One of the claims made by those who advocate the KJV as the best or only legitimate (English) translation of the Bible is that the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus [TR] which itself follows the traditional Majority Text which is the best manuscript tradition. A key problem with this view is that the TR is not identical with the Majority Text. It is fair to say that the TR belongs to the Byzantine text tradition, but this is not the same as saying that the TR is identical to the Majority Text at every point. In fact, according to Daniel Wallace, there are 1,838 places where the TR diverges from the Majority Text (Daniel B. Wallace, “Some Second Thoughts on the Majority Text,” cited 19 March 2012; online: http://bible.org/article/some-second-thoughts-majority-text).
The following is a small selection of examples where the TR and the Majority Text differ:
In Matt 27:35 the TR contains the words ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου· διεμερίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μοῦ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον κλῆρον in order that the word by the prophet might be fulfilled: they divided my garments among themselves, and cast lots for my clothing. The Majority Text does not have these words. In fact, the Majority Text agrees with the Alexandrian tradition at this point.
The TR includes Acts 8:37, which reads: εἶπε δὲ ὁ Φίλιππος, Eἰ πιστεύεις ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ἔξεστιν· ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ εἶπε, Πιστεύω τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ εἶναι τὸν ’Iησοῦν Xριστόν And Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, it is permissible.” And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” The Majority Text does not include this verse, in agreement with the Alexandrian tradition.
The situation regarding 1 John 5:7–8 is a famous case. The TR, agreeing with the Latin Vulgate of the day, includes the words ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one at the end of v. 7, and also the words καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ and there are three that testify on the earth at the beginning of v. 8. Once again, the Majority Text does not include these words in agreement with the Alexandrian tradition.
In Rev 16:5 Beza’s emendation of the text from ὅσιος holy one to ἐσόμενος who will be (without any manuscript evidence for doing so) resulted in a textual variant emerging within the TR. In other words, the TR is not unified at this point. The Majority Text and the Alexandrian tradition both have ὅσιος.
In Rev 22:19 the TR mentions the book of life, whereas all other manuscript traditions speak of the tree of life, except for some corrupted Latin manuscripts. It seems that this corruption occurred as a result of a scribal mistake: libro was substituted for ligno in the Vulgate, which was in time translated back into a small number of Greek manuscripts, resulting in the phrase βίβλου τῆς ζωῆς the book of life appearing in the TR.
All in all, it is incorrect to assume that the TR and the Majority Text are identical.
19 March 2012
12 March 2012
Examples of Textual Variants in the Textus Receptus
There is a simplistic view on the part of some Christians which says that God has preserved a pure Greek text of the New Testament, and that this pure text is the Textus Receptus [TR]. One of the problems with this view is that the TR itself is not a unified tradition. In fact the TR itself is not a group of manuscripts, but a series of printed editions of the Greek New Testament published between 1516 and 1641. The first published printed edition of the Greek New Testament was compiled by Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic priest and scholar. Erasmus collected five twelfth century and two fifteenth century Byzantine-type manuscripts in order to produce a single Greek text for publication. The name Textus Receptus was not used by Erasmus; but comes from the publisher’s preface to the 1633 edition produced by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir. Because this edition was considered to be following on in the line of the work begun originally by Erasmus, in the end the name textus receptus was applied to the manuscript tradition reflected in the group of over twenty editions of the Greek New Testament that developed from the original edition of Erasmus.
Given that the term Textus Receptus is used to refer to a group of over twenty editions of the Greek New Testament, produced by at least four different compilers, it is not surprising that the various printed editions of the TR do exhibit differences among themselves. Overall the differences are not major, but nevertheless differences do exist.
Frederick Scrivener has identified that the KJV followed the 1589 and 1598 editions of Beza instead of the 1550 Stephanus edition on 113 occasions (F. H. A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible: Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1884]: 248–57). He has also identified 59 occasions on which the KJV followed Beza over against Stephanus (ibid., 257–61).
Some differences between the 1589 and 1598 editions of Beza, and the 1550 edition of Stephanus, that Scrivener mentions, include the following:
In Mark 8:14 Beza includes the phrase οἱ μαθηταὶ the disciples after ἐπελάθοντο they forgot, whereas Stephanus omits it.
In Luke 10:22 Beza omits the words καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε and having turned to the disciples, he said, whereas Stephanus includes them.
In John 16:33 Beza has incorrectly corrected a mistake of Stephanus that the latter corrected in a corrigendum at the end of his edition. Thus Beza corrected ἒξετε to ἓξετε you will have. Stephanus’s corrected text, however, is ἒχετε you have.
In Rev 5:11 Stephanus (following Erasmus) omits the clause καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων and their number was ten thousand times ten thousand, whereas Beza includes it.
In Rev 16:5 Beza departs from the traditional reading ὅσιος holy one, and emends the text to read ἐσόμενος who will be, seemingly without any manuscript evidence for doing so. Stephanus preserves the traditional reading ὅσιος. Interestingly, the KJV follows Beza at this point rather than Stephanus.
As the small sample of examples above show, the TR itself is not a uniform tradition.
Given that the term Textus Receptus is used to refer to a group of over twenty editions of the Greek New Testament, produced by at least four different compilers, it is not surprising that the various printed editions of the TR do exhibit differences among themselves. Overall the differences are not major, but nevertheless differences do exist.
Frederick Scrivener has identified that the KJV followed the 1589 and 1598 editions of Beza instead of the 1550 Stephanus edition on 113 occasions (F. H. A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible: Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives [Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1884]: 248–57). He has also identified 59 occasions on which the KJV followed Beza over against Stephanus (ibid., 257–61).
Some differences between the 1589 and 1598 editions of Beza, and the 1550 edition of Stephanus, that Scrivener mentions, include the following:
In Mark 8:14 Beza includes the phrase οἱ μαθηταὶ the disciples after ἐπελάθοντο they forgot, whereas Stephanus omits it.
In Luke 10:22 Beza omits the words καὶ στραφεὶς πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς εἶπε and having turned to the disciples, he said, whereas Stephanus includes them.
In John 16:33 Beza has incorrectly corrected a mistake of Stephanus that the latter corrected in a corrigendum at the end of his edition. Thus Beza corrected ἒξετε to ἓξετε you will have. Stephanus’s corrected text, however, is ἒχετε you have.
In Rev 5:11 Stephanus (following Erasmus) omits the clause καὶ ἦν ὁ ἀριθμὸς αὐτῶν μυριάδες μυριάδων and their number was ten thousand times ten thousand, whereas Beza includes it.
In Rev 16:5 Beza departs from the traditional reading ὅσιος holy one, and emends the text to read ἐσόμενος who will be, seemingly without any manuscript evidence for doing so. Stephanus preserves the traditional reading ὅσιος. Interestingly, the KJV follows Beza at this point rather than Stephanus.
As the small sample of examples above show, the TR itself is not a uniform tradition.
02 March 2012
The Degeneration of the World through Adam’s Disobedience to the Word of God
If Gen 1 tells us that the word of God generates light, order, and the fullness of life in the world (as argued here: “The Generation of Light, Order, and the Fullness of Life through God’s Word”), then the rest of the Old Testament can be thought of as being a multifaceted case study in the degeneration that results from disobedience to the word of God. Through disobedience to God’s word, the world in effect reverts to varying degrees (depending on the situation) back to the default situation of the darkness, disorder, and absence of life inherent in the original chaotic mass of Gen 1:2.
I have argued previously that, on the basis of Paul’s teaching in Rom 5:20, the Old Testament is primarily concerned with two falls: the fall of Adam, and the fall of Israel (see “The Law Came in to Increase the Trespass: The Story of Two Falls in Romans 5:20”).
In relation to Adam, the importance of the word of God was symbolized for Adam and Eve in the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When God created Adam, he told him that he could eat from any tree in the garden except one (Gen 2:16–17). The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden to eat. It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil reflecting the Old Testament idiom which is similar to the concept of discerning good from evil, which has to do with being wise (1 Kgs 3:9; see also 2 Sam 14:17). The wise person knows right and wrong according to God’s definition of right and wrong. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was given its name because it would function as a test for Adam and Eve and their descendents: Would they be wise or foolish? Would they be obedient to the word of God, or would they disobey? Obedience is the way of wisdom and life; disobedience is the way of foolishness and death.
Adam and Eve, therefore, form the first major test case of the Old Testament. Would the people that God had created fulfill the creation mandate through obedience to God’s word, or would they take the world back to darkness, disorder, and emptiness, which now would also include death? If the word of God is the key to light, order, and life (as Gen 1 indicates), then the whole of human society must be founded upon and directed by the word of God the Creator. The test in the garden centered around the fact that obedience to God’s word leads to life and blessing, whereas disobedience results in the total opposite.
Sadly, we know the result of this test case. Adam and Eve failed the test. Genesis 3 records how Satan in the form of a snake tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:1–6). Importantly Eve also gave some of the fruit to Adam to eat (Gen 3:6). Thus, the first human beings sinned against God, and lost the privilege of living in the presence of God in the garden of Eden.
It is significant that Gen 3:23 records that “Yahweh God banished [Adam] from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.” The ground from which Adam had been created lay outside the garden of Eden. A straightforward reading of the Hebrew in Gen 2:7–8 takes the content described in v. 8 as being chronologically subsequent to the content of v. 7. In other words, Adam was created by God even before God had planted the garden of Eden. The second clause in v. 8, which says and he placed there the man that he had created effectively confirms this reading. Adam had been created by God before the garden of Eden was established. Subsequent to this, Adam was taken from outside the garden, and graciously set by God to rest inside the garden (Gen 2:15). But because of sin, Adam could no longer remain in the garden. He had violated the principal law of the garden, that God’s word rules. So he was expelled from the garden, along with his wife. Adam was kicked out of the garden to return to the wilderness, the place from which he had come. By disobeying the word of God that gives order and life, our first ancestors suffered the negative consequences. Instead of living life in an orderly world, experiencing life and blessing, they had to live in a world that had reverted back closer the default situation of the original chaotic mass, a world where darkness, disorder, and death threatened their existence.
But sadly, according to the biblical record, this rebellion on the part of Adam and Eve did not solely affect them. It had massive implications for their descendents. All members of the human race, being children of Adam and Eve, just like Cain and Abel, have been born outside the garden of Eden. This means that we have been born into a world of disorder and death, a world in which the forces of darkness are seeking to destroy the harmonic influence of the word of God.
The consequences of Adam’s failure are not a pleasant to consider; but it makes sense from the biblical starting point, which is that the word of God created light, order, and the fullness of life in the first place. If it was the word of God that set things up in the beginning, if it is the word of God that creates the positive effects of light, and order, and life, then to disobey God’s word leads to the unleashing of the negative effects of darkness, disorder, and emptiness in the world. If the world was generated through the word of God, then disobeying the word of God must result in the degeneration of creation.
One of the key messages of the Old Testament, therefore, is that disobedience to the word of God results in degeneration. This is Christianity’s explanation as to why the world is the way it is. Suffering and death exists in our world because the human race back in the beginning rejected the enlightening, ordering, and life-giving word of God.
 |
| The Degeneration of the World through Disobedience to the Word of God |
I have argued previously that, on the basis of Paul’s teaching in Rom 5:20, the Old Testament is primarily concerned with two falls: the fall of Adam, and the fall of Israel (see “The Law Came in to Increase the Trespass: The Story of Two Falls in Romans 5:20”).
In relation to Adam, the importance of the word of God was symbolized for Adam and Eve in the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. When God created Adam, he told him that he could eat from any tree in the garden except one (Gen 2:16–17). The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was forbidden to eat. It was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil reflecting the Old Testament idiom which is similar to the concept of discerning good from evil, which has to do with being wise (1 Kgs 3:9; see also 2 Sam 14:17). The wise person knows right and wrong according to God’s definition of right and wrong. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was given its name because it would function as a test for Adam and Eve and their descendents: Would they be wise or foolish? Would they be obedient to the word of God, or would they disobey? Obedience is the way of wisdom and life; disobedience is the way of foolishness and death.
Adam and Eve, therefore, form the first major test case of the Old Testament. Would the people that God had created fulfill the creation mandate through obedience to God’s word, or would they take the world back to darkness, disorder, and emptiness, which now would also include death? If the word of God is the key to light, order, and life (as Gen 1 indicates), then the whole of human society must be founded upon and directed by the word of God the Creator. The test in the garden centered around the fact that obedience to God’s word leads to life and blessing, whereas disobedience results in the total opposite.
Sadly, we know the result of this test case. Adam and Eve failed the test. Genesis 3 records how Satan in the form of a snake tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit (Gen 3:1–6). Importantly Eve also gave some of the fruit to Adam to eat (Gen 3:6). Thus, the first human beings sinned against God, and lost the privilege of living in the presence of God in the garden of Eden.
It is significant that Gen 3:23 records that “Yahweh God banished [Adam] from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken.” The ground from which Adam had been created lay outside the garden of Eden. A straightforward reading of the Hebrew in Gen 2:7–8 takes the content described in v. 8 as being chronologically subsequent to the content of v. 7. In other words, Adam was created by God even before God had planted the garden of Eden. The second clause in v. 8, which says and he placed there the man that he had created effectively confirms this reading. Adam had been created by God before the garden of Eden was established. Subsequent to this, Adam was taken from outside the garden, and graciously set by God to rest inside the garden (Gen 2:15). But because of sin, Adam could no longer remain in the garden. He had violated the principal law of the garden, that God’s word rules. So he was expelled from the garden, along with his wife. Adam was kicked out of the garden to return to the wilderness, the place from which he had come. By disobeying the word of God that gives order and life, our first ancestors suffered the negative consequences. Instead of living life in an orderly world, experiencing life and blessing, they had to live in a world that had reverted back closer the default situation of the original chaotic mass, a world where darkness, disorder, and death threatened their existence.
But sadly, according to the biblical record, this rebellion on the part of Adam and Eve did not solely affect them. It had massive implications for their descendents. All members of the human race, being children of Adam and Eve, just like Cain and Abel, have been born outside the garden of Eden. This means that we have been born into a world of disorder and death, a world in which the forces of darkness are seeking to destroy the harmonic influence of the word of God.
The consequences of Adam’s failure are not a pleasant to consider; but it makes sense from the biblical starting point, which is that the word of God created light, order, and the fullness of life in the first place. If it was the word of God that set things up in the beginning, if it is the word of God that creates the positive effects of light, and order, and life, then to disobey God’s word leads to the unleashing of the negative effects of darkness, disorder, and emptiness in the world. If the world was generated through the word of God, then disobeying the word of God must result in the degeneration of creation.
One of the key messages of the Old Testament, therefore, is that disobedience to the word of God results in degeneration. This is Christianity’s explanation as to why the world is the way it is. Suffering and death exists in our world because the human race back in the beginning rejected the enlightening, ordering, and life-giving word of God.
25 February 2012
The Tragedy of Whitney Houston’s Christian Life
On 11 February 2012 Whitney Houston passed away in a Beverly Hills hotel room. I must admit that I was saddened by the news, partly because Whitney came to fame during the period when I was growing up, and so she was someone whose music I knew, but mainly because Whitney was a singer who claimed to be a Christian. Her life turned into a great tragedy. Starting off with many hopes and dreams, it seems that she mixed with the wrong crowd, and she suffered greatly as a result. Whitney started off a Christian, but many are wondering now if she finished one. In the end it is God’s prerogative to determine each person’s eternal destiny, but we can say that Whitney definitely gave in in a significant way to the efforts of the world to reeducate her.
It is a choice that every Christian has to make. Am I going to live out Christian truth? Am I going to live out my faith? Or am I going to join the crowd, and give in to the world? It is a choice that every single Christian has to make every day: to follow the cross or to follow the crowd?
The tragedy of Whitney Houston was that of a young Christian girl growing up and coming under the influence of the world, leading to mental and ultimately physical destruction. She started off proud of the fact that she was a Christian, that she grew up in the church, singing gospel songs. She wanted to sing in order to praise God for his gift of music. She once said, “God gave me a voice to sing with”; and sing she did!
Yet many Christians found it hard to believe that in the early 90s she got involved with Bobby Brown, an R&B singer and part-time rapper, who at the time did not have a good reputation. Brown had started out singing with the R&B boy band New Edition, but he was reportedly voted out of the band because the other members were concerned about his lewd and disorderly antics on stage.
Something of Brown’s attitude to life can be captured in his hit single My Prerogative, which was written by Bobby in 1988, reportedly in response to being booted off from New Edition: “They say I’m crazy. I really don’t care. That’s my prerogative! They say I’m nasty, but I don’t give a damn. Getting girls is how I live!”
About a year after these words were penned, Whitney met Brown at the Soul Train Music Awards. Eventually in 1992 they got married. The result? Over time Whitney slid deeper into drugs. In her interview with Oprah in 2009 Whitney confirmed that she and Bobby used to regularly smoke marijuana laced with cocaine. There were reports of incidents of domestic violence, and Whitney became increasingly erratic in her behavior. All of this took a toll on her voice, and basically destroyed her career as a singer.
Thanks in large part to the influence of her husband, Whitney was drawn away from God and into the dark side. It seems to me that she lost sight of the supremacy of the kingdom of God, and of her need to seek first God’s kingdom and his righteousness. She basically allowed herself to be reeducated by the world, and paid a terrible price. This is also something that Whitney’s saw happening. In the interview with Oprah, Whitney talked about a time when her mum came to her house with the police, trying to rescue her daughter. She said to Whitney, “I’m not losing you to the world. I’m not losing you to Satan … I want my daughter back.”
Whether at the end of her life, Whitney genuinely turned back to God, only God ultimately knows. The evidence suggests that Whitney was still doing drugs up until the time of her death; and the official cause of her death has been determined as probably being an overdose of “a narcotic substance [probably cocaine], prescription medications, over-the-counter medications and alcohol.” But even if Whitney was right with the Lord when she died, we definitely have to say that she was mangled by the world, and never fully recovered. Her life was a tragedy, but it also stands as a warning about what can happen to Christians if we allow ourselves to be reeducated by the world.
The simple fact of the matter is that all Christians are living in the world, which means that it is very easy to be tempted by the world, and to forget that the ultimate reality is the kingdom of God. To what extent is what happened to Whitney happening to other Christian people today? Following Whitney’s death, it is legitimate to ask: Am I slowly being lost to Satan? Am I paying more attention to the crowd, to the fashion, music, and way of life of the world, rather than following in the way of the cross? Have I gotten mixed up with the wrong crowd, seeking to fit in with the world, somehow forgetting what it means to live as a Christian?
We can go through some of the marks of compromise with the world: Following your friends to parties where all sorts of ungodliness goes on because you reckon that that’s what’s cool; using language however disguised that uses God’s name in vain, or that is full of “f this, f that” and other expletives just because your friends talk that way; paying more attention to the messages of the world communicated through music and movies and videos than to God and his word; thinking that romantic love is a matter of doing stuff with your boyfriend or girlfriend without ever thinking about the importance of commitment as expressed through marriage; getting romantically involved with whomever, regardless of whether they have the same beliefs as you. How can a Christian ever be one flesh with someone who does not care about the kingdom of God?
I wonder: how many times in her marriage to Bobby did she regret getting involved with him? Imagine if Whitney had met someone for whom the kingdom of God was important. It is possible that her life and the length of her career could have been very different to what we know today. In talking to Oprah about her decision to divorce Bobby, Whitney said: “I wasn’t going to be in an unholy matrimony. I wasn’t going to be living with a man who decided that he wasn’t going to live the same way I did, or thought about marriage and me the same way... being loyal, being dedicated, being true, being faithful … all those things. I wasn’t going to live with someone like that.” Sadly, this realization of incompatibility between her values and those of Bobby came eighteen years too late. It makes me wonder: if only she had seen earlier the incompatibility between the kingdom of God and Bobby’s belief in his own prerogative.
Christians need to remember that the kingdom of God will replace all human empires, and rule the world forever. God’s kingdom is the ultimate reality. We should not despise this truth by the way we live our lives. As Jesus taught us: “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt 6:33).
In the words of one of Whitney’s last songs: “As I lay me down, Heaven hear me now. I’m lost without a cause, after giving it my all. Winter storms have come, and darkened my sun. After all that I’ve been through, who can I turn to? I look to you. I look to you. After all my strength is gone, in you I can be strong.” I hope that these words were close to her heart on the day that her earthly life slipped away.
It is a choice that every Christian has to make. Am I going to live out Christian truth? Am I going to live out my faith? Or am I going to join the crowd, and give in to the world? It is a choice that every single Christian has to make every day: to follow the cross or to follow the crowd?
The tragedy of Whitney Houston was that of a young Christian girl growing up and coming under the influence of the world, leading to mental and ultimately physical destruction. She started off proud of the fact that she was a Christian, that she grew up in the church, singing gospel songs. She wanted to sing in order to praise God for his gift of music. She once said, “God gave me a voice to sing with”; and sing she did!
Yet many Christians found it hard to believe that in the early 90s she got involved with Bobby Brown, an R&B singer and part-time rapper, who at the time did not have a good reputation. Brown had started out singing with the R&B boy band New Edition, but he was reportedly voted out of the band because the other members were concerned about his lewd and disorderly antics on stage.
Something of Brown’s attitude to life can be captured in his hit single My Prerogative, which was written by Bobby in 1988, reportedly in response to being booted off from New Edition: “They say I’m crazy. I really don’t care. That’s my prerogative! They say I’m nasty, but I don’t give a damn. Getting girls is how I live!”
About a year after these words were penned, Whitney met Brown at the Soul Train Music Awards. Eventually in 1992 they got married. The result? Over time Whitney slid deeper into drugs. In her interview with Oprah in 2009 Whitney confirmed that she and Bobby used to regularly smoke marijuana laced with cocaine. There were reports of incidents of domestic violence, and Whitney became increasingly erratic in her behavior. All of this took a toll on her voice, and basically destroyed her career as a singer.
Thanks in large part to the influence of her husband, Whitney was drawn away from God and into the dark side. It seems to me that she lost sight of the supremacy of the kingdom of God, and of her need to seek first God’s kingdom and his righteousness. She basically allowed herself to be reeducated by the world, and paid a terrible price. This is also something that Whitney’s saw happening. In the interview with Oprah, Whitney talked about a time when her mum came to her house with the police, trying to rescue her daughter. She said to Whitney, “I’m not losing you to the world. I’m not losing you to Satan … I want my daughter back.”
Whether at the end of her life, Whitney genuinely turned back to God, only God ultimately knows. The evidence suggests that Whitney was still doing drugs up until the time of her death; and the official cause of her death has been determined as probably being an overdose of “a narcotic substance [probably cocaine], prescription medications, over-the-counter medications and alcohol.” But even if Whitney was right with the Lord when she died, we definitely have to say that she was mangled by the world, and never fully recovered. Her life was a tragedy, but it also stands as a warning about what can happen to Christians if we allow ourselves to be reeducated by the world.
The simple fact of the matter is that all Christians are living in the world, which means that it is very easy to be tempted by the world, and to forget that the ultimate reality is the kingdom of God. To what extent is what happened to Whitney happening to other Christian people today? Following Whitney’s death, it is legitimate to ask: Am I slowly being lost to Satan? Am I paying more attention to the crowd, to the fashion, music, and way of life of the world, rather than following in the way of the cross? Have I gotten mixed up with the wrong crowd, seeking to fit in with the world, somehow forgetting what it means to live as a Christian?
We can go through some of the marks of compromise with the world: Following your friends to parties where all sorts of ungodliness goes on because you reckon that that’s what’s cool; using language however disguised that uses God’s name in vain, or that is full of “f this, f that” and other expletives just because your friends talk that way; paying more attention to the messages of the world communicated through music and movies and videos than to God and his word; thinking that romantic love is a matter of doing stuff with your boyfriend or girlfriend without ever thinking about the importance of commitment as expressed through marriage; getting romantically involved with whomever, regardless of whether they have the same beliefs as you. How can a Christian ever be one flesh with someone who does not care about the kingdom of God?
I wonder: how many times in her marriage to Bobby did she regret getting involved with him? Imagine if Whitney had met someone for whom the kingdom of God was important. It is possible that her life and the length of her career could have been very different to what we know today. In talking to Oprah about her decision to divorce Bobby, Whitney said: “I wasn’t going to be in an unholy matrimony. I wasn’t going to be living with a man who decided that he wasn’t going to live the same way I did, or thought about marriage and me the same way... being loyal, being dedicated, being true, being faithful … all those things. I wasn’t going to live with someone like that.” Sadly, this realization of incompatibility between her values and those of Bobby came eighteen years too late. It makes me wonder: if only she had seen earlier the incompatibility between the kingdom of God and Bobby’s belief in his own prerogative.
Christians need to remember that the kingdom of God will replace all human empires, and rule the world forever. God’s kingdom is the ultimate reality. We should not despise this truth by the way we live our lives. As Jesus taught us: “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” (Matt 6:33).
In the words of one of Whitney’s last songs: “As I lay me down, Heaven hear me now. I’m lost without a cause, after giving it my all. Winter storms have come, and darkened my sun. After all that I’ve been through, who can I turn to? I look to you. I look to you. After all my strength is gone, in you I can be strong.” I hope that these words were close to her heart on the day that her earthly life slipped away.
20 February 2012
The Word of God as the Conceptual and Historical Pivot of the Bible
If the major theme of Gen 1 is the enlightening, ordering, and life-giving power of the word of God (see my post “The Generation of Light, Order, and the Fullness of Life through God’s Word”), then this suggests that the Bible is concerned in large part with the word of God. The Bible, which is the word of God, is concerned to testify about the word of God as revealed to Adam, the patriarchs, Israel, and ultimately the word of God as it was and is being revealed to all the nations of the world through Jesus, who is in himself the ultimate expression of the word of God.
This concern with the word of God in Gen 1 suggests that the concept of the word of God can be thought of as being the fulcrum around which the storyline of the Bible pivots. The Old Testament is concerned to record the predominantly negative response of Adam and the people of Israel to the word of God that was revealed to them, whereas the New Testament is concerned to record the beginnings of the predominantly positive response of all of the nations of the world to the supreme expression of the word of God as revealed through Jesus.
The fact that the word of God is the conceptual pivot of the Bible also helps us to see how Jesus is the historical pivot of the Bible. Jesus’ ministry on earth marked the point of transition in human history from the primarily negative human response of disobedience to the word of God recorded in the Old Testament, to the primarily positive human response of faith in the supreme expression of the word of God as revealed in Jesus, which the New Testament is concerned to proclaim.
This concern with the word of God in Gen 1 suggests that the concept of the word of God can be thought of as being the fulcrum around which the storyline of the Bible pivots. The Old Testament is concerned to record the predominantly negative response of Adam and the people of Israel to the word of God that was revealed to them, whereas the New Testament is concerned to record the beginnings of the predominantly positive response of all of the nations of the world to the supreme expression of the word of God as revealed through Jesus.
The fact that the word of God is the conceptual pivot of the Bible also helps us to see how Jesus is the historical pivot of the Bible. Jesus’ ministry on earth marked the point of transition in human history from the primarily negative human response of disobedience to the word of God recorded in the Old Testament, to the primarily positive human response of faith in the supreme expression of the word of God as revealed in Jesus, which the New Testament is concerned to proclaim.
13 February 2012
Is the King James Bible the Only True Translation?
There are Christians who believe that the King James Version of the Bible is either the best or even the only legitimate translation of the Bible. It is ironic that these views are not consistent with the views of the translators of the KJV itself, as expressed in the original (1611) edition of the KJV in the preface entitled “The Translators to the Reader.” Please note that the spelling of the words in the series of quotations below from this preface has been modernized.
The translators of the KJV basically argue in the preface (among other things) that every translation of the Bible should be considered to be the word of God. In their argument they use the example of the Septuagint. As a translation the LXX was deficient in many respects, yet it was treated by the apostles as being the word of God:
“we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession … contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God … A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life … also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word … notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it … The translation of the Seventy differs from the Original in many places, neither does it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it … which they would not have done … if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.”
The translators of the KJV saw their translation of the Bible as being one stage in a larger endeavor of Bible translation that involves the production over time of many translations in various languages leading to the saving of souls throughout the world. They believed that the production of new translations was necessary:
“how shall men meditate in [the Scripture], which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept closed in an unknown tongue? … it is necessary to have translations … Many men’s mouths have been open a good while … and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment [in making a new translation]: … blessed be they, and most honored be their name, that break the ice, and give the onset upon that which helps forward to the saving of souls. Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God’s book unto God’s people in a tongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountain that is sealed, there is no profit.”
The translators of the KJV also believed strongly in the value and necessity of the ongoing work of comparing existing translations with the original texts, a work which requires the emendation of these translations where the need arises:
“before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our translations so oft … to whomever was it imputed for a fault … to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? … If we will be sons of the Truth, we must consider what it speaks, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hinderance to it.”
The translators of the KJV also included marginal notes in their translation, because they understood that not all of God’s word is necessarily equally clear in its sense, given our current level of knowledge of the original languages:
“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point … it has pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation … but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence … it is better to make doubt about those things that are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain … [just as a] variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary.”
Therefore, it does not seem from the words quoted above that the translators of the KJV themselves believed that their translation should be considered to be unique in terms of its quality or authority. In a very real sense, they saw their translation as being just one (good) translation among many, one important step in the ongoing process of delivering God’s book to God’s people in a tongue which they can understand.
The translators of the KJV basically argue in the preface (among other things) that every translation of the Bible should be considered to be the word of God. In their argument they use the example of the Septuagint. As a translation the LXX was deficient in many respects, yet it was treated by the apostles as being the word of God:
“we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession … contains the word of God, nay, is the word of God … A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life … also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word … notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it … The translation of the Seventy differs from the Original in many places, neither does it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it … which they would not have done … if it had been unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God.”
The translators of the KJV saw their translation of the Bible as being one stage in a larger endeavor of Bible translation that involves the production over time of many translations in various languages leading to the saving of souls throughout the world. They believed that the production of new translations was necessary:
“how shall men meditate in [the Scripture], which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept closed in an unknown tongue? … it is necessary to have translations … Many men’s mouths have been open a good while … and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment [in making a new translation]: … blessed be they, and most honored be their name, that break the ice, and give the onset upon that which helps forward to the saving of souls. Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God’s book unto God’s people in a tongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountain that is sealed, there is no profit.”
The translators of the KJV also believed strongly in the value and necessity of the ongoing work of comparing existing translations with the original texts, a work which requires the emendation of these translations where the need arises:
“before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our translations so oft … to whomever was it imputed for a fault … to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? … If we will be sons of the Truth, we must consider what it speaks, and trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men’s too, if either be any way an hinderance to it.”
The translators of the KJV also included marginal notes in their translation, because they understood that not all of God’s word is necessarily equally clear in its sense, given our current level of knowledge of the original languages:
“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point … it has pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation … but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence … it is better to make doubt about those things that are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain … [just as a] variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary.”
Therefore, it does not seem from the words quoted above that the translators of the KJV themselves believed that their translation should be considered to be unique in terms of its quality or authority. In a very real sense, they saw their translation as being just one (good) translation among many, one important step in the ongoing process of delivering God’s book to God’s people in a tongue which they can understand.
06 February 2012
Human Beings as Development Officers for the Kingdom of God
Genesis 1 tells us that God is a God who has chosen to move from negative to positive. Specifically, in the creation of the world, God moved the world from darkness to light, from disorder to order, from emptiness to the fullness of life … through the power of his word and Spirit. The tenfold and God said of Gen 1 testifies that God created the universe through his word, and that the key to life in this universe is the word that created this universe, the word of God the Creator.
If God is into movement—moving his world from darkness to light, from disorder to order, from emptiness to fullness, from non-life to life—and if this is achieved through God’s word, then we have to say that God’s word is the key to the development of the universe. This means that God’s word is the key to the development of God’s purposes for Planet Earth and the human race.
It is important to note that Gen 1–2 communicates the idea that God has enlisted the human race to participate in this divine plan for the world. God created the world with a view to its development; and God wants us, in fact he created us human beings, to play an important part in its development. Human beings can be thought of, therefore, as being development officers for the kingdom of God.
Governments around the world have established agencies to promote sustainable world development, but without the word of God at their heart any development that these agencies may be able to achieve will not be sustainable from God’s eternal perspective. If the account of Gen 1–2 is true, then true world development must be connected in with God’s word.
Our job description as development officers for the kingdom of God is given in Gen 1:28. This verse has been called the creation mandate or sometimes the cultural mandate, because it describes our task as human beings: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Gen 1:28). In summary: have babies, and fill the earth, taking the rule of God with you as you go.
In effect the job of the human race from the beginning has been to spread out throughout the whole world, expanding the borders of the garden of Eden as we go. Our job is to build the kingdom of God on earth as the human population increases by taking the enlightening, ordering, and life-giving power of the word of God out into all the world.
If God is into movement—moving his world from darkness to light, from disorder to order, from emptiness to fullness, from non-life to life—and if this is achieved through God’s word, then we have to say that God’s word is the key to the development of the universe. This means that God’s word is the key to the development of God’s purposes for Planet Earth and the human race.
It is important to note that Gen 1–2 communicates the idea that God has enlisted the human race to participate in this divine plan for the world. God created the world with a view to its development; and God wants us, in fact he created us human beings, to play an important part in its development. Human beings can be thought of, therefore, as being development officers for the kingdom of God.
Governments around the world have established agencies to promote sustainable world development, but without the word of God at their heart any development that these agencies may be able to achieve will not be sustainable from God’s eternal perspective. If the account of Gen 1–2 is true, then true world development must be connected in with God’s word.
Our job description as development officers for the kingdom of God is given in Gen 1:28. This verse has been called the creation mandate or sometimes the cultural mandate, because it describes our task as human beings: “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground” (Gen 1:28). In summary: have babies, and fill the earth, taking the rule of God with you as you go.
In effect the job of the human race from the beginning has been to spread out throughout the whole world, expanding the borders of the garden of Eden as we go. Our job is to build the kingdom of God on earth as the human population increases by taking the enlightening, ordering, and life-giving power of the word of God out into all the world.
27 January 2012
The Generation of Light, Order, and the Fullness of Life through God’s Word
The Bible teaches that the universe has been created by an eternally existing, powerful God. According to the biblical account of creation in Gen 1, God created the world, but (surprisingly perhaps) he did so in stages.
The first stage of creation involved the creation of the basic content of the universe: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). Resulting from this original act of creation, the earth came into existence, but its original state for a certain period of time was chaotic: “but the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:2).
The original chaotic state of the earth forces the reader to ask why. Specifically, why would God, when he created the world, initially create the earth to be formless and empty? Surely God with his infinite power could have created a world that was fully formed right from the very beginning. He could have created a world complete in every way in the blink of an eye. He could have, but he chose not to. Why then would a God of order create a world that existed in a state of some kind of disorder for a certain limited period of time? In addition, why would a God of light, the God in whom there is no darkness at all, create the earth only to cover it in darkness at least for an initial period of time?
An important clue to the answer to these questions can be found in the final clause in Gen 1:2 where we are told that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water.” The initial state of the the earth was formless, empty, and dark; but the chaotic mass was pregnant with the expectation of new life, because the Spirit of God was brooding over the water.
In effect, Genesis 1:2 gives the starting point for the subsequent six days of the ordering of creation. Over the six days of creation God would take the formless, empty, dark mass, and lighten, shape, and fill it. Genesis 1 involves, therefore, a movement from negative to positive, a movement from disorder, emptiness, and darkness (in v. 2), to light (v. 3), order (through God’s work of dividing and naming in vv. 4–10), and filling (vv. 11–31).
Therefore, on Day One, God speaks into the midst of the darkness, and creates light. God not only creates light, but he creates order through dividing and naming. He divides the light from the darkness, and calls the light day, and the darkness night.
On Day Two, God divides the water covering the earth into two layers, and the boundary between these two layers he calls heaven or sky. In doing this, God begins to give order to the original chaotic mass.
On Day Three, God makes dry land appear, and calls the water seas, and the dry land earth. God brings order to the original chaotic mass in order to make it habitable. Having created order and various spaces, God then sets about dealing with the problem of the emptiness of the original chaotic mass. And so on Day Three God also makes vegetation to begin to cover the land.
On Day Four, God continues his work of filling by filling the heavens with the sun, moon, and stars. These objects also have a role in giving light, and in ordering or dividing day from night, and in giving order to time. The sun and the moon are the timepieces in the sky that God has given us in order to be aware of, and to keep track of, time.
On Day Five, God continues the work of filling his canvas. He fills the space of sea with all sorts of fish and swimming creatures. And the great space, the expanse of sky, is filled with birds and other sorts of flying creatures.
On Day Six, God turns his attention to filling the space called earth, the land. He begins by creating all sorts of domesticable animals, creepy crawlies, and wild animals. But the pinnacle of the land creatures is humanity, male and female. And with human beings, God’s work of filling is effectively complete. That is not to say, however, that the world was full. In the beginning there were only two human beings. There was room for more filling to take place, but for all intents and purposes (apart from the human race) the world was full with all of the creatures that God had determined in his wisdom to make.
And then on Day Seven, God rested, not because he was tired, but because his work of creating was over. God started things off, creating the universe, and making Planet Earth fit for habitation. He started the work of filling the world, but handed over the rest of the work of filling the planet to the human race to achieve. The significance of God’s rest on the seventh day is that it is a promise to humanity. God has invited the human race to continue his work of building the kingdom of God on earth (Gen 1:28); and as we follow his pattern in taking the order and life-giving power of God’s word out into the whole world, so too when our work is complete, we will enter the liberation of an eternal rest, which involves enjoying the fruits of blessing in God’s kingdom forever more. God’s resting on the seventh day is therefore a promise of eventual perfection and of our enjoyment of that perfection after it has been achieved.
But how is humanity to build the kingdom of God on earth? The key to humanity’s work of building the kingdom of God on earth can be seen in the way in which God went about building the world in the first place. In particular, God brought light, order, and filling with life into the world through his word. The tenfold repetition of the expression ויאמר אלהים and God said (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29) in Gen 1 deliberately emphasizes the important role of the divine word in reversing the “problem” of the formlessness, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass. Ten times God spoke … in order to bring light, order, and life into the world.
A key message of Gen 1, therefore, is simply that it is the word of God that brings light, order, and life into existence. God created the world in stages as a lesson for the human race in order to help us appreciate the way in which God’s word is the unifying structure of the universe and the key to life in the universe. Genesis 1 tells not only that God is the Creator of the cosmos, but that God the Creator is the God who acts through the power of his Spirit and word to transform darkness into light, chaos into order, and the absence of life into life. The rest of the story of the Bible is concerned to record the development of the kingdom of God on earth in tandem with the historical response of humanity to the word of God. Obedience to the word of God builds the kingdom of God, bringing light, order, and the fullness of life to the world; whereas disobedience to the word of God brings about a reversion to the default state of the world, the state of formlessness, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass.
The first stage of creation involved the creation of the basic content of the universe: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen 1:1). Resulting from this original act of creation, the earth came into existence, but its original state for a certain period of time was chaotic: “but the earth was formless and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the deep” (Gen 1:2).
The original chaotic state of the earth forces the reader to ask why. Specifically, why would God, when he created the world, initially create the earth to be formless and empty? Surely God with his infinite power could have created a world that was fully formed right from the very beginning. He could have created a world complete in every way in the blink of an eye. He could have, but he chose not to. Why then would a God of order create a world that existed in a state of some kind of disorder for a certain limited period of time? In addition, why would a God of light, the God in whom there is no darkness at all, create the earth only to cover it in darkness at least for an initial period of time?
An important clue to the answer to these questions can be found in the final clause in Gen 1:2 where we are told that “the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the water.” The initial state of the the earth was formless, empty, and dark; but the chaotic mass was pregnant with the expectation of new life, because the Spirit of God was brooding over the water.
In effect, Genesis 1:2 gives the starting point for the subsequent six days of the ordering of creation. Over the six days of creation God would take the formless, empty, dark mass, and lighten, shape, and fill it. Genesis 1 involves, therefore, a movement from negative to positive, a movement from disorder, emptiness, and darkness (in v. 2), to light (v. 3), order (through God’s work of dividing and naming in vv. 4–10), and filling (vv. 11–31).
Therefore, on Day One, God speaks into the midst of the darkness, and creates light. God not only creates light, but he creates order through dividing and naming. He divides the light from the darkness, and calls the light day, and the darkness night.
On Day Two, God divides the water covering the earth into two layers, and the boundary between these two layers he calls heaven or sky. In doing this, God begins to give order to the original chaotic mass.
On Day Three, God makes dry land appear, and calls the water seas, and the dry land earth. God brings order to the original chaotic mass in order to make it habitable. Having created order and various spaces, God then sets about dealing with the problem of the emptiness of the original chaotic mass. And so on Day Three God also makes vegetation to begin to cover the land.
On Day Four, God continues his work of filling by filling the heavens with the sun, moon, and stars. These objects also have a role in giving light, and in ordering or dividing day from night, and in giving order to time. The sun and the moon are the timepieces in the sky that God has given us in order to be aware of, and to keep track of, time.
On Day Five, God continues the work of filling his canvas. He fills the space of sea with all sorts of fish and swimming creatures. And the great space, the expanse of sky, is filled with birds and other sorts of flying creatures.
On Day Six, God turns his attention to filling the space called earth, the land. He begins by creating all sorts of domesticable animals, creepy crawlies, and wild animals. But the pinnacle of the land creatures is humanity, male and female. And with human beings, God’s work of filling is effectively complete. That is not to say, however, that the world was full. In the beginning there were only two human beings. There was room for more filling to take place, but for all intents and purposes (apart from the human race) the world was full with all of the creatures that God had determined in his wisdom to make.
And then on Day Seven, God rested, not because he was tired, but because his work of creating was over. God started things off, creating the universe, and making Planet Earth fit for habitation. He started the work of filling the world, but handed over the rest of the work of filling the planet to the human race to achieve. The significance of God’s rest on the seventh day is that it is a promise to humanity. God has invited the human race to continue his work of building the kingdom of God on earth (Gen 1:28); and as we follow his pattern in taking the order and life-giving power of God’s word out into the whole world, so too when our work is complete, we will enter the liberation of an eternal rest, which involves enjoying the fruits of blessing in God’s kingdom forever more. God’s resting on the seventh day is therefore a promise of eventual perfection and of our enjoyment of that perfection after it has been achieved.
But how is humanity to build the kingdom of God on earth? The key to humanity’s work of building the kingdom of God on earth can be seen in the way in which God went about building the world in the first place. In particular, God brought light, order, and filling with life into the world through his word. The tenfold repetition of the expression ויאמר אלהים and God said (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29) in Gen 1 deliberately emphasizes the important role of the divine word in reversing the “problem” of the formlessness, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass. Ten times God spoke … in order to bring light, order, and life into the world.
 |
| The Generation of the World through the Word of God |
A key message of Gen 1, therefore, is simply that it is the word of God that brings light, order, and life into existence. God created the world in stages as a lesson for the human race in order to help us appreciate the way in which God’s word is the unifying structure of the universe and the key to life in the universe. Genesis 1 tells not only that God is the Creator of the cosmos, but that God the Creator is the God who acts through the power of his Spirit and word to transform darkness into light, chaos into order, and the absence of life into life. The rest of the story of the Bible is concerned to record the development of the kingdom of God on earth in tandem with the historical response of humanity to the word of God. Obedience to the word of God builds the kingdom of God, bringing light, order, and the fullness of life to the world; whereas disobedience to the word of God brings about a reversion to the default state of the world, the state of formlessness, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass.
18 January 2012
God the Eternally Self-Generating Ultimate Cause
The story of the Bible starts with God. The Bible tells us “in the beginning God” (Gen 1:1). God just ... is! God is uncreated reality, eternally self-generating, without beginning and without end. He has always been around, and always will be around.
The existence of God is the fundamental starting point of Christianity. Whatever system of religion or philosophy that one believes in, there has to be starting point. When it comes to the question of the existence of the world there are only four major options: (1) either the world is not real, and all of “reality” is unreal (like some kind of dream); or (2) the world is real and eternal; or (3) the world is real but finite in time, and has come from absolutely nothing; or (4) the world is real but finite in time, and has been caused or created by a previously existing power.
The view that the world is eternal was taught by some ancient Greek philosophers (e.g., Aristotle), and it is also taught in Hinduism and Buddhism. The view that matter has come from nothing, that absolutely everything has come from absolutely nothing, is the view of various forms of modern atheism. Despite the fact that many scientific atheists hold this view, this is logically speaking a difficult position to hold in view of the scientific axiom of cause and effect. Science (with the arguable exception of quantum mechanics) presupposes the idea of cause and effect. To hold that the big bang which led to the formation of the universe came from absolute nothingness—the equivalent of saying that the big bang had no cause—is to posit the existence of an effect without a cause. For the view that the world has come from a previously existing power, the major religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in one eternal God who is Creator of the universe.
Which view is the most logical of these options? The major choice today lies between theism and atheism. Out of these, theism is more logical and much more probable. It requires a lot more faith to believe that all of the universe and the approximately 100 million different species that inhabit our earth came about as a massive fluke, totally by chance, from absolutely nothing, than it does to believe that there was a powerful self-generating designer who generated this world for a reason. Both theism and standard atheism hold that everything came from nothing. In theism, however, there is a cause: God.
The existence of God is the fundamental starting point of Christianity. Whatever system of religion or philosophy that one believes in, there has to be starting point. When it comes to the question of the existence of the world there are only four major options: (1) either the world is not real, and all of “reality” is unreal (like some kind of dream); or (2) the world is real and eternal; or (3) the world is real but finite in time, and has come from absolutely nothing; or (4) the world is real but finite in time, and has been caused or created by a previously existing power.
The view that the world is eternal was taught by some ancient Greek philosophers (e.g., Aristotle), and it is also taught in Hinduism and Buddhism. The view that matter has come from nothing, that absolutely everything has come from absolutely nothing, is the view of various forms of modern atheism. Despite the fact that many scientific atheists hold this view, this is logically speaking a difficult position to hold in view of the scientific axiom of cause and effect. Science (with the arguable exception of quantum mechanics) presupposes the idea of cause and effect. To hold that the big bang which led to the formation of the universe came from absolute nothingness—the equivalent of saying that the big bang had no cause—is to posit the existence of an effect without a cause. For the view that the world has come from a previously existing power, the major religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all believe in one eternal God who is Creator of the universe.
Which view is the most logical of these options? The major choice today lies between theism and atheism. Out of these, theism is more logical and much more probable. It requires a lot more faith to believe that all of the universe and the approximately 100 million different species that inhabit our earth came about as a massive fluke, totally by chance, from absolutely nothing, than it does to believe that there was a powerful self-generating designer who generated this world for a reason. Both theism and standard atheism hold that everything came from nothing. In theism, however, there is a cause: God.
13 January 2012
A Summary of the Bible: Generator, Generation, Degeneration, Regeneration
How to summarize the story of the Bible?
A handy way of thinking about the message of the Bible, or what Christianity is on about, is that the Bible tells a story of the history of the universe that revolves around four basic facts. These basic facts are: God, creation, sin, and salvation. Put another way, this gives us the following four basic facts: Generator, generation, degeneration, and regeneration.
A handy way of thinking about the message of the Bible, or what Christianity is on about, is that the Bible tells a story of the history of the universe that revolves around four basic facts. These basic facts are: God, creation, sin, and salvation. Put another way, this gives us the following four basic facts: Generator, generation, degeneration, and regeneration.
 |
| God, Creation, Sin, Salvation |
03 January 2012
God’s Word in Human Hearts
The more that I read the Old Testament, the more convinced I am that the Old Testament presents two primary case studies (Adam and Israel) of what happens when God’s word is not present in human hearts. As Gen 1 is concerned to teach, it is the word of God that brings light, order, and life to the world. The whole of human society must be founded upon and directed by the word of God the Creator. Not to do this is to revert back to the disorder, emptiness, and darkness of the original chaotic mass (see my post “The Theology of Genesis 1” for more on this idea).
One of the keys, therefore, to a succesful human life is having God’s word in one’s heart. This is why the new covenant centers on God’s word (torah) being written in the heart (Jer 31:33).
This is also why the psalmist says in Ps 119:11: “I have hidden your word in my heart in order that I might not sin against you.” As the whole of Ps 119 attests, the key to human happiness is following in the way of God’s word: “Blessed are those whose way is wholesome, who walk in the law of Yahweh. Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with all their heart” (Ps 119:1–2).
God’s word in the heart! Simple yet profound.
One of the keys, therefore, to a succesful human life is having God’s word in one’s heart. This is why the new covenant centers on God’s word (torah) being written in the heart (Jer 31:33).
This is also why the psalmist says in Ps 119:11: “I have hidden your word in my heart in order that I might not sin against you.” As the whole of Ps 119 attests, the key to human happiness is following in the way of God’s word: “Blessed are those whose way is wholesome, who walk in the law of Yahweh. Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who seek him with all their heart” (Ps 119:1–2).
God’s word in the heart! Simple yet profound.
23 December 2011
The Fulfillment of Micah 5:1–5a in Jesus of Nazareth
One of the strongest proofs of the truth of Christianity is the fulfillment of prophecy. There are at least fifty specific prophecies about the Messiah in the Old Testament, not to mention the many people or objects that function as prophetic parallels to Christ.
Micah 5:1–5a is a particularly good example. Micah is one of the eighth century prophets. He lived in Moresheth-Gath, a town in the south of Judah, about 35 km south-west of Jerusalem. The second half of the eighth century B.C. was a time when the Assyrian empire was exerting increasing pressure in the region. Israel was forced to pay tribute to the king of Assyria, and over time lost territory to the Assyrians until finally, in the year 722 B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered, and its citizens deported.
Conducting his ministry in this context, Micah was prophesying at significant time in the history of the people of Israel. His basic message was that the military defeat of Israel was coming as a result of Israel’s rebellion against God. As part of the covenant that God had entered into with Israel at Mount Sinai, God had promised to bless Israel on condition of obedience; but if they didn’t obey, instead of receiving blessing, Israel would experiences the curses of the covenant, bad things like disease, drought, defeat, death, and expulsion from the Holy Land.
Some 700 years after the exodus, God had finally had enough. After 700 years of rebellion and repeated unfaithfulness on the part of Israel, God’s judgment was going to come down against Israel in a serious way. The northern kingdom of Israel would be defeated and deported by the Assyrians, and over a century later the southern kingdom of Judah would be destroyed by the Babylonians.
Micah 5:1 speaks of this judgment. Micah 5:1 goes with the preceding five verses (i.e., Mic 4:9–13). In these verses Micah predicts that Jerusalem, also called the daughter of Zion, will be attacked; Jerusalem’s king will perish; the city will writhe in agony; and her inhabitants will be forced off into exile in Babylon. This is why in Mic 5:1 Micah calls upon Jerusalem to marshal her troops, to get ready for war. Jerusalem would be besieged, and the people would defend the city, but their effort would end in failure.
This defeat is pictured in Mic 5:1 with the ruler of Israel being struck on the cheek with a rod. Israel’s ruler being struck on the cheek with a rod is a picture of the king of Jerusalem being captured and mistreated by his captors. As a result of the sin of God’s people, the king of Israel would suffer. This verse is not primarily a prophecy about Jesus; but it is significant that, when Jesus was arrested, the Roman soldiers mocked Jesus by making him wear a royal robe and a crown of thorns (Matt 27:28–29). They made him hold a rod as his royal scepter; then they knelt down and mockingly hailed him as the king of the Jews before snatching away the rod, and spitting on him, and striking him on the head with the rod many times (Matt 27:29–30). The treatment of the king of the Jews at the hands of the Babylonians would foreshadow the treatment of Jesus at the hands of the Romans some 600 years later.
God’s judgment was coming down upon Israel because of her covenant rebellion. The curses of the covenant (including military defeat and exile) were going to be realized against her. But in the midst of judgment, Micah also proclaimed salvation. In fact the book of Micah itself alternates between sections of judgment and salvation. The book contains three cycles with every cycle beginning with oracles of judgment, followed by an oracle or oracles of salvation:
Micah preached the reality of judgment, but he also proclaimed that after the time of judgment God’s favor would return to Israel. Death and destruction would not be the end of the story for God’s people. Beyond the time of trouble, there would be a time of restoration. But what would this restoration look like, and how would it happen?
Micah 5:2–5a provides a few clues as to what the future restoration of God’s people would look like. It begins with Bethlehem, a small agricultural town, 9 km south of Jerusalem. Micah moves from his concern with Jerusalem to turn to address Bethlehem: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, small among the clans of Judah” (Mic 5:2a).
But why this sudden focus on Bethlehem? Micah 5:2b tells us the reason: “from you [i.e., Bethlehem] will come forth for me one who will be a ruler in Israel.” At the time of the restoration of God’s people, there would be a ruler who would come from Bethlehem, the home town of King David. Micah seems to be prophesying about a second King David who would arise in the future to rule God’s people. This interpretation is confirmed by the common Jewish interpretation of this verse, an example of which is found in Matt 2:6. When Herod wanted to know where the Messiah was supposed to be born, the Jewish chief priests and scribes quoted Mic 5:2 as biblical proof that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
So there was going to be a future ruler of Israel who would be born in Bethlehem, yet (quite amazingly) Micah prophesies that “his origins are from of old, from ancient times” (Mic 5:2c). How can this be? Who can be yet to come in the future, but at the same time someone who has been around for ages, since ancient times? Micah is talking about a second King David who would be at the very least thousands of years old by the time he became the ruler of Israel. How is this possible?
Christians point to Jesus as the only possible fulfillment of this prophecy. The historical record is clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And after growing up, Jesus went around all of Israel, claiming to be the new Davidic king of Israel, who had existed even before Abraham: “before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). The early Christians believed that Jesus was the divine Word of God who had existed back in the beginning, back when the world was created, who took on human flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1, 14). Micah 5:2c implies that the future ruler of Israel would be human (born in Bethlehem) yet divine (being of ancient origin).
Micah 5:3 confirms the idea that sees Jesus as being the fulfillment of Mic 5:2. Micah 5:3a states that (because this king was coming) God would give Israel over to their enemies “until she who is giving birth has given birth.” Israel would be under the power of her enemies until a birth had taken place. Linking Mic 5:2–3 together the implication is that Israel would be under the thumb of her enemies until this future ruler of Israel was born into the world by his mother in Bethlehem.
Once again Jesus makes sense of this prophecy. The Christian gospel proclaims that Jesus came to set God’s people free. Jesus’ birth into the world via Mary in Bethlehem marked the beginning of the end of Israel’s slavery. And Mic 5:3b seems to indicate the time when Israel would be fully free, when “the rest of his brothers return to be beside the sons of Israel.” The language here is intriguing. Who are these brothers of Israel who would join Israel? This could refer to the return of the Israelite exiles, but it could also be a prophecy about the conversion of the Gentiles. A similar ambiguity in the word brothers exists in Isa 66:20, a verse to which Paul seems to allude in Rom 15:16 when writing about his ministry to the Gentiles. If Mic 5:3b is a prophecy about the conversion of the Gentiles, then this is consistent with the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Rom 11 that the salvation of all Israel would not take place until the full number of the Gentiles had “entered in” (Rom 11:25–26).
This salvation of Israel from slavery to her enemies is associated in Mic 5:4 with this ruler of Israel standing to “shepherd his flock in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his God.” The language of standing can have overtones of resurrection in the Old Testament (e.g., Dan 12:13), and the image of shepherding a flock is an image in the Old Testament language of exercising (ideally benevolent) rule over a people (see Ezek 34:1–10, 23–24; 37:24). After his standing up, this ruler of Israel would rule God’s people with the strength of God himself to the glory of God, the great I Am. This would result in the flock of God’s people dwelling securely, because “he [would] become great to the ends of the earth” (Mic 5:4b).
The idea of his greatness extending out to the ends of the earth is a picture of the Messiah’s rule being extended out from Israel to all the nations of the earth. Christians believe that this is what is happening as the gospel is preached throughout the world. As the message of the lordship of Jesus Christ is proclaimed to the nations, many people from all of the nations on earth are believing the message, and coming into submission to Jesus as Lord. In this way the rule of Christ is being extended throughout the world, even to the ends of the earth.
According to Mic 5:5a, “this is peace.” According to the Old Testament, the peace that this world needs is the peace that only Christ can bring. This is why Mic 5:5a identifies peace with “this” ruler. The masculine singular Hebrew pronoun זה this in Mic 5:5a [MT 5:4a] most likely refers back to the masculine singular subject in the final clause of the preceding verse, which refers back ultimately to one who will be ruler over Israel in Mic 5:2 [MT 5:1]. Hence, the translation: he is peace or he will be peace. This is consistent with the message proclaimed by the angels at the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem: “Glory to God in the highest! And on earth peace to those upon whom his favor rests” (Luke 2:14). The angels understood that this baby lying in a manger was the agent of true peace for God’s world.
Overall, Mic 5:1–5a prophesies that Israel would be under God’s judgment until this ancient ruler born in Bethlehem stood up to rule and bring security for the people of God, as his rule extended to the ends of the earth.
This is a very detailed prophecy that was given over 700 years before the birth of Jesus. If we compare this prophecy with what is known about Jesus in the New Testament, then it is hard to imagine who else could the fulfillment of this prophecy apart from Jesus of Nazareth, the eternal Word of God, born to the virgin Mary in Bethlehem. An objective examination and comparison of the content of this prophecy with what is known about Jesus is rather convincing provided that the New Testament record about Jesus is accepted as being more or less historically accurate.
The Christian perspective holds that Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Micah prophesied of a ruler born of a woman in Bethlehem, yet whose origins go back into eternity, who would extend his rule throughout the world, to bring all of God’s people back to live securely in the presence of God, to experience peace. This is the truth about Jesus that Christians celebrate at Christmas.
Micah 5:1–5a is a particularly good example. Micah is one of the eighth century prophets. He lived in Moresheth-Gath, a town in the south of Judah, about 35 km south-west of Jerusalem. The second half of the eighth century B.C. was a time when the Assyrian empire was exerting increasing pressure in the region. Israel was forced to pay tribute to the king of Assyria, and over time lost territory to the Assyrians until finally, in the year 722 B.C., the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered, and its citizens deported.
Conducting his ministry in this context, Micah was prophesying at significant time in the history of the people of Israel. His basic message was that the military defeat of Israel was coming as a result of Israel’s rebellion against God. As part of the covenant that God had entered into with Israel at Mount Sinai, God had promised to bless Israel on condition of obedience; but if they didn’t obey, instead of receiving blessing, Israel would experiences the curses of the covenant, bad things like disease, drought, defeat, death, and expulsion from the Holy Land.
Some 700 years after the exodus, God had finally had enough. After 700 years of rebellion and repeated unfaithfulness on the part of Israel, God’s judgment was going to come down against Israel in a serious way. The northern kingdom of Israel would be defeated and deported by the Assyrians, and over a century later the southern kingdom of Judah would be destroyed by the Babylonians.
Micah 5:1 speaks of this judgment. Micah 5:1 goes with the preceding five verses (i.e., Mic 4:9–13). In these verses Micah predicts that Jerusalem, also called the daughter of Zion, will be attacked; Jerusalem’s king will perish; the city will writhe in agony; and her inhabitants will be forced off into exile in Babylon. This is why in Mic 5:1 Micah calls upon Jerusalem to marshal her troops, to get ready for war. Jerusalem would be besieged, and the people would defend the city, but their effort would end in failure.
This defeat is pictured in Mic 5:1 with the ruler of Israel being struck on the cheek with a rod. Israel’s ruler being struck on the cheek with a rod is a picture of the king of Jerusalem being captured and mistreated by his captors. As a result of the sin of God’s people, the king of Israel would suffer. This verse is not primarily a prophecy about Jesus; but it is significant that, when Jesus was arrested, the Roman soldiers mocked Jesus by making him wear a royal robe and a crown of thorns (Matt 27:28–29). They made him hold a rod as his royal scepter; then they knelt down and mockingly hailed him as the king of the Jews before snatching away the rod, and spitting on him, and striking him on the head with the rod many times (Matt 27:29–30). The treatment of the king of the Jews at the hands of the Babylonians would foreshadow the treatment of Jesus at the hands of the Romans some 600 years later.
God’s judgment was coming down upon Israel because of her covenant rebellion. The curses of the covenant (including military defeat and exile) were going to be realized against her. But in the midst of judgment, Micah also proclaimed salvation. In fact the book of Micah itself alternates between sections of judgment and salvation. The book contains three cycles with every cycle beginning with oracles of judgment, followed by an oracle or oracles of salvation:
cycle 1: judgment (1:2–2:11); salvation (2:12–13)
cycle 2: judgment (3:1–12); salvation (4:1–5:15)
cycle 3: judgment (6:1–16); salvation (7:1–20)
Micah 5:2–5a provides a few clues as to what the future restoration of God’s people would look like. It begins with Bethlehem, a small agricultural town, 9 km south of Jerusalem. Micah moves from his concern with Jerusalem to turn to address Bethlehem: “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, small among the clans of Judah” (Mic 5:2a).
But why this sudden focus on Bethlehem? Micah 5:2b tells us the reason: “from you [i.e., Bethlehem] will come forth for me one who will be a ruler in Israel.” At the time of the restoration of God’s people, there would be a ruler who would come from Bethlehem, the home town of King David. Micah seems to be prophesying about a second King David who would arise in the future to rule God’s people. This interpretation is confirmed by the common Jewish interpretation of this verse, an example of which is found in Matt 2:6. When Herod wanted to know where the Messiah was supposed to be born, the Jewish chief priests and scribes quoted Mic 5:2 as biblical proof that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
So there was going to be a future ruler of Israel who would be born in Bethlehem, yet (quite amazingly) Micah prophesies that “his origins are from of old, from ancient times” (Mic 5:2c). How can this be? Who can be yet to come in the future, but at the same time someone who has been around for ages, since ancient times? Micah is talking about a second King David who would be at the very least thousands of years old by the time he became the ruler of Israel. How is this possible?
Christians point to Jesus as the only possible fulfillment of this prophecy. The historical record is clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. And after growing up, Jesus went around all of Israel, claiming to be the new Davidic king of Israel, who had existed even before Abraham: “before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). The early Christians believed that Jesus was the divine Word of God who had existed back in the beginning, back when the world was created, who took on human flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:1, 14). Micah 5:2c implies that the future ruler of Israel would be human (born in Bethlehem) yet divine (being of ancient origin).
Micah 5:3 confirms the idea that sees Jesus as being the fulfillment of Mic 5:2. Micah 5:3a states that (because this king was coming) God would give Israel over to their enemies “until she who is giving birth has given birth.” Israel would be under the power of her enemies until a birth had taken place. Linking Mic 5:2–3 together the implication is that Israel would be under the thumb of her enemies until this future ruler of Israel was born into the world by his mother in Bethlehem.
Once again Jesus makes sense of this prophecy. The Christian gospel proclaims that Jesus came to set God’s people free. Jesus’ birth into the world via Mary in Bethlehem marked the beginning of the end of Israel’s slavery. And Mic 5:3b seems to indicate the time when Israel would be fully free, when “the rest of his brothers return to be beside the sons of Israel.” The language here is intriguing. Who are these brothers of Israel who would join Israel? This could refer to the return of the Israelite exiles, but it could also be a prophecy about the conversion of the Gentiles. A similar ambiguity in the word brothers exists in Isa 66:20, a verse to which Paul seems to allude in Rom 15:16 when writing about his ministry to the Gentiles. If Mic 5:3b is a prophecy about the conversion of the Gentiles, then this is consistent with the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Rom 11 that the salvation of all Israel would not take place until the full number of the Gentiles had “entered in” (Rom 11:25–26).
This salvation of Israel from slavery to her enemies is associated in Mic 5:4 with this ruler of Israel standing to “shepherd his flock in the strength of Yahweh, in the majesty of the name of Yahweh his God.” The language of standing can have overtones of resurrection in the Old Testament (e.g., Dan 12:13), and the image of shepherding a flock is an image in the Old Testament language of exercising (ideally benevolent) rule over a people (see Ezek 34:1–10, 23–24; 37:24). After his standing up, this ruler of Israel would rule God’s people with the strength of God himself to the glory of God, the great I Am. This would result in the flock of God’s people dwelling securely, because “he [would] become great to the ends of the earth” (Mic 5:4b).
The idea of his greatness extending out to the ends of the earth is a picture of the Messiah’s rule being extended out from Israel to all the nations of the earth. Christians believe that this is what is happening as the gospel is preached throughout the world. As the message of the lordship of Jesus Christ is proclaimed to the nations, many people from all of the nations on earth are believing the message, and coming into submission to Jesus as Lord. In this way the rule of Christ is being extended throughout the world, even to the ends of the earth.
According to Mic 5:5a, “this is peace.” According to the Old Testament, the peace that this world needs is the peace that only Christ can bring. This is why Mic 5:5a identifies peace with “this” ruler. The masculine singular Hebrew pronoun זה this in Mic 5:5a [MT 5:4a] most likely refers back to the masculine singular subject in the final clause of the preceding verse, which refers back ultimately to one who will be ruler over Israel in Mic 5:2 [MT 5:1]. Hence, the translation: he is peace or he will be peace. This is consistent with the message proclaimed by the angels at the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem: “Glory to God in the highest! And on earth peace to those upon whom his favor rests” (Luke 2:14). The angels understood that this baby lying in a manger was the agent of true peace for God’s world.
Overall, Mic 5:1–5a prophesies that Israel would be under God’s judgment until this ancient ruler born in Bethlehem stood up to rule and bring security for the people of God, as his rule extended to the ends of the earth.
This is a very detailed prophecy that was given over 700 years before the birth of Jesus. If we compare this prophecy with what is known about Jesus in the New Testament, then it is hard to imagine who else could the fulfillment of this prophecy apart from Jesus of Nazareth, the eternal Word of God, born to the virgin Mary in Bethlehem. An objective examination and comparison of the content of this prophecy with what is known about Jesus is rather convincing provided that the New Testament record about Jesus is accepted as being more or less historically accurate.
The Christian perspective holds that Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy. Micah prophesied of a ruler born of a woman in Bethlehem, yet whose origins go back into eternity, who would extend his rule throughout the world, to bring all of God’s people back to live securely in the presence of God, to experience peace. This is the truth about Jesus that Christians celebrate at Christmas.
17 December 2011
The Meaning of Soothsayers and Observers of Times in the King James Bible
I have been asked a question about the meaning of the expression soothsayers and observers of times in the KJV.
The word sooth is an Old English word that means truth. In terms of English usage, a soothsayer is therefore a truth teller, i.e., someone who tells the truth about the future. The word soothsayer or soothsayers occurs seven times in the KJV.
There are four references to soothsayers in the Aramaic part of Daniel (Dan 2:27; 4:7; 5:7, 11). The relevant Aramaic word is a Peal participle of the root גזר. This root conveys the idea of cutting, dividing, hence determining. The soothsayers in Daniel were viewed, reflecting the Babylonian perspective, as being determiners or analysts of the future.
The remaining three references to soothsayers in the KJV involve the Poel (and possibly Qal) participle of ענן (Isa 2:6; Mic 5:12 [MT 5:11]) and the Qal participle of קסם (Josh 13:22). The underlying meaning of the root ענן is uncertain. Some have suggested that it originally indicated humming or something to do with appearing. The root קסם appears to convey the idea of dividing or assigning, from which has been derived, in cultic contexts, the meaning of divination, i.e., foretelling the future or what is unknown by means of signs or omens given by the gods.
The expression observer of times occurs in the KJV in Deut 18:10, and the plural equivalent in Deut 18:14. In both instances the Hebrew word is based on the Poel participle of the root ענן. The translation observer of times suggests that the translators took the root ענן here as conveying the idea of someone who sees the future. The LXX translation (based on κληδονίζω) simply indicates someone that tells omens.
The word sooth is an Old English word that means truth. In terms of English usage, a soothsayer is therefore a truth teller, i.e., someone who tells the truth about the future. The word soothsayer or soothsayers occurs seven times in the KJV.
There are four references to soothsayers in the Aramaic part of Daniel (Dan 2:27; 4:7; 5:7, 11). The relevant Aramaic word is a Peal participle of the root גזר. This root conveys the idea of cutting, dividing, hence determining. The soothsayers in Daniel were viewed, reflecting the Babylonian perspective, as being determiners or analysts of the future.
The remaining three references to soothsayers in the KJV involve the Poel (and possibly Qal) participle of ענן (Isa 2:6; Mic 5:12 [MT 5:11]) and the Qal participle of קסם (Josh 13:22). The underlying meaning of the root ענן is uncertain. Some have suggested that it originally indicated humming or something to do with appearing. The root קסם appears to convey the idea of dividing or assigning, from which has been derived, in cultic contexts, the meaning of divination, i.e., foretelling the future or what is unknown by means of signs or omens given by the gods.
The expression observer of times occurs in the KJV in Deut 18:10, and the plural equivalent in Deut 18:14. In both instances the Hebrew word is based on the Poel participle of the root ענן. The translation observer of times suggests that the translators took the root ענן here as conveying the idea of someone who sees the future. The LXX translation (based on κληδονίζω) simply indicates someone that tells omens.
12 December 2011
The Identity of the Weak and the Strong in Romans 14–15
In Rom 14:1–15:13 Paul distinguishes between the weak and the strong within the Christian community in Rome (Rom 14:1–2; 15:1). The identity of these two groups of people has long been debated.
Paul gives some clues in Rom 14:2 of the identity of these groups: “One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats [only] vegetables.” In Rom 14:5 the strong believe that all days are the same, whereas the weak believe that some days are more important than others. In 14:14 it is apparent that the issue distinguishing the strong and the weak from each other has to do with food and drink that is common and uncommon, or profane versus holy.
The practice of abstaining from certain foods, and keeping various days, in the context of a concern with things that are profane or holy fits in with what we know concerning Jewish religious practice defined by the law of Moses (see Acts 10:9–15). Therefore, the obvious conclusion concerning the issue that is in view in Rom 14:1–15:13 would be to link to the issue of the place of the Jewish food laws, and the Jewish practice of observing certain days as holy, within the Christian community in Rome.
But is this conclusion justified? When the wider context of Paul’s argument in Romans is taken into consideration, I believe that the evidence definitely supports the conclusion that the issue of the weak and the strong in Rom 14:1–15:13 revolves around the problem of Jewish and Gentile relations within the Christian community in Rome.
Historically at the time of the writing of the epistle to the Romans, Jewish exiles returning to Rome were bringing back into the Roman churches their traditional Jewish views of the necessity of keeping the law of Moses. The impact of this was to create division between Jews and non-Jews. The law of Moses was a body of laws and stipulations that were part of the covenant that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai after Israel had been rescued out of Egypt. This covenant was a covenant made exclusively with Israel (see “The Monoethnic Nature of the Mosaic Covenant”). As part of this covenant there were many laws that functioned to keep Israel separate from the other nations.
Certain foods (such as pork) were unclean to the Jews. But the Gentiles had no such restrictions. From the orthodox Jewish point of view, the law of Moses implied that the Gentiles were unclean; and this is why the Jews of Paul’s day traditionally could not eat or socialize together with Gentiles (see Acts 11:2–3). To do so would taint them with Gentile uncleanness. This was problematic for the early church. When a Jew and a Gentile believed Jesus, and came together as believers in church, what kind of fellowship could they have together if they could not eat or socialize with each other?
In order to deal with this problem some Jewish Christians were saying, “Look, force the Gentiles to become Jews. Circumcise them (if male), and make them keep the laws of Moses, to keep the Sabbath and to keep the food laws, etc. If they do that, there can be unity between us” (see Acts 15:1, 5). These Jewish Christians were called Judaizers because they wanted to make Gentiles Jewish.
The problem, however, with this “solution” is that it made salvation, righteousness, and church membership possible only for Jews! According to this view, Gentiles could not be members of God’s people, and share in the benefits of salvation, unless they gave up their Gentile citizenship, and became Jews. But Paul and the orthodox Christians in the early church refused to accept this Judaizing solution as biblical. Paul understood that the new covenant would bring salvation to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, but how could the new covenant bring salvation to the Gentiles if the Gentiles were forced to become Jews?
To argue his case for the inclusion of Gentiles within the people of God on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ, and no longer on the basis of keeping the law of Moses, Paul wrote this letter to the Romans. After explaining God’s plan of salvation in Rom 1–11, Paul turns in Rom 14:1–15:13 to give advice about how Jews and Gentiles could live together in harmony. This is particularly evident from the way that Paul concludes his appeal in this section of his letter. His concern with the weak and the strong living together in harmony is due to the fact that he desires that “with one heart and one mouth you might glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6). Following straight on from this, Paul appeals to his readers: “Therefore, receive one another, just as Christ has received you to the glory of God” (Rom 15:7), which Paul then explicates in Rom 15:8–9 in terms of what Christ has done for “the circumcision” (i.e., Israelites) and for “the Gentiles.” Mention of “the circumcision” and “the Gentiles” here at the end of his integrated argument in Rom 14:1–15:13 shows that the issue between the weak and the strong was basically an issue involving the relationship of Jews and Gentiles within the Christian community. Paul’s quotations in Rom 15:9–12 from Ps 18:49; Deut 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10, proving that the Gentiles would join together with Israel in singing praises to God in the new covenant age, also supports the idea that in Rom 14:1–15:13 Paul is primarily concerned with how Jews and Gentiles can live together harmoniously within the church.
The strong, therefore, were those who (like Paul) believed that in Christ Jesus “nothing is profane in itself” (Rom 14:14). That is to say, these people understood that, as a result of the coming of Jesus, the stipulations in the law of Moses that distinguished profane from holy, clean from unclean, no longer applied in the way that they once did. Those laws were simply illustrations until the time of the coming of the Messiah of the difference between holy and unholy, clean and unclean. They were illustrations that spoke of the need for God’s people to be free from the taint of sin, free from the taint of the “strange” customs of the people of the nations who did not know God. The strong, therefore, were those Christians who understood that the law of Moses no longer regulates the life of God’s people in the way that it during the old covenant age. The weak, on the other hand, were those Jewish Christians and Judaizing Gentiles who still kept the Mosaic food laws and the Mosaic religious calendar with its Sabbaths and regular feast days.
Paul gives some clues in Rom 14:2 of the identity of these groups: “One person believes in eating everything, but the weak person eats [only] vegetables.” In Rom 14:5 the strong believe that all days are the same, whereas the weak believe that some days are more important than others. In 14:14 it is apparent that the issue distinguishing the strong and the weak from each other has to do with food and drink that is common and uncommon, or profane versus holy.
The practice of abstaining from certain foods, and keeping various days, in the context of a concern with things that are profane or holy fits in with what we know concerning Jewish religious practice defined by the law of Moses (see Acts 10:9–15). Therefore, the obvious conclusion concerning the issue that is in view in Rom 14:1–15:13 would be to link to the issue of the place of the Jewish food laws, and the Jewish practice of observing certain days as holy, within the Christian community in Rome.
But is this conclusion justified? When the wider context of Paul’s argument in Romans is taken into consideration, I believe that the evidence definitely supports the conclusion that the issue of the weak and the strong in Rom 14:1–15:13 revolves around the problem of Jewish and Gentile relations within the Christian community in Rome.
Historically at the time of the writing of the epistle to the Romans, Jewish exiles returning to Rome were bringing back into the Roman churches their traditional Jewish views of the necessity of keeping the law of Moses. The impact of this was to create division between Jews and non-Jews. The law of Moses was a body of laws and stipulations that were part of the covenant that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai after Israel had been rescued out of Egypt. This covenant was a covenant made exclusively with Israel (see “The Monoethnic Nature of the Mosaic Covenant”). As part of this covenant there were many laws that functioned to keep Israel separate from the other nations.
Certain foods (such as pork) were unclean to the Jews. But the Gentiles had no such restrictions. From the orthodox Jewish point of view, the law of Moses implied that the Gentiles were unclean; and this is why the Jews of Paul’s day traditionally could not eat or socialize together with Gentiles (see Acts 11:2–3). To do so would taint them with Gentile uncleanness. This was problematic for the early church. When a Jew and a Gentile believed Jesus, and came together as believers in church, what kind of fellowship could they have together if they could not eat or socialize with each other?
In order to deal with this problem some Jewish Christians were saying, “Look, force the Gentiles to become Jews. Circumcise them (if male), and make them keep the laws of Moses, to keep the Sabbath and to keep the food laws, etc. If they do that, there can be unity between us” (see Acts 15:1, 5). These Jewish Christians were called Judaizers because they wanted to make Gentiles Jewish.
The problem, however, with this “solution” is that it made salvation, righteousness, and church membership possible only for Jews! According to this view, Gentiles could not be members of God’s people, and share in the benefits of salvation, unless they gave up their Gentile citizenship, and became Jews. But Paul and the orthodox Christians in the early church refused to accept this Judaizing solution as biblical. Paul understood that the new covenant would bring salvation to the Gentiles as well as the Jews, but how could the new covenant bring salvation to the Gentiles if the Gentiles were forced to become Jews?
To argue his case for the inclusion of Gentiles within the people of God on the basis of faith in Jesus Christ, and no longer on the basis of keeping the law of Moses, Paul wrote this letter to the Romans. After explaining God’s plan of salvation in Rom 1–11, Paul turns in Rom 14:1–15:13 to give advice about how Jews and Gentiles could live together in harmony. This is particularly evident from the way that Paul concludes his appeal in this section of his letter. His concern with the weak and the strong living together in harmony is due to the fact that he desires that “with one heart and one mouth you might glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6). Following straight on from this, Paul appeals to his readers: “Therefore, receive one another, just as Christ has received you to the glory of God” (Rom 15:7), which Paul then explicates in Rom 15:8–9 in terms of what Christ has done for “the circumcision” (i.e., Israelites) and for “the Gentiles.” Mention of “the circumcision” and “the Gentiles” here at the end of his integrated argument in Rom 14:1–15:13 shows that the issue between the weak and the strong was basically an issue involving the relationship of Jews and Gentiles within the Christian community. Paul’s quotations in Rom 15:9–12 from Ps 18:49; Deut 32:43; Ps 117:1; Isa 11:10, proving that the Gentiles would join together with Israel in singing praises to God in the new covenant age, also supports the idea that in Rom 14:1–15:13 Paul is primarily concerned with how Jews and Gentiles can live together harmoniously within the church.
The strong, therefore, were those who (like Paul) believed that in Christ Jesus “nothing is profane in itself” (Rom 14:14). That is to say, these people understood that, as a result of the coming of Jesus, the stipulations in the law of Moses that distinguished profane from holy, clean from unclean, no longer applied in the way that they once did. Those laws were simply illustrations until the time of the coming of the Messiah of the difference between holy and unholy, clean and unclean. They were illustrations that spoke of the need for God’s people to be free from the taint of sin, free from the taint of the “strange” customs of the people of the nations who did not know God. The strong, therefore, were those Christians who understood that the law of Moses no longer regulates the life of God’s people in the way that it during the old covenant age. The weak, on the other hand, were those Jewish Christians and Judaizing Gentiles who still kept the Mosaic food laws and the Mosaic religious calendar with its Sabbaths and regular feast days.
05 December 2011
The Participation of Gentiles in the New Covenant
I have been asked a question about how Gentiles can be viewed as participating in the new covenant given that Jer 31:31–33, the key new covenant prophecy in the Old Testament, only mentions God making this new covenant with Israel.
It is true that the members of the new covenant in Jer 31:31–33 are God and Israel, and that the Gentiles are not mentioned in these verses. But Jer 31:31–33 is not the only place in the Hebrew Bible that talks about the new covenant. Basically any prophecy in the Old Testament that talks about events belonging to the time of the eschatological restoration of God’s people is a prophecy of the new covenant.
Jeremiah 31:31–33 needs to be read in the light of the total picture of all of the other Old Testament prophecies that speak about the new covenant; and when we do that, we can see fairly clearly that the Hebrew prophets taught that Gentiles would participate on ultimately an equal footing with Israelites in what God was going to do as part of the future restoration of God’s people.
Some examples (by no means exhaustive):
In Deut 32:21 Moses prophecies that following the covenantal rebellion of Israel, God will make unfaithful Israel jealous “with those who are no people,” that Israel would be provoked to anger by “a foolish nation.” In other words, the calling of the Gentiles to be God’s people would play a part in making disobedient Israel realize what she had forfeited. The Apostle Paul notes this verse in Rom 11:11, arguing that the conversion of the Gentiles will lead in turn to the conversion of Israel.
In Isa 2:1–4 “all the nations” and “many peoples” will come to the exalted Zion to learn and do torah. The idea of Gentiles doing torah implies a change in torah such that it is doable by Gentiles as Gentiles, and not as proselytes to Judaism.
In Isa 11 “the root of Jesse” will be “a signal for the peoples” which will result in the ingathering of “the banished of Israel” and “the dispersed of Judah.”
In Isa 49:5–7 the Messiah will not only restore Israel but bring salvation to the Gentiles, resulting in the submission of Gentile rulers to the Messiah.
In Isa 49:22 Gentiles will bring Israel back to Yahweh. Thus, Gentiles would participate in the eschatological restoration of Israel.
In Isa 51:4–5 it is prophesied that God’s torah and righteousness will go out the the Gentiles.
In Isa 55:1–5 the Messiah calls upon “everyone who thirsts”—note the similarity with Jesus’ language in John 7:37—to come, in order to enter into an everlasting covenant that will function as a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. As part of this, the Messiah will be “a witness to the peoples” and “a leader and commander for the peoples,” which involves “a nation that you did not know … run[ning] to you.”
Following on from the new covenant of the Messiah spoken of in Isa 55, Isa 56:3, 6 clearly speaks of foreigners who will “join” themselves to Yahweh. They are assured that they will not be separated from “his people,” and they are described as holding fast to God’s covenant. As Gentiles join Israel, the temple will become “a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isa 56:7). For the temple to be a house of prayer for all peoples, this implies that Gentiles would not lose their status as Gentiles as they became members of Israel.
In Isa 66:18–23 “all nations and tongues” will be gathered to see the glory of Yahweh, and from the Messianic sign people will go out declaring the glory of Yahweh such that “all your brothers from all the nations” will be brought as an offering to Yahweh in Jerusalem. The expression all your brothers from all the nations seems to include Gentiles and not just Israelites within its purview. The preaching of the glory of God in the gospel of the Messiah will bring exiled Israel and the nations back to the Lord. At this time of the new heavens and the new earth, “all flesh” will come to worship Yahweh.
In Zech 8 it is prophesied that at the time of the eschatological restoration of Israel “many peoples and strong nations will come to seek Yahweh of hosts in Jerusalem, and to entreat the favor of Yahweh … In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’” (vv. 23–24). It is evident from this that Gentiles would join together with Jews in going up to worship God in Jerusalem as part of the new covenant restoration.
Therefore, when Jer 31:31–33 is read in the light of prophecies such as those listed above, it is clear that the Hebrew prophets understood that Gentiles would participate together with Israelites in the blessings of the new covenant.
It is true that the members of the new covenant in Jer 31:31–33 are God and Israel, and that the Gentiles are not mentioned in these verses. But Jer 31:31–33 is not the only place in the Hebrew Bible that talks about the new covenant. Basically any prophecy in the Old Testament that talks about events belonging to the time of the eschatological restoration of God’s people is a prophecy of the new covenant.
Jeremiah 31:31–33 needs to be read in the light of the total picture of all of the other Old Testament prophecies that speak about the new covenant; and when we do that, we can see fairly clearly that the Hebrew prophets taught that Gentiles would participate on ultimately an equal footing with Israelites in what God was going to do as part of the future restoration of God’s people.
Some examples (by no means exhaustive):
In Deut 32:21 Moses prophecies that following the covenantal rebellion of Israel, God will make unfaithful Israel jealous “with those who are no people,” that Israel would be provoked to anger by “a foolish nation.” In other words, the calling of the Gentiles to be God’s people would play a part in making disobedient Israel realize what she had forfeited. The Apostle Paul notes this verse in Rom 11:11, arguing that the conversion of the Gentiles will lead in turn to the conversion of Israel.
In Isa 2:1–4 “all the nations” and “many peoples” will come to the exalted Zion to learn and do torah. The idea of Gentiles doing torah implies a change in torah such that it is doable by Gentiles as Gentiles, and not as proselytes to Judaism.
In Isa 11 “the root of Jesse” will be “a signal for the peoples” which will result in the ingathering of “the banished of Israel” and “the dispersed of Judah.”
In Isa 49:5–7 the Messiah will not only restore Israel but bring salvation to the Gentiles, resulting in the submission of Gentile rulers to the Messiah.
In Isa 49:22 Gentiles will bring Israel back to Yahweh. Thus, Gentiles would participate in the eschatological restoration of Israel.
In Isa 51:4–5 it is prophesied that God’s torah and righteousness will go out the the Gentiles.
In Isa 55:1–5 the Messiah calls upon “everyone who thirsts”—note the similarity with Jesus’ language in John 7:37—to come, in order to enter into an everlasting covenant that will function as a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. As part of this, the Messiah will be “a witness to the peoples” and “a leader and commander for the peoples,” which involves “a nation that you did not know … run[ning] to you.”
Following on from the new covenant of the Messiah spoken of in Isa 55, Isa 56:3, 6 clearly speaks of foreigners who will “join” themselves to Yahweh. They are assured that they will not be separated from “his people,” and they are described as holding fast to God’s covenant. As Gentiles join Israel, the temple will become “a house of prayer for all peoples” (Isa 56:7). For the temple to be a house of prayer for all peoples, this implies that Gentiles would not lose their status as Gentiles as they became members of Israel.
In Isa 66:18–23 “all nations and tongues” will be gathered to see the glory of Yahweh, and from the Messianic sign people will go out declaring the glory of Yahweh such that “all your brothers from all the nations” will be brought as an offering to Yahweh in Jerusalem. The expression all your brothers from all the nations seems to include Gentiles and not just Israelites within its purview. The preaching of the glory of God in the gospel of the Messiah will bring exiled Israel and the nations back to the Lord. At this time of the new heavens and the new earth, “all flesh” will come to worship Yahweh.
In Zech 8 it is prophesied that at the time of the eschatological restoration of Israel “many peoples and strong nations will come to seek Yahweh of hosts in Jerusalem, and to entreat the favor of Yahweh … In those days ten men from the nations of every tongue shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying, ‘Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you’” (vv. 23–24). It is evident from this that Gentiles would join together with Jews in going up to worship God in Jerusalem as part of the new covenant restoration.
Therefore, when Jer 31:31–33 is read in the light of prophecies such as those listed above, it is clear that the Hebrew prophets understood that Gentiles would participate together with Israelites in the blessings of the new covenant.
02 December 2011
The Problem of Bad Language among Young Christians
One of the problems that is currently impacting on younger Christians is the kind of language that these young believers use when talking with their friends. This is particularly evident in the kind of language that appears on social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter. Young believers can sometimes be found imitating the language of their peers, using language such as OMG, WTF, faarken, fkng, f***, and other unsavoury kinds of derivatives and abbreviations.
Language does change with time, and the prevalence and tolerance of swear words in popular culture is much greater than it used to be, but just because this is the kind of language used by their peers is not a good enough reason for Christians to speak the same way.
The Apostle Paul says the following in Eph 5:3–4:
Misusing God’s name (whether in abbreviated form or not), or using coarse words referring to the act of sex (whose historical origin lies in taking the act of sex, which in the context of love is a special gift from God, and turning it into a form of abuse), is simply inappropriate for those who are called to be “saints” (i.e., holy ones) in Christ.
According to the Apostle Paul, the process of sanctification involves us putting to death the earthly things (Col 3:5), and this includes getting rid of “blasphemy” and “foul language from your mouths” (Col 3:8).
Apart from the disrespect to God that is shown in mindlessly abusing his name, along with the disrespect that is shown to God as the one who has given us sex as a special gift whenever we use in an unnecessary way coarse words that refer to sex, there is the problem of the use of such language leading to an impaired witness for Christ. Whilesoever there are people in the community who regard this kind of language as crude or rude, the presence of such language of the lips of Christians brings disrepute to the name of Christ. It can also be a source of discouragement to other Christians, and a barrier to fellowship among Christians who find such language unacceptable.
Christ has saved us to be clean and pure, and he desires that our language be clean and pure as well.
Language does change with time, and the prevalence and tolerance of swear words in popular culture is much greater than it used to be, but just because this is the kind of language used by their peers is not a good enough reason for Christians to speak the same way.
The Apostle Paul says the following in Eph 5:3–4:
Do not let any kind of sexual immorality and impurity or greed even be spoken of among you, just as is proper for saints, or that which is shameful, or foolish talk, or coarse jokes, which are not fitting, but rather thanksgiving.By writing as he does in v. 3 that sexual immorality, impurity, and greed are not even to “be spoken of among you,” Paul is probably not just forbidding the practice of these particular sins. Instead of taking v. 3 as an oblique way of saying “these sins should not exist among you,” it seems that Paul is saying in v. 3 that it is not fitting for Christians to be talking about ungodly deeds as if they were an appropriate topic of conversation, let alone something that should ever happen within the Christian community. I would argue that Paul seems to have speech acts particularly in mind in vv. 3–4, because the verb ὀνομαζέσθω let it be named is implied in v. 4, where three out of the four nouns listed are clearly speech acts.
Misusing God’s name (whether in abbreviated form or not), or using coarse words referring to the act of sex (whose historical origin lies in taking the act of sex, which in the context of love is a special gift from God, and turning it into a form of abuse), is simply inappropriate for those who are called to be “saints” (i.e., holy ones) in Christ.
According to the Apostle Paul, the process of sanctification involves us putting to death the earthly things (Col 3:5), and this includes getting rid of “blasphemy” and “foul language from your mouths” (Col 3:8).
Apart from the disrespect to God that is shown in mindlessly abusing his name, along with the disrespect that is shown to God as the one who has given us sex as a special gift whenever we use in an unnecessary way coarse words that refer to sex, there is the problem of the use of such language leading to an impaired witness for Christ. Whilesoever there are people in the community who regard this kind of language as crude or rude, the presence of such language of the lips of Christians brings disrepute to the name of Christ. It can also be a source of discouragement to other Christians, and a barrier to fellowship among Christians who find such language unacceptable.
Christ has saved us to be clean and pure, and he desires that our language be clean and pure as well.
26 November 2011
The Monoethnic Nature of the Mosaic Covenant
One of the “problems” with the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai (i.e., the old covenant) is its monoethnicity. We need to be clear about this: the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants were made with one nation, the nation of Israel.
The monoethnic nature of the Sinaitic covenant can be seen in the following verses in particular:
Thus Paul contrasted the Abrahamic promise with the Mosaic covenant:
The monoethnic nature of the Sinaitic covenant can be seen in the following verses in particular:
“Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine, but you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6);
“You shall be holy to me; for I, Yahweh, am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, that you should be mine” (Lev 20:26).The Deuteronomic covenant, being an expanded renewal of the Sinaitic covenant, was also exclusively made with Israel:
“For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as Yahweh our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today?” (Deut 4:7–8);
“For you are a people holy to Yahweh your God. Yahweh your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut 7:6);
“you are a people holy to Yahweh your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, Yahweh has chosen you to be his treasured possession” (Deut 14:2);
These are the terms of the covenant Yahweh commanded Moses to make with the Israelites in Moab, in addition to the covenant he had made with them at Horeb. Moses summoned all the Israelites and said to them: “... You shall keep the terms of this covenant, and do them, so that you may prosper in everything you do. All of you are standing today before Yahweh your God—your leaders and chief men, your elders and officials, and all the other men of Israel, together with your children and your wives, and the foreigners living in your camps who chop your wood and carry your water—in order to enter into the covenant of Yahweh your God and his oath, to confirm you this day as his people, that he may be your God as he promised you and as he swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and it is not with you alone that I am making this covenant and this oath, but with those who are standing here with us today before Yahweh our God, and also with those who are not here with you today” (Deut 29:1–2, 9–15).Understanding the ethnic particularity of the Mosaic covenant helps us to understand the need in God’s plan of salvation for a new covenant. The Mosaic covenant is “problematic” from the perspective that God’s plan involved bringing blessing to the nations as part of a covenant relationship (Gen 12:3). This is something that the Apostle Paul came to realize. Comparing the monoethnic nature of the Mosaic covenant to the Abrahamic promise in Gen 12:3 led Paul to understand that there had to be, in the purposes of God, a new covenant which would open up the door of righteousness and salvation to the Gentiles, and which would fulfill, subsume, and thereby supercede, the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants that God had made previously with Israel.
Thus Paul contrasted the Abrahamic promise with the Mosaic covenant:
The law [of Moses], introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise (Gal 3:17–18).Paul also understood that it was through Jesus Christ, as proclaimed in the Christian gospel, that the Abrahamic promise of blessing to the nations had been realized:
Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you” (Gal 3:8);
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:26–29).Or as Paul has written in Eph 2:11–16, 19, concerning how the dividing wall of the law of Moses was “destroyed” through the death of Christ on the cross, thereby allowing Gentiles to be members of God’s covenant people:
Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision”—which is done in the body by human hands—that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law [of Moses] with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility … Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household.Being limited to one nation, the Mosaic covenant cannot by definition bring salvation to the nations. Only one covenant can: the multiethnic, new covenant in Christ Jesus.
21 November 2011
The Central Concern of the Old Testament
The central concern of the Old Testament (or the Hebrew Bible) is God’s relationship with Israel. The fact that the most frequent nouns in the Hebrew Bible are יהוה Yahweh (6,828 times), אלהים God (2,601 times), and ישראל Israel (2,514 times), attests to this.
The Pentateuch is primarily concerned with the historical background to, and the establishment of, the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants, which functioned to define and regulate Yahweh’s exclusive relationship with Israel.
Following on the from the Law, the Prophets (i.e., the Former and Latter Prophets) are primarily concerned to trace the historical failure of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, and God’s response to this relational breakdown.
All in all, the Old Testament is a case study in the failure of a nation to keep covenant with God. It is a case study in what happens to human beings and human society when God’s word is ignored, a record of one nation’s reversion to darkness, chaos, and death.
The Pentateuch is primarily concerned with the historical background to, and the establishment of, the Sinaitic and Deuteronomic covenants, which functioned to define and regulate Yahweh’s exclusive relationship with Israel.
Following on the from the Law, the Prophets (i.e., the Former and Latter Prophets) are primarily concerned to trace the historical failure of the covenant relationship between God and Israel, and God’s response to this relational breakdown.
All in all, the Old Testament is a case study in the failure of a nation to keep covenant with God. It is a case study in what happens to human beings and human society when God’s word is ignored, a record of one nation’s reversion to darkness, chaos, and death.
14 November 2011
The Rise of the Monarchy in Israel Viewed in the Light of the Concept of Kingship in the Old Testament
The rise of the monarchy in Israel needs to be viewed in the light of the broader concept of kingship presented in the Old Testament. The primary theological point relating to the issue of monarchy in Israel is the consistent teaching of the Pentateuch and the books of Joshua and Judges that kingship is first and foremost an attribute of God. God is presented in the Pentateuch as being the King of creation. God appears in Gen 1 as the King whose word of command established the boundaries and content of created reality (compare Ps 148:5–6). Even though God’s kingship is not frequently mentioned in an explicit way in the Pentateuch or in Joshua and Judges, God’s rule over creation is the presupposition upon which the content of these books rests. What is presupposed and implicit for the most part in the Pentateuch, Joshua, and Judges becomes more explicit in the biblical books from 1 Samuel onwards. The royal psalms in particular link God’s work of creation and his subsequent work of providence for creation with his “honor and majesty” and “glory” (e.g., Ps 19:1; 95:3–5; 104:1–32). Such psalms make explicit the theology of kingship that is implicit in the Pentateuch and the books of Joshua and Judges. The Old Testament teaches that one of the reasons that God created the world was so that his universal kingship might be acknowledged by all his creatures (Ps 96:1–10; 99:1–3; 145:10–13; 148:1–13; 150:1–6).
Even though kingship is supremely an attribute of God, Gen 1–3 indicates that God created human beings in his royal image. The significance of being created in God’s image is linked in Gen 1:26–28 with humanity having “dominion … over all the earth” and over all the creatures of the earth. By giving humanity dominion, God established humanity as having authority as kings over creation. Humanity was given the task of filling and subduing the earth. In other words, God engaged humanity in the work of helping to bring about the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. Once the whole of the earth had been brought inside the boundaries of the garden of Eden, then humanity’s work would be finished, and the kingdom of God complete. To be successful in this task, however, it was necessary for human beings not only to work after the pattern of God himself (hence, the significance of the Sabbath commandment in Exod 20:8–11) but also to submit to God by keeping his commandments. The Pentateuch makes it very clear in a number of ways that humanity’s royal authority was to be exercised under the higher authority of God himself. The fact that Adam was placed under divine command shows that Adam and his descendants were to submit themselves in obedience to God (Gen 2:16–17). The subsequent episodes of God’s judgment of Adam and Eve, the judgment of Cain, the destruction of the flood at the time of Noah, and the judgment of the builders of the tower of Babel all serve to show God’s authority over humanity and/or the whole of creation.
Even though God is the King of the entire world, it is also important from the perspective of the Old Testament to recognize that God chose to realize his kingship over the world through the nation of Israel. Thus, God is seen in the Old Testament to be the King of Israel in particular. The covenant of circumcision established the idea that God would be the God of Abraham’s descendants (Gen 17:7). Abraham’s descendants for their part had the responsibility to “keep [God’s] covenant” (Gen 17:9; 18:19). God promised Abraham that there would be “kings” among his descendants (Gen 17:6). Jacob prophesied that royal authority would be exercised by Judah on a worldwide scale (Gen 49:10). God considered Israel to be “[his] people” (e.g., Exod 3:7; 5:1; 15:16). God’s redemption of Israel out of Egypt further established God’s claim of possession over Israel (Exod 15:13, 16; 20:2). This was also symbolized through the rite of the consecration of the firstborn (Exod 13:1–2, 11–16). After the exodus, the relationship between God and Israel was formalized in a covenant ceremony at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:1–24:11). This was an exclusive relationship which demanded Israel’s faithfulness or loyalty to God. Even though “all the earth is [God’s],” the other nations were excluded from this special relationship with God (Exod 19:5–6). Israel willingly submitted to the covenant that that God offered to them at this time (Exod 19:8; 24:3,7). This covenant, also known as the old covenant (as per 2 Cor 3:14), formally established God’s kingly rule over Israel. The condition for Israel to benefit from this special relationship was covenant obedience, i.e., a commitment to serving God through keeping the law of Moses (e.g., Deut 6:1–3).
It is significant that one of the benefits of Israel keeping covenant with God was that Israel would be constituted as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Given that the word kingdom in the phrase a kingdom of priests parallels the word nation in the phrase holy nation, the expression a kingdom of priests and a holy nation speaks of Israel as a nation consecrated to the service of God. In other words, Israel would only be a kingdom before God to the extent that the nation submitted itself to the rule of God. What submitting to the rule of God involved for Israel was subsequently spelled out in great detail in the Mosaic law. Even though the context suggests that the kingdom in view in Exod 19:6 is Israel as a divine monarchy rather than Israel as a human monarchy, the books of Samuel and Kings in particular show that the divine and human aspects of the monarchy in Israel were intertwined in God’s plan, with the success of the institution of human monarchy within Israel dependent upon how well the institution of divine monarchy was respected. Israel submitting to the rule of God would mean the restoration of the kingdom ideal that existed in the garden of Eden but which was lost after Adam’s rebellion.
God’s intention for Israel, therefore, involved the development of human rule under the ultimate rule of God. This human rule would also be focused in a particular human being who would also be called the king of Israel. That God’s theocratic rule over Israel would incorporate a human king is indicated in Deut 17:14–20. This passage sets out the divine laws regulating human kingship within Israel. Even though Deut 17:14 is effectively a prophecy that Israel’s motivation for asking for a human king would not be proper (in that it would be motivated out of a desire to imitate the kind of government found in the surrounding nations), the fact that the law of Moses made provision for a human king indicates that human kingship was an integral part of God’s plan for Israel from the beginning. Israel would have a human king, but the one appointed as king had to be the one “whom Yahweh [their] God [would] choose” (Deut 17:15). The king was to be an Israelite, and should not acquire many horses, or wives, or excessive silver and gold (Deut 17:15–17). He was obligated to have his own copy of the Mosaic law to study in order to “keep … all the words of [God’s] law” (Deut 17:18–19). Thus, Mosaic law clearly placed the human king of Israel under the authority of God and his law. Indeed the length of the king’s dynasty is connected in Deut 17:20 with how well the king would follow “the commandment,” i.e., the law viewed as a whole. The idea of human kingship in Israel was, therefore, built into the Mosaic law. The law made provision for a human king but proscribed the authority of this king. The human king was to be subject to the authority of God, the King of kings.
Given what has been observed above, we have to conclude that there was nothing wrong with the concept of human kingship per se operating in Israel. In fact, the evidence strongly favors the conclusion that human kingship was one of the purposes that God had had in mind for humanity and Israel from the very beginning. God has given humanity the privilege of dominion over the earth. For this dominion to be legitimate, however, it must be exercised in submission to the greater authority of God, for God is King over all.
Even though kingship is supremely an attribute of God, Gen 1–3 indicates that God created human beings in his royal image. The significance of being created in God’s image is linked in Gen 1:26–28 with humanity having “dominion … over all the earth” and over all the creatures of the earth. By giving humanity dominion, God established humanity as having authority as kings over creation. Humanity was given the task of filling and subduing the earth. In other words, God engaged humanity in the work of helping to bring about the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth. Once the whole of the earth had been brought inside the boundaries of the garden of Eden, then humanity’s work would be finished, and the kingdom of God complete. To be successful in this task, however, it was necessary for human beings not only to work after the pattern of God himself (hence, the significance of the Sabbath commandment in Exod 20:8–11) but also to submit to God by keeping his commandments. The Pentateuch makes it very clear in a number of ways that humanity’s royal authority was to be exercised under the higher authority of God himself. The fact that Adam was placed under divine command shows that Adam and his descendants were to submit themselves in obedience to God (Gen 2:16–17). The subsequent episodes of God’s judgment of Adam and Eve, the judgment of Cain, the destruction of the flood at the time of Noah, and the judgment of the builders of the tower of Babel all serve to show God’s authority over humanity and/or the whole of creation.
Even though God is the King of the entire world, it is also important from the perspective of the Old Testament to recognize that God chose to realize his kingship over the world through the nation of Israel. Thus, God is seen in the Old Testament to be the King of Israel in particular. The covenant of circumcision established the idea that God would be the God of Abraham’s descendants (Gen 17:7). Abraham’s descendants for their part had the responsibility to “keep [God’s] covenant” (Gen 17:9; 18:19). God promised Abraham that there would be “kings” among his descendants (Gen 17:6). Jacob prophesied that royal authority would be exercised by Judah on a worldwide scale (Gen 49:10). God considered Israel to be “[his] people” (e.g., Exod 3:7; 5:1; 15:16). God’s redemption of Israel out of Egypt further established God’s claim of possession over Israel (Exod 15:13, 16; 20:2). This was also symbolized through the rite of the consecration of the firstborn (Exod 13:1–2, 11–16). After the exodus, the relationship between God and Israel was formalized in a covenant ceremony at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:1–24:11). This was an exclusive relationship which demanded Israel’s faithfulness or loyalty to God. Even though “all the earth is [God’s],” the other nations were excluded from this special relationship with God (Exod 19:5–6). Israel willingly submitted to the covenant that that God offered to them at this time (Exod 19:8; 24:3,7). This covenant, also known as the old covenant (as per 2 Cor 3:14), formally established God’s kingly rule over Israel. The condition for Israel to benefit from this special relationship was covenant obedience, i.e., a commitment to serving God through keeping the law of Moses (e.g., Deut 6:1–3).
It is significant that one of the benefits of Israel keeping covenant with God was that Israel would be constituted as “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:6). Given that the word kingdom in the phrase a kingdom of priests parallels the word nation in the phrase holy nation, the expression a kingdom of priests and a holy nation speaks of Israel as a nation consecrated to the service of God. In other words, Israel would only be a kingdom before God to the extent that the nation submitted itself to the rule of God. What submitting to the rule of God involved for Israel was subsequently spelled out in great detail in the Mosaic law. Even though the context suggests that the kingdom in view in Exod 19:6 is Israel as a divine monarchy rather than Israel as a human monarchy, the books of Samuel and Kings in particular show that the divine and human aspects of the monarchy in Israel were intertwined in God’s plan, with the success of the institution of human monarchy within Israel dependent upon how well the institution of divine monarchy was respected. Israel submitting to the rule of God would mean the restoration of the kingdom ideal that existed in the garden of Eden but which was lost after Adam’s rebellion.
God’s intention for Israel, therefore, involved the development of human rule under the ultimate rule of God. This human rule would also be focused in a particular human being who would also be called the king of Israel. That God’s theocratic rule over Israel would incorporate a human king is indicated in Deut 17:14–20. This passage sets out the divine laws regulating human kingship within Israel. Even though Deut 17:14 is effectively a prophecy that Israel’s motivation for asking for a human king would not be proper (in that it would be motivated out of a desire to imitate the kind of government found in the surrounding nations), the fact that the law of Moses made provision for a human king indicates that human kingship was an integral part of God’s plan for Israel from the beginning. Israel would have a human king, but the one appointed as king had to be the one “whom Yahweh [their] God [would] choose” (Deut 17:15). The king was to be an Israelite, and should not acquire many horses, or wives, or excessive silver and gold (Deut 17:15–17). He was obligated to have his own copy of the Mosaic law to study in order to “keep … all the words of [God’s] law” (Deut 17:18–19). Thus, Mosaic law clearly placed the human king of Israel under the authority of God and his law. Indeed the length of the king’s dynasty is connected in Deut 17:20 with how well the king would follow “the commandment,” i.e., the law viewed as a whole. The idea of human kingship in Israel was, therefore, built into the Mosaic law. The law made provision for a human king but proscribed the authority of this king. The human king was to be subject to the authority of God, the King of kings.
Given what has been observed above, we have to conclude that there was nothing wrong with the concept of human kingship per se operating in Israel. In fact, the evidence strongly favors the conclusion that human kingship was one of the purposes that God had had in mind for humanity and Israel from the very beginning. God has given humanity the privilege of dominion over the earth. For this dominion to be legitimate, however, it must be exercised in submission to the greater authority of God, for God is King over all.
04 November 2011
The Old Testament Concept of Wisdom
The concept of wisdom in Old Testament is torah-centric. Wisdom in the Old Testament has frequently been defined as being “practical knowledge of the laws of life and the world, based on experience” (Gerhard Von Rad, Old Testament Theology [New York: Harper & Row, 1962], 1:418), or else understood in terms of the human endeavor to understand and live in harmony with the divine order that has been built into the cosmos. But when applied to wisdom as it appears in the Old Testament, these definitions are inadequate.
From the biblical perspective, wisdom is supremely the possession of God (Job 12:13; 38:36–37; Ps 104:24; Prov 3:19–20; Isa 28:29; Dan 2:20; Rev 7:12). Wisdom is basically whatever God thinks and says and does. Because God is the source of all wisdom, he is the one who grants wisdom to people, and he does this by means of his Spirit (Exod 31:3; 1 Kgs 4:29; 10:24; Prov 2:6; Eccl 2:26; Dan 2:21–23; Jas 1:5). Because God is wise, God’s word or law is a source of wisdom (Ps 19:7; 119:98, 104, 130; Jer 8:8–9). Jesus’ definition of wisdom in Matt 7:24 is consistent with, and hence a neat summary of, the Old Testament definition of human wisdom: being wise means hearing and doing the word of God. In the context of the Old Testament, this word of God, or law of wisdom, typically equates to the law of Moses, which was viewed as being the source of Israel’s wisdom before the nations (Deut 4:6, 8; see also Rom 2:17–20). According to the Old Testament, wisdom also involves an attitude of fearing Yahweh such that one is concerned to live out every aspect of one’s human existence in accordance with God’s law (Ps 119:100; Prov 28:7; 31:26). Thus, the wise person, i.e., the person with understanding, is supremely viewed in the Old Testament as being the person who obeys the law of Yahweh from the heart (Ps 119:34).
From the biblical perspective, wisdom is supremely the possession of God (Job 12:13; 38:36–37; Ps 104:24; Prov 3:19–20; Isa 28:29; Dan 2:20; Rev 7:12). Wisdom is basically whatever God thinks and says and does. Because God is the source of all wisdom, he is the one who grants wisdom to people, and he does this by means of his Spirit (Exod 31:3; 1 Kgs 4:29; 10:24; Prov 2:6; Eccl 2:26; Dan 2:21–23; Jas 1:5). Because God is wise, God’s word or law is a source of wisdom (Ps 19:7; 119:98, 104, 130; Jer 8:8–9). Jesus’ definition of wisdom in Matt 7:24 is consistent with, and hence a neat summary of, the Old Testament definition of human wisdom: being wise means hearing and doing the word of God. In the context of the Old Testament, this word of God, or law of wisdom, typically equates to the law of Moses, which was viewed as being the source of Israel’s wisdom before the nations (Deut 4:6, 8; see also Rom 2:17–20). According to the Old Testament, wisdom also involves an attitude of fearing Yahweh such that one is concerned to live out every aspect of one’s human existence in accordance with God’s law (Ps 119:100; Prov 28:7; 31:26). Thus, the wise person, i.e., the person with understanding, is supremely viewed in the Old Testament as being the person who obeys the law of Yahweh from the heart (Ps 119:34).
wisdom = hearing + doing torah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)