the throne of his sitting, (low is) the land of his inheritance.” In this option the emphasis would be upon Môt’s dwelling place being in the depths. However, I have chosen the vocalization “maka” because it gives the sense of immediacy that comports well with Baal’s command to the gods. From the commissioning they are off, and suddenly they are there at the gates of Water Pit.
[18] G Infinitive, genitive from yṯb (to sit, dwell) with a 1st cs pronominal suffix (note: unsure of how to vocalize an initial-y infinitive, I have followed Hebrew’s lead in using i/e class vowels. See Lambdin §120). The suffix presents a problem. It should be –hū or –nū (i.e., 3 ms) to mirror naḥlatihū. One could speculate that Baal is interjecting a lament about his own throne soon being low in the land of Môt’s inheritance. However, this reading presents its own problems. To begin with, an interjection by Baal at this point would jar the narrative flow of the poem. The gods go from journeying towards Môt’s city to abruptly delivering Baal’s message. Second, one would expect the inseparable preposition ba- to be added to ʾarṣu (i.e., “low is the throne of my sitting in the land of his inheritance.”). Now in fairness, one could argue that lines 13-20 represent a soliloquy by Baal. In which case the Yaqtulu forms would all be translated in the future tense, and one would have to follow The Context of Scripture’s translation of line 13. However, such a move would simply shift the problem to the wider context and would have to make Môt’s joy in line 20 part of Baal’s speech (a move which seems problematic). The third and most damaging problem with this reading is the parallel passage where Baal sends his messengers to Môt the first time:

(12) hmry . mk . ksu
(13) ṯbth . ẖẖ . arṣ
(14) nḥlth . wnģr

The parallel (UT, 51: VIII: 12-14) puts the matter beyond doubt. The pronominal suffix here should be –hū (cf. ṯbth).
[19] G, Yaqtulu, 3 m dual from nšʾ (to lift up). Note the absence of the final “ni.”
[20] G, Yaqtulu, 3 m dual from ṣyḥ (to shout or call). Note again the absence of the final “ni.”
[21] G, Active Participle, ms from šmẖ (to rejoice), or it could be vocalized “šamiẖa” (G, Qatala, 3 ms: “Mot, the son of the gods, rejoiced.”)
[22] G, Qatala, 1 c dual from mģy (to reach, come, arrive). Note the shift from maḡaynayā to maḡênayā.
[23] The word is problematic. ANET, unsure of what to do with it, translates accordingly: “We [ca]me to the pleasance of Dabr-land.” James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 3rd ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969), 139. Meanwhile, The Context of Scripture translates it as “pasture land” (267). I have translated “desert-grassland” because Gordon notes that dbr is “regularly” parallel with “mdbr ‘desert’ (in the Semitic world = grazing land)” (UT, Glossary: s.v. dbr). Because of this I have also vocalized the word with two a-class vowels following the Hebrew: daḇar and midbar. In addition, the idea of “desert” would fit with the theory that Môt is god “of the rainless season” (ANET, 135, fn. 27). The one difficulty I see with my translation is that it may read more into the word than is there. While geographically more associated with Northern Asia, the word “steppe” might be an attractive alternative.
[24] This word is also problematic. ANET translates it as “Shihlmemat-field” (139) which is not only ambiguous but also contains an illegal consonant cluster. The Context of Scripture translates it as “the edge of death’s realm” (267). I translate it “at death’s shore” following Yasin who “renders ‘shore of death’ on the strength of” the Arabic word for shore (Gordon, UT, Glossary: s.v. šḥlmmt). Another possibility is: שׁחל ממית, the ‘lion that kills.’ Frankly, my vocalization is speculative. I begin with ANET’s suggestion and modify it to break up the illegal consonant cluster and to ensure the word “môtu” is present.

Another gem from Fleming Rutledge...

2009-04-22T19:17:00.001-07:00

“This leads us again from the parable to Paul. One of the trickiest problems in all Biblical interpretation is the relation between the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul. Many Christians are confused about this. Paul is often thought of as the spoiler who took the simple lessons of Jesus and made them intellectual, abstract, harsh, and—God forbid—theological. It comes as a shock to many to realize that there is far more teaching about judgment, condemnation, hellfire, and good versus bad people in the words of Jesus than in the letters of Paul. If all we had of Jesus were the parables dealing with judgment, we would all be turning gratefully to Paul. Indeed, if it were not for Paul, we might not have known how to place the emphasis in many of Jesus’ stories.”

Fleming Rutledge, Help My Unbelief (Eerdmans, 2000), 66-67.

Baal--Just for the fun of it :)

2009-04-15T06:57:00.000-07:00

For the fun of it, I thought I'd give you a few lines from the Baal Cycle that I'm currently vocalizing and translating for class. The Baal Cycle is a fascinating epic myth revolving around Baal's rule. It begins with Prince Sea (Yam) asking the High god, El, if he can build a temple for himself. In addition, he wants Baal (the storm god, the rider on the clouds) to be handed over to him. Baal decides to go to battle with Prince Sea. Using two clubs fashioned for him by the god Kothar-wa-H̱asis, Baal defeats Prince Sea. After this Baal allows Kothar-wa-H̱asis to build a palace for him. However, Baal's dominion is usurped by Mōt (the god of death), and Mōt swallows Baal up. In response, Baal's consort/sister attack Mōt and conquers him paving the way for Baal's return. (n.b.: I am heavily indebted here to Michael J. Williams' summary of the myth in his Ugaritic Grammar)

The lines are numbered according to Cyrus Gordon's Ugaritic Textbook (the lines given here are 67.ii.2-5). The initial line in each grouping is Gordon's transliterated, unvocalized text. The second line represents my vocalization and the third my initial rough translation. The scene is Mōt swallowing Baal.

2. [špt la]rṣ . špt . lšmm
šaptu la⁾arṣi šaptu lašamîma
A lip to the earth, a lip to the heavens

3. [ l]šn . lkbkbm . y⁽rb
lišâna lakabkabîma ya⁽rubu
He stretches (his) tongue to the stars

4. [b⁽]l . bkbdh . bph yrd
ba⁽lu bakabidihū bapîhū yarada
Baal descended into his heart (interior) from his mouth

5. kḥrr . zt . ybl . arṣ . wpr
kaḥarûri zêti yabûli ⁾arṣi wapirî
like olive bread, the produce of the land and the fruit (of trees--on the next line)

Fleming Rutledge...

2009-04-06T13:23:00.000-07:00

I just discovered Rev. Fleming Rutledge... Wow! If you have never read any of her sermons, I highly recommend her. There's a Barthian flavor to some of her sermons, but still... Wow! That's all I can say.

A sampling:

"Well, then, is the book of Job right? Or is it, too, a projection of man's need for a powerful protector and vindicator? Is the Bible a product of human mental activity as Freud says it is? If we are to be Christians into the next millennium, we need to meet these challenges squarely. It is far better to look disbelief straight in the face than to make up a god to suit ourselves. It is far more dangerous for theistic faith to allow made-up gods into the synagogue and church than it is to carry on a conversation with an atheist who warns against creating gods in our own image."

"Is the God of the Bible a god that we have created for ourselves? Job was written, at least in part, to give a resounding "no" to that question. God does not respond to Job's wishes and needs; on the contrary, he seems to be completely independent of them. God's reply to Job is no reply at all; it is a disclosure of radical divine autonomy."

("Re-imagining and Revelation," in Help My Unbelief (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 24 & 25.)

Brueggemann on preaching...

2009-04-05T13:44:00.000-07:00

I think Brueggemann is on to something here.

A Short Homily on blogging...

2009-04-03T09:37:00.000-07:00

Brothers and Sisters,

Be wise in your blogging.

Remember that anyone anywhere can read what you write on your blog. Remember that your blog reflects you. Make sure then that it reflects you as you reflect Christ Jesus.

Sometimes we want so badly to let the world know our frustrations with our churches, our church leaders, our fellow Christians, etc., but let us remember that part of wisdom is knowing when and where to say something. The internet is not the place for us to vent. We may be right; we may know what we are talking about; and yet, we may be slitting our own throats (or the throats of our brothers and sisters) with our poorly placed words.

The past few days I have been reminded of my own failures in this area. Yesterday, a friend pointed out a post of mine from three years ago which reflected my frustrations with my own denomination. While there was nothing in the post that was "wrong" (I still think my analysis was fairly accurate), it was unwise. It reflected my own immaturity and foolishness. It was hurried, anecdotal, and more about me than my church. So I deleted it.

Being controversial or a "fire brand" does no one any good. The sad truth of the matter is that often such posts reflect a narcissistic desire for others "out there" in cyber-world to affirm us in our positions against the "Man."

So brothers and sisters, be wise in your blogging. Let Christ Jesus be reflected in you.

Why study Ugaritic?

2009-03-30T13:34:00.001-07:00

From time to time people will ask me what classes I'm taking in seminary. When I tell them I'm taking Akkadian, Aramaic, or (this quarter) Ugaritic, I usually get a blank look and a tentative follow up question: "does everyone have to take that?" After assuring them that "no" not everyone has to take that, and "yes" I am a glutton for punishment who is headed to Texas to work on a PhD, I usually duck out of the conversation.

However, as I study for my Ugaritic midterm, the study guide challenges those of us taking the class to think about why studying Ugaritic is helpful in ministry.

Here are my three reasons:

1) It improves your Hebrew. The majority of the Bible is in Hebrew, and anything that solidifies that language in your head is good. How does it improve your Hebrew, you ask? Well, because Ugaritic as a Northwestern Canaanite language is very similar to Hebrew. For example, let's look at active and passive participles. In both languages, the three letter verbal root has a similar vowel patter. In Hebrew the active participle's pattern is ō, ē (e.g. hōlēk, "going"). In Ugaritic it is â, i (e.g. mâliku, "ruling"). Notice that both begin with a long vowel followed by an i/e class vowel. Likewise, both languages have a "u" vowel in the passive participle (e.g. Hebrew: kāṯūḇ, "is being written;" Ugaritic: ḥabûqu "being embraced"). Other similarities are clear in the verb paradigms, the pronouns, pronominal suffixes, etc.

2) Studying Ugaritic helps acclimate you to the world of the Hebrew Bible. You are able to see the give and take between cultures. For example, in the study of Ugaritic you learn that some of the psalms in the Bible were originally Ugaritic psalms to Baal. The Hebrew Poets took these existing psalms and polemically redacted them to emphasize that YHWH is the true God (i.e. it is YHWH who rides on the wings of the wind and thunders from heaven). In addition such an acclimation to the cultures, puts the differences between the Bible and its contemporary literature into sharp relief.

3) Studying Ugaritic helps one evaluate the typical "history of religions" comparative methodology in vogue among Ancient Near East scholars (i.e. the methodology that says things like: "Well, Yahwehism is nothing more than an outgrowth of earlier Canaanite religion."). By getting into some of the primary sources, one can see whether the Bible really mirrors something from the surrounding culture or not.

Thoughts on 2 Samuel 15...

2009-03-27T13:57:00.000-07:00

While reading 2 Samuel 15 in Hebrew, I had a couple random thoughts...

First, why exactly does David send the Ark back into Jerusalem when he had to flee for his life on account of Absalom's rebellion? My sense is that David demonstrates more savvy here than most of his descendants ever did. While later generations would assume YHWH's blessing based on the presence of the cultic instruments and center (i.e. the temple and its work), David recognized that the Ark of the Covenant is not a magic charm. If YHWH wants David to return to the city, He will bring David back (cf. 2 Sam. 15.25).

While it is unclear when exactly 1 & 2 Samuel reached their final redaction, it is tempting to speculate that if the final canonical form of these books was produced in the post-exilic community, the redactors saw fit (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) to include this part of the story as a critique of the previous generation's foolishness. God delights more in obedience than in sacrifice.

Second, notice the contrast between Absalom and Ittai the Gittite. Absalom is ready to usurp the kingdom from YHWH's Anointed One (also very different from his father's attitude towards Saul). By implication then, he is rebelling against YHWH and with hypocritical irony using a vow to YHWH as the opportunity to proclaim himself king. In contrast, Ittai, the foreigner, declares his and his people's allegiance to YHWH's Anointed One (and thus to YHWH). In a statement of faith, he swears by YHWH and David that regardless of life or death, he will align himself with David (such an action is clearly more about faith than an opportunity to "get in with the king"--especially considering that Absalom had stolen the hearts of the men of Israel. Cf. 15.6).

The contrast highlights a recurrent theme in the Hebrew Bible: the people of the surrounding nations, when introduced to YHWH often display more faith and hesed than the covenant people who are busy taking His rule for granted and desperate to rule themselves (cf. Ruth, Jonah--especially the sailors contrasted with Jonah, etc.).

If you are looking for a seminary...

2009-03-13T10:48:00.000-07:00

Today was Calvin Seminary's birthday, and we had our annual "Dies Natalis" skits poking fun at ourselves and our professors. All was in good fun and good taste. The whole event got me to thinking about my experience here at Calvin Seminary, and I have to say that I am profoundly grateful. Almost three years ago I entered seminary not sure what to expect. Now, only a couple of months from graduation, I have a good idea what this institution is all about.

Like any institution, Calvin Seminary has its faults, but I have to say that I am extremely proud to call this "little Geneva" my seminary. I have been formed and shaped here in ways that I would have never guessed. The MDiv curriculum has stretched me outside of my academic comfort zone, and I am thankful for that. It has also been a humbling experience. A friend of mine once said that "all first year seminarians already think they are pastors; second year seminarians are not so sure; and third year seminarians wonder if they can pastor at all." It is like the Marines: they have to tear you down before they can build you back up. In the process I have learned a great deal about myself--about my weaknesses and strengths. I have learned that some fights are worth fighting and some are not. I have learned that sometimes we must submit to the wisdom of our peers and leaders/teachers, even when it hurts and we see no wisdom in it.

A couple of examples: first, in my initial foray into seminary studies, I was frustrated by the homiletical method that is taught here. However, after working in a congregation this past summer, I have realized that there is much about the method that is useful. I may not use every part of it in preaching, and I may not structure my sermons exactly according to its guidelines, but I am thankful that my preaching professors forced me to learn it. In hindsight I see their wisdom.

Second, I posted once on how the seminary decided to make me take CPE (Clinical Pastoral Education--essentially a combination of hospital chaplaincy and highly structured group therapy) and how frustrated I was with that decision. While I still am not convinced that CPE is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and have since had the requirement waived due to the amount of pastoral care I did in my internship, I now understand why the seminary did what it did. The faculty/administration had more insight into my personality than I realized. In hindsight I see their wisdom.

So, if you are reading this post and are contemplating attending seminary, let me encourage you to look at Calvin. Not only does it help form you, but it also offers amazing academic opportunities. As someone going on for a PhD in Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, it was a perfect fit. In addition to Hebrew, Calvin offers elective courses in all of the major ancient near eastern languages (i.e. Akkkadian, Aramaic, and Ugaritic). I do not know of any other seminary where one could get the basics of these language tools (granted, the courses tend to be ThM level, but if you are willing to work, you'll be fine).

So there... there's my little campaign speech :)

Books! Books! Books!

2009-03-05T12:51:00.001-08:00

So today was the Calvin Seminary book sale. There were several tables of books from pastors' libraries, professors' libraries, and students' libraries..... And I struck it rich. I found a used copy of Herman Dooyeweerd's New Critique of Theoretical Thought for $50. YES, all four volumes for $50!

I'm sure several people are getting blank looks right about now. Dooyeweerd was an important Neo-Calvinist philosopher whose writings are fairly rare and expensive (the New Critique brand new runs around $150 a volume... Maybe less these days, I haven't checked). So yes, you may rejoice with me in this steal of a deal.

:)

More thoughts on Mark 14...

2009-03-02T05:35:00.000-08:00

It is interesting in Mark 14.27-50 how Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times, and then in v. 37 (in Gethsemane), Jesus talks specifically to Peter before the disciples fall asleep for a third time. The call to pray "lest you enter into temptation" and the famous phrase: "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" are both spoken only to Peter in Mark's gospel.

There seems to be some connection between Jesus' prophecy of Peter's three denials and the disciples' three instances of falling asleep. Given that Peter is the only disciple spoken to in v. 37, it would appear that Mark is again foreshadowing Peter's denial.

Just some thoughts...

Pondering Mark 14.1-11...

2009-02-28T06:26:00.001-08:00

The other day I was reading through Mark 14.1-11 in Greek, and I was struck by what appears to be a typical Markan frame (i.e. a literary device where the author begins with a certain theme, etc. often signaled by key words, and then sandwiches a narrative between that initial section and another section which mirrors it thematically and lexically--a sort of ABA structure). In the first few verses of the chapter, we are told that the chief priests and scribes were seeking (ezatoun: 3 p imperfect of zateo--excuse the poor transliteration!) to seize Jesus with deceit so that they might kill him. In vv. 10-11, Judas steals off from the twelve and offers to betray Jesus. The last sentence completes the frame: "and he was seeking (ezatei: 3 s imperfect of zateo) how conveniently (lit. a "good time") to betray him." So we have the chief priests, et al. seeking Jesus' death, and we have Judas seeking to betray Jesus.

The real question, then, is what is the significance of the narrative which comes between the bookends? (Mark tends to use the frame device when he wants to highlight the intervening narrative.)

The story is of the woman who breaks an alabaster jar and anoints Jesus' head with expensive myrrh and nard. Clearly the story is important, not only because of the frame but also because of Jesus' words (i.e. v. 9: "wherever the good news is preached--unto the whole world--also what she did will be spoken of as a memorial of her."). One wonders why this particular action is singled out for remembrance.

My sense is that the woman's actions represent the proper perspective on Jesus' apocalyptic discourse given in Mark 13. Mark is reminding us that the fireworks of chapter 13 must come after the cross. Contrary to the disciples' expectations which keep circling around a conquering Messiah (cf. 14.30), Jesus' elevation of this woman's deed signals how the preceding chapter is to be read. The Son of Man's triumph will only come after desertion, suffering, and death. The woman is the only one who seems to know this.

Another possibility is that the chief priests, scribes, and Judas provide a foil for the woman's actions (i.e. as the perpetrators they foresee death in Jesus' future, while she foresees Jesus' death as an eschatalogical moment in the inbreaking of the kingdom--thus, the expensive burial preparations).

Hurrah! Hurrah!

2009-02-24T09:44:00.000-08:00

I just thought I'd let everyone know that I was accepted into Brite Divinity School at Texas Christian University to study for a PhD in Hebrew Bible. I am excited at the opportunity and will be sending them my official acceptance letter soon.

The two main Old Testament scholars there are Dr. Leo Perdue and Dr. Toni Craven. Both sound superb!

A few thoughts on Fides et Ratio...

2009-02-14T17:08:00.000-08:00

Below is the appraisal section of a paper I wrote recently on Pope John Paul II's Fides et Ratio. I do not claim to be completely original in my assessment, nor would everyone with the Reformed tradition agree with me. However, I do think that I have sensed some competing loyalties within the encyclical. Feel free to critique! :)

A Reformed Appraisal:
In some sense appraising John Paul II’s encyclical Fides et Ratio is difficult. The letter is neither for the faint of heart nor for those without some philosophical training. It is dense and carefully reasoned. Often the former pope makes subtle allusions which are difficult to discern. However, with careful reading, the thrust of the message is clear: to battle the encroaching darkness of nihilism, philosophy and theology must recover the Great Tradition’s emphasis upon ontology.

From a Reformed perspective this is a commendable project (depending on certain definitional qualifications). While the Reformed tradition has historically been skeptical about onto-theology, it nonetheless has always emphasized the sovereignty of God. Thus, in continuity with the Great Tradition the Reformed perspective has always maintained that God is the source of existence. Because God is the creator ex nihilo, His creation actually has being or existence. Humans, while perspectival creatures, nevertheless exist in a real world that transcends their own epistemic activity. In addition, the Reformed tradition maintains that God continues to uphold the existence of this world through His providential governance.

At a philosophical level, the Dutch Neo-Calvinist tradition of Reformational philosophy uses neo-Kantian categories to come to an almost identical conclusion. In the prolegomena of his A New Critique of Theoretical Thought, Herman Dooyeweerd writes:

This universal character of referring and expressing, which is proper to our entire created cosmos, stamps created reality as meaning, in accordance with its dependent non-self-sufficient nature. Meaning is the being of all that has been created and the nature even of our selfhood. It has a religious root and a divine origin. (4)

Thus, while the categories differ and each system (whether Thomist or Dooyeweerdian) would struggle with the other, both subscribe to the same goal: creational dependence upon God, the transcendent True Origin of existence. Like John Paul II’s Thomism, the Reformational tradition is suspicious of mistaking the ground of existence with something immanent in the created order. Creation (or meaning) points beyond itself to the “absolute” and “self-sufficient” Origin. Within the modern immanentalized scheme, humanity is tossed back and forth between the dialectical horns of divinity (i.e. the free being determining its self-definition) and automation (i.e. the determined being defined by its history and culture). Only a Christian ontological model with God as the source of being and meaning is able to offer humanity dignity.

In contrast, John Paul II’s understanding of reason and faith is less helpful from a Reformed perspective. To begin with, his terminology is not always clear. The moves he makes between reason and philosophy, faith and theology (and Revelation thrown in for good measure) at times make it difficult to discern their exact relationships. Essentially, the fluidity of his philosophical language muddies the waters. However, when their relationships are clear, there appear to be conflicting impulses working within the encyclical. First of all John Paul II’s Augustinian heritage shows through when he emphasizes the different kinds of knowing (i.e. rational/speculative, and inter-personal/trusting). The way he sketches the problem suggests that even rational knowing requires trust. However, if this is the case, then it is true that faith (or trust) actually directs rational reflection (credo ut intellegam). Here John Paul II and the Reformed tradition agree, but when dealing with natural reason he makes it clear that natural reason is capable, apart from faith, of reaching the Transcendent. He notes: “fundamental theology should show how, in the light of the knowledge conferred by faith, there emerge certain truths which reason, from its own independent enquiry, already perceives.” Elsewhere he writes: “At the deepest level, the autonomy which philosophy enjoys is rooted in the fact that reason is by its nature oriented to truth and is equipped moreover with the means necessary to arrive at truth.” In short, John Paul II believes that faith simply “sharpens” reason’s conclusions “opening the mind to discover in the flux of events the workings of Providence.” Here the former pope’s debt to Thomism becomes evident. After the Fall human reason, though weak is still able by arguing “according to rigorous rational criteria…to guarantee that the results attained are universally valid.” When grace is added to reason via faith, grace perfects natural reason and pushes it beyond the sign to the thing signified.

The problem here from a Reformed perspective is twofold. First, such an understanding of the post-lapse condition hardly reflects the severity of the Fall. John Paul II’s model gives very little attention to the noetic effects of sin. In fairness he does speak of the perfection of reason, but this perfection is not a radical reorientation of reason. It is simply the expansion of reason’s capacities in its search for the Transcendent. In contrast the Reformed tradition holds that the Fall corrupted (not merely weakened) human reason. This means that without regenerate faith, reason is incapable of moving towards the True Transcendent. To be sure there is an ontological impulse within humanity pressing it to seek transcendent meaning. The problem is that apart from regenerate faith reason always journeys toward an idolatrous ground of being. Thus, John Paul II’s assessment of natural reason’s abilities is optimistic at best.

The same is true of John Paul II’s view of faith. Throughout portions of the encyclical he assumes that faith is a gift which is added on to reason. Such an assumption betrays a problematic philosophical anthropology. Faith for John Paul II appears to be a sort of Divinely granted catalyst which is added on to an already ontologically complete being. This suggests that faith is not a creational given but something ad extra. Now in fairness again, in his Augustinian moments, the former pope does distinguish between the two ontologically grounded ways of knowing (i.e. rational and inter-personal ). However, he is inconsistent. Later in his discussion of the interaction between different religious cultures and Christianity, he assumes that these cultures though flawed and disordered by sin are proto-Christian. To assume this he must work out of the Thomistic understanding of added-on-faith. In other words, by suggesting other religious faiths are proto-Christian, he is also indirectly suggesting that these religious faiths are added-on gifts of God. Because faith is not for him ontologically grounded in the human person, he has to explain non-Christian faiths as proto-Christian. However, being charitable, it is possible that John Paul II does believe that faith is a creational given (if we take his Augustinian statements as regulative), but this means that for him faith is analogous to reason with respect to the fall. While weak and able to be misused, faith is not radically corrupted by sin. In other words, there is no understanding of a radical anti-thesis operant within the creational order post-lapse.

The second side of the problem from a Reformed perspective is the actual inter-relation between faith and reason. This observation builds on the previous discussion. While faith and reason are two creational aspects of human knowing and functioning, faith holds a unique position in humanity’s ontological makeup. It is the directing function or mode of human existence. This means that it directs the innate religious impulse (i.e. that which drives the human self towards its Origin (in Dooyweerdian terms) or Being (in Thomistic terms)). Thus, faith is constantly exerting its pull on reason. There is never a moment in which reason is free to neutrally work towards the Transcendent. At each step in the rational process, faith directs reason towards either the true or false ground of existence. Such a model offers an advantage over John Paul II’s Thomistic view in that it allows for faith and reason to be radically fallen.

In conclusion, John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio is both helpful and problematic for those working within the Reformed Tradition. While his ontological project ought to be affirmed, his construal of the relationship between faith and reason is contradictory and overly optimistic.

The Road to Rome...

2009-02-04T12:48:00.001-08:00

Yesterday I heard through the grapevine that a former colleague of mine (a retired Christian Reformed minister) has joined the Roman Catholic Church. I have yet to have the story confirmed, but my sense is that the report is true. Part of me is not surprised by this at all. My friend always had Roman Catholic leanings. He loved high liturgy and icons, and he even wrote a book on Lectio Divina. (I realize that Lectio Divina is all the rage in certain evangelical circles, but he was promoting the practice long before it was popular.) Some would even say that his whole demeanor resembled a Priest more than a Pastor.

Despite all of this, however, there is still a part of me which is surprised. I recall a conversation we shared four or five years ago about N.T. Wright's understanding of justification by faith. While I was busy describing Wright's Pauline project, my friend gently noted that he was very happy with the traditional Protestant formulation. I realize that things can change, but it seems odd that a retired minister who held to the Belgic Confession for an entire career (and actually understood it) would leave now.

I am also wondering how he understands Mariology. Personally, this would be one of the biggest hurdles for me in crossing the Tiber. I understand the official explanations of Mary and the Saints (cf. the Roman Catholic Catechism), but in practice my sense is that many lay-persons don't make such distinctions and actually worship Mary, et al.

All of this brings me to my biggest frustration with the Roman Catholic Church (yes, above justification and even Mary): within Catholicism there is no built in self-critical authority which can regulate the Magisterium and Holy Tradition. Contrary to what most Protestants think (and perhaps some Catholics) the Reformers' cry "sola scriptura" did not mean, "only me and my Bible." What the Reformers meant was that Tradition and official church teaching always had to be subject to scripture as the final authority. Without such a self critical component, there is no way to keep doctrine from reflecting the vicissitudes of culture. (I know, I know... Evangelicalism is worse because it doesn't even have tradition to slow it down.) To put it another way, the Reformers had no problem with tradition or with having interpretive authority resting within the church, their frustration was that by putting tradition on the same level as scripture Rome had undercut itself and insured that Apostolic teaching could be trumped by codified, faulty interpretation.

I hope that one of these days I will be able to talk with my friend and hear his reasons for crossing over.

Jesus Camp...

2009-01-30T05:17:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, (thanks to the joy of Netflix's instant watch feature) I sat down and finally watched the acclaimed documentary "Jesus Camp." Having grown up in fundamentalism and having spent a couple of my teenage years in a pentecostal/non-denominational church, I had a couple of reactions.

First, the documentary is sadly true. There are plenty of strange birds out there brainwashing their children. I say brainwashing because this is not simply catechesis or discipleship. There is very little depth or wisdom to the training the children are receiving, and they are being taught not to think. Historical Orthodox Christianity (as a whole) has always emphasized that people have to think about their faith. In addition, anytime there is a strong convergence between a nationalistic political ideology and theology, one must be careful. It's not that Christians can't do politics from a Christian perspective. Rather, when one particular country (or one particular political philosophy) is singled out as "God's Chosen people," then there's a problem. The church, institutional and organic, is trans-national, trans-cultural, and trans-temporal.

Second, the documentary clearly has a bias. Throughout the film there is the pervading sense that these "radical right wing Christians" have taken over our country. Again and again, we are reminded of their power, and how one of their own rules from the White House (i.e. G.W. Bush). In a genuinely creepy moment, Ted Haggard is interviewed, and he claims that evangelicals could control the elections if they all voted. Frankly, as someone who has come out of the movement (and probably is still considered part of it according to statistical groupings--though being Reformed, in my mind, puts me closer to the Roman Catholics), the film-makers are giving these crazy people far too much credit. They really do not hold that much power. They would like to believe that they secretly hold the reins of government, but let's be realistic: they don't. They are a fringe group posturing for attention. That is why they would let cameramen follow them around: they want to be heard, and they want the world to know their "power." It is a self-deluded way of trying to prove to themselves that they can affect government. (In some sense then, the film-makers actually played into their little game.)

In conclusion, the movie brought back memories of my years in fundamentalism/pentecostalism, but it also annoyed me with its conspiracy theory style. Anytime you take the craziest fringe element of some group of people (and no, not all evangelicals are completely crazy) and generalize, you run the risk of painting an apocalyptic scenario which blows things completely out of proportion.

Fides et Ratio...

2009-01-28T15:29:00.000-08:00

For an apologetics class, I've been working on a paper summarizing and interacting with Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Fides et Ratio" ("Faith and Reason" for you non-Latin speakers :). This is the first chance I've had to read anything by the former pope. I have to say that I am impressed. Clearly, the man was well educated in philosophy. While I find his reliance on Thomism problematic, he has plenty of good things to say about both ontology and epistemology.

One of the most striking things about the encyclical is John Paul II's insistence that human knowledge comes through different channels. In a Polyani-like move, he points out that humans are created for community. Due to their place in history and families and because of their finite natures, humans by necessity have to trust others. As creatures we are by definition incapable of verifying every piece of knowledge we receive. Thus, we have to entrust ourselves to others.

Out of this the former pope makes the following keen observation:

"From all that I have said to this point it emerges that men and women are on a journey of discovery which is humanly unstoppable--a search for the truth and a search for a person to whom they might entrust themselves. Christian faith comes to meet them, offering the concrete possibility of reaching the goal which they seek. Moving beyond the stage of simple believing, Christian faith immerses human beings in the order of grace, which enables them to share in the mystery of Christ, which in turn offers them a true and coherent knowledge of the Triune God. In Jesus Christ, who is the Truth, faith recognizes the ultimate appeal to humanity, an appeal made in order that what we experience as desire and nostalgia may come to its fulfilment." (Section 33)

Sometimes the pagans are better than the secularists...

2009-01-16T17:02:00.000-08:00

The past week I read a couple of the Dresden Files novels. For those of you unfamiliar with Jim Butcher's work, the series revolves around a wizard living in Chicago who works as a consultant for the Chicago PD. The stories are told from the first person perspective, and I have to say that the wizard "Harry Dresden" has a wonderfully snarky personality. I'd recommend the series for those who like fantasy peppered with a few vampires and werewolves (Oh, and for the record, they are not children's books...).

Anyway, the first book contains the following intriguing passage as it introduces us to Harry's world:

"The end of the twentieth century and the dawn of the new millennium had seen something of a renaissance in the public awareness of the paranormal. Psychics, haunts, vampires--you name it. People still didn't take them seriously, but all the things Science had promised us hadn't come to pass. Disease was still a problem. Starvation was still a problem. Violence and crime and war were still problems. In spite of the advance of technology, things just hadn't changed the way everyone had hoped and thought they would."

"Science, the largest religion of the twentieth century, had become somewhat tarnished by images of exploding space shuttles, crack babies, and a generation of complacent Americans who had allowed the television to raise their children. People were looking for something--I think they just didn't know what..."

I couldn't have said it better myself! The Positivist dream of the scientific utopia has left us high and dry. And as a result, there has been more and more of push for "spirituality." This, of course, is nothing new. The heyday of the Enlightenment with all of its odes to Reason gave us all of the "secret" societies which now we roll our eyes at (i.e. the Masons, etc.).

One of my professors here at the seminary said it best a couple of years ago: "When people stop believing in Christianity, they get gullible and will believe in anything." The human heart always seeks to move toward a true or pretended origin of being. Ontologically, we are incapable of not believing something. Thus, when our god Reason falls we are left floundering.

In one sense, the good old pagans represent humanity's inability to avoid metaphysics.

You know you're a Christian when...

2008-12-29T12:50:00.000-08:00

The last few weeks I've been working through an excellent book by the Jewish scholar Meir Sternberg on Biblical (Hebrew Bible) Poetics. Sternberg has plenty of insights into how the Hebrew Bible is put together. For example, he notes that the Hebrew Bible is unique among ancient literature in that it allows the narrator to have an "omniscient" perspective. Sternberg argues that such narratival omniscience is connected to God's omniscience (something also unique to the Hebrew Bible). In addition, the narrator's knowledge of all things contrasts with the characters' and readers' limited understanding. Structurally then, suggests Sternberg, the Hebrew Bible sets up an epistemological distinction between the all knowing, infinite God and limited, finite humans.

So far well and good... But then he pulls out the New Testament as a whipping boy (especially Luke's gospel), proceeds to give it a jab whenever he feels like it (i.e. the New Testament doesn't structure itself around an omniscient narrator--Luke's claim to use sources, etc.). What I found intriguing about all of this was my own reaction: I involuntarily jumped to the New Testament's defense.

"Well obviously," someone will say, "You're a Christian."

Yes, that's true, but it is always interesting to observe one's involuntary reflexes. They signal our ultimate allegiances. For me it was a reaffirmation of my own identity as a Christian. As someone who is by nature a skeptic, I often struggle intellectually with the Christian faith. So when I see myself jumping to defend Jesus and the New Testament, I am reminded of the work of the Holy Spirit in my own life.

One other story along similar lines:

A few years ago, I was touring London's famous museum (complete with the Rosetta Stone). After wandering through the classical section with pieces from Hellenistic culture, I stepped into the Medieval collection. It was like coming home. The crucifixes, the constant references to the Bible, etc., were all so familiar. I had stepped from a world dominated by pagan polytheism into a world dominated by the gospel. I felt a strong kinship with the artists and artisans whose work was on display. Across the centuries, I was connected with others who worshipped the Holy Triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Again, in that moment, I knew who I was.

King David...

2008-12-22T17:02:00.000-08:00

I was reading through 2 Samuel 6 in Hebrew today, and I noticed something interesting. When Michal castigates David for dancing before the Ark of the Lord, a conversation ensues in which David states that he will again be made light (qll) again and will be humble in his own eyes (v. 22). Intriguingly, the same root word is used in David's first encounter with Michal in 1 Samuel 18. There when Saul's servants try to convince David to marry Michal David responds as follows: "Is it light (qll) in your eyes to become the son-in-law of the king."

I have some theories on what the linguistic connection signals, but I'm still mulling them over. If anyone has any thoughts let me know.

And the Oral Comp is done!

2008-12-19T15:12:00.001-08:00

Wow! I see it has been a while since I posted. Well, I've been busy worrying over PhD applications, preaching twice this past Sunday, and (cue the music in a minor chord) my oral comprehensive exam. Thankfully, today I passed that ominous oral comp. I was nervous going in, but everything went well. The professors on my panel were gracious and pleased with my answers. Needless to say my wife and I were at the Olive Garden this evening!

A couple of thoughts on Mark 11...

2008-11-25T05:51:00.001-08:00

I've been slowly (very slowly) working my way through Mark in Greek, and the last couple of days I have been in chapter 11. What I find interesting is the way Mark weaves together the narrative. In vv. 1-11, there is the account of Jesus' triumphal entry, but after that Mark puts remainder of the chapter into an ABAB pattern. Observe:

A: vv. 12-14: The Cursing of the Fruitless Fig Tree
B: vv. 15-19: The Cleansing of the Temple
A: vv. 20-26: The Discourse Concerning the Cursed Fig Tree
B: vv. 27-33: The Discourse Concerning the Temple Cleansing (i.e. "By whose authority, etc.")

Clearly, the material is all related. At first I though that vv. 12-14 and 20-26 form a simple Markan frame (one of Mark's favorite compositional devices) around the cleansing of the temple. However, the chief priests, scribes, et al., ask Jesus by what authority he is doing "these things" (i.e. cleansing the temple) (as a side note: scholars have pointed out that the temple cleansing was probably one of the main reasons the Jewish leaders sought to have him crucified).

Now, the two "Fig Tree" sections are somehow related to the temple cleansing. My sense is that they symbolically represent a counter-temple theology. The fig tree is the current temple administration. It appears from a distance to be a source of nourishment, but upon closer inspection it lacks fruit. Because of this it must be cleansed, and a New Temple with a new administration must be put forward.

The discourse in vv. 20-26 is along the same lines. The disciples are to ask in faith for "this mountain" to be thrown into the sea. This passage usually gets hauled out by the health and wealth crowd to justify all sorts of strange ideas, but if one keeps in mind the meaning of "this mountain," Jesus' actual point becomes clear. You will recall, no doubt, that in the Ancient Near East "mountains" and temples were related. Temples were usually built on a rise of land, and in some cases where actually considered sacramental "mountain-symbols" (e.g. the tabernacle in Lev. 9 became a portable Mt. Sinai). This was also the case in Israel, and the temple was understood as synonymous with Mt. Zion. Because of this, Jesus' statement about "this mountain" being thrown into the sea has all sorts of counter-temple connotations. The Herodian temple and all of its administration is not what it should be. Thus, it needs to be thrown into the sea (i.e. the forces of chaos and death). In its place something new must arise. And guess what? Jesus' triumphal entry proclaims him the True Davidic Son, the True Temple Builder.

Michael Horton...

2008-11-22T14:52:00.000-08:00

I've been reading Michael Horton's books in his "covenant" series (e.g. Covenant and Eschatology, Lord and Servant, etc.). I'm half way through the second (Lord and Servant) and find myself enjoying the series. Horton is clearly a brilliant individual, and I appreciate his emphasis on reading theology through a covenantal lens. I have to say that I have misjudged Horton in the past. I've tended to think of him as simply a sarcastic ideolog. However, this series is nuanced, careful, and irenic. Horton interacts with all sorts of different theologians (and theologies) in a charitable and civil manner. I am especially intrigued by his attempts to rehabilitate Reformed Scholasticism (something I'm not quite convinced can be done... There goes my inner Dooyeweerdian again :)

Mea culpa. Hats off to Horton.

There is one thing that I am not sure of though. Horton maintains that the Lutheran law/gospel dialectic is actually an early attempt to formulate the command/promise motif found in covenant theology. In other words, law should not be equated with the "Old Covenant" and gospel with the "New Covenant." Instead, both covenants contain command and promise. Frankly, I'm not sure if this flies. Horton never does the historical work to prove such a thesis, and from my vantage point the Lutheran dialectic has always tended to dismiss the Old Covenant as law and works-righteousness.

And the GRE is done...

2008-11-09T05:10:00.000-08:00

My apologies for not posting for over a month. Between being a teaching assistant for a New Testament prof (Oh the joy of grading Greek quizzes :), finishing up the quarter, studying for oral comprehensives, and studying for the GRE, I've been a tad busy. However, yesterday I took the GRE and clipped off one of these crazy stress inducers. Talk about relief! I've been studying for it for about two months now.

Given the magic of technology, I was able to see how I scored on the verbal and quantitative sections, and thankfully I was able to put together (by the grace of God!) a combined 1200 score (1600 would be perfect). I scored excellent on the verbal section, and awful on the quantitative. Thankfully, for what I'm going into, verbal skills are a bit more important than math :)

So, that's out of the way now... In a couple of weeks the quarter will be done, and I'll be in the middle of putting together applications. At this point I have five schools that I'm going to apply to: Princeton Seminary, Duke, Notre Dame, U of Toronto, and TCU-Brite Divinity School. If all of these fall through, I intend to stay around Grand Rapids for a year and do a ThM in Old Testament (I'll have a four class start on the degree because of all of my language courses).

Well, not terribly exciting, I know, but I thought I'd give everyone an update :)

Ephesians and Torah...

2008-10-06T09:51:00.000-07:00

I am currently taking a class on Ephesians, and I have been struck by how thoroughly "Old Testament" Ephesians actually is. If you follow the pronouns in Ephesians (we, you, etc.), you will find that Paul's basic argument centers around the incorporation of the Gentiles into the covenant people of God. Paul will often lay out God's grace towards the Jews (e.g. the "we" in chapter 1) and then explain how God's grace now includes Gentiles (e.g. the "you" in chapter 2). What is intriguing about all of this is Paul's use of Torah. On the one hand, he notes that in Jesus the "law with its commandments and regulations" has been abolished (2:15, NIV). On the other hand, using Israel's vocabulary of faith he talks about the Gentiles new "calling" (4:1: echoing Abraham's call out of Ur), their red sea crossing (Paul uses all sorts of baptism language that parallels Romans 6: e.g. 4:5, 22, etc.), and then encourages them to live in this New Israel according to Torah (chapters 4-6: viewed, of course, through the lens of Jesus Christ).

Keeping in mind his emphasis upon the Gentiles as "fellow-citizens" and "fellow-heirs," it is not surprising that Paul would then call these Gentiles to live out their gratitude in Torah-keeping.

Let's beat ourselves up...

2008-09-26T13:18:00.000-07:00

I know it's been a while since I posted, but things have been busy here in Grand Rapids. My quarter is in full swing, and I am busy studying both in my classes and for the GRE. One of my classes this fall is Christian Reformed Church history. I have to say: it has been interesting. The CRC (for those of you unfamiliar with its history) comes out of the 1834 Dutch church secession commonly called the "afscheiding." These folks were upset with the Netherlands state church because it was little more than an arm of the government and had drifted significantly from the Synod of Dordt's doctrine and church order.

Dutch immigrants began to enter the United States within a few years (though the immigration had more to do with economic troubles in Europe and the potato blight). Once here the Dutch tenuously joined the Reformed Church in America (the old Dutch-American church established in the 17th century) in 1850. However, within seven years four congregations left and founded their own church. Eventually, this small group would become the CRC.

The reasons for this second split in the States had a great deal to do with immigrant perceptions of the RCA (both real and imagined). The RCA appeared to be going the way of the Netherlands state church in doctrine and practice. For example, in the Netherlands the state church had mandated that congregations sing a hymn every Sunday in addition to the regularly sung Psalms. The afscheiding naturally resisted this state mandate not only because the government was meddling where it shouldn't, but also because people in the afscheiding viewed hymns as vehicles of Enlightenment error and heterodox theology. Thus, when members of the afscheiding came to America and saw that the RCA sang hymns, they were uneasy at best. In addition, the RCA was thoroughly American (for better or worse). However, the thing which caused the most consternation was the perceived attitude in the RCA that the secession in the Netherlands was really unnecessary.

What I find most interesting about this history is my classmates' reaction to it. A good majority of them are horrified at the CRC's "schismatic" heritage. In many class periods, there are giggles or sighs over our forebear's "obvious" stupidity and lack of Christian love and tolerance. And to be fair to my classmates, there were plenty of cranks and malcontents among the Dutch immigrants back in the mid-1800s. However, I find it disconcerting how quickly people raised in the CRC can stab their forefathers in the back. Sometimes I wish we had a little more charity and empathy for those who have come before us. To be sure, they were sinners complete with black eyes and ugly worts. But they also were fervent Christians who did what they thought was right, and we have to respect that.

Also when I hear the snide comments, I can't help but reflect on how clearly they come from 21st century North American lips. Anything about separation from a church: instant condemnation! Anything about drawing lines in the sand: instant disgust! Perhaps, in the early days of the CRC we were more concerned about truth than love, but I am convinced that today we are more concerned about love than truth. If only we could learn from the past and try to hold the two in tension.

Michael Horton...

2008-08-29T11:55:00.000-07:00

Well, today I broke down and picked up the first three volumes in Michael Horton's "Covenant" series. I've been reading the first volume (Covenant and Eschatology) which has been outstanding, and I look forward to more of the same from the second two volumes. However, what I am really excited about is Horton's engagement with Wright, et al, in the third volume, Covenant and Salvation. Just glancing through it, it appears that he actually engages Wright in an intelligent robust way. I can see (and I know) that he disagrees with Wright, but at least he is working within an historical paradigm.

I may end up being disappointed, but I have a gut feeling I won't be. For one thing, it appears that Horton critiques Wright for conflating the different Biblical "covenants" into one covenant (this should be interesting!). In addition, I am heartened that Horton quotes Geerhardus Vos and Herman Ridderbos with ease.

Radical Orthodoxy and current politics...

2008-08-25T18:01:00.000-07:00

In James K.A. Smith's book on Radical Orthodoxy, there is an intriguing chapter on RO's understanding of the state. According to proponents of RO, the state is a "polis" with its own set of religious rituals, etc. The church then, to RO, is a "counter-polis" which asserts a different way of being in the world. In other words, the church is inherently political. Each time Christians gather together to celebrate the Sacraments and hear the preaching of the Word, they are making a political statement: "Jesus is Lord."

I find this analysis interesting and somewhat helpful with one exception. To my Neo-Calvinist inner child, such an analysis confuses the creational structures of church and government. In and of itself (i.e. as a creational given), government is not a competitor with a fiduciary gathering. It is only when government becomes misdirected that it crosses over into the sphere of the church (one might argue that the modern notion of "state" is such a misdirection). Nor am I alone in this caveat, Smith makes the same point and wonders if RO has conflated "structure" with "direction."

Having said that, I had to laugh the other day. I was driving to the library with the radio on, and NPR was broadcasting Obama's "Joe-Biden-picking-bash." It was Biden's turn to speak, and he came to the microphone with all of the zest of a good baptist preacher, "Obama and I believe in America." The phrase caught my attention. Biden continued by outlining the America they "believe" in (an America that sounds suspiciously like the garden of Eden). Then he turned to "the last eight years" (the "fall" complete with a crafty serpent).

At this point I was beginning to think about what I had just been reading about "polis" and "counter-polis." But I was in for a treat, it wasn't over yet. Coming to a crescendo, Biden proclaimed to the exuberant crowd, "but let me tell you, it's not all bad news; there's good news..." (the evangel according to Joe Biden). Reaching further Biden turned toward some apocalyptic rhetoric: "This is no ordinary election...It's time for a new direction for America, a new direction for the world." (Frankly, I was expecting the "new direction for America" thing, but the "world" comment put it over the top. Apparently, Obama is the messiah, the savior of the world.)

Now, one could analyze this speech in a number of ways (e.g. historically: how the "Christian" story has been tapped by politicians, etc.), but what struck me was how perfectly it fit within RO's "polis/counter-polis" framework. Biden was literally evangelizing--proclaiming the good news of Obama. He was retelling the story of America using the Christian story of "Creation-Fall-Redemption" as a base plate. Allegiance to Obama was equated with New Life.

Nor is Biden alone in such speeches. The Republican party has played the same card many times (e.g. the "Clinton" years as the fall).

Anyway, the stark contrast was placed before me: the American Polis with its Savior of the world (i.e. Obama, Bush, McCain--take your pick), and the Church as a Counter-Polis with the True Savior of the world.

Radical Orthodoxy and Tweaking Dooyeweerd...

2008-08-18T15:58:00.001-07:00

I am currently working my way through a wonderful book by James K.A. Smith called Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology. For those of you who have no idea what "Radical Orthodoxy" is (like me a few weeks ago), I would recommend this book. Smith carefully chronicles the movement, contextualizes it, and offers some constructive criticism.

Essentially, Radical Orthodoxy is a movement which seeks to question the neutral claims of modern secular thought. It does this by questioning the ontology of modernity and excavating modernity's philosophical heritage. For proponents of Radical Orthodoxy everything went wrong (philosophically speaking) when Duns Scotus posited an "ontology predicated on the univocity of being" (96). Basically, this means that Scotus argued that "both the Creator and the creature exist in the same way or in the same sense" (97). This, of course, was very different from either Augustine or Aquinas both of whom held that creatures are ontologically derivative (i.e. their "be-ing" is fundamentally different from God's Being. God is existence. Creatures only exist in so far as they participate "in the being of the Creator" (Ibid)).

The upshot of Scotus' claim, according to proponents of RO is that the universe was "flattened" and suddenly there was a categorical space for a creature to "exist" without God (i.e. if God and creature share the same kind of existence with the creature existing independent of God, conceptually there is not need for God.).

To combat this "flattened" universe, RO calls for a reappropriation of Plato. However, this is not the "traditional Plato" with his evil matter. RO proposes a new reading of Plato (a "theurgical" reading) which affirms the goodness of creation based on its participation in the divine. Such an ontology insures that creation is always understood as derivative and analogical in being to God (not univocal). Despite some of the positives of such an ontology, Smith rightly finds this version of Plato to be historically problematic and suggests a few alternatives.

As a Dooyeweerdian, I've been impressed with the philosophical acumen of RO, and as Smith points out, with its philosophical goal (i.e. the revealing of the pretended autonomy of theoretical thought). There has even been one instance in which Smith's dialogue with RO has pushed him to tweak Dooyeweerd's understanding of theology. For those of you unfamiliar with Dooyeweerd's understanding of theology (basically, everybody), Dooyeweerd argued that theology as a science was no better than any other human science. In other words, it was not the "Queen of the sciences." Rather, each science (i.e. biology, mathematics, law, ethics, etc.) is equal in importance. This insures that theology does not become absolutized and try to dominate other disciplines (e.g. theologians telling scientists that the earth can only be a few thousand years old). Dooyeweerd was very worried about theology's tendency to do this (e.g. the middle ages) and argued strenuously that each science stood independently under the pre-theoretical Word of God and was driven by the Christian "ground-motive" (i.e. the "creation-fall-redemption" motif). Each Christian scientist, he posited, was governed by the regenerative power of the Holy Spirit and so did not need theological science to lord it over him/her.

The big problem with Dooyeweerd's formulation, of course, is that "creation-fall-redemption," the creeds, etc. are all "theological constructs." They are each the result of "scientific" study (i.e. the application of the gegenstand relationship and the resulting dialogue between the logical aspect of life and the faith aspect). Smith notes that because of this Dooyeweerd's formulation has a gnostic ring to it ("The sense is that the inbreaking of revelation, because it is a supra-temporal matter, cannot be intrinsically linked to the concretion of Scripture" (176)). Smith observes: "Even if Dooyeweerd wants to relativize dogmatic theology vis-a-vis confession or "true knowledge of God and self," is there not a fundamental relationship between the two? Dooyeweerd almost seems to cordon off theology from revelation in any significant sense" (175).

Because of all of this, Dooyeweerd's formulation is decidedly individualistic and "devalues the scandal of particularity in Scripture as well as the role of the believing community in the church" (176). To deal with this problem, Smith proposes a tweaking of Dooyeweerd. He argues that we can think of two kinds of "theology." Theology #1 "refers to the fundamental Christian confession affirmed by the church, embodied in Scripture, and articulated in the confessions and creads" (177). Theology #2 "refers to the ongoing work of specifically theoretical, second-order reflection on the church's confession. The latter is undertaken in the theoretical attitude and is not binding in the sense Dooyeweerd suggests" (Ibid).

To put is simply, Smith wants Dooyeweerd's "ground-motive" to "reflect the fullness of Christian reflection--not just the goodness of creation but also the central themes of incarnation, Trinity, and sacramentality" (Ibid). While Smith's suggestion may not solve all of the problems, I appreciate his attempt at a positive proposal to deal with this weak spot.

A good book...

2008-07-30T16:39:00.000-07:00

I recently finished reading an outstanding book on C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia. The book is titled Planet Narnia, by Michael Ward. I'll have to try hard to keep from gushing. The problem is that this is one of those books that give a person several of those proverbial "light bulb" moments.

Ward contends that Lewis structured his chronicles around the seven planets in the Medieval cosmology (Jupiter, Mars, Sol, Luna, Mercury, Saturn, Venus). Each of the stories partakes of the "atmosphere" of its respective planet. For example, The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe finds its atmosphere in Jupiter. Ward notes that in Lewis' poetry Jupiter stands for the passing of winter and the coming of spring. In addition, Jove's color is red, and Ward notes that red is a dominant color in the book (this also accounts for the odd inclusion of Father Christmas--i.e. the modern mythical epitome of the Jovial nature).

The rest of the books follow accordingly: Prince Caspian is Mars, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is Sol, The Silver Chair is Luna, The Horse and His Boy is Mercury, The Magician's Nephew is Venus, and The Last Battle is Saturn.

Another example of the sheer brilliance of Ward's thesis: The Silver Chair (one of my favorite Narnia stories) partakes, as noted above, of the atmosphere of Luna (i.e. the moon). This is the only story with a "lunatic." In addition, Luna's metal is Silver... So it is not surprising that the magical chair in the story is silver. Finally, Luna's atmosphere is dreary, wet, and filled with wandering. Not only is the whole book about wandering, but it is also filled with rain and poor spirits (Puddleglum comes to mind).

The scary part about all of this is that the evidence for Ward's position is simply overwhelming. When Ward places Lewis' own poetry and writings side by side with the Chronicles, one has a hard time not seeing the structure (Frankly, though some may have some quibbles with a minor point or two, I really don't think anyone can argue with Ward's thesis).

For anyone who has ever read and enjoyed the Chronicles, I would highly recommend this book (It made me downright giddy. It was like turning on a light in a dark room. I kept thinking, "Oh, that makes sense now...").

John Piper and N.T. Wright...

2008-07-24T09:57:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally did it. I finished John Piper's book "The Future of Justification" (I finally just broke down, bought it, and read it--online reading is just not me). After finishing it, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I think Piper often misses the point. For example in chapter 3, Piper spends an inordinate amount of time arguing that "Wright's definition of the righteousness of God does not go to the heart of the matter, but stays at the level of what divine righteousness does rather than what it is." (62) He suggests that Wright forgets that the divine judge in question is an omniscient judge who is unswervingly committed to his own glory.

Um... Maybe I missed something, but I highly doubt Wright would disagree with that. The point Wright is making is that in Romans "God's righteousness" refers to His righteousness as judge (i.e. an impartial judge, faithfully carrying out the covenant blessings and curses) not to a righteousness that He gives away (the righteousness of Jesus is another matter). Sure, there is more to it than that, but within the passages in question that's the main point. Frankly, as I read through this chapter, I kept thinking, "Okay, and your point is?"

A second chapter where Piper wears himself out on a non-issue is in chapter 5. Piper recognizes that the cosmic sweep of the gospel is important, but he is worried that such a sweeping view can forget about the individual. He argues that saying that the lordship of Jesus is the gospel rather than justification turns out to be "terrifying" not good news (i.e. individual sinners see a king who will judge them). Okay, fair enough, sometimes Wright seems less than helpful in dealing with questions of individual salvation. However, Wright's proposal includes individual salvation, and I find it somewhat mystifying how Piper can say that the lordship of Jesus is terrifying (I know what he means, but he's reading his systematic theology into the text). The whole point of the kingdom of God is that everything is being set right, exile is over, and sins are forgiven. In other words, the phrase "Jesus is Lord" is pregnant with the implication of personal salvation. However, it puts personal salvation (rightly) within the context of the bigger story of the recreation of the world.

Honestly, I think Piper's fears here are unfounded, and reflect his own presuppositions rather than the text's.

Having said all of that, I do think that Piper raises a few good questions for Wright. First of all, Piper notes that there seems to be an inconsistency in how Wright defines "present justification" and "future justification." The first seems to be merely status language while the latter appears to be both status and transformation.

Second, with Piper I am a little baffled by Wright in his understanding of the "righteousness of Christ." It may be a category mistake to talk about "God's righteousness" being passed around the courtroom, but it surely isn't when talking about "Christ's righteousness." In covenantal language we could say that Christ was the perfect covenant-keeper, the epitome of what Israel was supposed to be. Because of his righteousness, those who are united to him share in who he is, and thus are counted righteous in him.

Third, Piper rightly notes that ethnocentrism still has something of "works-righteousness" about it. Thus, even if "works of the law" refers only or primarily to ethnic "boundary markers" (which in my view, it probably does), Paul is still critiquing any human attempt to be a covenant-keeper outside of Christ. Piper also rightly challenges Wright's reading of 4QMMT (a Qumran source) on "works of the law" and notes that Wright makes the passage do far too much. (Now, my one worry with this section of the debate is that Piper and company tend to get anachronistic in their language and questions. In other words, we must be careful not to read our worries and struggles back into the text. I have often been puzzled by how often the Bible seems more concerned with its own questions than my own. The historian in me always has to remind the preacher in me that we must first establish what a text meant before we can explore what it means.)

Just a few thoughts... If you have questions or comments, fire away :)

What's in a name? Part 2

2008-07-15T15:55:00.000-07:00

A little later in 1 Samuel (ch. 14), we come across the story of Jonathan's victory over the Philistine garrison. Here we have another instance of a likely word play in Hebrew. The name "Jonathan" literally means "YHWH has given." In vv. 10 and 12 of chapter 14, Jonathan twice tells his armor bearer that "YHWH has given" the Philistines into their hands. Thus, it is through the initiative of the one named "YHWH has given" that YHWH gives Israel the victory.

Saul may have been the one "asked" for, but Jonathan would have been a much better deal.

Some thoughts... (aka a rant)...

2008-07-14T12:45:00.000-07:00

So I was wandering around in Baker Books today, when I stumbled on an intriguing little book on the emergent church. It's called "Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be." A friend had strongly recommended it, and so I picked it up and sat down in the brown leather chairs near Baker's help desk. After a couple of pages of of skimming, the book had me chuckling. By the time I had spent a half hour with it, I wanted to buy this book for every emergent person I know.

Now, for those of you unaware of my thoughts on the emerging church, you should know that I'm really quite "liberal." I've read a lot of N.T. Wright, and I really enjoy most of what Eugene Peterson has written. A few years ago I read through sections of some of McClaren's books and came away with a some positive thoughts on what he had to say.

Having said all of that, I have consistently maintained that the emergent conversation is only good for one thing: the questions it raises. The emergent folks rightly critique current and past Christians for their over-reliance on Enlightenment categories of thought (i.e. rationalistic epistemologies). As a Neo-Calvinist, I can't help but get giddy whenever someone starts deconstructing modernism with all of its dualisms (it's that wretched Dooyeweerdian in me :). However, my biggest frustration with the emergent conversation is its lack of any positive theological contributions. It's great at assassinating modernism, but rather awful at building an alternative. The conversation is full of vague generalities and unspoken creeds about the evils of anything our parents did in church (and to be sure, they did do plenty of stupid things... Just like every generation before and after). In contrast, the emergent conversation offers us a new, more intellectually refined way of doing things. But then it fizzles. Just when you think you are going to get something of substance, you are left with "questions" and a "journey."

The wonderful thing about this book is that it points out some of these crazy inconsistencies within the emergent movement (e.g. all about diversity, and yet emergent churches tend to be monolithic in terms of race, income, social status, and political views). The questioning is good, but if positive answers are never articulated the result is a hodge-podge of silliness.

The Narnian...

2008-07-09T13:16:00.000-07:00

Since I started my little three-week break between the two halves of my ten week internship, I have been reading a bit of Alan Jacob's book, "The Narnian." For those of you unfamiliar with it, The Narnian is Jacob's biography of C.S. Lewis. I've only read about a third of it, but so far it has been a welcome breather from my studies. The style is very tongue-in-cheek which has its charms but sometimes the book feels a little too self-conscious (as if Jacobs were trying to imitate Lewis' British style). Nonetheless, Jacobs keeps the pace moving and introduces parts of Lewis evangelicals don't often see.

What I found particularly striking was Jacobs' honest description of Lewis' relationship with Jane Moore (the mother of his friend "Paddy" whom he made a pact with to take care of Jane should Paddy die in the war--which he did). No one is exactly sure of what the relationship was because Lewis refused to talk about it with anyone (even with his brother!) and all of the correspondence between the two was destroyed. However, the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that at least initially Lewis had more than a Platonic relationship with Mrs. Moore. Lewis' father, Albert, even refers to it as "Jack's Affair."

All of this reminds me of how complex human beings are. Lewis' initial contact with Jane Moore came well before his conversion to Christianity, but he did continue to support her and live with her afterwards (by that time she was quite old--27 years separated them). We will never know Lewis' thoughts on the subject or if the relationship changed over time, but it is a good reminder that every hero has clay feet.

What's in a name?

2008-06-30T13:16:00.000-07:00

Today, I was in Barnes and Noble (or the "Noble Barn" as I like to call it!) sipping on a mint chocolate chip frappucino (spelling?), and generally enjoying the beginning of my summer vacation by reading 1 Samuel in Hebrew (for those of you mystified at why I would consider this relaxing... Well, all I can say is that you don't know me :). Anyway, I was reading chapter 12 when something fairly obvious in Hebrew jumped out at me. Here I have been reading about Saul's initiation into the kingship for the past 3 chapters, and I hadn't put two and two together.

Samuel notes that Israel has "asked" for a king (12.19). In Hebrew the word "ask" is shā⁾al. What is interesting is that "Saul" in Hebrew is shā⁾ūl which is the passive participle of shā⁾al. In other words, Saul is literally named "asked." He's the one Israel has "asked" for.

Another point of interest is the introductory story about Saul. We find him in chapter 9 "seeking" and "not finding" missing female donkeys (v. 4). Later, after Samuel has told him that he will be king, Saul hides among the baggage, and the people "seek" him and "cannot find" him (10.21). The same Hebrew verbs are employed in both cases. The subtle point is that Saul (the "asked" for one) is no better than a missing "ass."

Preaching at Raybrook Home...

2008-06-26T08:41:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I had the distinct privilege to preach at the Raybrook Home here in Grand Rapids. For those of you who don't live around here, Raybrook is a massive retirement community for both independent and dependent living. The service started at 2:00 PM, with a kind older lady from my church volunteering to do a couple solos (that took some of the pressure off). When I got up to preach, there were only about 60 people in the chapel, but I am told that the service is "piped" to other rooms. Unfortunately, the only microphone is welded to the pulpit so I couldn't practice my usual ambulatory style. However, the service went well.

I preached on Romans 8 and the surety of our resurrection hope (i.e. I followed the argument of the passage: "nothing can separate you from God's love, therefore your resurrection and participation in the New Creation is assured"). Before and after the service, I wasn't terribly pleased with my manuscript, but God was good and pulled me through it (given that I am preaching every week, I don't have the time I would like to dedicated to a smaller "homily" of this type).

The highlight of the day was after the service. A "volunteer" by the name of Mike approached me (Bless his heart, he has to be suffering from dementia or another illness). He told me that I needed to get out there and talk with the people because these were "my people" (i.e. my flock). He then told me to go get a cookie at the refreshment area, and he would see me there. At the refreshment area, he was again hounding me: "Put down your Bible and notes and go visit with the people."

I did this and spent some time chatting it up with the residents. Everyone wanted to know why I was named Nevada, etc. etc.

Finally, Mike showed up again with a waste basket in hand and proudly announced that they had a basketball team there at Raybrook. Being rather slow and not understanding him, I put my styrofoam coffee cup in his little trash can. "No, no, no!" was the result. "Watch." So I watched, and everybody around the room tried to throw their trash into his waste basket (I only succeeded in getting rid of my cup when I did the same).

The reason I relate this story is because I see it as providential. I am not an excessively social person, and I was a little nervous preaching in a new place with new people (even if they were residents of a nursing home, etc.). So God sent me Mike to push and prod me into visiting with the residents. Otherwise, after shaking a few hands and making a little bit of small talk, I probably would have bolted. But there I was: stuck practicing kindness because of a man with dementia.

N.T. Wright on the Colbert Report...

2008-06-22T13:19:00.000-07:00

Talk about the strangest thing... The other day I found out N.T. Wright was going to be on the Colbert Report, and so I watched it online.

Frankly, I'm not sure Wright knew what he was getting into. He seemed a little confused by the whole thing. It was as if he kept waiting for Colbert to come out of character and share a laugh or two with him before he got down to discussing Jesus' resurrection. At one point Wright even said, "Seriously, now..."

Perhaps Wright knew the game, but was simply hoping that he might have a chance to unwrap a little of the gospel on television. This he did manage to do, albeit in a small way. At least a few people may have been interested enough to read his book "Surprised by Hope."

Anyway, having listened to many many lectures by Wright, my sense was that more than anything else Wright was a little annoyed that Colbert kept cutting him off and not giving him time to talk. Wright is naturally a gregarious person. He once noted that his grandmother had said that he could talk a hind leg off a mule. I have no doubt about this :) and I got the feeling that Wright, who is used to having a particular kind of audience (i.e. a respectful, expectant one), was put off a bit by not having a chance to talk more.

Zechariah's first vision...

2008-06-07T18:16:00.000-07:00

For those of you wondering where I've been for the last few weeks: I was taking an intensive course on the book of Zechariah with author Al Wolters. Great stuff! Seriously, when Wolters publishes his commentary on Zechariah in a few years buy it!

Anyway, Wolters had an interesting observation regarding Zechariah's first vision (Zech. 1.7-17), i.e. the vision of the rider in the midst of the myrtles. From archeological evidence we now know that the Persian palace at Pasargadae had a "paradise" (i.e. shade garden) in its center. In this shade garden the king had his throne, and he would entertain his horsemen-messengers in the middle of the garden. These horsemen were part of an elaborate "pony-express" system the Persians had in place to convey news back and forth throughout the empire (one of the routes went through Judea).

Wolters argues that this is precisely the scene we find in Zechariah's first vision. Zechariah is drawing on current images of court life to depict God's sovereign care over the earth. Not only does the context fit, but the word usually translated "ravine" in v. 8 could also mean "shade" (if we revocalize the Hebrew). In addition, Zechariah describes the riders as "going back and forth" in the earth (hithhalek). Intriguingly, the Persian outriders were called "hutlak" in Elamite. Finally, myrtles do not naturally grow in Palestine. Rather, they are found in Central Asia.

In other words, Zechariah's vision is not primarily "mythological." Instead, the vision borrows historical imagery to drive home its point that God is aware of what his people are suffering and will insure that his name is vindicated.

C.S. Lewis in theaters again...

2008-05-17T17:53:00.000-07:00

So I went to Prince Caspian tonight... And frankly, I thought it was much better than the first movie. The plot was faster paced, and there wasn't so much "I don't know if I believe in myself" dialog. The director changed some things, but overall I thought nothing was out of line with the spirit of Lewis' tale.

I've read some Narnia aficionados throwing a fit about how Queen Susan fights and about how a new bit of plot was added, but to be honest neither were a big deal to me. I was okay with Susan doing a Legolas impression. Methinks certain bits of fit throwing are more the results of cultural concession than said fit-throwers realize (translation: the people upset about a woman fighting, don't have a clue that they are propagating more of 19th century Western culture than "Christianity"). Such obsessive behavior reminds me of a Star Wars convention.... And not in a good way.

It's a movie, and I enjoyed it. I would recommend it (though I would warn parents with younger children: this movie is grittier than the previous one--i.e. it's a little closer to Lord of the Rings in terms of violence, though still I don't think I saw any "blood" spilt).

Sermon series ideas...

2008-05-14T15:36:00.000-07:00

So I finished my last exam today, and I'm feeling pretty good... Now I just have to start nailing down what exactly I'll be preaching on this summer. I've drawn up a list of possible sermon series, but I'm not sure what I think of them. I was thinking of doing a 4-5 part series on Gideon and a few other sermons on other Judges. I also am contemplating a series on YHWH as the Divine Warrior. It would probably be about a six part series following the motif from the beginning of the Bible to the end. Aside from that Ezekiel is interesting me a bit right now...

Anyone have any thoughts? Anything you would love to hear a sermon on (I make no guaranties :) ?

St. Matthew's Structure...

2008-05-13T12:42:00.000-07:00

I have my gospels' exam tomorrow, and so I have been studying up a storm (okay..So a bit hyperbolic... I'm starting to lose steam at this time of year :). Anyway, we have to memorize one gospel's structure, and I chose Matthew because it is a very "Old Testament" style gospel (literally).

Matthew is very concerned that the scribes and synagogue take Jesus seriously. Thus, he arranges his material in a five-fold discourse structure to mirror Torah (i.e. 5 sections of teaching interspersed with narrative), and proclaim Jesus as the New Moses. Naturally, there are some scholars who object, but given the emphasis upon fulfillment in Matthew (52 times Matthew quotes or alludes to the OT; Luke is the runner up with a whopping 18), the Torah-structure is not surprising.

Here it is:

I. Birth Narratives - Circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth mirror Moses' birth (ch. 1-2)
II. Preparation for Jesus (ch. 3-4)
III. FIRST DISCOURSE: Sermon on the Mount (ch. 5-7)
IV. Narrative Section: Deed Ministry: Miracles (ch. 8-9)
V. SECOND DISCOURSE: Mission of the Disciples (ch. 10)
VI. Narrative Section: Teaching and Preaching in Galilee (ch. 11-12)
VII. THIRD DISCOURSE: Kingdom Parables (ch. 13)
VIII. Narrative Section: Healing in Galilee (ch. 14-17)
IX. FOURTH DISCOURSE: Church Discipline or Communal Rule (ch. 18)
X. Narrative Section: Membership in the kingdom (ch. 19-23)
XI. FIFTH DISCOURSE: Eschatology (ch. 24-25)
XII. Narrative Section: Passion and Resurrection (ch. 26-28)

Grammatically, there is the repetition of the phrase (or its cognates) "when Jesus had finished these words" after the first four discourses. The final discourse ends with "When Jesus had finished all these words."

von Rad on mystery...

2008-05-07T14:44:00.001-07:00

I am currently reading Gerhard von Rad's book Wisdom in Israel, and I came across a fascinating section which I would like to share.

Now a little background: as a seminarian, I hear a great deal from other students about how we "should" worship, what's wrong with our church (in this case the Christian Reformed Church), etc. In these discussions, a typical word that used a great deal is the word "mystery." Many sympathetic with the emerging church (as I have written before, I am sort of in that category though I like the emerging conversation's questions better than its answers) will throw out "mystery" as a trump card whenever they dislike something about Reformed Christianity. What bothers me about this is not so much the fact that certain strains of Reformed Christianity couldn't handle a little mystery, what bothers me is the ease with which my fellow students throw their tradition under the bus without being able to carefully articulate why. The result is plenty of false dilemmas or dichotomies (e.g. "rationalistic" vs. "mystery"). So when I ran across this quote in von Rad I was excited.

von Rad, while discussing how Israel's wisdom kept her open to mystery, notes the following:

"When she [i.e. Israel] spoke of mystery...she did not mean something vague and inexpressible which defied being put into words. In wisdom and didactic contexts it refers rather to something perceived by the understanding rather than by the feelings. The term is precise in so far as it refers to God's activity in the world, in which very special domain the wise men dared to look for rules." (73)

I find this definition helpful (though it does assume a problematic split between intellect and feelings). Take a "mystery" like Divine Providence. Intellectually, I can "understand" how it works (100% God, 100% man), but "emotionally" it doesn't always make sense to me (e.g. Why does God let the righteous suffer?).

And then I went to a Mosque...

2008-05-03T08:35:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I took a class trip to a local mosque here in Grand Rapids. I really didn't know what to expect, but I found it fascinating.

The building was an old Jehovah Witnesses' Kingdom Hall. The inside had been remodeled (naturally) and had very little for decorations. The walls were white with large black plates(?) covered with Arabic hanging approximately every 15 feet. The floor was covered with a special carpet displaying large red lines. There were no chairs, and the worshippers stood or sat on the lines. This insured that they all were facing Mecca.

The Imam gave a little sermon (I think it was directed at us--I didn't get the sense that it was a usual part of the liturgy, but I could be wrong on that), and then he led the prayers in Arabic. This all took about half an hour, and then we went downstairs (the women's worship area) and had a Q&A session with the Imam.

He was very kind and explained Islam to us as best he could within 20 minutes of questions. He did make sure that we knew that we were not considered Muslims (even though we are "people of the book"). There was one thing he said which I found very curious. He noted that there were two classes of people: those who are Muslims and those who reject Allah. However, within the class of Muslims there was another division between righteous Muslims and sinful Muslims. Righteous Muslims are those who have never sinned, while sinful Muslims (you guessed it) have. The Imam noted that on judgment day righteous Muslims will go straight to "heaven." However, the sinful Muslims will have to be purified with judgment--only after this purification will they be allowed to enter heaven. What struck me about this was how similar it sounded to the Roman Catholic teaching of Purgatory. While there are still huge differences, and I consider Roman Catholics my brothers and sisters in Jesus, it may interesting to find a similar concept of post-mortem purification.

A lost sheep and a good shepherd...

2008-04-27T16:39:00.001-07:00

This quarter I've been taking a gospels class, and we are currently being asked to prepare a paper on one of Jesus' parables. Of the choices that we were given, I picked the parable of the lost sheep. Part of the assignment is to compare the different versions of the parable in the synoptic gospels.

Well, let me say it from the get go: Matthew and Luke use the same parable in completely different settings for completely different purposes. Frankly, this doesn't upset me that much, Jesus could very well have used the same story in multiple settings. However, it is also possible that Matthew and Luke have a common "sayings" source (i.e. the dreaded "Q") in front of them as they are writing their respective gospels and weaving the material into the narratives where it seems appropriate. This is not the only place where this happens, there are plenty of instances in these two gospels where they take the same material (i.e. material which is almost identical in wording and does not appear in Mark) and put it in different places (my professor even noted in class that after the story of Jesus' temptation "no portion of Q ever appears in the same place"--e.g. Mt. 23.37-38 and Lk. 13.34-35; etc. etc.). This also doesn't bother me because the "sayings" clearly belong to Jesus, and the purpose of the gospels is not to recite "scientifically exact" history. The gospels' purpose is to preach history (i.e. to tell us what it was all about, not all about it).

Anyway, back to my main point: I was surprised to see that Matthew's telling of the story (Matt. 18.10-14) takes place within the context of internal disputes about "greatness" among Jesus' disciples. In response Jesus, takes a little child and notes that the disciples must become like little children to enter the Kingdom. Then he warns them against causing such a "little one" to sin. Instead, the disciples are to go after every little "sheep" that goes astray, bringing them back to the flock.

I am under the impression that when we think of this parable, we usually think of the Lukan version. Luke tells the story as Jesus' apologetic against the scribes and pharisees who object to his table fellowship with sinners. Luke's point is: shouldn't the pharisees, et al, rejoice at the return of the sinners? To put it another way, while Matthew uses the story for an internal dispute, Luke uses the story for external outreach.

Someone has noted that Matthew's version of the parable should be called the Good Shepherd, while Luke's version should be called the Lost Sheep.

Just some things I find interesting... Comment, disagree, have at it :)

A quote from John G. Paton...

2008-04-14T18:07:00.000-07:00

I was reading John G. Paton's autobiography today, and I stumbled across this passage about one of the Aneityumese converts who helped Paton minister to the natives in the New Hebrides (Paton, of course, is the celebrated missionary who spent years among the cannibals). I thought it was very revealing. Paton writes:

"When I have read or heard the shallow objections of irreligious scribblers and talkers, hinting that there was no reality in conversions, and that Mission effort was but waste, oh, how my heart has yearned to plant them just one week in Tanna, with the "natural" man all around in the person of Cannibal and Heathen, and only the one "spiritual" man in the person of the converted Abraham [Paton's Aneityumese friend who worked tirelessly for the kingdom of God], nursing them, feeding them, saving them "for the love of Jesus"--that I might just learn how many hours it took to convince them that Christ in man was a reality after all! All the skepticism of Europe would hide its head in foolish shame; and all its doubts would dissolve under one glance of the new light that Jesus, and Jesus alone, pours from the converted Cannibal's eye."

Recommending "A Reader's Hebrew Bible"...

2008-04-11T16:41:00.001-07:00

A few weeks ago in Akkadian class, my prof handed out free copies of Zondervan's "A Reader's Hebrew Bible." After spending the last few weeks with it, let me say that I am hooked! Anyone who is trying to learn Hebrew so that they can enrich their Bible study time, needs to have a copy of this handy resource. I have been using it for devotions, and I am thrilled with it. Words occuring less than 100 times are footnoted with a brief gloss taken from the standard lexicons (words 100 and over have a brief glossary in the back). This saves lugging several books around with you (or your laptop) if you just want to sit down with the Hebrew and a cup of coffee (okay, so I'm one of the only language nerds that likes doing that--but seriously, you get a hold of this puppy, and you'll be a Hebrew language nerd too!). I used to take my small copy of BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttsgartensia), and a NASB whenever I just wanted to read Hebrew. Then, if there was a word I didn't know, I'd try to quickly figure it out from the NASB (which actually works fairly well); however, this is ten times easier. I look down and the word is right there. In addition, my Hebrew vocabulary keeps getting better and better (this is what happens when you actually can read large chunks of Hebrew prose). I still carry my small NASB with me, but now I rarely use it and only when the Hebrew has a strange idiom.

Finally, it's bound in that nice soft binding that a lot of the new Bibles are in (Italian Duo-tone binding).

One thing to note: this Bible is for reading. It is not for research. If you're doing research, pull out your BHS. "A Reader's Hebrew Bible" lacks the critical apparatus necessary for deciding between alternate readings, etc.

Judges 6...Gideon, a prophet?

2008-04-02T14:58:00.000-07:00

The last few days I've been reading through Judges 6, and I find Gideon's call story to be very similar to a prophetic call story, especially Moses'. Gideon like Moses refuses the responsibility, and gives excuses about his inability. Like Moses there was fire involved and the voice of God. When it's all over Gideon exclaims that he has seen God "face-to-face" (sound familiar?). Both men need signs to be convinced, and both are commanded to "Go" and do something ("Arise, and Go..." is a typical command to the prophets).

In addition to all of these echoes, there is the strange pericope of 6:1-10. In response to Israel's cries, the text says that God raised up a "prophet" for Israel. This is different from some of the earlier "judge" stories. Take, for example, the stories of Othniel and Ehud, in both cases the text says that Israel cried out and then God sent a deliverer or judge. After such a formulaic beginning, the stories of each man are recited. I have the sneaking suspicion that Judges 6:1-10 refers to Gideon. Like the "judge" formula, God hears Israel's cries and sends someone (identified in this case as a prophet). After this introduction, the story of the "prophet" is told, and because Gideon is a prophet, we have an appropriately Moses-like call scene.

I'm not sure of this, but it seems to make sense. It would explain the otherwise seemingly random insertion of vv.1-10.

Comments or thoughts are welcome :)

Side bar notes...

2008-03-27T17:05:00.000-07:00

Just thought I'd mention (and highlight) that I've added a few more blogs under links. Since I started this blog I've rarely updated the side bar (I hate messing with "techy" stuff...even if it isn't hard :), but today I decided to remedy this. I've updated the link to my friend David Hjelle's blog (it's only been outdated for several months!), I added a link to The Internet Monk blog (a blog I read regularly, I don't agree with Michael Spencer on everything, but he is always thoughtful and has much to offer), I added Jason De Vries's blog (Jason is a seminary friend of mine--great guy, smart, outgoing, and thoughtful, i.e. lots of potential; you need a church planted, he's your man!), I also added Peter Matthew's blog "Guitar Priest" (I enjoy stopping by to read his Anglican musings from time to time). Finally, I added Angie Brennan's humor blog. Angie has been a kind reader and thoughtful commentator for some time, and I thought I'd give her some props :)

Happy reading!

Odds and ends...and a little Spurgeon thrown in for good measure

2008-03-27T16:15:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I posted... my apologies. Seminary is keeping me on my toes. A second quarter of Akkadian keeps the work load fairly high and doesn't always give me tons to blog about.

A couple of bright updates with me: 1) it looks like I will be able to stay around Grand Rapids this summer, and intern at Blythefield Christian Reformed Church (my current home church). Though the details still have to be worked out, the pastor has been very gracious to offer me this opportunity (otherwise, I would have had ten weeks away from my wife--not my idea of fun!). So, if any of you are desperate to hear me preach, drop by West Michigan this summer! 2) I took and passed my Hebrew comprehensive exam. I wasn't quite sure what to expect when I went, but it was actually quite easy (I'm surprised so many students here at Calvin Seminary freak out about it, and opt to do an intensive 2-day seminar on libronix instead). They even gave us "infrequent" words in the translation exercise.

My reading time has been cut back of late due to my school workload, but I'm almost done with vol. 1 of Spurgeon's autobiography. I noted in my last post that I see things a little bit different than when I read it the first time (at age 17 :). Well, this time around, one thing has really jumped out at me: Spurgeon's failings and weaknesses. There are some within the Reformed community who propose Spurgeon as the 13th apostle. I have no doubt that God used Spurgeon, but Spurgeon (as Spurgeon would tell you) was just a man. Throughout the autobiography (especially this first volume which chronicles his early years) it is clear that Spurgeon struggled with pride, youthful arrogance, and plenty of other peccadillos. He was not perfect, and he knew it. At one point in his journal he even wrote: "pride is my darling." Now, this doesn't take anything away from him. In fact, in another sense it does him better justice. Protestantism is afflicted with hagiography as much as Roman Catholicism, and it is always helpful to get a realistic look at one of our "heroes." There are times when Spurgeon boasts about the thousands of souls God has saved through him. There are times when his comments would be better if tempered with a little more wisdom. But that was Spurgeon, warts and all, and we do him a grace disservice when we suggest that he never could have got anything wrong.

Another thing that I find interesting in the autobiography is Spurgeon's reputation in the London newspapers. While there were many reporters who thought very highly of him, there were others who wrote him off as a showman or a gospel peddler. Some of these critics are clearly of a "refined" class who are very upset by Spurgeon's willingness to talk like a common person from the pulpit. Others are simply jealous of a 19-year-old having tremendous success. Still others were basically Deists unhappy with his doctrine. However, there is something that strikes me in all of these criticisms: much of what they say sounds a great deal like the criticisms, I hear (and say myself) about modern Evangelicalism: "it's all about show," "it's all a big circus," "there's no reverence," etc. etc. This all begs the question: Was the Spurgeon that Reformed Christians adore (yes, sometimes worship), something of a showman and a contributor to some of our current problems? I think the answer to that question has to be "yes." It is very easy for us as Calvinists to critique modern problems, but are we willing to admit that some of our own "heroes" may have contributed to those problems?

Anyway, enough for now... I'll try to be more faithful about posting (not that anyone reads this blog anymore :)

My current reading...

2008-02-24T16:03:00.000-08:00

I had this past week off, and I spent it writing a sermon on Joshua 9 (the Gibeonites as people of faith! :), and doing some reading. Here are my current books (I make no claims to finishing them, etc. :):

Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, by Kenneth E. Bailey. This is an intriguing book. Bailey brings years of experience of living in the middle east to bear on the gospels. He also draws on commentaries and versions of the Bible unknown to English-speaking audiences (e.g. Arabic commentaries, Aramaic/Syriac translations of the Bible, etc.). The result is an insightful read which challenges western notions of what is happening in familiar gospel stories (e.g. the nativity--Bailey strongly asserts that Mary and Joseph were not turned away in Bethlehem and had to stay in a barn. Rather, he notes that the word translated "inn" literally means "guest room," and that mangers were always at the end of the family room. Thus, someone very kindly allowed Mary and Joseph to stay right with their family.). However, there are times in Bailey's work where he seems to get so caught up in current middle eastern culture that I think he reads it back into 1st century Palestine. Nonetheless, I would highly recommend this book. It's easy reading, and Bailey makes pertinent application throughout.

The Christian Ministry, by Charles Bridges. I picked this book up at Baker Books here in town after I suddenly remembered its existence (I read a chunk of it while in college). It's an older book from the mid-1800s. However, it is not out of date. The few chapters I have perused so far are outstanding. Bridges's words are wise and careful. He writes from years of experience, and his recommendations should be taken seriously by any pastor. For example, he pushes his readers (as pastors) to not only to know their Greek and Hebrew, but also to pray fervently throughout the entire sermon construction process (a good balance of scholarship and piety).

Making Wise the Simple: The Torah in Christian Faith and Practice, by Johanna W.H. van Wijk-Bos. So far this is one of those books that I really like, but also roll my eyes at from time to time. van Wijk has done an enormous amount of work on the Torah, and she has some very good things to say. However, her feminist perspective sometimes get the better of her, and she tends to read the Torah through a semi-Marxist lens (Hey, she labels herself at the beginning at Christian feminist--not my label). Perhaps, this will change as I continue reading (I'm only in the third chapter), but I have a sense not. She makes it plain in the first few chapters that she wants to give her readers an "in" into Torah through the category of the "stranger in your midst" (i.e. how Torah commands us to treat the "other" or the disenfranchised).

C.H. Spurgeon: Autobiography: Vol. 1, The Early Years. I started reading this book again because I recalled loving it several years ago when I was in high school (one boy preacher wishfully projecting himself onto another :). My second time through is different, but I still love this book. Spurgeon loved Jesus. There's no other way to put it. He was not a sour Calvinist, and it is amazing to see how God providentially arranged his life for the furthering of the Kingdom. This is an outstanding book. I find it encouraging and refreshing.