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.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
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.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Jm 1:1-18
1:3. What could be more boring than to be reminded simply that bad times and good times both come, and we should take the bad times with the good? But that's not what this text says.
It might be helpful to try and think outside the box about what James 1 is saying, and, once again, not reading what we think it's saying into it.
Because it might be the opposite. Wins and losses for example. "My team" won a big game yesterday. Lots of high fives on the sideline. That is, on one sideline. But the text doesn't say, in this case, consider it all joy, my brethren, when you win your various trials, but when you encounter them (1:2). High fives at the beginning of hard times. What? Not only that, but high fives particularly at the encountering of hard times -- particularly at encountering various trials of them.
The exhortation is like the depiction of the sun in Ps 19. Fewer things are more exuberant than "a bridegroom coming out of his chamber," which the Psalmist says the sun acts as if it does, and then? "It rejoices as a strong man to run his course" (Ps 19:5).
Somebody might say, well, that's the sun, and sunrise is inevitable, just as the run is. Really? Is either inevitable? If you know your science, you also know that science is based on the assumption of uniformity, not the guarantee of uniformity. Also, ask a runner, or a strong man! Or, this life! Is it a guarantee, that the course will be completed? Of course not. But the strong man rejoices to run, and our text says to consider it all joy at the beginning. Who can stomach that kind of advice!
One thing might help: the text doesn't say that winning the trial produces endurance, but the trial itself produces endurance. I once told a friend I'd like to go sometime into a discussion of the place of loss in the Christian life, and maybe the day after so many teams lost big games, I could start. Here is the start: Being in the game produced, and produces, endurance.
What if "it stunk" that you went through that, and that you're sick to your stomach and wanna go off and die, because of something that happened to you, something really bad? What if you failed at it, failed the test? Am I supposed to be happy that I failed the test? Certainly not!
Here is where there's another surprise in our text. What is the test, a test of? Somebody might anticipate that if I'm going to say "faith" I should go jump in the lake, because religious people should get over having to make everything into a religious act, and that the vast majority of doable things in this world have nothing to do with whether or not somebody has faith, of any kind. The vast majority of doable things would end up in failure if people trying to get something done were constantly checking for religious aspects of what they're doing. Of course.
But faith is not stuck with religion, religious activity, religious knowledge, religious feelings, etc. There's faith in getting out of bed! And there's no guarantee from God or anyone that you'll be able to do so tomorrow. Raising your arm to your face, if your arm works, still requires faith, and there's no guarantee of that either.
But why are various trials a test of faith? Ask somebody in a relationship. Have you ever had a relationship where you "have to" trust their judgment? I personally hate it. Inside of you is something that would rather die than not trust their judgment, you regard it so highly. Then, it seems like, by trusting their judgment, you will die, or have. So how are trials a test of faith?
I picture somebody again telling me to jump in the lake, because if I'm about to say that my sorry circumstances are put there by God, then I'm one sick individual.
Of course, not all circumstances are directly put there by God, as the text points out in one example (1:13). But we're not investigating the tornado, we're in the tornado. In the tornado, whatever your tornado handling skills are, may they increase! Even to strap yourself better in your seat, however. There's some faith there.
So to round out the idea, in relationships, trusting somebody's judgment is very hard. We may not succeed. In our trials in general, faith in God is very hard and it gets tested.
The last objection I'd like to deal with probably also occurs to you, if you're of a particular frame of mind. Why not just deal with hard times as they come, instead of this high five stuff, and thinking of trusting the judgment of others, even God? Partially, I of course agree with it, in saying above, that we have to concentrate on the particulars, not God and Bible verses (unless those are the particulars!).
My answer to that is, have you ever been told, "just deal with it?" It's an answer that usually comes from somebody to us, who has (temporarily, hopefully) forgot that they're in the tornado too, and the two of you might be of some help to one another. Maybe.
It might be helpful to try and think outside the box about what James 1 is saying, and, once again, not reading what we think it's saying into it.
Because it might be the opposite. Wins and losses for example. "My team" won a big game yesterday. Lots of high fives on the sideline. That is, on one sideline. But the text doesn't say, in this case, consider it all joy, my brethren, when you win your various trials, but when you encounter them (1:2). High fives at the beginning of hard times. What? Not only that, but high fives particularly at the encountering of hard times -- particularly at encountering various trials of them.
The exhortation is like the depiction of the sun in Ps 19. Fewer things are more exuberant than "a bridegroom coming out of his chamber," which the Psalmist says the sun acts as if it does, and then? "It rejoices as a strong man to run his course" (Ps 19:5).
Somebody might say, well, that's the sun, and sunrise is inevitable, just as the run is. Really? Is either inevitable? If you know your science, you also know that science is based on the assumption of uniformity, not the guarantee of uniformity. Also, ask a runner, or a strong man! Or, this life! Is it a guarantee, that the course will be completed? Of course not. But the strong man rejoices to run, and our text says to consider it all joy at the beginning. Who can stomach that kind of advice!
One thing might help: the text doesn't say that winning the trial produces endurance, but the trial itself produces endurance. I once told a friend I'd like to go sometime into a discussion of the place of loss in the Christian life, and maybe the day after so many teams lost big games, I could start. Here is the start: Being in the game produced, and produces, endurance.
What if "it stunk" that you went through that, and that you're sick to your stomach and wanna go off and die, because of something that happened to you, something really bad? What if you failed at it, failed the test? Am I supposed to be happy that I failed the test? Certainly not!
Here is where there's another surprise in our text. What is the test, a test of? Somebody might anticipate that if I'm going to say "faith" I should go jump in the lake, because religious people should get over having to make everything into a religious act, and that the vast majority of doable things in this world have nothing to do with whether or not somebody has faith, of any kind. The vast majority of doable things would end up in failure if people trying to get something done were constantly checking for religious aspects of what they're doing. Of course.
But faith is not stuck with religion, religious activity, religious knowledge, religious feelings, etc. There's faith in getting out of bed! And there's no guarantee from God or anyone that you'll be able to do so tomorrow. Raising your arm to your face, if your arm works, still requires faith, and there's no guarantee of that either.
But why are various trials a test of faith? Ask somebody in a relationship. Have you ever had a relationship where you "have to" trust their judgment? I personally hate it. Inside of you is something that would rather die than not trust their judgment, you regard it so highly. Then, it seems like, by trusting their judgment, you will die, or have. So how are trials a test of faith?
I picture somebody again telling me to jump in the lake, because if I'm about to say that my sorry circumstances are put there by God, then I'm one sick individual.
Of course, not all circumstances are directly put there by God, as the text points out in one example (1:13). But we're not investigating the tornado, we're in the tornado. In the tornado, whatever your tornado handling skills are, may they increase! Even to strap yourself better in your seat, however. There's some faith there.
So to round out the idea, in relationships, trusting somebody's judgment is very hard. We may not succeed. In our trials in general, faith in God is very hard and it gets tested.
The last objection I'd like to deal with probably also occurs to you, if you're of a particular frame of mind. Why not just deal with hard times as they come, instead of this high five stuff, and thinking of trusting the judgment of others, even God? Partially, I of course agree with it, in saying above, that we have to concentrate on the particulars, not God and Bible verses (unless those are the particulars!).
My answer to that is, have you ever been told, "just deal with it?" It's an answer that usually comes from somebody to us, who has (temporarily, hopefully) forgot that they're in the tornado too, and the two of you might be of some help to one another. Maybe.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Heb 13
13:2. "Let love of the brethren continue." There are days when I plead for this for my own sake, to continue. 1 Cor 12 has that great section giving advice to two groups: to the first, it says (12:21), "the eye cannot say to the hand, 'I have no need of you.'" To the second, Paul says "if the foot should say, 'because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body." (12:14). It is especially sad when they -- er, we -- er, I -- mess up.
The passages that are listed to go together in the reading (Ez 33-34, Heb 13, Ps 115, Pr 27:21-22) all are pretty big in importance.
Ez 34 contains one of the great themes of the Bible -- man (people) messing up, so God taking it on Himself, encouraging us to plan on Him getting us going again, by doing it Himself. In Hebrews I mentioned only one small thing that's hitting me. Who can forget the rest of the chapter? It is this chapter that makes people think "Sure sounds like Paul to me."
The Psalm (115) has that great contrast between do-nothing idols (115:4ff) and God, the Doer (115:3).
Even the Proverbs! One of them makes me remember not to test people too much, and another, not to be a fool, but to accept correcting comments from people.
The passages that are listed to go together in the reading (Ez 33-34, Heb 13, Ps 115, Pr 27:21-22) all are pretty big in importance.
Ez 34 contains one of the great themes of the Bible -- man (people) messing up, so God taking it on Himself, encouraging us to plan on Him getting us going again, by doing it Himself. In Hebrews I mentioned only one small thing that's hitting me. Who can forget the rest of the chapter? It is this chapter that makes people think "Sure sounds like Paul to me."
The Psalm (115) has that great contrast between do-nothing idols (115:4ff) and God, the Doer (115:3).
Even the Proverbs! One of them makes me remember not to test people too much, and another, not to be a fool, but to accept correcting comments from people.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Heb 12: 14ff.
12:14. About this passage, there has been a divergence of opinion, just like about every passage.
And just as with other interpretations of texts (or lyrics, or literature, or poetry), sometimes a text catches us, and sometimes we attempt to catch a text and employ it for ourselves. It's fun, especially when "it really fits" some idea we're mulling over.
The divergence of opinion about Hebrews 12:14-29 often comes out when a presupposition, what we want the text to apply to, trumps what the text actually says, making us read the text in precisely the way we want it to apply for us. At the very least, we should be aware that's what we're doing, ourselves, by choice. And in literature and in pop culture, maybe lives don't depend on what we say, maybe they do. But at least most of the time they don't.
In the case of the Bible, with all the trust being put into it, it's a huge weapon in the arsenal of its interpreters. Some people look at it no more than as that, like the power of the phrase "Wizard of Oz, who lives in the Emerald City" in the story.
In the Bible's case, the claim is greater. It claims to be a huge weapon. In this case, take 12:14 as an example. How a person handles among those who care about it is important. One needs to do things do hold one's aim steady.
So, when we read, "Pursue ... the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord," what is an example of missing the mark?
How about a couple examples! 1. To read it as "Without pursuing sanctification, no one will see the Lord" -- that's not what it says!
2. To read it as "pursue ... the sanctification without which you will not see the Lord" is also missing the mark!
In this case, we have not only missed the mark, but tried to use a banana as a gun. This tries to make something a gun which is supposed to be food!
Christ is already, our sanctification (1 Cor 1:30). It's not that we are without Him. The food is there!
On to the pursuit!
And just as with other interpretations of texts (or lyrics, or literature, or poetry), sometimes a text catches us, and sometimes we attempt to catch a text and employ it for ourselves. It's fun, especially when "it really fits" some idea we're mulling over.
The divergence of opinion about Hebrews 12:14-29 often comes out when a presupposition, what we want the text to apply to, trumps what the text actually says, making us read the text in precisely the way we want it to apply for us. At the very least, we should be aware that's what we're doing, ourselves, by choice. And in literature and in pop culture, maybe lives don't depend on what we say, maybe they do. But at least most of the time they don't.
In the case of the Bible, with all the trust being put into it, it's a huge weapon in the arsenal of its interpreters. Some people look at it no more than as that, like the power of the phrase "Wizard of Oz, who lives in the Emerald City" in the story.
In the Bible's case, the claim is greater. It claims to be a huge weapon. In this case, take 12:14 as an example. How a person handles among those who care about it is important. One needs to do things do hold one's aim steady.
So, when we read, "Pursue ... the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord," what is an example of missing the mark?
How about a couple examples! 1. To read it as "Without pursuing sanctification, no one will see the Lord" -- that's not what it says!
2. To read it as "pursue ... the sanctification without which you will not see the Lord" is also missing the mark!
In this case, we have not only missed the mark, but tried to use a banana as a gun. This tries to make something a gun which is supposed to be food!
Christ is already, our sanctification (1 Cor 1:30). It's not that we are without Him. The food is there!
On to the pursuit!
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Heb 12
12:11. Somewhere along the line you've had similar experiences to apply to what we've been reading in Hebrews. Let me tell you a couple of mine.
Who hasn't, in a math class, trying to read a chapter of a math book, wanted to skip to the problems?
Second, when I was learning repelling, there was a learning session back in camp, and a learning session on the site, before we attempted to each try it. In the learning sessions, it all seemed so theoretical, and everybody (maybe) was having a hard time concentrating. We wanted to get into the practical stuff.
Same with Hebrews here. There has been all kinds of theoretical stuff about comparing ceremonies with Jesus, and this and that line of priests and what had to be repeated and what didn't. All kinds of stuff hard to concentrate on when you want to just get to the practical part, what I'm supposed to do.
In my repelling experience, so I got up there on the mountain, waited for them to stop talking, took it all in, belay on, on belay, and all that -- and promptly landed on my rear, the very thing they just finished guaranteeing would NOT happen if we followed what they said.
But Hebrews is gonna do the same thing to people who "skip" to the practical part, as they do sometimes in Romans, to get to the "good stuff," what we get to be doing.
However, Hebrews has another trick up its sleeve besides the technique of Romans, to do the training first. (Paul, in Romans, finishes the (more) theoretical part, and then commences in 12:1 with "Therefore...".)
Sneaky Hebrews starts weaving the practical stuff in slowly, a little at a time. And then, he refers back to the theoretical stuff right in the middle of the practical stuff.
In 12:3 he sneaks in a veiled reference to EVERYTHING he's said so far, in the two little words "consider Him."
The writer's whole practical concern is for his readers that they won't "grow weary and lose heart." Instead of barking "STOP IT" he writes chapters and chapters of foundational stuff, points out some pitfalls, gives them the foundation, and starts talking more and more practically about faith in chapter 11. So we're comfortably settled in to get our work done -- and he sneaks in his theory again in 12:3! "Consider Him!"
He sticks you with the summary of his theory right there in the practical part, where you weren't expecting it.
Might work.
Who hasn't, in a math class, trying to read a chapter of a math book, wanted to skip to the problems?
Second, when I was learning repelling, there was a learning session back in camp, and a learning session on the site, before we attempted to each try it. In the learning sessions, it all seemed so theoretical, and everybody (maybe) was having a hard time concentrating. We wanted to get into the practical stuff.
Same with Hebrews here. There has been all kinds of theoretical stuff about comparing ceremonies with Jesus, and this and that line of priests and what had to be repeated and what didn't. All kinds of stuff hard to concentrate on when you want to just get to the practical part, what I'm supposed to do.
In my repelling experience, so I got up there on the mountain, waited for them to stop talking, took it all in, belay on, on belay, and all that -- and promptly landed on my rear, the very thing they just finished guaranteeing would NOT happen if we followed what they said.
But Hebrews is gonna do the same thing to people who "skip" to the practical part, as they do sometimes in Romans, to get to the "good stuff," what we get to be doing.
However, Hebrews has another trick up its sleeve besides the technique of Romans, to do the training first. (Paul, in Romans, finishes the (more) theoretical part, and then commences in 12:1 with "Therefore...".)
Sneaky Hebrews starts weaving the practical stuff in slowly, a little at a time. And then, he refers back to the theoretical stuff right in the middle of the practical stuff.
In 12:3 he sneaks in a veiled reference to EVERYTHING he's said so far, in the two little words "consider Him."
The writer's whole practical concern is for his readers that they won't "grow weary and lose heart." Instead of barking "STOP IT" he writes chapters and chapters of foundational stuff, points out some pitfalls, gives them the foundation, and starts talking more and more practically about faith in chapter 11. So we're comfortably settled in to get our work done -- and he sneaks in his theory again in 12:3! "Consider Him!"
He sticks you with the summary of his theory right there in the practical part, where you weren't expecting it.
Might work.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Ps 111
111:10. There's a difference between a "grunt," which is a not-so-great name for a worker at the bottom of the chain somewhere, doing "grunt work," and the highly trained specialist doing the work only a few can. Thinking about this Psalm is a chance to take a breather and use it to talk about that kind of thing.
Number one, it's "only" a Psalm: but the Psalms do the grunt work for most people who read the Bible, the grunt work of showing just how people express their own garden variety feelings -- fears, hopes, etc., to God.
The first thing to notice is that this Psalm is part of the Bible (and the One Year Bible schedule we're following in the blog) too, part of the older part of the Bible, before all the controversies of Christian doctrine within and outside of Protestantism even existed. Therefore, guess what -- work can get done that's not specialist work, that doesn't have anything to do with this New Testament verse and what it means, versus what somebody else reading it thinks it means, which is exhausting, however necessary. If the New Testament is like livin' in New York, a Psalm like this reminds you of a national park out west.
"splendor and majesty is His work" (111:3). That sure does sound like a national park out west, or somewhere.
"He has made His wonders a memorial" (111:4). None of this dwelling on the fact that the stars don't care that you exist. The makers of the memorial, not the memorial itself, are the ones who want something remembered. If the stars are actually a creation, then there are possibilities that a creator cares you exist enough to notice some memorials. It depends on how good -- in both senses -- the possible creator is. And how good the memorials are. In nature, there are some very memorable parts.
So Psalm 111 comes from a time in which there was no New Testament, very few if any copies of sacred writings which hardly anybody knew about. What is around for this writer to talk about? Well, this writer is one who writes that there's a compassionate God who makes a covenant that He will remember forever. As we get older, the claim to remember for things for a long time seems impressive. To remember something forever -- that's a pretty staggering claim.
Especially if it includes some kind of gifting for me. That seems to have inspired the writer to start writing, back there in verse 1. We can be somewhat self-centered, wanting to write things down, but not actually getting it done, until it maybe includes us somehow ...
Number one, it's "only" a Psalm: but the Psalms do the grunt work for most people who read the Bible, the grunt work of showing just how people express their own garden variety feelings -- fears, hopes, etc., to God.
The first thing to notice is that this Psalm is part of the Bible (and the One Year Bible schedule we're following in the blog) too, part of the older part of the Bible, before all the controversies of Christian doctrine within and outside of Protestantism even existed. Therefore, guess what -- work can get done that's not specialist work, that doesn't have anything to do with this New Testament verse and what it means, versus what somebody else reading it thinks it means, which is exhausting, however necessary. If the New Testament is like livin' in New York, a Psalm like this reminds you of a national park out west.
"splendor and majesty is His work" (111:3). That sure does sound like a national park out west, or somewhere.
"He has made His wonders a memorial" (111:4). None of this dwelling on the fact that the stars don't care that you exist. The makers of the memorial, not the memorial itself, are the ones who want something remembered. If the stars are actually a creation, then there are possibilities that a creator cares you exist enough to notice some memorials. It depends on how good -- in both senses -- the possible creator is. And how good the memorials are. In nature, there are some very memorable parts.
So Psalm 111 comes from a time in which there was no New Testament, very few if any copies of sacred writings which hardly anybody knew about. What is around for this writer to talk about? Well, this writer is one who writes that there's a compassionate God who makes a covenant that He will remember forever. As we get older, the claim to remember for things for a long time seems impressive. To remember something forever -- that's a pretty staggering claim.
Especially if it includes some kind of gifting for me. That seems to have inspired the writer to start writing, back there in verse 1. We can be somewhat self-centered, wanting to write things down, but not actually getting it done, until it maybe includes us somehow ...
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Heb 11
11:1-4. If faith is the assurance of things hoped for, then what does verse 4 mean? There are some possibilities to sort out.
By faith, the men of old obtained a testimony, verse 2. Abel is the first "men of old" example. Faith ... and the testimony they obtained. Two things. Let's look at the Abel example of these two things, plus whatever else it says.
Abel's sacrifice was offered to God by faith. Abel's sacrifice was something through which Abel obtained a testimony. That's three things: the testimony, the sacrifice, and the faith. What kind of testimony? That he was righteous. Who testified? God. What did God testify about? Abel's gifts ... and what did the testimony say? that Abel was righteous.
Abel obtained that testimony: that is, he was not only the beneficiary of it, but got the benefit of it.
Abel offered his sacrifice, his gifts, by faith. Adding the point of verse 2, although it was through the sacrifice that Abel obtained a testimony from God that he was righteous, he offered his sacrifice by faith.
Since this sentence directly compares one sacrifice to another, and calls one better than the other, we have warrant to do so ourselves, and follow along with why one sacrifice was better. Also, Genesis 4 itself makes a comparison. Why was Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's?
It is faith (the assurance of things hoped for ...) -- by that, that Abel offers a better sacrifice, and that leads to the rest. Therefore faith stands at the head of the whole sequence in time. Faith leads to Abel offering a sacrifice; that leads to God testifying about that; that leads to the testimony that Abel is righteous; that leads to Abel obtaining that testimony from God.
That's the time sequence. The logical sequence, "because," is the reverse. Abel obtains the testimony that he is righteous, because he obtains it from God, because God testifies about his gifts, because Abel's gifts were a better sacrifice, because Abel offered them by faith, because he offered them by the assurance of things hoped for / the evidence of things unseen.
So the whole thing begins with Abel's faith. That's why it's in this position. Faith is how Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain.
It's a microcosm of how the work of a single day -- two very different people, although brothers, putting something supposedly together for God -- look so similar on the outside ... and one is a better sacrifice than the other, and brings back something to the giver, and why.
By faith, the men of old obtained a testimony, verse 2. Abel is the first "men of old" example. Faith ... and the testimony they obtained. Two things. Let's look at the Abel example of these two things, plus whatever else it says.
Abel's sacrifice was offered to God by faith. Abel's sacrifice was something through which Abel obtained a testimony. That's three things: the testimony, the sacrifice, and the faith. What kind of testimony? That he was righteous. Who testified? God. What did God testify about? Abel's gifts ... and what did the testimony say? that Abel was righteous.
Abel obtained that testimony: that is, he was not only the beneficiary of it, but got the benefit of it.
Abel offered his sacrifice, his gifts, by faith. Adding the point of verse 2, although it was through the sacrifice that Abel obtained a testimony from God that he was righteous, he offered his sacrifice by faith.
Since this sentence directly compares one sacrifice to another, and calls one better than the other, we have warrant to do so ourselves, and follow along with why one sacrifice was better. Also, Genesis 4 itself makes a comparison. Why was Abel's sacrifice better than Cain's?
It is faith (the assurance of things hoped for ...) -- by that, that Abel offers a better sacrifice, and that leads to the rest. Therefore faith stands at the head of the whole sequence in time. Faith leads to Abel offering a sacrifice; that leads to God testifying about that; that leads to the testimony that Abel is righteous; that leads to Abel obtaining that testimony from God.
That's the time sequence. The logical sequence, "because," is the reverse. Abel obtains the testimony that he is righteous, because he obtains it from God, because God testifies about his gifts, because Abel's gifts were a better sacrifice, because Abel offered them by faith, because he offered them by the assurance of things hoped for / the evidence of things unseen.
So the whole thing begins with Abel's faith. That's why it's in this position. Faith is how Abel offered a better sacrifice than Cain.
It's a microcosm of how the work of a single day -- two very different people, although brothers, putting something supposedly together for God -- look so similar on the outside ... and one is a better sacrifice than the other, and brings back something to the giver, and why.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Heb 10
10:26. BAGD says that "no sacrifice for sins remains" equals "no sacrifice for sins can be made" -- this accords well with the same use of the word, same TVM, "remains," there in Heb 4:6, where a future is being discussed. If we sin willfully as Christians, there is no sacrifice for sins that can be made in the future. There are no more sacrifices for sin coming down the pipe; cf. 9:28.
Thinking about Ps 95 in Hebrews 4, and seeing the phrase "since it remains for some to enter it" there in verse 6, the idea there is that Hebrews is explaining what 95:7-11 is talking about concerning God's rest.
Back in Heb 3:19, the exodus generation failing to enter Canaan is explained. Then Hebrews explains further about the rest from the fact that 95:7 addresses the readers of that psalm, long after Joshua (4:8), calling that time a "today." David "fixes a certain day, 'Today (4:7)'," the time of David's hearers. Hebrews explains that if Joshua had given them rest, David would not have spoken like that. The very fact that David addresses his hearers with a "today" makes the promise of rest apply to David's hearers, and by extension to the present hearers (4:3,9-11).
Hebrews then states that this "Sabbath rest" still remains "for the people of God." (4:9). Here is again the use of "remains" to refer to some future event in the plan of God. In 10:26 there is no sacrifice for sin that remains as a future event in the plan of God. It is not that sacrifices for sin that have already come about -- in particular, Christ's final sacrifice -- will be undone for certain people -- that would be an unfortunate ad hoc, an idea shoe-horned into the verse -- but that what he has been saying all along is continuing to be important for the readers -- the sacrifice for sin is Christ, since, among all the other reasons for Christ's excellence, also this reason exists too, that no sacrifice for sin remains to come in the future.
Thinking about Ps 95 in Hebrews 4, and seeing the phrase "since it remains for some to enter it" there in verse 6, the idea there is that Hebrews is explaining what 95:7-11 is talking about concerning God's rest.
Back in Heb 3:19, the exodus generation failing to enter Canaan is explained. Then Hebrews explains further about the rest from the fact that 95:7 addresses the readers of that psalm, long after Joshua (4:8), calling that time a "today." David "fixes a certain day, 'Today (4:7)'," the time of David's hearers. Hebrews explains that if Joshua had given them rest, David would not have spoken like that. The very fact that David addresses his hearers with a "today" makes the promise of rest apply to David's hearers, and by extension to the present hearers (4:3,9-11).
Hebrews then states that this "Sabbath rest" still remains "for the people of God." (4:9). Here is again the use of "remains" to refer to some future event in the plan of God. In 10:26 there is no sacrifice for sin that remains as a future event in the plan of God. It is not that sacrifices for sin that have already come about -- in particular, Christ's final sacrifice -- will be undone for certain people -- that would be an unfortunate ad hoc, an idea shoe-horned into the verse -- but that what he has been saying all along is continuing to be important for the readers -- the sacrifice for sin is Christ, since, among all the other reasons for Christ's excellence, also this reason exists too, that no sacrifice for sin remains to come in the future.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Heb 9
9:28. This chapter emphasizes the importance of the blood of Christ, Christ's "sacrifice of Himself" (9:26), and its finality. To post about it is a privelege far beyond what I deserve to do. I ask that if you're reading this, perhaps rather than doing that, to re-read this chapter, Hebrews 9. Thank you God for this explanation of the greatness of Christ's sacrifice.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Ez 18
18:32. It's interesting that "the house of Israel" (18:29) complains about something in the teaching of this chapter (18:25), in particular, the case of the righteous man who "turns away from his righteousness" (18:24), who, God says through Ezekiel, "will die." Why so? is one question, and how so, another, and for what, a third.
Why so, for the sins committed by turning away from it. Plus one, including one, in particular one, that stems from turning away from righteousness: "treachery" (18:24).
Perhaps the house of Israel imagines two piles, two sets, one of their righteous deeds, and another, of sins committed, and says that God's way is not right because the first pile is ignored ("will not be remembered," 24) when the righteous man "turns away from his righteousness." Perhaps they think it should be balanced somehow, the sets weighed comparatively. Ha! Not so. Not only are they not summable together like an accountant's credits and debits, but it is treachery to sin.
The treachery is to turn from the good. The relationship between righteousness and life is generative: when there is righteousness, it is not alone, having no effect. It brings life. Therefore to turn from righteousness is also to turn from the life which it brings. That's treachery. That's unplugging from a "live" source, unplugging the life support, turning away from life as well as from righteousness. Sin doesn't subtract from righteousness, it ruins it.
If that is true, that we cannot mix sin and righteousness like a sum of positive and negative numbers, then that answers the complaint. How so, then, is it true that the soul who sins dies? The soul who sins dies in the same way that the soul who turns from all his sins lives. The relationship between righteousness and life is generative. Life ensues from that. There is only one thing that righteousness brings, whenever it occurs: life! whatever point it occurs notwithstanding.
Again the complaint (18:29), this time perhaps about this side of the coin. Isn't it unfair that a person's transgressions in this case "will not be remembered" (18:22)? Again, the desire for a totaling might be behind the house of Israel's complaint. In this case, what is complained against is how turning from wickedness saves the life. They wanted to count the wickedness against the turning from wickedness, as if wickedness could veto the life.
We don't get to keep our former righteousness to balance to current sins. We aren't forced to keep our former sins as if they veto today's righteousness and life. That's quite an invitation, especially in light of such complaining.
Why so, for the sins committed by turning away from it. Plus one, including one, in particular one, that stems from turning away from righteousness: "treachery" (18:24).
Perhaps the house of Israel imagines two piles, two sets, one of their righteous deeds, and another, of sins committed, and says that God's way is not right because the first pile is ignored ("will not be remembered," 24) when the righteous man "turns away from his righteousness." Perhaps they think it should be balanced somehow, the sets weighed comparatively. Ha! Not so. Not only are they not summable together like an accountant's credits and debits, but it is treachery to sin.
The treachery is to turn from the good. The relationship between righteousness and life is generative: when there is righteousness, it is not alone, having no effect. It brings life. Therefore to turn from righteousness is also to turn from the life which it brings. That's treachery. That's unplugging from a "live" source, unplugging the life support, turning away from life as well as from righteousness. Sin doesn't subtract from righteousness, it ruins it.
If that is true, that we cannot mix sin and righteousness like a sum of positive and negative numbers, then that answers the complaint. How so, then, is it true that the soul who sins dies? The soul who sins dies in the same way that the soul who turns from all his sins lives. The relationship between righteousness and life is generative. Life ensues from that. There is only one thing that righteousness brings, whenever it occurs: life! whatever point it occurs notwithstanding.
Again the complaint (18:29), this time perhaps about this side of the coin. Isn't it unfair that a person's transgressions in this case "will not be remembered" (18:22)? Again, the desire for a totaling might be behind the house of Israel's complaint. In this case, what is complained against is how turning from wickedness saves the life. They wanted to count the wickedness against the turning from wickedness, as if wickedness could veto the life.
We don't get to keep our former righteousness to balance to current sins. We aren't forced to keep our former sins as if they veto today's righteousness and life. That's quite an invitation, especially in light of such complaining.
Friday, November 06, 2009
Ez 16
16:44ff. It's interesting that the RSV/ESV/NIV start a new paragraph at 16:59, not 16:60, and not just for pedantic reasons. God's dealings with the nation in this chapter are famous for their uniqueness and difficulty of categorization: what "everlasting" covenant, again, is coming (16:60)? For what reason(s)? How, again, will the nation fare under it (61-63)? What is this relationship between being confounded and the expressly stated act of God, "when I [!] atone for you for all that you have done" (ESV), or "when I forgive you [!] all that you have done" (RSV), (16:63)? This is very characteristic of Ezekiel, but very difficult to spot in other parts of the whole Bible: usually, complete forgiveness is not followed by the result that they never open their mouths again because of their shame, as it is in Ezekiel 16:63.
This combination is not just a chance result of a translation of a phrase or two. The whole idea of a restoration by God, combined with putting others in the relative right because of the comparatively greater record of wickedness of the people being restored, boggles the mind. How is it that the nation of Judah, as the nation being addressed by Ezekiel, as a group which God Himself pointedly is restoring Himself (16:53), has two sisters, corrupt, but less corrupt than she has been (16:46-47) as co-objects of restoration along with itself (16:53)? That in fact consoles these "sisters"! The nation must take these two in (16:61), so that it will remember, and be ashamed, and never open its mouth anymore! Is this like any description of a future new covenant you have ever heard of elsewhere?
This description of a covenant being made by God is similar to a section in chapter 36, which many Christians like to cherry-pick for 36:25-27, but should know better. You can't stop at 36:27, you have to go on to 36:28ff -- which breaks the spell, and Christians must see that vv. 25-27 are not for them to cherry-pick. In 36:31 there is that same restoration combined with remembrance and self-loathing we notice in this chapter, chapter 16. Let's not forget to whom both these chapters are addressed (36:32; 16:2), and regardless of the timing of these restorations and who Jerusalem and her sisters "are," let's all marvel at the common stated outcome of these chapters (16:62; 36:38): they will "know that I am the LORD."
This combination is not just a chance result of a translation of a phrase or two. The whole idea of a restoration by God, combined with putting others in the relative right because of the comparatively greater record of wickedness of the people being restored, boggles the mind. How is it that the nation of Judah, as the nation being addressed by Ezekiel, as a group which God Himself pointedly is restoring Himself (16:53), has two sisters, corrupt, but less corrupt than she has been (16:46-47) as co-objects of restoration along with itself (16:53)? That in fact consoles these "sisters"! The nation must take these two in (16:61), so that it will remember, and be ashamed, and never open its mouth anymore! Is this like any description of a future new covenant you have ever heard of elsewhere?
This description of a covenant being made by God is similar to a section in chapter 36, which many Christians like to cherry-pick for 36:25-27, but should know better. You can't stop at 36:27, you have to go on to 36:28ff -- which breaks the spell, and Christians must see that vv. 25-27 are not for them to cherry-pick. In 36:31 there is that same restoration combined with remembrance and self-loathing we notice in this chapter, chapter 16. Let's not forget to whom both these chapters are addressed (36:32; 16:2), and regardless of the timing of these restorations and who Jerusalem and her sisters "are," let's all marvel at the common stated outcome of these chapters (16:62; 36:38): they will "know that I am the LORD."
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Heb 7
7:25. We know that the writer is arguing for the greatness of this "change in the priesthood" (7:12). Heb 7:18-19 talks about the changeover between "the former commandment" and "the better hope."
"He continues forever ... consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost" (7:24). And this was not true of the former system. Its priests died.
What are the implications of Christ living forever? Less for us, if it is our death that ends all our relationships and our existence. However, this is not the perspective here: Christ's ability to save to the uttermost, because He continues forever, is stated. If someone says "that just means to the uttermost of our lives," what is that? Is that a time reference, or not?
Assume first of all that it's not a time reference. To save to the uttermost would then possibly mean "in every type of circumstance throughout life, until death." That implies, by restricting its domain of discourse in such a way, that Christ can rescue us from everything -- until we die.
How is that "a better hope" than the human being has who is unhelped by Christ the Priest? Isn't everyone, including every unbeliever, saved from dying until he or she dies? That is kind of a tautology.
If that were all there was to it, then the reason the writer gives for why Christ is able to "save to the uttermost" doesn't make much sense. It's two reasons: 1) He always lives; 2) He always lives to make intercession for "those who draw near to God through him." That's a time reference.
The geneology-based priests of Aaron, as long as they lived, made intercession for those who lived during their lifetimes. Therefore under the Old Covenant there was always a priest available to intercede. But there wasn't the same priest over all time. Christ continues forever.
Remember one of the things that the writer claims Christ has accomplished: having tasted death, to destroy the one who has the power of death, 2:14, delivering those "in subject to lifelong slavery" through "fear of death." (2:14).
There are those, soldiers and warriors for example, who are trained to not fear death. Countless stories of their courage show that they in fact do not fear death. This is slightly (!) different than the description of Christ in 2:14. There, it is a deliverance of those who, whether they fear death or not, were subject to lifelong slavery through the fear of it. Unfortunately, banishing the fear of it once, doesn't mean it's automatically and forever gone.
Soldiers sometimes call the necessity of re-training a "re-qual." The skills, both mental and physical, are subject to the "re-qual," the re-qualifying tests and training. In the same way, the Old Covenant needed to repeat things "daily" (7:27). The writer constantly brings out the necessity under the Old Covenant do things repeatedly, yet it never made anything perfect. But Christ "has been made perfect forever." No re-qual applies to Christ's work -- and he remains alive to intercede for us.
"He continues forever ... consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost" (7:24). And this was not true of the former system. Its priests died.
What are the implications of Christ living forever? Less for us, if it is our death that ends all our relationships and our existence. However, this is not the perspective here: Christ's ability to save to the uttermost, because He continues forever, is stated. If someone says "that just means to the uttermost of our lives," what is that? Is that a time reference, or not?
Assume first of all that it's not a time reference. To save to the uttermost would then possibly mean "in every type of circumstance throughout life, until death." That implies, by restricting its domain of discourse in such a way, that Christ can rescue us from everything -- until we die.
How is that "a better hope" than the human being has who is unhelped by Christ the Priest? Isn't everyone, including every unbeliever, saved from dying until he or she dies? That is kind of a tautology.
If that were all there was to it, then the reason the writer gives for why Christ is able to "save to the uttermost" doesn't make much sense. It's two reasons: 1) He always lives; 2) He always lives to make intercession for "those who draw near to God through him." That's a time reference.
The geneology-based priests of Aaron, as long as they lived, made intercession for those who lived during their lifetimes. Therefore under the Old Covenant there was always a priest available to intercede. But there wasn't the same priest over all time. Christ continues forever.
Remember one of the things that the writer claims Christ has accomplished: having tasted death, to destroy the one who has the power of death, 2:14, delivering those "in subject to lifelong slavery" through "fear of death." (2:14).
There are those, soldiers and warriors for example, who are trained to not fear death. Countless stories of their courage show that they in fact do not fear death. This is slightly (!) different than the description of Christ in 2:14. There, it is a deliverance of those who, whether they fear death or not, were subject to lifelong slavery through the fear of it. Unfortunately, banishing the fear of it once, doesn't mean it's automatically and forever gone.
Soldiers sometimes call the necessity of re-training a "re-qual." The skills, both mental and physical, are subject to the "re-qual," the re-qualifying tests and training. In the same way, the Old Covenant needed to repeat things "daily" (7:27). The writer constantly brings out the necessity under the Old Covenant do things repeatedly, yet it never made anything perfect. But Christ "has been made perfect forever." No re-qual applies to Christ's work -- and he remains alive to intercede for us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)