"How does this apply to me?" is the first question for some personalities, the last for others. It's good to avoid either extreme, to avoid both never and always asking it.
A cynic will often be heard taking a passage like this and ridiculing it because of something like the earthquake in Haiti, saying, "what length of days, what long life, did God give some of the wise people in Haiti this week?"
And the solution is not to pretend we didn't hear the implied question of the cynic: "if wisdom provides long life, peace, riches, honor, then why did some fools go on living and some of the wise die early in their lives?"
The implied question is the converse of the question "if you sin, is it really true you will die?" One answer, phrased as "you surely will not die!" in Genesis 3:4, is stated there by who the narrative says is "the serpent."
The cynic's question, the converse of the serpent's, is "if you are wise, is it true you won't die?"
In light of an earthquake in your city, you might not die right away even if you definitely sin now, and you might die right away even if you definitely have wisdom now. Same with peace and riches and "pleasant ways."
Many people get no farther than this, the assumption that all consequences must be immediate, or they don't count. It's like putting your son in kindergarden, and asking your son that same day to recite the Pythagorean theorem. (Well, not "recite," but apply. I know of a young boy who could recite it then ... ;) )
When we tell someone to make an investment, are we stupid like that? Do we say, "invest in oil!" and get upset when there's no immediate gain, or even loss of everything short-term? Therefore, in "investment" kinds of things -- one of which is wisdom -- there is risk taking. The cynic's case only considers short term: you may be wise, and yet die. But that's not the end of it. If the religion says it produces a long-term investment, then it must be judged as a long-term investment, just as other such things.
The investment analogy is a good one to show that behind this questioning of the promise about wisdom here is a collateral demand that the outcome of a promise be produced right away. Sure, the cynic also laughs at the demand that the outcome will be "someday." But that would only be decisive if there are no such things as long-term consequences of investments.
However, "someday" is NOT the only answer to the cynic's question. Wisdom is a long-term investment. But compared to folly, wisdom is a better short-term investment, now! Here, in the world of today's investment, with no guaranteed short-term results, wisdom holds its own against folly just fine. In the world of short-term results with no guarantees, in competition with its opposite, wisdom does just fine ... and in the world of long-term results, wisdom trounces. That's what the promise is. No need to be embarrassed about either contest.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Gen 30-31 for Jan 14
One kind of specialty in the movies, and in detective stories, is a complicated plot that all gets explained, but not until the end.
The ancient world loved these kinds of stories -- even the ancient Greek plays sometimes had stories that were incredibly complicated, only to be explained at the end by the "deus ex machina." Is the story of the universe something that will be explainable and explained, at the end? Christianity, among the theistic religions, says with all of them, yes (e.g., Rev 21-22). So this part of the story of Jacob (Gen 31:11-13), in how it ends with explanation.
What needs explaining? For one thing, who is doing what? Is it Jacob's strategy (30:37-41) that causes the increase in the flock to belong to him, not his devious father-in-law ... or is it God (31:12)? Does Jacob think that it was his strategy, at first, and then change his mind, to thinking instead that it was God doing it all along (31:7-10)?
Meanwhile, intertwined with Jacob's strategy, we hear that Laban was strategizing too (31:7). Many people point out that in telling the story this way, Genesis is magnifying the aspect of Jacob's own character that was evident in the stories about him from the beginning, and even his natal position toward his twin brother (Gen 25:26).
Is everything significant? Are all the details of this man's life, from his natal position, to the promise he makes to God in exchange for safety, significant in some kind of plan, laid out like the plot of a movie -- to God? A similar claim is what Jesus makes toward His disciples: "the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Mt 10:30.
In a way, we all say "that's crazy: who can even get out of bed in the morning if they have to worry about what piece of a plot in a movie they have to enact during the day today?"
But the answer to that frees us up. You're not the writer of the plot. You're an agent in the plot. You and I don't have to know or worry about how the intricacies of the plot will be resolved. We're not keeping count of our hairs, and don't have to.
The idea that Jacob's behavior, which is some of the most detailed, spelled-out description of personality and character in the Bible, is circumscribed by the plan of God, may make you mad, especially if you think that means you don't have freedom to do this or that. But take this story and look: one of the main conclusions we should get from this story is definitely that Jacob acting as he chooses to act. And so is God. And things are going forward.
The ancient world loved these kinds of stories -- even the ancient Greek plays sometimes had stories that were incredibly complicated, only to be explained at the end by the "deus ex machina." Is the story of the universe something that will be explainable and explained, at the end? Christianity, among the theistic religions, says with all of them, yes (e.g., Rev 21-22). So this part of the story of Jacob (Gen 31:11-13), in how it ends with explanation.
What needs explaining? For one thing, who is doing what? Is it Jacob's strategy (30:37-41) that causes the increase in the flock to belong to him, not his devious father-in-law ... or is it God (31:12)? Does Jacob think that it was his strategy, at first, and then change his mind, to thinking instead that it was God doing it all along (31:7-10)?
Meanwhile, intertwined with Jacob's strategy, we hear that Laban was strategizing too (31:7). Many people point out that in telling the story this way, Genesis is magnifying the aspect of Jacob's own character that was evident in the stories about him from the beginning, and even his natal position toward his twin brother (Gen 25:26).
Is everything significant? Are all the details of this man's life, from his natal position, to the promise he makes to God in exchange for safety, significant in some kind of plan, laid out like the plot of a movie -- to God? A similar claim is what Jesus makes toward His disciples: "the very hairs of your head are all numbered." Mt 10:30.
In a way, we all say "that's crazy: who can even get out of bed in the morning if they have to worry about what piece of a plot in a movie they have to enact during the day today?"
But the answer to that frees us up. You're not the writer of the plot. You're an agent in the plot. You and I don't have to know or worry about how the intricacies of the plot will be resolved. We're not keeping count of our hairs, and don't have to.
The idea that Jacob's behavior, which is some of the most detailed, spelled-out description of personality and character in the Bible, is circumscribed by the plan of God, may make you mad, especially if you think that means you don't have freedom to do this or that. But take this story and look: one of the main conclusions we should get from this story is definitely that Jacob acting as he chooses to act. And so is God. And things are going forward.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Gen 28 for Jan 13
There are many boys-to-men stories that include even hatred between brothers.
Here too, there is typical "family life!" in the line of the seed destined to bless all the nations of the earth. The family life here is ... what? There are the same-o-same-o murderous hatreds (Gen 27:41), manipulation of one's father (27:24), even using a father's religious God language (27:20). The weakness of old age is also in view, in the father who also brings God into the picture, but completely unaware of reality and not knowing what he's doing (27:28)!
So here you have a family that's all messed up: sons murderous or manipulative, parents out of touch or manipulative, invoking God falsely or mistakenly, mothers trying to help yet very exasperated with life because of some of their children's choices, especially in marriage (27:46).
Yet, when it comes time for Jacob to get on with life, and find a wife, etc., as Gen 28 opens up, Isaac his father passes on the family's "culture," i.e., 28:3-5. Like many fathers, Isaac prefers his son get a wife "like I did," in some way.
Esau is pictured in the story figuring out things family-wise, but the text leaves it up in the air as to whether the adjustment in question does any good (28:9).
Meanwhile ... God intercepts, again: this time, Jacob, who, at this point, we're not sure what he's up to. He's just going off in the general direction of a long road trip (hundreds of miles), "toward Haran."
What do you do with a dysfunctional family member from a dysfunctional family? What God does here, is that He is not deterred at all! He sticks with what He promised (28:13-15). In a way, what is said in that passage is even louder in our ears, because we've just gone through that family life. And there is God, saying the exact same thing that He said, making unconditional unilateral promises (28:15).
The picture here is, as they said in the military, a SNAFU. Everybody's what we sadly see them to be: preoccupied with questions of rivalry, hostility, manipulation, angling for an advantage, bringing God into the service of family, family tradition and 'the way we do things.' : all the various types of disarray.... And not all the family tradition is bad! Then Jacob has his dream (28:10-15).
This communication of God to Jacob is interesting in that Jacob's reaction (28:16-22) is "so Jacob." We know about him from the previous family stories! He's thinking about ancillary stuff, commenting on his new knowledge (28:16), and on the environment (28:17), but not on any of the content of what God had said. He'd "heard all that" from his father (28:4), and right now ... he's not even married! But it was quite an unusual event, this dream. And so, "Jacob made a vow" (28:20): in typical "so Jacob" fashion, he sets a little, ad hoc, 'somekinda agreement' between himself and God, and reacts to what we might call the immediate situation: 'God says my kids are gonna be around here in every direction someday [28:14]? OK, first things first: if he gets me food, shelter, and back home safe, THEN I'll be fair with Him.' How many of these deals has God heard from us? Jacob wants pay-as-you-go with God. Haven't we thought of Him the same way?
Here too, there is typical "family life!" in the line of the seed destined to bless all the nations of the earth. The family life here is ... what? There are the same-o-same-o murderous hatreds (Gen 27:41), manipulation of one's father (27:24), even using a father's religious God language (27:20). The weakness of old age is also in view, in the father who also brings God into the picture, but completely unaware of reality and not knowing what he's doing (27:28)!
So here you have a family that's all messed up: sons murderous or manipulative, parents out of touch or manipulative, invoking God falsely or mistakenly, mothers trying to help yet very exasperated with life because of some of their children's choices, especially in marriage (27:46).
Yet, when it comes time for Jacob to get on with life, and find a wife, etc., as Gen 28 opens up, Isaac his father passes on the family's "culture," i.e., 28:3-5. Like many fathers, Isaac prefers his son get a wife "like I did," in some way.
Esau is pictured in the story figuring out things family-wise, but the text leaves it up in the air as to whether the adjustment in question does any good (28:9).
Meanwhile ... God intercepts, again: this time, Jacob, who, at this point, we're not sure what he's up to. He's just going off in the general direction of a long road trip (hundreds of miles), "toward Haran."
What do you do with a dysfunctional family member from a dysfunctional family? What God does here, is that He is not deterred at all! He sticks with what He promised (28:13-15). In a way, what is said in that passage is even louder in our ears, because we've just gone through that family life. And there is God, saying the exact same thing that He said, making unconditional unilateral promises (28:15).
The picture here is, as they said in the military, a SNAFU. Everybody's what we sadly see them to be: preoccupied with questions of rivalry, hostility, manipulation, angling for an advantage, bringing God into the service of family, family tradition and 'the way we do things.' : all the various types of disarray.... And not all the family tradition is bad! Then Jacob has his dream (28:10-15).
This communication of God to Jacob is interesting in that Jacob's reaction (28:16-22) is "so Jacob." We know about him from the previous family stories! He's thinking about ancillary stuff, commenting on his new knowledge (28:16), and on the environment (28:17), but not on any of the content of what God had said. He'd "heard all that" from his father (28:4), and right now ... he's not even married! But it was quite an unusual event, this dream. And so, "Jacob made a vow" (28:20): in typical "so Jacob" fashion, he sets a little, ad hoc, 'somekinda agreement' between himself and God, and reacts to what we might call the immediate situation: 'God says my kids are gonna be around here in every direction someday [28:14]? OK, first things first: if he gets me food, shelter, and back home safe, THEN I'll be fair with Him.' How many of these deals has God heard from us? Jacob wants pay-as-you-go with God. Haven't we thought of Him the same way?
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Moo Commentary on Romans (pp. 27-32)
If you were given the opportunity, by a respected publisher, to write a commentary on Romans, how long do you think (-- for how many pages, say -- ) you would be able to marshal your enthusiasm to tell us what you think the whole thing means, and go step-by-step, not saying anything but what you could adequately support? In this and the previous section, and in this one especially, Moo reveals what he thinks the whole ball of wax is about in Romans. A professor who is sensitive to issues of not going beyond what can be supported would probably tell us to skip these pages until we're done, and then see if the commentary has done what it takes to support these conclusions.
Then again, the editor has (p. vii) already told us that our author has "theological sympathies." Our author has given us a context for his dialog, his twelve commentators, nine in English, (pp. xx - xxiii) that there will be extensive dialog with. There's no real reason to be upset at the early statement of these conclusions, and we should really be only concerned about ourselves, that we will be tempted to adopt or reject them simply because at this early stage we might have an a priori liking for them (or disliking of them). So let Moo tell us what he thinks, and let us be the ones that show no prejudice for what he says or against what he says, both.
On p. 29, Moo says that "the theme of the letter is the gospel. And the message of the gospel is that God brings guilty sinners into relationship with himself and destines them to eternal life when they believe in his son, Jesus the Messiah."
Moo asks us not to impose categories onto an outline of Romans, like justification and sanctification. What is interesting is that the categories offered by Moo instead, the "two age presentation" (p. 32) is also a categorization.
Let's not balk too much, since the author hasn't made many assertions that must be derived from this. Let's go on and see how the two age presentation actually presents Romans. Does it cover it adequately, and do the parts of the presentation each make sense internally ? Does each one relate to the theme stated, the gospel of God?
These are questions for the future. However, I think we should always urge one another to postpone our opinions about an author's conclusions, when we're less than 4% along in a course of study. Good to hear them!
Things to pay special attention to, up to this point: the place of Romans 5 in the division of subject (p. 32); how much the subject of justification covers, thematically, in the letter (p. 28); the difference between "center" (p. 28), "starting point" (p. 25), and "theme" (p. 30).
When discussing "theme," what are the alternatives? He gives three main ones: "the relationship of Jews and Gentiles" (p. 27); "justification by faith" (p. 28); and his own choice, "the gospel." if we chose "the relationship of Jews and Gentiles" (p. 27), then how would the individual fit in? If we chose "justification by faith," (p. 29) then how would chs. 5-15 best fit in? In choosing "the gospel" as the theme (p. 29), he believes that the others are elaborations of that theme (p. 30).
We should also be careful of what the author places before us indirectly: the consideration that some themes may be "fruits, implications, or requirements" of others (p. 29). In reading the rest of p. 29, we should recognize how eloquently Moo speaks of his subject, even though it is strictly speaking, the espousing of his conclusions.
As predicted, we're almost ready to actually look at the first verse of Romans now! After presenting a short outline, Moo goes on to Romans 1:1.
Then again, the editor has (p. vii) already told us that our author has "theological sympathies." Our author has given us a context for his dialog, his twelve commentators, nine in English, (pp. xx - xxiii) that there will be extensive dialog with. There's no real reason to be upset at the early statement of these conclusions, and we should really be only concerned about ourselves, that we will be tempted to adopt or reject them simply because at this early stage we might have an a priori liking for them (or disliking of them). So let Moo tell us what he thinks, and let us be the ones that show no prejudice for what he says or against what he says, both.
On p. 29, Moo says that "the theme of the letter is the gospel. And the message of the gospel is that God brings guilty sinners into relationship with himself and destines them to eternal life when they believe in his son, Jesus the Messiah."
Moo asks us not to impose categories onto an outline of Romans, like justification and sanctification. What is interesting is that the categories offered by Moo instead, the "two age presentation" (p. 32) is also a categorization.
Let's not balk too much, since the author hasn't made many assertions that must be derived from this. Let's go on and see how the two age presentation actually presents Romans. Does it cover it adequately, and do the parts of the presentation each make sense internally ? Does each one relate to the theme stated, the gospel of God?
These are questions for the future. However, I think we should always urge one another to postpone our opinions about an author's conclusions, when we're less than 4% along in a course of study. Good to hear them!
Things to pay special attention to, up to this point: the place of Romans 5 in the division of subject (p. 32); how much the subject of justification covers, thematically, in the letter (p. 28); the difference between "center" (p. 28), "starting point" (p. 25), and "theme" (p. 30).
When discussing "theme," what are the alternatives? He gives three main ones: "the relationship of Jews and Gentiles" (p. 27); "justification by faith" (p. 28); and his own choice, "the gospel." if we chose "the relationship of Jews and Gentiles" (p. 27), then how would the individual fit in? If we chose "justification by faith," (p. 29) then how would chs. 5-15 best fit in? In choosing "the gospel" as the theme (p. 29), he believes that the others are elaborations of that theme (p. 30).
We should also be careful of what the author places before us indirectly: the consideration that some themes may be "fruits, implications, or requirements" of others (p. 29). In reading the rest of p. 29, we should recognize how eloquently Moo speaks of his subject, even though it is strictly speaking, the espousing of his conclusions.
As predicted, we're almost ready to actually look at the first verse of Romans now! After presenting a short outline, Moo goes on to Romans 1:1.
Mt 9:1-17 for Jan 12
"It's in Matthew somewhere. Can't remember exactly." As Johnson said, the next best thing to knowing something is knowing where to find it. This passage is in that territory where we're always "remembering" that Jesus said this somewhere. Where did Jesus say flat-out to somebody, "your sins are forgiven?" Where does it show Jesus associating with non-religious people? HERE!
This first story should be a FAMOUS story too, and it would be more, if it didn't not upset our predispositions. We have the same predisposition about forgiveness as these scribes (9:3), or tend to: compare Mark 2:7, which elaborates their (and often, our) thinking: "who can forgive sins but God alone?"
The way we dovetail with that is a) our individualism about faith and forgiveness: we tend to think, for somebody to be forgiven, it requires their own faith (or faith plus yadayadayada) in all cases. But look at 9:2! Does it say "seeing their faith, Jesus said to them ...?" No, the punch of the story is who the forgiveness lands upon: "seeing their faith, He said to the paralytic...." Their faith ... and the paralytic's forgiveness! And healing, to seal the point for the skeptics ... "so that you may know" (9:6).
Another way we dovetail with these scribes is b) our indefinite postponements, our intractable bent to always say "maybe" to the question "are my sins forgiven?" or some variant of that, like "so far," or "no one knows, not even you or me, whether I'm real or a fake...."
In that sense, the crowd's reaction to the incident in 9:8 is more theologically astute than the scribes' one, and often ours. Their reaction was to think of it as blasphemy. What is the logic behind that? If we go by their assumption, it is that if only God alone can forgive sins, then Jesus "must be" claiming to be in xyz direct relationship to God, and that's impossible, because Jesus is a man, therefore blaspheming God. That's their logic.
Did the crowd then, fall into that category? No! They believed that Jesus proved His authority to forgive sins, and, accepted that God had given Him that authority. They accepted at face value the statement Jesus makes about Himself in 9:6, "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."
So this story is a great example of how we can learn from examining our presuppositions critically. Was the crowd right, then, "glorifying God, who had given such authority to men" (9:8). Yes! They did not "veto" the facts by a prior system, an "a priori."
Often this story is given as an example of Jesus claiming to be God. In this story, that is not the case. That's what these scribes thought they had here, and many commentators. Did the crowd have it worked out exactly who Jesus was, His divinity, etc? No. But they did not use a system to deny that Jesus had the "authority on earth to forgive sins."
Don't also the next two sections (9-13, 14-17) also show this new versus old thinking theme? The "point" of all this is not all something so trite as "think new thoughts." It is not merely that we should not try to fit what Christ is doing and who He is to our prior thoughts. That is true, but the perspective is different....
The perspective is that of Christ Himself. He is the bridegroom in the presence of Whom it is impossible to mourn (9:15). He is the doctor for the sick. Sick people are too sick to do all this "new thoughts" thinking, but at that time, the doctor was present, right there, and He cures the paralytic! The bridegroom is as of then on the planet! And He among the "sons of the wedding place" (9:15, lit.), forgiving sins directly. Not only curing the sick, but dining with them. They are with the bridegroom, and cannot be mourning. Thus there is this matter of wine. He is the new wine. And the new patch of cloth. And he is not using old wineskins or an old garment. Your sickness will not deter Him. And faith in Him matters.
The difference in the perspectives is evident in many sermons. Many sermons are of the self-contradictory form: "only God can forgive sins; you need to do 1, 2, 3, for that to happen." Other sermons are of the form "God has done 1, 2, 3 for your forgiveness. He did that for your forgiveness to happen. Are you confident in what He has done?"
Why are "sinners" (9:11), not "the righteous" (9:13), characteristically "dining with Jesus" (9:10) in the gospels? We've talked about presuppositions, but there is another hint in 9:14 at a second reason. To see that, we can ask ourselves the following question: when "some of the scribes" (9:3) said that Jesus blasphemes, is it that they had a theory that ANY forgiveness claimed, any time, for any reason, is blasphemy? No. There was a system or set of systems for it. Sometimes it involved, among other things, the fasting that the disciples of John ask about in 9:14.
The direct forgiveness shown by Jesus is not only from a different presupposition than then current; it is a manifestly contrasting system to that which was then current. If we're not with the doctor, we'll try different things, some of which, like fasting, are not wrong in themselves. But when it turns out that the systems were not "who but God alone," but "who but God alone, in the old way," the new wine could not be held by such a system.
This first story should be a FAMOUS story too, and it would be more, if it didn't not upset our predispositions. We have the same predisposition about forgiveness as these scribes (9:3), or tend to: compare Mark 2:7, which elaborates their (and often, our) thinking: "who can forgive sins but God alone?"
The way we dovetail with that is a) our individualism about faith and forgiveness: we tend to think, for somebody to be forgiven, it requires their own faith (or faith plus yadayadayada) in all cases. But look at 9:2! Does it say "seeing their faith, Jesus said to them ...?" No, the punch of the story is who the forgiveness lands upon: "seeing their faith, He said to the paralytic...." Their faith ... and the paralytic's forgiveness! And healing, to seal the point for the skeptics ... "so that you may know" (9:6).
Another way we dovetail with these scribes is b) our indefinite postponements, our intractable bent to always say "maybe" to the question "are my sins forgiven?" or some variant of that, like "so far," or "no one knows, not even you or me, whether I'm real or a fake...."
In that sense, the crowd's reaction to the incident in 9:8 is more theologically astute than the scribes' one, and often ours. Their reaction was to think of it as blasphemy. What is the logic behind that? If we go by their assumption, it is that if only God alone can forgive sins, then Jesus "must be" claiming to be in xyz direct relationship to God, and that's impossible, because Jesus is a man, therefore blaspheming God. That's their logic.
Did the crowd then, fall into that category? No! They believed that Jesus proved His authority to forgive sins, and, accepted that God had given Him that authority. They accepted at face value the statement Jesus makes about Himself in 9:6, "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."
So this story is a great example of how we can learn from examining our presuppositions critically. Was the crowd right, then, "glorifying God, who had given such authority to men" (9:8). Yes! They did not "veto" the facts by a prior system, an "a priori."
Often this story is given as an example of Jesus claiming to be God. In this story, that is not the case. That's what these scribes thought they had here, and many commentators. Did the crowd have it worked out exactly who Jesus was, His divinity, etc? No. But they did not use a system to deny that Jesus had the "authority on earth to forgive sins."
Don't also the next two sections (9-13, 14-17) also show this new versus old thinking theme? The "point" of all this is not all something so trite as "think new thoughts." It is not merely that we should not try to fit what Christ is doing and who He is to our prior thoughts. That is true, but the perspective is different....
The perspective is that of Christ Himself. He is the bridegroom in the presence of Whom it is impossible to mourn (9:15). He is the doctor for the sick. Sick people are too sick to do all this "new thoughts" thinking, but at that time, the doctor was present, right there, and He cures the paralytic! The bridegroom is as of then on the planet! And He among the "sons of the wedding place" (9:15, lit.), forgiving sins directly. Not only curing the sick, but dining with them. They are with the bridegroom, and cannot be mourning. Thus there is this matter of wine. He is the new wine. And the new patch of cloth. And he is not using old wineskins or an old garment. Your sickness will not deter Him. And faith in Him matters.
The difference in the perspectives is evident in many sermons. Many sermons are of the self-contradictory form: "only God can forgive sins; you need to do 1, 2, 3, for that to happen." Other sermons are of the form "God has done 1, 2, 3 for your forgiveness. He did that for your forgiveness to happen. Are you confident in what He has done?"
Why are "sinners" (9:11), not "the righteous" (9:13), characteristically "dining with Jesus" (9:10) in the gospels? We've talked about presuppositions, but there is another hint in 9:14 at a second reason. To see that, we can ask ourselves the following question: when "some of the scribes" (9:3) said that Jesus blasphemes, is it that they had a theory that ANY forgiveness claimed, any time, for any reason, is blasphemy? No. There was a system or set of systems for it. Sometimes it involved, among other things, the fasting that the disciples of John ask about in 9:14.
The direct forgiveness shown by Jesus is not only from a different presupposition than then current; it is a manifestly contrasting system to that which was then current. If we're not with the doctor, we'll try different things, some of which, like fasting, are not wrong in themselves. But when it turns out that the systems were not "who but God alone," but "who but God alone, in the old way," the new wine could not be held by such a system.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Ps 10:1ff. for Jan 11
Whatever is well-known has a chance to be ignored or scorned. And we won't notice unique things about it. Such is Ps 10:1.
Think outside the box for a second here. What kind of religion does 10:1 imply? If God were a projection of an Ancient Near Eastern despot (pick one!), who would conceive of saying this kind of thing to him? The very fact that this question just gets "thrown out there" says that we're not dealing with projections of authoritarian mindsets. An authoritarian mindset would not allow this question, and would zap the questioner, not see that the question got put in the Bible!
So, is it true, that the bold, brash questions that the "new atheism" has about God, are new? Blank no! Here, right in Psalm 10, is God, in effect, sticking the question about Himself to us, through Psalm 10. 'You want some of Me? Go ahead. Get the questions out! Take your best shot!'
10:2 cannot be matched for the sheer disgust it implies as it depicts the evil it depicts. That would be an antogonistic position's "best shot" at God, that not only is evil merely "tolerated," but, over and over again, evil is agressive and is still being aggressive against what can best be described as its victims. At the top of the chain of nature in this category is -- man. "The wicked," 10:2.
So, if God has the "temerity" to get us to pose these questions to Him and see to it that they get put into the Bible, it stands to reason, if He is saying to go ahead and phrase the complaint as best we can, that the complaint has a resolution. I don't know why the One Year Bible stops at 10:15. Let's not be afraid to look at the whole of Psalm 10 for resolution.
But, if you want to stick with "today's" reading ... there's some of the resolution in verse 5.
Think outside the box for a second here. What kind of religion does 10:1 imply? If God were a projection of an Ancient Near Eastern despot (pick one!), who would conceive of saying this kind of thing to him? The very fact that this question just gets "thrown out there" says that we're not dealing with projections of authoritarian mindsets. An authoritarian mindset would not allow this question, and would zap the questioner, not see that the question got put in the Bible!
So, is it true, that the bold, brash questions that the "new atheism" has about God, are new? Blank no! Here, right in Psalm 10, is God, in effect, sticking the question about Himself to us, through Psalm 10. 'You want some of Me? Go ahead. Get the questions out! Take your best shot!'
10:2 cannot be matched for the sheer disgust it implies as it depicts the evil it depicts. That would be an antogonistic position's "best shot" at God, that not only is evil merely "tolerated," but, over and over again, evil is agressive and is still being aggressive against what can best be described as its victims. At the top of the chain of nature in this category is -- man. "The wicked," 10:2.
So, if God has the "temerity" to get us to pose these questions to Him and see to it that they get put into the Bible, it stands to reason, if He is saying to go ahead and phrase the complaint as best we can, that the complaint has a resolution. I don't know why the One Year Bible stops at 10:15. Let's not be afraid to look at the whole of Psalm 10 for resolution.
But, if you want to stick with "today's" reading ... there's some of the resolution in verse 5.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Pr 3:1-6 for Jan 10
"Sometimes the Bible promises too much, and has to be taken with a grain of salt." Let's check that ... as in, "and He will make your paths straight," Pr 3:6 in today's proverb section One Year Bible?
Or, "Sometimes the Bible demands too much, and has to be taken with a grain of salt." With these two restrictions, you'll have too much salt in your diet for sure.
The One Year Bible schedule seems to rush through Proverbs too fast at the beginning of the year, meaning we'll have some one-verse readings later in the year. The average for Proverbs should be five verses every two days, even using a Feb 29 year. In the blog, Lord willing, we'll drop and do a Psalm or Proverb commensurate with the amount of the rest of the Old Testament we're reading. We do the same with the New Testament, doing a New Testament passage commensurate with the amount of the rest of the Bible we're reading: about 1/4 of the time. Next year, we can flip it, hopefully.
So the Bible "demands too much," as in "trust in the Lord with all your heart," Pr 3:5? Remember, the original readers didn't have alternate translations to help them wiggle through with various presuppositional concerns. Translation: the original readers didn't have other versions of the text, to help them assert that this or that verse means whatever they want it to mean .... (Although many translations are always helpful, just as many observers are helpful, as long as they stick to observing, not inserting presuppositions and getting the very same ones out again... :) )
So is it a good question to ask about trusting the Lord with some of our heart? Last night, I trusted my bed to hold me up while sleeping. I didn't keep my arms up above my head in case the ceiling might fall on me. In the living room, there's a chair in which I can completely rest all my weight in, completely off the ground. I wasn't bracing myself in case the chair collapsed. These are everyday examples of doing things "with all your heart." No splitting of the bets.
Somebody might ask then, what is the splitting of one's bets, and not trusting the Lord with all our heart? I think it is to explicitly NOT trust the Lord but something else instead. This can be divided up into things, and times. There are things in which we explicitly distrust the Lord and trust something else instead. And there are times in which we explicitly distrust the Lord and trust something else instead. The verse would advocate the opposite of that, addressing things and times of explicitly distrusting God.
But some things are not so easily divisible. For example, if you're single, do you trust the Lord in that area? Many might say, "well, sorta," not necessarily that some days they do, and some days they don't, or that they will do so unless they're still single at 40 (or whatever age). They might mean that trusting the Lord for them does not imply doing nothing in that area. Trusting the Lord for food does not necessarily imply not working, unless you can't or shouldn't work.
There is some helpful explanation in the next verse: "in all your ways acknowledge Him." What is this? Some people think it's like a "pray about everything" rule. At every undertaking, "pray about it." Hmmm.
"In," not "before starting anything." In computers, we call this multi-tasking, not sequential, activity. Before sleeping in my bed last night, did I ackowledge Him? Explicitly? I don't remember doing so, unless my very going to sleep in some way acknowledged Him. (It did). But explicitly, what is it to trust my bed at night, or the ceiling not to fall, or the chair in the living room? It is a trusting in the high regularity of how God's creation works, specifically, gravity, for one thing. I can acknowledge God explicity, by saying that gravity is one of the attributes of God's creation, which He made. Implicitly, in all the many ways in which I depend on gravity, I acknowledge Him, by believing it will regularly be there.
A surgeon or soldier, then, doesn't violate the proverb, by not starting each step by explicitly praying about everything. Turning your attention fully to anything, or anyone (except God), really, precludes being able to pray while you're doing it. Various ways of speaking people use, like "my spirit is praying," etc., use different words to make the same point. There is an implicit trust that is both possible and necessary.
Or, "Sometimes the Bible demands too much, and has to be taken with a grain of salt." With these two restrictions, you'll have too much salt in your diet for sure.
The One Year Bible schedule seems to rush through Proverbs too fast at the beginning of the year, meaning we'll have some one-verse readings later in the year. The average for Proverbs should be five verses every two days, even using a Feb 29 year. In the blog, Lord willing, we'll drop and do a Psalm or Proverb commensurate with the amount of the rest of the Old Testament we're reading. We do the same with the New Testament, doing a New Testament passage commensurate with the amount of the rest of the Bible we're reading: about 1/4 of the time. Next year, we can flip it, hopefully.
So the Bible "demands too much," as in "trust in the Lord with all your heart," Pr 3:5? Remember, the original readers didn't have alternate translations to help them wiggle through with various presuppositional concerns. Translation: the original readers didn't have other versions of the text, to help them assert that this or that verse means whatever they want it to mean .... (Although many translations are always helpful, just as many observers are helpful, as long as they stick to observing, not inserting presuppositions and getting the very same ones out again... :) )
So is it a good question to ask about trusting the Lord with some of our heart? Last night, I trusted my bed to hold me up while sleeping. I didn't keep my arms up above my head in case the ceiling might fall on me. In the living room, there's a chair in which I can completely rest all my weight in, completely off the ground. I wasn't bracing myself in case the chair collapsed. These are everyday examples of doing things "with all your heart." No splitting of the bets.
Somebody might ask then, what is the splitting of one's bets, and not trusting the Lord with all our heart? I think it is to explicitly NOT trust the Lord but something else instead. This can be divided up into things, and times. There are things in which we explicitly distrust the Lord and trust something else instead. And there are times in which we explicitly distrust the Lord and trust something else instead. The verse would advocate the opposite of that, addressing things and times of explicitly distrusting God.
But some things are not so easily divisible. For example, if you're single, do you trust the Lord in that area? Many might say, "well, sorta," not necessarily that some days they do, and some days they don't, or that they will do so unless they're still single at 40 (or whatever age). They might mean that trusting the Lord for them does not imply doing nothing in that area. Trusting the Lord for food does not necessarily imply not working, unless you can't or shouldn't work.
There is some helpful explanation in the next verse: "in all your ways acknowledge Him." What is this? Some people think it's like a "pray about everything" rule. At every undertaking, "pray about it." Hmmm.
"In," not "before starting anything." In computers, we call this multi-tasking, not sequential, activity. Before sleeping in my bed last night, did I ackowledge Him? Explicitly? I don't remember doing so, unless my very going to sleep in some way acknowledged Him. (It did). But explicitly, what is it to trust my bed at night, or the ceiling not to fall, or the chair in the living room? It is a trusting in the high regularity of how God's creation works, specifically, gravity, for one thing. I can acknowledge God explicity, by saying that gravity is one of the attributes of God's creation, which He made. Implicitly, in all the many ways in which I depend on gravity, I acknowledge Him, by believing it will regularly be there.
A surgeon or soldier, then, doesn't violate the proverb, by not starting each step by explicitly praying about everything. Turning your attention fully to anything, or anyone (except God), really, precludes being able to pray while you're doing it. Various ways of speaking people use, like "my spirit is praying," etc., use different words to make the same point. There is an implicit trust that is both possible and necessary.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Moo Commentary on Romans (pp. 21-26)
"Bro, are we there yet?"
"No, we have to have almost two weeks of Moo's introductory talk before we read Romans 1:1."
"Why, bro?"
"Well, if a commentary was hard to write, it should be hard to read, too. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair to the writer...."
---
We've got the German names, but much more important, we've got the German term made famous and obligatory for "serious" students (Heilsgeschichte, p. 25).
We've got the "two 'eras,' or 'aeons'" (p. 26; let's call them B.C. and A.D. for short). We've got "participants," meaning, individuals who "participate in", among other things, both aeons. Perhaps so many people saying things like "in my B.C. days..." made this necessary. We've got things set up theologically, here, by the author, for the rest of our course, the whole year! What has he set up, and how good is it?
I think I can help get this idea of Moo's across, both in a value-neutral way, and for future reference. Imagine a piece of paper, writable on both sides, and every person ever created written on the back side, the side facing down, on this paper. The back side represents the idea that every person ever created has been written down here to represent a "B.C." existence. Human history is the time of the adding of names to this backside, beginning with Adam.
On the front side, there are some names, with more and more being added as time passes. "Heilsgeschichte" is roughly, the history of salvation, that time in which people are written onto the front side of this paper -- we can think of that act as representing to "be transferred" to the "new era," which is a differently characterized age (n. 93).
However, names have appeared since Adam. Moo says "All people start out in the 'old era.' ... But one can be transferred into the 'new era' by becoming joined to Christ." (p. 26).
How so? He doesn't say here. The plot thickens.
"No, we have to have almost two weeks of Moo's introductory talk before we read Romans 1:1."
"Why, bro?"
"Well, if a commentary was hard to write, it should be hard to read, too. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair to the writer...."
---
We've got the German names, but much more important, we've got the German term made famous and obligatory for "serious" students (Heilsgeschichte, p. 25).
We've got the "two 'eras,' or 'aeons'" (p. 26; let's call them B.C. and A.D. for short). We've got "participants," meaning, individuals who "participate in", among other things, both aeons. Perhaps so many people saying things like "in my B.C. days..." made this necessary. We've got things set up theologically, here, by the author, for the rest of our course, the whole year! What has he set up, and how good is it?
I think I can help get this idea of Moo's across, both in a value-neutral way, and for future reference. Imagine a piece of paper, writable on both sides, and every person ever created written on the back side, the side facing down, on this paper. The back side represents the idea that every person ever created has been written down here to represent a "B.C." existence. Human history is the time of the adding of names to this backside, beginning with Adam.
On the front side, there are some names, with more and more being added as time passes. "Heilsgeschichte" is roughly, the history of salvation, that time in which people are written onto the front side of this paper -- we can think of that act as representing to "be transferred" to the "new era," which is a differently characterized age (n. 93).
However, names have appeared since Adam. Moo says "All people start out in the 'old era.' ... But one can be transferred into the 'new era' by becoming joined to Christ." (p. 26).
How so? He doesn't say here. The plot thickens.
Gen 20-22 for Jan 9
It's hard having both strengths (Gen 18:8) and weaknesses (20:2). If nothing else, the timing of when they come out is off (21:5). Our obvious (21:11) and less obvious (20:11) failures protrude, and then, if we're trying an angle that shows that we have some strengths (21:33), how does that seem to work out (22:2)?
Then again, this story is becoming both great and scary at the same time for Abraham. Have you ever met someone that you just want to make go-away, because they are too much for you? They are great, but they are marching to their own drum, and when they appear, they are usually huge in your life, but completely scary at the same time. So the Lord. This story puts together a set of encounters between Abraham and the Lord that are completely uncontrollable by Abraham. In the space of a few years, God's encounters with Abraham feel like from zenith (18:33) to nadir (22:7).
Not to see him as victim. Abraham's actions, as we are reading along, are, logically speaking, inexplicable. A man whom God Himself visits, and promises things that have the sky as their limit (specifically! 15:5), punts (12:13), and punts (15:2), and punts (15:8), and punts (16:2). and punts (17:18), and today again, punts (20:2). So by the time we hear God telling Abimelech in 20:7 that Abraham is a prophet, we go, huh? Grace is odd, isn't it?
So the long story of 12:1 to here seems to climax in 21:1-8, and there in verse 8, Abraham, capitalizing on his strengths again, makes a great feast.
Maybe Abraham is thinking "well, it's obvious that God's got some plan for me; maybe I better be quiet and not mess it up." But passivity is not rewarded either, and Abraham finally stands his ground about a small matter, a well that had been taken from him (21:25-26) and he had not done anything about. After this, he takes the initiative again, perhaps learning that doing nothing doesn't work. He takes his stand on the matter of the well, business wise, and calls on God to notice it (21:27-33). At this point we certainly see Abraham having become an active moral agent. Sure, it's a well. But he takes a stand: he puts a nice tree by it (21:33).
Lest Abraham fall back from this progress, the Lord has a test (22:1). People are always saying, "what does God need to test us for?" A very good question, with a very good answer here. Everyone who has ever been trained by someone with good will knows that tests are timed to show progress. This is a one-on-one situation here, between God and Abraham, which makes the timing at God's discretion (22:1), and God already "knows" -- as we read this, we know He knows -- not only the test, but its outcome and things hundreds of years future -- God already knows what Abraham will do. So the test is not to flunk him, but to teach him. God makes the result of the test very clear to Abraham (22:12-18).
So let's take heart about our tests and training.
Then again, this story is becoming both great and scary at the same time for Abraham. Have you ever met someone that you just want to make go-away, because they are too much for you? They are great, but they are marching to their own drum, and when they appear, they are usually huge in your life, but completely scary at the same time. So the Lord. This story puts together a set of encounters between Abraham and the Lord that are completely uncontrollable by Abraham. In the space of a few years, God's encounters with Abraham feel like from zenith (18:33) to nadir (22:7).
Not to see him as victim. Abraham's actions, as we are reading along, are, logically speaking, inexplicable. A man whom God Himself visits, and promises things that have the sky as their limit (specifically! 15:5), punts (12:13), and punts (15:2), and punts (15:8), and punts (16:2). and punts (17:18), and today again, punts (20:2). So by the time we hear God telling Abimelech in 20:7 that Abraham is a prophet, we go, huh? Grace is odd, isn't it?
So the long story of 12:1 to here seems to climax in 21:1-8, and there in verse 8, Abraham, capitalizing on his strengths again, makes a great feast.
Maybe Abraham is thinking "well, it's obvious that God's got some plan for me; maybe I better be quiet and not mess it up." But passivity is not rewarded either, and Abraham finally stands his ground about a small matter, a well that had been taken from him (21:25-26) and he had not done anything about. After this, he takes the initiative again, perhaps learning that doing nothing doesn't work. He takes his stand on the matter of the well, business wise, and calls on God to notice it (21:27-33). At this point we certainly see Abraham having become an active moral agent. Sure, it's a well. But he takes a stand: he puts a nice tree by it (21:33).
Lest Abraham fall back from this progress, the Lord has a test (22:1). People are always saying, "what does God need to test us for?" A very good question, with a very good answer here. Everyone who has ever been trained by someone with good will knows that tests are timed to show progress. This is a one-on-one situation here, between God and Abraham, which makes the timing at God's discretion (22:1), and God already "knows" -- as we read this, we know He knows -- not only the test, but its outcome and things hundreds of years future -- God already knows what Abraham will do. So the test is not to flunk him, but to teach him. God makes the result of the test very clear to Abraham (22:12-18).
So let's take heart about our tests and training.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Mt 7 for Jan 8
"Because I said so, that's why!"
The argument from authority. One of the reasons people hate Christianity, or morality ("do's and don'ts") in general, is because they think that the only way to support it is by the argument from authority. Certainly there are people do that, using that argument. In contrast, and judging by how Christianity is often packaged, some church people reacting against that, sometimes are just as averse to being directly told what to do, or sometimes just as averse to telling others what to do as anybody, in various movements; so you have the seeker-"sensitive" movement, the "inclusive" movement, the postmodern anti-assertions movement, etc. One of the great geniuses of reform movements is to give people another reason to do things besides 'the Boss says, that's why,' or to go off on a pendulum swing reacting to that type of religion.
In this sense, Jesus was and is a reformer too. He contrasted righteousness with that advocated by the Pharisees, who used God merely as an authority. Not that He was postmodern and didn't think anything could be said about God (Jn 4:24). Not that He was inclusive and didn't say anything that could send someone away (Mt 19:21-22). Not that he was seeker-"sensitive" and accepted everyone who applied on their own terms (Lk 9:57-62). But the Lord, here in Mt 7:1-5, gives a different way of looking at do's and don't's. He does so here with one word, "for," in 7:2, plus He elaborates on this kind of angle in the next three verses.
The "don't" here is of course verse 1. "Do not judge." Instead of "because I said so" (in this case), Jesus says "so that you will not be judged." If He had left it there, we would go off thinking that Jesus was saying that all morality has self-interest at its base, and become some kind of me-first Christian, the kind that says "I serve God because I'm out for my own best interest." That has its appeal a lot nowadays.
Instead, Jesus gives a reason for the "don't." "For ... " -- i.e., because, "in the way you judge, you will be judged, and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."
Hmm. But why isn't this the counsel of prudence, in other words, if you want to be judged fairly, judge others fairly? Well, that's not what it says! How many things could be resolved, by pointing out simply, "that's not what it says!"
Remember the conclusion: "Do not judge." The Lord doesn't say 'Judge fairly (since you will be judged by the standard you use, and you don't want to be judged unfairly).' He does not say 'judge fairly.' He says "DON'T judge, the reason being, SINCE, you will be judged by the standard you use...." In otherwords, the standard we are using is bad, flawed, etc., so as a PROCEDURAL issue, don't judge (yet! ...)."
Our guns are dirty! They will backfire!
To use his words, actually, our eyes are blocked, obstructed bigtime! That's a very different reason than "because I say so," first of all. Second, this extremely poor "vision," i.e., moral vision, the kind you need to see clearly what other people are doing wrong, should be the reason to not do the judging at that point. The most eager and zealous person trying to correct something would pause at this kind of argument: the procedure is flawed!
In 7:5 he supplies the correct procedure, and the go-ahead for correcting others. The Lord wants accurate corrections, not faulty ones.
And so, in this small example, we see the zealous person who wants to correct something is given something to go by other than "don't do it because I said not to, that's why." The Lord wants accurate corrections, not faulty ones. That criterion is a pretty good one.
The argument from authority. One of the reasons people hate Christianity, or morality ("do's and don'ts") in general, is because they think that the only way to support it is by the argument from authority. Certainly there are people do that, using that argument. In contrast, and judging by how Christianity is often packaged, some church people reacting against that, sometimes are just as averse to being directly told what to do, or sometimes just as averse to telling others what to do as anybody, in various movements; so you have the seeker-"sensitive" movement, the "inclusive" movement, the postmodern anti-assertions movement, etc. One of the great geniuses of reform movements is to give people another reason to do things besides 'the Boss says, that's why,' or to go off on a pendulum swing reacting to that type of religion.
In this sense, Jesus was and is a reformer too. He contrasted righteousness with that advocated by the Pharisees, who used God merely as an authority. Not that He was postmodern and didn't think anything could be said about God (Jn 4:24). Not that He was inclusive and didn't say anything that could send someone away (Mt 19:21-22). Not that he was seeker-"sensitive" and accepted everyone who applied on their own terms (Lk 9:57-62). But the Lord, here in Mt 7:1-5, gives a different way of looking at do's and don't's. He does so here with one word, "for," in 7:2, plus He elaborates on this kind of angle in the next three verses.
The "don't" here is of course verse 1. "Do not judge." Instead of "because I said so" (in this case), Jesus says "so that you will not be judged." If He had left it there, we would go off thinking that Jesus was saying that all morality has self-interest at its base, and become some kind of me-first Christian, the kind that says "I serve God because I'm out for my own best interest." That has its appeal a lot nowadays.
Instead, Jesus gives a reason for the "don't." "For ... " -- i.e., because, "in the way you judge, you will be judged, and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you."
Hmm. But why isn't this the counsel of prudence, in other words, if you want to be judged fairly, judge others fairly? Well, that's not what it says! How many things could be resolved, by pointing out simply, "that's not what it says!"
Remember the conclusion: "Do not judge." The Lord doesn't say 'Judge fairly (since you will be judged by the standard you use, and you don't want to be judged unfairly).' He does not say 'judge fairly.' He says "DON'T judge, the reason being, SINCE, you will be judged by the standard you use...." In otherwords, the standard we are using is bad, flawed, etc., so as a PROCEDURAL issue, don't judge (yet! ...)."
Our guns are dirty! They will backfire!
To use his words, actually, our eyes are blocked, obstructed bigtime! That's a very different reason than "because I say so," first of all. Second, this extremely poor "vision," i.e., moral vision, the kind you need to see clearly what other people are doing wrong, should be the reason to not do the judging at that point. The most eager and zealous person trying to correct something would pause at this kind of argument: the procedure is flawed!
In 7:5 he supplies the correct procedure, and the go-ahead for correcting others. The Lord wants accurate corrections, not faulty ones.
And so, in this small example, we see the zealous person who wants to correct something is given something to go by other than "don't do it because I said not to, that's why." The Lord wants accurate corrections, not faulty ones. That criterion is a pretty good one.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Moo Commentary on Romans (pp. 13-20)
On the one hand, what we have so far in the commentary is a good illustration of going out and doing some investigation and taking into account the investigations of others. On the other hand ...
The "essay" format (as opposed to some strictly inferential structure) lends itself to freedom to express yourself. But it also lends itself to rhetorical laxity. One element of rhetorical laxity is the all too common pattern of suggesting something (for example, "Paul's purpose may be ...", p. 11), then repeating it in various ways while mentioning other things( for example, saying "this interpretation of the data is generally satisfactory," (p. 12)), such as facts that support, but do not establish, what you suggest.
However, there's a reason to comment on Moo this year! He is aware that suggestion is not proof! Indeed, you could say that these suggestions are brought up so that later, around p. 28 (we haven't gotten there yet) -- he brings this particular suggestion, that "the theme" of Romans is this and that, up for direct discussion -- and shows problems with it!
But here, back up through p. 20, the author is introducing the idea. If you're tempted to do this kind of thing in discussions: suggesting, hinting, making things sound plausible because of xyz -- AND, if you know in your heart that you don't have the proof -- then put in Moo in your life, who will listen to your stuff, and try to investigate it with you, and then ... look at it directly with you. A very stout drink, to correct our sneaking around like that.
Wasn't this a lesson learned many times in history? Engineers and those responsible for guarding human life, whether building bridges or watching for enemies, learn this lesson: check your materials! Subject your materials to a solidity check. The same should be true for arguments. Subject them to a coherence and verifiability check.
We may do this, or have it done for us later (which may not be as careful as we'd like). A bridge will be tested by its traffic and the winds. Why not check it for solidity first? An argument will be tested by opponents. So why not check it first?
So here at the end of pp. 20-21, we have Moo's bridge candidate. Let's continue and watch for opportunities to give it a solidity check: Paul "carefully rehearsed his understanding of the gospel, especially as it related to the salvation-historical questions of Jew and Gentile and the continuity of the plan of salvation."
I know, that sounds like theological gobbledy-gook. It's just technical language. But it is his candidate. Moo both checks others' materials, and provides materials for us to check!
The "essay" format (as opposed to some strictly inferential structure) lends itself to freedom to express yourself. But it also lends itself to rhetorical laxity. One element of rhetorical laxity is the all too common pattern of suggesting something (for example, "Paul's purpose may be ...", p. 11), then repeating it in various ways while mentioning other things( for example, saying "this interpretation of the data is generally satisfactory," (p. 12)), such as facts that support, but do not establish, what you suggest.
However, there's a reason to comment on Moo this year! He is aware that suggestion is not proof! Indeed, you could say that these suggestions are brought up so that later, around p. 28 (we haven't gotten there yet) -- he brings this particular suggestion, that "the theme" of Romans is this and that, up for direct discussion -- and shows problems with it!
But here, back up through p. 20, the author is introducing the idea. If you're tempted to do this kind of thing in discussions: suggesting, hinting, making things sound plausible because of xyz -- AND, if you know in your heart that you don't have the proof -- then put in Moo in your life, who will listen to your stuff, and try to investigate it with you, and then ... look at it directly with you. A very stout drink, to correct our sneaking around like that.
Wasn't this a lesson learned many times in history? Engineers and those responsible for guarding human life, whether building bridges or watching for enemies, learn this lesson: check your materials! Subject your materials to a solidity check. The same should be true for arguments. Subject them to a coherence and verifiability check.
We may do this, or have it done for us later (which may not be as careful as we'd like). A bridge will be tested by its traffic and the winds. Why not check it for solidity first? An argument will be tested by opponents. So why not check it first?
So here at the end of pp. 20-21, we have Moo's bridge candidate. Let's continue and watch for opportunities to give it a solidity check: Paul "carefully rehearsed his understanding of the gospel, especially as it related to the salvation-historical questions of Jew and Gentile and the continuity of the plan of salvation."
I know, that sounds like theological gobbledy-gook. It's just technical language. But it is his candidate. Moo both checks others' materials, and provides materials for us to check!
Gen 16 for Jan 7
Vita brevis, life is short. As for the expectations of it, how do they combine with our belief in God? The glimpse of "family life" between Abraham and Sarai in chapter 16 is "ten years" (16:3) from their coming to Canaan. We started so dramatically, say, with God in our youth. What's going on ten years later?
Sarai says "the Lord has prevented me from bearing...." (16:2) Whereas she might have meant that to mean 'permanently,' or not, when ten years have passed from the promise of 12:2, "I will make you a great nation," how much pressure can a woman expected to bear children take? All the responsibility? Blame the husband? How about just avoiding that, and ascribing it to God? This is what Sarai does, and not necessarily in an evil way. But ten years is a lot of time to think of ways to "get things done." Hence the suggestion of 16:2. When that "works," family life goes to seed as a result, and even Abraham is passive about it (16:6).
So in these first six verses family life is described in an all-too-familiar way, comparing it to our culture. God is invoked as the reason for why things don't go as expected, and God is invoked as a witness, when we're disputing about something, that we're the one right (16:5). There is some kind of effort to get things done that we're thinking were supposed to do, but it involves a rewrite, a re-interpretation, of what we originally understood would happen: something like 'maybe God, when he said "one who shall come forth from your own body" (15:4) meant my body, using Hagar as wife....' In any case, Sarai's "I shall obtain children through her" (16:2) is a euphemism, and a reinterpretation.
And the whole thing, domestically speaking, disintegrates, with Hagar running off by herself while pregnant. God, in intervening through the angel (16:7ff.), not only gives Hagar something to do besides flee (8-9), but we as readers are doubly awed: God spoke to Hagar (16:13)! Furthermore, God has plans about the whole thing (16:12)! God is constructing a future history here! (Remember, the readers are initially the nation originally promised, and reading this, they know that they are Abraham's offspring, and indeed a "great nation" (12:2) -- but not the "great nation" that will come through through Hagar (17:20)!) Quite a momentous result as backdrop for their domestic fighting and making up fake explanations for His ways.
Sarai says "the Lord has prevented me from bearing...." (16:2) Whereas she might have meant that to mean 'permanently,' or not, when ten years have passed from the promise of 12:2, "I will make you a great nation," how much pressure can a woman expected to bear children take? All the responsibility? Blame the husband? How about just avoiding that, and ascribing it to God? This is what Sarai does, and not necessarily in an evil way. But ten years is a lot of time to think of ways to "get things done." Hence the suggestion of 16:2. When that "works," family life goes to seed as a result, and even Abraham is passive about it (16:6).
So in these first six verses family life is described in an all-too-familiar way, comparing it to our culture. God is invoked as the reason for why things don't go as expected, and God is invoked as a witness, when we're disputing about something, that we're the one right (16:5). There is some kind of effort to get things done that we're thinking were supposed to do, but it involves a rewrite, a re-interpretation, of what we originally understood would happen: something like 'maybe God, when he said "one who shall come forth from your own body" (15:4) meant my body, using Hagar as wife....' In any case, Sarai's "I shall obtain children through her" (16:2) is a euphemism, and a reinterpretation.
And the whole thing, domestically speaking, disintegrates, with Hagar running off by herself while pregnant. God, in intervening through the angel (16:7ff.), not only gives Hagar something to do besides flee (8-9), but we as readers are doubly awed: God spoke to Hagar (16:13)! Furthermore, God has plans about the whole thing (16:12)! God is constructing a future history here! (Remember, the readers are initially the nation originally promised, and reading this, they know that they are Abraham's offspring, and indeed a "great nation" (12:2) -- but not the "great nation" that will come through through Hagar (17:20)!) Quite a momentous result as backdrop for their domestic fighting and making up fake explanations for His ways.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Gen 13-15 for Jan 6
Where would you rather be when you have to choose, but may make a mistake: among your own relatives who know you (Gen 13:1-5)? or could you you see yourself being satisfied with the company and presence of God (13:14-18)? That is, of course, if the choice were one or the other, and you were yourself convinced of the possibility of the two choices: Who's your preferred audience, if at some point you could not have both?
We can take this section of text as showing how the choices of Abraham (and Lot, 13:11) have deep interactions with the will of God: the choices affect them, their family, their future, and the long-term fulfillment of God's promises, even (13:15)!
So we can answer the question definitively, which we first asked: the story illustrates how Abraham never had to feel that a good choice was something God Himself won't work through. Here Abraham makes a choice which, although done honorably, also leads to long-term consequences which Abraham didn't know about, including great stuff about Abraham's own inheritance (15:7), Lot's rescue (once in a war, 14:16, and also later), Abraham's own power to make war in that region (14:15), and even the remote future four generations down the road (15:16)! So never feel that you are forced to make a choice that while good, is impossible for God to use.
Suppose even that Abraham ignored these "momentous" moments, too afraid to go forward, and was just going to live things out, in Canaan (13:12) for a period of time. This might have happened at that point, 13:12. But it is also here that the story wants us to notice, is God passive? No, He communicates with Abraham (13:14), and does tons of other things, besides giving Abraham victory and allies (14:13) in war. A strange personage, a king actually, comes as a priest to Abraham, to celebrate the victory with him and bless him, and give him an alternative allegiance than with the king of Sodom (14:18-24). God takes the initiative by providing circumstances like that, but directly makes His unilateral promises to Abraham (15:8-21), with not only repetition (12:7 cf. 13:15) of previous promises, but elaboration (15:5) and deepening (15:6) of them! God can lead and get through to Abram. He's not limited to what we do "in response," what results from our taking our steps. He knows our steps. He takes the initiative all around our steps! Here and there, before and after -- even to the point of sometimes telling us directly about His plans. He can get through to us. He's not limited in His means.
We can take this section of text as showing how the choices of Abraham (and Lot, 13:11) have deep interactions with the will of God: the choices affect them, their family, their future, and the long-term fulfillment of God's promises, even (13:15)!
So we can answer the question definitively, which we first asked: the story illustrates how Abraham never had to feel that a good choice was something God Himself won't work through. Here Abraham makes a choice which, although done honorably, also leads to long-term consequences which Abraham didn't know about, including great stuff about Abraham's own inheritance (15:7), Lot's rescue (once in a war, 14:16, and also later), Abraham's own power to make war in that region (14:15), and even the remote future four generations down the road (15:16)! So never feel that you are forced to make a choice that while good, is impossible for God to use.
Suppose even that Abraham ignored these "momentous" moments, too afraid to go forward, and was just going to live things out, in Canaan (13:12) for a period of time. This might have happened at that point, 13:12. But it is also here that the story wants us to notice, is God passive? No, He communicates with Abraham (13:14), and does tons of other things, besides giving Abraham victory and allies (14:13) in war. A strange personage, a king actually, comes as a priest to Abraham, to celebrate the victory with him and bless him, and give him an alternative allegiance than with the king of Sodom (14:18-24). God takes the initiative by providing circumstances like that, but directly makes His unilateral promises to Abraham (15:8-21), with not only repetition (12:7 cf. 13:15) of previous promises, but elaboration (15:5) and deepening (15:6) of them! God can lead and get through to Abram. He's not limited to what we do "in response," what results from our taking our steps. He knows our steps. He takes the initiative all around our steps! Here and there, before and after -- even to the point of sometimes telling us directly about His plans. He can get through to us. He's not limited in His means.
Monday, January 04, 2010
Moo Commentary on Romans (pp. 9-13)
What is Rome like, that is, the Rome that Paul wrote Romans to?
Amazing how much presuppositional material can be shoved into a discussion like that! By presuppositional material, I mean an a priori judgment some of the evidence has great weight, and some of the evidence has lesser weight -- because the judgment says so!
We shouldn't be too hard on Moo for this kind of a priori here, where he is tentative. But not too tentative! He says that the idea that the Romans were mostly Gentiles, with Jewish Christians in a minority, "is generally satisfactory." And since his conclusion is that the "audience" is mixed in this sense, at this point in the text, we only get a couple hints on what might ride on the issue one way or another.
So let's pull the presupposition out into the open and look at it. What would be the case, if the Roman recipients of Paul's letter were exclusively Gentile? We should beware of kinds of arguments that go from an "is" to an "ought," based on that presupposition. If we go directly from that presupposition to an "ought," we get a situation of racial exclusivity as a possibility, that Christianity somehow started as a rejection of a previous race and system. If we go directly from the presupposition of an exclusively Jewish or mainly Jewish "audience," and go from that "is" to its "ought," based on that presupposition, we get a situation of exclusivity based on something like circumcision or adoption of a system as a controlling factor in the religion. So, we should watch for hidden arguments going from "is" to "ought."
Amazing how much presuppositional material can be shoved into a discussion like that! By presuppositional material, I mean an a priori judgment some of the evidence has great weight, and some of the evidence has lesser weight -- because the judgment says so!
We shouldn't be too hard on Moo for this kind of a priori here, where he is tentative. But not too tentative! He says that the idea that the Romans were mostly Gentiles, with Jewish Christians in a minority, "is generally satisfactory." And since his conclusion is that the "audience" is mixed in this sense, at this point in the text, we only get a couple hints on what might ride on the issue one way or another.
So let's pull the presupposition out into the open and look at it. What would be the case, if the Roman recipients of Paul's letter were exclusively Gentile? We should beware of kinds of arguments that go from an "is" to an "ought," based on that presupposition. If we go directly from that presupposition to an "ought," we get a situation of racial exclusivity as a possibility, that Christianity somehow started as a rejection of a previous race and system. If we go directly from the presupposition of an exclusively Jewish or mainly Jewish "audience," and go from that "is" to its "ought," based on that presupposition, we get a situation of exclusivity based on something like circumcision or adoption of a system as a controlling factor in the religion. So, we should watch for hidden arguments going from "is" to "ought."
Gen 12 for Jan 5
(On the one hand, it doesn't seem too strenuous a schedule to read through the Bible in the year set out by the One Year Bible, as we are doing. But if by Jan 5 we are already way past the Fall and the Flood, hitting the Tower of Babel and the call of Abraham, we'll have to say Genesis is a Condensed Book!)
In Genesis 12 we have what many people find to be the most crucial chapter for understanding the Bible, pointing to 12:1-3. For example, one scholar, in the thick of a controversy, challenges us to understand why Galatians 3:29 is the conclusion of an argument for Paul, saying that understanding God's way with the world is dependent on understanding this reason!
Noticing how Genesis 12 reads as a story, a "narrative," scholars say, helps understand 12:10-20. If we taught high school, we would get up there and say things about "reading intelligently," probably getting blank stores for our trouble.
Reading intelligently might get us to ask a question like "why, right after the event of being "spoken to" (12:4)by God, is the story about Abraham's wife there? The story even goes into the exact dialog between Abraham and Pharaoh about it, and Pharaoh says "I took her for my wife." We may well say "how then is 12:2 going to come about, if Sarah belongs to Pharaoh as Pharaoh's wife." Reading a story is good practice in keeping in mind what just was stated, as we read what is currently stated.
What is currently stated -- to whom? Let's remember that the readership is those who themselves are like those who know a secret, that somehow, the "great nation" promised in 12:2 comes about anyway, since "it is us!" The readers know that in this case, they know that the movie doesn't end the way that 12:15 has things.
In what way? Criticize the following summary of 12:10-20: "Immediately after being spoken to by God, Abraham began to fearlessly trust in God's promises by treasuring Sarai so highly as to guard her by his own life if necessary."
Hmm. It seems that reading intelligently is also following the narrative closely enough to notice what actually happens and compare it to what we have just been given enough information to understand what was expected to, rather than what actually, happened.
12:17 "But the Lord struck Pharaoh and his house...." Does a first-time reader expect that? How about a reader of the Exodus generation? :) God is showing His interventionist ways.
In Genesis 12 we have what many people find to be the most crucial chapter for understanding the Bible, pointing to 12:1-3. For example, one scholar, in the thick of a controversy, challenges us to understand why Galatians 3:29 is the conclusion of an argument for Paul, saying that understanding God's way with the world is dependent on understanding this reason!
Noticing how Genesis 12 reads as a story, a "narrative," scholars say, helps understand 12:10-20. If we taught high school, we would get up there and say things about "reading intelligently," probably getting blank stores for our trouble.
Reading intelligently might get us to ask a question like "why, right after the event of being "spoken to" (12:4)by God, is the story about Abraham's wife there? The story even goes into the exact dialog between Abraham and Pharaoh about it, and Pharaoh says "I took her for my wife." We may well say "how then is 12:2 going to come about, if Sarah belongs to Pharaoh as Pharaoh's wife." Reading a story is good practice in keeping in mind what just was stated, as we read what is currently stated.
What is currently stated -- to whom? Let's remember that the readership is those who themselves are like those who know a secret, that somehow, the "great nation" promised in 12:2 comes about anyway, since "it is us!" The readers know that in this case, they know that the movie doesn't end the way that 12:15 has things.
In what way? Criticize the following summary of 12:10-20: "Immediately after being spoken to by God, Abraham began to fearlessly trust in God's promises by treasuring Sarai so highly as to guard her by his own life if necessary."
Hmm. It seems that reading intelligently is also following the narrative closely enough to notice what actually happens and compare it to what we have just been given enough information to understand what was expected to, rather than what actually, happened.
12:17 "But the Lord struck Pharaoh and his house...." Does a first-time reader expect that? How about a reader of the Exodus generation? :) God is showing His interventionist ways.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Mt 4 for Jan 4
In the same way that any walk of life develops its own lingo, which makes special sense and the most sense to those who constantly use it among themselves, although it is not a foreign language but a way of speaking, the Lord's words in this section are marked in a couple places with a way of speaking that identifies Him with a walk of life. R.T. France's commentary on Matthew [2007] makes an interesting point, quoting my old professor Davies as saying that the Lord's words in Mt 4:19 are similar in effect to what students of Rabbis did during those times: they followed the Rabbi around because they wanted to learn from the Rabbi -- but by their own decision alone, not by being called by the rabbi -- a kind of paparazzi life. Here, Jesus calls them Himself (4:19): and it is to a kind of life. However, France rightly points out that this is not their first meeting: Jesus knows whom He calls here in 4:19.
It's good to notice there in 4:19, pointed out by the literal and the Greek, that the word "follow" is not the more abstract word as used in, say, Jn 10:27, but a picture word, maybe a lingo word among fishermen, sort of like "come up behind Me."
In a second example, Matthew also directly points out by using the exact wording in both places (4:17, cf. 3:2) that Jesus says the exact same thing in part that John said in his ministry. Books and books have gone into this phrase. I only point out now that one of the ways to identify with someone publicly is the adoption of the characteristic phrases they use. In most cases, the follower adopts the phrases of the leader/pioneer. In this case, it is the Son of God leading, yet adopting the lingo of the pioneer who pointed to Him, John's influence will wane, and the Lord's will wax more (Jn 3:30).
It's good to notice there in 4:19, pointed out by the literal and the Greek, that the word "follow" is not the more abstract word as used in, say, Jn 10:27, but a picture word, maybe a lingo word among fishermen, sort of like "come up behind Me."
In a second example, Matthew also directly points out by using the exact wording in both places (4:17, cf. 3:2) that Jesus says the exact same thing in part that John said in his ministry. Books and books have gone into this phrase. I only point out now that one of the ways to identify with someone publicly is the adoption of the characteristic phrases they use. In most cases, the follower adopts the phrases of the leader/pioneer. In this case, it is the Son of God leading, yet adopting the lingo of the pioneer who pointed to Him, John's influence will wane, and the Lord's will wax more (Jn 3:30).
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Moo Commentary on Romans (pp. 1-8)
Let's say then that our Romans "class" using Moo's commentary on Romans will proceed at appx. 3 pp./day (appx. 18 pp./week), and various posts about it will be on this blog and other places.
The first two days (pp. 1-8) are interesting. Moo develops the interesting theory that Romans was written to heal a social and theological rift in the church between Jewish and Gentile factions. At least, he introduces it. He doesn't mention the "debate" swirling now, because it was just starting to swirl then, about 1996. However, Wright and Sanders' names appear in his index of authors, and he is aware of this and that detail of their views. How totally unanticipated (!) that Moo would come up with an "occasion" for Romans that meshes so easily with the "debate!"
Also, the attribution of the existence of possibly shorter versions of Romans, minus chs. 15-16, to Marcion, saying that it has too many "Jewish" elements for him, is fascinating, even if a common and ancient idea. And here, I thought Rm 15-16 were just uninteresting cool-down type comments and greetings! Now I have to read them again! Maybe tonight!
The first two days (pp. 1-8) are interesting. Moo develops the interesting theory that Romans was written to heal a social and theological rift in the church between Jewish and Gentile factions. At least, he introduces it. He doesn't mention the "debate" swirling now, because it was just starting to swirl then, about 1996. However, Wright and Sanders' names appear in his index of authors, and he is aware of this and that detail of their views. How totally unanticipated (!) that Moo would come up with an "occasion" for Romans that meshes so easily with the "debate!"
Also, the attribution of the existence of possibly shorter versions of Romans, minus chs. 15-16, to Marcion, saying that it has too many "Jewish" elements for him, is fascinating, even if a common and ancient idea. And here, I thought Rm 15-16 were just uninteresting cool-down type comments and greetings! Now I have to read them again! Maybe tonight!
Gen 5-7 for Jan 3
In the "can't see the forest for the trees" department, there is a translator's difference between versions of Genesis 7:1 that affects whether, in disputing things with others who disagree with you, you "use" this verse, or not!
Let's be circumspect in saying that, since factions (Ga 5:20) are one of the evident "deeds of the flesh" (5:19). Not to be quarrelsome is best (2 Tim 2:24).
One way not to be quarrelsome is to give a survey, not choosing one's self, but allowing others to see the options. Another way is to try and do some unprejudiced research and give one's own tentative conclusions if you can. This second way is almost unheard of nowadays :)
Bill Cosby memorialized the story of Noah. Some lesser comments could still be made, having heard him.
It was plainly a miraculous event. In downtown Dallas there is a large staff of specialists manning the city's aquarium, with strict instructions for all feeding times, cleansing of the environment, observation and care of the small number of animals, both marine and non-marine, in the space of one-half block, in a controlled environment. Noah's ark, measuring 50% longer than a football field (Gen 6:15), manned by 8 people (1 Pet 3:20), either required that all staff fly at the speed of Superman in Superman I, or better, that they themselves, like all the rest of the cargo, were cared for miraculously.
But if it was a miraculous event, then why all the preparation and measurements and instructions and specification of materiel? It is precisely at this point that people opt for the gradual accretion of a local-flood story to eventually a legend "of biblical proportions."
To which the answer is "what is so 'biblical-proportions' about it, if all that really happened was a little ship between a couple hills during a really long rainstorm?"
A second "defense" of the story is that it is talking about a "something," who knows what, in phenomenological terms, giving cultural equivalents in the language and understanding of the times.
And when we read what that "something" is, by those who venture to describe it, what comes out is "cultural equivalents in the language and understanding of the times" -- our times! Really helpful.
It reminds me of the discussion of the Resurrection, in which people say that we shouldn't take it as possible that the Resurrected Jesus could eat fish, since a supernaturally resurrected Christ who ascends to heaven bodily is "obviously" not made of stuff that needs carbon. Thank you for that cultural equivalent attempt.
So the Bible shoves this in our face, and says, with God you get an open box to live in, not a closed box.
Some ages "want" an open box -- usually an open box they think they can control, or attempt to. Some ages "want" a closed box -- which also, they think they can control, or attempt to.
What no age wants is an open box that God can do what He wants to, in. The "cultural equivalent" of that, in any age, is that we are not God.
Is a miraculous ark and flood and preservation compatible with taking measurements and constructing things and following instructions?
Well, you get out of bed every day and make breakfast, hopefully, don't you? ;)
Let's be circumspect in saying that, since factions (Ga 5:20) are one of the evident "deeds of the flesh" (5:19). Not to be quarrelsome is best (2 Tim 2:24).
One way not to be quarrelsome is to give a survey, not choosing one's self, but allowing others to see the options. Another way is to try and do some unprejudiced research and give one's own tentative conclusions if you can. This second way is almost unheard of nowadays :)
Bill Cosby memorialized the story of Noah. Some lesser comments could still be made, having heard him.
It was plainly a miraculous event. In downtown Dallas there is a large staff of specialists manning the city's aquarium, with strict instructions for all feeding times, cleansing of the environment, observation and care of the small number of animals, both marine and non-marine, in the space of one-half block, in a controlled environment. Noah's ark, measuring 50% longer than a football field (Gen 6:15), manned by 8 people (1 Pet 3:20), either required that all staff fly at the speed of Superman in Superman I, or better, that they themselves, like all the rest of the cargo, were cared for miraculously.
But if it was a miraculous event, then why all the preparation and measurements and instructions and specification of materiel? It is precisely at this point that people opt for the gradual accretion of a local-flood story to eventually a legend "of biblical proportions."
To which the answer is "what is so 'biblical-proportions' about it, if all that really happened was a little ship between a couple hills during a really long rainstorm?"
A second "defense" of the story is that it is talking about a "something," who knows what, in phenomenological terms, giving cultural equivalents in the language and understanding of the times.
And when we read what that "something" is, by those who venture to describe it, what comes out is "cultural equivalents in the language and understanding of the times" -- our times! Really helpful.
It reminds me of the discussion of the Resurrection, in which people say that we shouldn't take it as possible that the Resurrected Jesus could eat fish, since a supernaturally resurrected Christ who ascends to heaven bodily is "obviously" not made of stuff that needs carbon. Thank you for that cultural equivalent attempt.
So the Bible shoves this in our face, and says, with God you get an open box to live in, not a closed box.
Some ages "want" an open box -- usually an open box they think they can control, or attempt to. Some ages "want" a closed box -- which also, they think they can control, or attempt to.
What no age wants is an open box that God can do what He wants to, in. The "cultural equivalent" of that, in any age, is that we are not God.
Is a miraculous ark and flood and preservation compatible with taking measurements and constructing things and following instructions?
Well, you get out of bed every day and make breakfast, hopefully, don't you? ;)
Friday, January 01, 2010
Gen 3-4 for Jan 2
Avoidance of temptation is a very important tool in our arsenal. However, it is not always at hand. Avoidance of it was not at hand in the garden here in Gen 3, and it was not at hand there in the desert for the Lord (Lk 4:1-2). Therefore, in the know-your-enemy department, and especially in looking here at Gen 3-4, a more direct look at temptation is important.
One aspect of temptation comes to mind in looking at it here, that it is often indirect (cf. Gen 3:1).
How do you fight an indirect attack? One way is to directly face it. The "crafty" serpent used an indirect attack: "he said to the woman," so and so. That's not the only indirectness aspect of the attack, but it is one of the indirect aspects. The fighting off of this indirectness is a direct invitation of our text: "the serpent was more crafty than any beast...." So 3:1 is an explicit invitation to directly consider the craftiness of an indirect attack upon us.
The direct facing of an attack is not always a defensive posture alone. You defend while destroying the attack. When the Lord faced temptation He used what we might call the "manual" offensively. He used it "on offense," as we might say in football. This is seldom mentioned, because we tend to look at "the manual" as a condemning manual. Wouldn't it be strange to look at the playbook only after a busted play, and not spend time with it looking at how to demolish attackers?
Sure, the Law "was added because of transgressions" (Gal 3:19). And the devil's was the first! Also, think how we use the "Law of Gravity." We should not only look at "the manual" as telling us about our falls, but also as telling us how attacks by temptation "fall."
The outcome of this discussion so far is that in reading Genesis 3 we bring the serpent's discussion into a place of directly facing it. We know that the devil "sins from the beginning," (1 Jn 3:8, lit.) so we become aware of that as we sit down with Genesis 3:1-5. John 8:44 also helps: "he is a liar and the father of lies."
We consider this temptation story then as an attack by a liar and the father of lies. We should look at Genesis 3:4, the conclusion the serpent puts forward, as a lie. How do you destroy a lie? One way, a very early and always-available way, is to recognize that you don't have to believe it! You don't have to believe every assertion that comes along, every inference.
In this example, Eve was told something, "You surely will not die!" This was a lie. To believe that, she would have to say that what she already knew (3:3) was false. But to expose this temptation for what it is, we should look at 3:5 as an assertion in the light of 3:22. To what extent is 3:5 correct? Factually, it is correct. It is in its function as support of 3:4 that it is incorrect, and a lie. The inference is incorrect! Yes, in the day they ate from it, they became like God knowing good and evil (3:22). But they became mortal (3:19). Therefore "you surely will not die" was false.
Read the manual (RTM). Let's do some more of that together this year.
One aspect of temptation comes to mind in looking at it here, that it is often indirect (cf. Gen 3:1).
How do you fight an indirect attack? One way is to directly face it. The "crafty" serpent used an indirect attack: "he said to the woman," so and so. That's not the only indirectness aspect of the attack, but it is one of the indirect aspects. The fighting off of this indirectness is a direct invitation of our text: "the serpent was more crafty than any beast...." So 3:1 is an explicit invitation to directly consider the craftiness of an indirect attack upon us.
The direct facing of an attack is not always a defensive posture alone. You defend while destroying the attack. When the Lord faced temptation He used what we might call the "manual" offensively. He used it "on offense," as we might say in football. This is seldom mentioned, because we tend to look at "the manual" as a condemning manual. Wouldn't it be strange to look at the playbook only after a busted play, and not spend time with it looking at how to demolish attackers?
Sure, the Law "was added because of transgressions" (Gal 3:19). And the devil's was the first! Also, think how we use the "Law of Gravity." We should not only look at "the manual" as telling us about our falls, but also as telling us how attacks by temptation "fall."
The outcome of this discussion so far is that in reading Genesis 3 we bring the serpent's discussion into a place of directly facing it. We know that the devil "sins from the beginning," (1 Jn 3:8, lit.) so we become aware of that as we sit down with Genesis 3:1-5. John 8:44 also helps: "he is a liar and the father of lies."
We consider this temptation story then as an attack by a liar and the father of lies. We should look at Genesis 3:4, the conclusion the serpent puts forward, as a lie. How do you destroy a lie? One way, a very early and always-available way, is to recognize that you don't have to believe it! You don't have to believe every assertion that comes along, every inference.
In this example, Eve was told something, "You surely will not die!" This was a lie. To believe that, she would have to say that what she already knew (3:3) was false. But to expose this temptation for what it is, we should look at 3:5 as an assertion in the light of 3:22. To what extent is 3:5 correct? Factually, it is correct. It is in its function as support of 3:4 that it is incorrect, and a lie. The inference is incorrect! Yes, in the day they ate from it, they became like God knowing good and evil (3:22). But they became mortal (3:19). Therefore "you surely will not die" was false.
Read the manual (RTM). Let's do some more of that together this year.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Gen 1-2 for Jan 1
Of special interest, from Genesis 2:23-24, is the reason for a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving to his wife. In the man's own words, "she [lit., this one] was taken out of man...." So it is restorative from the prior event, that while she, "this one," the woman, was taken out of the man's flesh, a man will cleave to his wife to be united with her as one flesh: "therefore they [together] shall become one flesh." Ishah, the word for "Woman," is also, by the pun, "taken out," that is, derived from, Ish. The cleaving complements the original taking out.
Another special item of interest is the "givenness" of the woman. God brought her to the man. God was not parsimonious! He had placed man in the Garden of Eden as well. Prior to God bringing the woman to the man, the "search" that had been going on prior, in 2:20, is the way the narrative highlights the uniqueness of the woman compared all else to be a help corresponding to him. That highlights the language pun of above, that just as Ishah corresponds to Ish, the woman corresponds to the man. Whatever benefit the cattle and beasts of the field are, they are specifically not a help corresponding to the man.
In the "implied contrasts" department, without going overboard, it's also interesting to see that God makes "a" helper suitable for (corresponding to) the man in 2:18. God makes her. God makes one of her. God "brought her to the man" (2:22).
There is a second implied reinforcement of the significance of the relationship: The man is one man. God makes one helper for him. This is continued in the "one of his ribs" phrase in 2:21, and the "one flesh" phrase in 2:24. One for one is a correspondence made by God, logically (at least) prior to the provision of society, friends, relatives, etc.
God bringing the woman to the man strikes us hopefully with a smile: God had brought the animals to the man prior to that! And here, ostensibly not knowing it happened (he was asleep for the process, 2:21, a "deep sleep"!), the man, who had been brought the animals before to name them, sees God bringing the woman to him. Are we to think, as God did with the animals (2:19), that God was bringing the woman to the man "to see what he would call" her? Indeed, that! But more than that! There's some humor there. God had something better in mind than seeing what her name would be.
Another special item of interest is the "givenness" of the woman. God brought her to the man. God was not parsimonious! He had placed man in the Garden of Eden as well. Prior to God bringing the woman to the man, the "search" that had been going on prior, in 2:20, is the way the narrative highlights the uniqueness of the woman compared all else to be a help corresponding to him. That highlights the language pun of above, that just as Ishah corresponds to Ish, the woman corresponds to the man. Whatever benefit the cattle and beasts of the field are, they are specifically not a help corresponding to the man.
In the "implied contrasts" department, without going overboard, it's also interesting to see that God makes "a" helper suitable for (corresponding to) the man in 2:18. God makes her. God makes one of her. God "brought her to the man" (2:22).
There is a second implied reinforcement of the significance of the relationship: The man is one man. God makes one helper for him. This is continued in the "one of his ribs" phrase in 2:21, and the "one flesh" phrase in 2:24. One for one is a correspondence made by God, logically (at least) prior to the provision of society, friends, relatives, etc.
God bringing the woman to the man strikes us hopefully with a smile: God had brought the animals to the man prior to that! And here, ostensibly not knowing it happened (he was asleep for the process, 2:21, a "deep sleep"!), the man, who had been brought the animals before to name them, sees God bringing the woman to him. Are we to think, as God did with the animals (2:19), that God was bringing the woman to the man "to see what he would call" her? Indeed, that! But more than that! There's some humor there. God had something better in mind than seeing what her name would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)