One of the things that I believe we often lack as Christians is an understanding of the bigger picture. In my experience teaching the Old Testament at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney for 8½ years (until my employment finished there in 2010), I was often struck by the way in which students would come to college knowing many of the details of various stories of the Old Testament, but not understanding with some degree of clarity the bigger picture of the Old Testament. This is understandable to some extent, given the size of the Old Testament—it’s a big collection of books—but it is in understanding something of this bigger picture that we come to understand the Bible with greater clarity, and to experience the power of the word of God to a greater degree.
Why did God create the world? Why has he structured history in the way that he has? Why spend 2,000 years of human history focusing only on one relatively small nation in an obscure part of the Middle East? What was the purpose of God’s election of Israel, and what is the point of the Old Testament? It’s important that we ask these questions, because doing so will lead us to a greater reflection on, and understanding of, the word of God.
The story of Israel in the Old Testament is a detailed description, written out on the pages of human history, of what happens to human society when God’s word is not in the heart of human individuals and human society. Without the word of God, human society reverts to the default position of Gen 1:2. Back then the earth was formless (chaotic), empty (without life), and full of darkness; yet the Spirit of God was present. Unleashing the power of his word and Spirit, God said, “Let there be light”! Through the word of God, darkness was turned into light, chaos was transformed into order, and emptiness was overcome as God created living creatures to inhabit and fill his world. Always the Teacher, even the way in which God created the world was a lesson designed to teach humanity that the word of God brings light and life and order; and that without the word of God, the world will be plunged into disorder and death and darkness.
This is something that Moses, the founder of Israel, understood. After proclaiming the word of God in his final address to Israel, Moses stood before the assembly of the people of Israel, calling upon them, pleading with them: “See, I have set before you today, life and good, death and evil … Choose life” by following God’s word (Deut 30:15, 19).
Yet what did Israel choose? Did Israel choose the word of God? The Old Testament stands as a historical record of the fact that Israel chose the way of the world around them rather than the word of the Creator of the universe. Created to experience God’s blessing, Israel ended up experiencing the curses of the covenant: darkness, death, and disorder.
The problem of sin, and the effects of this, is reflected in Ezek 36:17–19. Israel through their rebellion (especially the sins of idolatry and bloodshed) defiled the land given to them by God. God’s wrath came upon them, and they were scattered and dispersed among the nations.
Ignoring God, and chasing after idols, Israel deserved this punishment; yet judgment for God’s people was not where God would stop. The very fact that Israel was in exile meant that God’s name was being profaned among the nations. The military defeat and exile of Israel had led to people in the surrounding nations having a negative opinion about the power of the God of Israel: “These are the worshippers of Yahweh. The God of Israel, he must be weak. He couldn’t defended his land or save his people,” (Ezek 36:20).
Now the nations might laugh and sniggle; but God, being God, would not let this situation endure forever. God is concerned about his reputation, and that his name be honored. That may sound a little selfish; but after all, God is God! He has every right in the world as the Creator of this world to expect that his name be respected and honored.
So God would act for the sake of his name. God would act to deal with this unacceptable situation by bringing his people back to the promised land. There would be judgment; but following the judgment, there would be restoration. But how was God going to bring his people back to the land?
The average person may not have thought about this much, but how we can get back into the presence of God is really the big question of human history. The human race lost the right to live in God’s presence when our first ancestors, Adam and Eve, sinned against God, and were expelled from God’s land, the holy land of the garden of Eden. Israel, being saved out of Egypt, were given a chance to come back into the land; but even in the land their access to God was restricted. Access into the Most Holy Place, the inner sanctum of the temple in Jerusalem, was restricted to one person, the high priest, who could go into the Most Holy Place yet only once a year. This temporary access of Israel into God’s presence (corresponding to the limitations of the Old Testament sacrificial system with its use of the blood of bulls and sheep and goats) was later reflected on a physical level when Israel, like Adam, lost the right to live in the presence of God because of rebellion.
This two fall theology of the Old Testament was understood by the Apsotle Paul. Paul’s teaching in Rom 5:20, that the law was added in order to increase the trespass, is a summary of the whole of the Old Testament in one short proposition. The law of Moses was given to Israel to compound the problem of the trespass of Adam. The story of Israel replicates the story of Adam.
So the Old Testament is a story of two falls: the fall of humanity in Adam, and the fall of Israel through Moses. Both Adam and Israel lived in God’s land, but both ... only for a time. Adam for a few days—we aren't told how long, but the impression is that it wasn’t very long—and Israel for 700 years or so. In each instance the problem that led to exile was ... sin. The problem was disobedience to God, and this was the result of not having God’s word written in the heart.
Without the word of God in our hearts, humanity cannot live in the presence of God. But God made us in his image, so that he might live with us. So any expulsion of humanity from his presence must be temporary. If not, then Satan has won.
Therefore, God’s people will be brought back; and that is the overall message of the book of Ezekiel. The exile will be reversed, and Israel will return to live once more in the presence of God. A key motivation in doing this is God’s regard for his own name. God would act to bring his people back to life in the land, thereby “vindicat[ing] the holiness of [his] great name” (Ezek 36:22–24).
This return is associated with God cleansing his people, and giving them a “new heart” and a “new Spirit,” so that they might be able to obey him. Ezekiel 36:25–28 speaks about a heart transplant operation that would be performed by the Holy Spirit. The stony, unresponsive heart with its arteries clogged by the fat of sinfulness would be replaced with a new, responsive, beating heart of flesh. Animated by the power of God’s Spirit, this new heart would be responsive and obedient to the word of God.
The key to the future blessing of God’s people, according to Ezekiel, is a new heart and a new Spirit. If Adam and Israel failed, and (using the words of Isa 63:10) grieved [God’s] Holy Spirit because the word of God wasn’t in their hearts, then God would solve the problem. Ezekiel 36:26–28 is very significant in the bigger biblical-theological picture of the Bible, identifying the solution to the universal human problem.
The solution is that at some time in the future God’s Spirit would poured out in a comprehensive way in order to act upon the hearts of God’s people in a powerful way, so powerful in fact that God’s people would be transformed from being law breakers to become law keepers. How? Through the law of God written in the heart! Just like back in Gen 1. What is the key to life? It is the word of God.
The prophet Ezekiel, therefore, looked forward to a day when God’s Spirit would be so powerfully pervasive that God’s people would be cleansed of their sin, and moved to obedience, the result of which would be the coming of the blessings of the covenant, with God’s people dwelling secure as the obedient people of God. In fact, as Ezek 36:29–30 shows, these blessings would not be only for Israel, but creation itself would be transformed. No more famines, but fertility and fruitfulness. God’s people would repent of their sins (Ezek 36:31–32); there would be rebuilding and replanting (Ezek 36:33–34), so much so (according to Ezek 36:35) that it will like returning to the garden of Eden! Through the work of God’s Spirit, paradise lost will become paradise restored.
This prophecy regarding the future restoration of Israel is very important for understanding that God’s intention is to bring about a perfect world. Imagine what it would be like to be perfect: a perfect husband (no more dirty clothes left hanging around the place), a perfect wife (no more nagging), perfect kids (you would have to raise your voice), a perfect world (no pollution; no more colds; no more floods or fires or earthquakes or tsunamis; no more terrorism; no more war). I reckon it sounds pretty good. John Lennon could only imagine such a world, but Christians believe that a perfect world will one day be reality. For some it may be a pipe dream, but someone once said that baptism in the Holy Spirit “will do for you what a phone booth did for Clark Kent—it will change you into a different human being”!
Thankfully God doesn’t require us to get changed into Superman gear in a phone booth, but he does require his Spirit to be present in order for life to be experienced. The simple fact of the matter is that “the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6); and God gives his Spirit in abundance to those who submit to Christ as Lord, to those who have the word of God at work in their lives. The human race has always been tempted to look for life in all the wrong places, but the Bible says that life is found in the Spirit and word of God.
Jesus taught that the Spirit gives life (John 6:63). Indeed, the message of the New Testament is that the age of the full outpouring of the Spirit that the Old Testament prophets looked forward to … this Age of the Spirit that will accomplish God’s plan for a perfect world … this has come with the coming of the Lord Jesus!
According to John 3:34, God the Father gave the Spirit to Jesus the Son “without measure” in order that he might fully reveal the word of God to the world. Jesus performed miracles like no one else has, because he was filled with the power of God’s Spirit beyond measure. And having himself personally dealt with sin and death through his death on the cross, Jesus, the Spirit-filled Second Adam, has led humanity back into God’s land, back into the presence of God. This was achieved through Jesus’ ascension into heaven. And having gone up into heaven, Jesus received the authority promised by the Father in various Old Testament passages to pour out the Holy Spirit on the church at the day of Pentecost, and since that time the promised Age of the Spirit has begun.
During this time, God’s Spirit has been at work in a much more comprehensive way than previously. God’s Spirit has been increasing his influence throughout the world, empowering the growth of the kingdom of God on earth, as the church, the Community of the Spirit, has grown throughout the world. And Christians, becoming members of Christ’s church through faith and baptism, share in this baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is why in 1 Cor 12:13, the Apostle Paul says: “by one Spirit, we were all baptised into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”
The New Testament proclaims that, with the coming of Jesus, the Age of the Spirit that the Old Testament prophets looked forward to has begun. And present-day Christians have been blessed by God to participate in its unfurling. By the way, unfurling is an important concept to grab hold of here, because the question can be asked: if the Age of the Spirit has begun, then why is there still a struggle with sin in my life? Why do I still see sin in the life of God’s people? Why do I still get sick? Why do I see disease and war and famine and death throughout the world?
The answer to this question is: the Age of the Spirit has begun, but it has not yet reached its climax. The Age of the Spirit has begun in the sense that human hearts throughout the world are now coming under submission to Christ as the gospel is being proclaimed, and as disobedience is slowly being rooted out of the lives of God’s people. But what we see now is only a small picture of what will be on the day when Jesus returns, when the Spirit of God will be unleashed to his maximum capacity so as to fill the universe to overflowing.
Remember Jesus’ parables about the kingdom of God? The kingdom of God is really the realm of the special operations of God’s Spirit, the zone where God’s will is being done on earth as it is currently being done in heaven. Remember how Jesus describes the kingdom of God in his parables? God’s kingdom is like a small mustard seed that grows into a tree (Matt 13:31–32). It is like dough that expands to become a loaf (Matt 13:33). Jesus wants us to understand that the kingdom starts out small, but gets comparatively much much bigger as time goes on. This growth, this development of the kingdom of God over time and throughout the world, is how the Age of the Spirit will unfold. The new Spirit-filled world order is currently being unfurled, but the mind-blowing time will come when we will see the climactic totality of God's plan of universal blessing revealed before our eyes.
This fullness of the Spirit will come in God’s good time; but in the meantime, the important thing for Christians to realise is that we need to be participating in the Spirit! How important is it for you to participate in the Spirit? Have you been working at being as filled with God’s Spirit as much as you possibly can? Or are you busy pursuing other things in life? Christians have the privilege of participating in God’s Spirit, but we also need to pursue an ever greater filling of God’s Spirit. If we are not concerned about growing in God’s Spirit, we need to be careful lest we end up grieving God’s Spirit. Here we can take warning from the historical example of King Saul. He began with God’s Spirit, but ended up grieving God’s Spirit through rebellion (1 Sam 15:23, 26; 16:14). And Israel? All who passed through the sea drank the spiritual drink, says Paul, yet God was not pleased with the majority (1 Cor 10:1–5).
As Christians, we share in the Spirit; but through neglect, it may be that our tank is pretty close to empty. Do you feel today as if you’ve been drained of the Spirit, as if you’re almost running on empty? Well, you need to be topped up! But how does this happen? How can I be refilled with the Holy Spirit?
The answer to this question is straightforward, but it requires some co-operation on our part. Being filled with the Spirit is not necessarily a matter of being able to speak in tongues. Being filled with the Spirit actually correlates to how much God’s word is in our hearts. Being filled with the Spirit results in the fruit of the Spirit (Eph 5:18–21). If we have God’s Spirit, then we will be producing the fruit of the Spirit in our lives, things such as love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, and self-control (Gal 5:22–23). But the key to all of this is the simple yet profound idea of having the word of God written in our hearts. When you combine Ezek 36:26–28 with Jer 31:31–33, you get Ezekiel’s idea of the new heart, new Spirit, and new obedience matching up with Jeremiah’s idea of the law written on the heart of God’s people as part of the new covenant. This is why filling with the Spirit in the new covenant age corresponds to the extent to which God’s word has been written on the heart.
Ultimately the writing of God’s word in our heart is a work of God’s Spirit. The Spirit is the one who must do the writing, that’s true. But he can’t do the writing if we’re not doing the hearing (Rom 10:17). God’s word will never be written in our hearts (apart from direct revelation) if we never spend time meditating upon the gospel, or if we never spend time reading God’s word and thinking about it. Why do we read and teach the Bible in church? Why do we sing psalms and Bible-based hymns rather than the latest hit pop song (the majority of which these days are fixated with sex)? What Christians do in church is based on the word of God, because we believe that, as we do so, that is the way that God’s word and Spirit come to fill our hearts.
Back at the end of the second century, there was a Greek boy born into a Christian family in present-day Turkey named Irenaeus. As a young man, Irenaeus grew up in the faith, and moved to Lyons in France. He became a clergyman, and eventually became the Bishop of Lyons. He is famous as one of the Early Church Fathers, and he wrote a number of important works defending the church against heresy. In his writings, he wrote concerning the relationship of the Holy Spirit and the church. One quotation that comes to mind is the following: “If you do not join in what the Church is doing, you have no share in [the] Spirit … For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and every kind of grace.”
The simple truth of the matter is that the Spirit gives life. It is important, therefore, that all people pursue the presence of the Holy Spirit in their lives. That can only happen by submitting to the lordship of Jesus Christ. And then, having received the gift of the Holy Spirit from the Son, Christians need to walk in the Spirit, and to pursue an ever greater filling with the Spirit, through joining in what the church is doing, and by meditating regularly on God’s word in prayer and in song. Without the Spirit of God, life does not exist. And without the word of God in our lives, we cannot be filled with the Spirit. How serious have you been lately about surrounding yourself and the lives of your loved ones in the word of God? Just as a car needs petrol, so too we need the Spirit of God.
Therefore, pursue the Spirit! Do so with all of your strength! But you do that by listening to the word of God.
Recall what Moses said to Israel. Look, this might be my last sermon before I die, but I’ve proclaimed the word of God to you today. I’ve set before you life and good, death and evil. Choose life by following the word of God!
Brothers and sisters, pursue the word of God! Pursue participation in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus! The word that gave life to this universe back in the beginning is the word that gives life to us today.
28 February 2011
24 February 2011
Tense, Aspect, and Mood in Biblical Hebrew Verbs
One of the problems encountered by the beginning student of Biblical Hebrew is the lack of clarity regarding tense, aspect, and modality in the verb system of Biblical Hebrew. Tense denotes the location in time of the event or state expressed by the verb. Aspect has to do with the way in which the event or state expressed by the verb is viewed as progressing within time, while mood or modality denotes the attitude of the speaker to the reality, necessity, possibility, or probability of the event or state expressed by the verb.
The best way of understanding the verb in Biblical Hebrew is to see it in the light of how it developed historically. It is generally held that Proto-Hebrew (on analogy with Ugaritic) had three major conjugations: the perfect yaqtul, the imperfect yaqtulu, and the suffix verb form qatala. The perfect was used for events viewed as a simple whole (i.e., perfective or aoristic aspect). The binary opposite of the perfect was the imperfect. The imperfect was used for events that were viewed as being non-perfective (i.e., as somehow unfolding in time, whether continuous, habitual, iterative, or future). The suffix verb form qatala seems to have been primarily used with stative verbs (without regard to time), but it was also used with dynamic verbs in the apodosis of conditional constructions. There was also a jussive conjugation that was identical to the perfect (yaqtul) in form.
Over time, it seems that the imperfect lost its final vowel. This resulted in the imperfect coming to have the same form as the perfect yaqtul and the jussive (i.e., they all had the form yaqtul). This in turn resulted in a restriction in the use of the perfect yaqtul to clause-initial position with a vav prefix in prose (i.e., wayyiqtol in Biblical Hebrew). The use of the suffix verb form qatala was expanded with it being conscripted to be used in place of the perfect yaqtul in non-clause-initial situations in prose. In this way, the suffix verb form qatala came to be fully perfective (i.e., used for states and events viewed as a simple whole regardless of time). The similarity in form between the imperfect and the jussive also led to the imperfect taking on board the non-indicative modal senses of ability, necessity, and possibility of the jussive, leading to the situation in Biblical Hebrew where the imperfect is used to express non-indicative modality as well as non-perfective aspect. On analogy with the clause-initial use of the wayyiqtol, it seems that the weqatal form developed from the sequential sense of qatala in the apodoses of conditional constructions. The weqatal construction ended up becoming, therefore, the imperfective verb in clause-initial position.
The verb system of Biblical Hebrew, therefore, is best thought of as primarily marking aspect. Tense has to be determined primarily from the context, although it should also be said that, because the imperfective aspect marks verbs as unfolding in time, perfective verbs naturally gravitate to the past while imperfective verbs gravitate to the future.
The end result in Biblical Hebrew can be summarized as follows:
perfective yiqtol: either as wayyiqtol in prose, or yiqtol in poetry;
qatal: perfective, usually non-clause-initial;
imperfective yiqtol: imperfective aspect or non-indicative modality, non-clause-initial;
imperfective weqatal: imperfective aspect or non-indicative modality, clause-initial;
participle (qotel) = continuous or gnomic aspect, or else used in place of a relative clause whose aspect must be picked up from the context.
The best way of understanding the verb in Biblical Hebrew is to see it in the light of how it developed historically. It is generally held that Proto-Hebrew (on analogy with Ugaritic) had three major conjugations: the perfect yaqtul, the imperfect yaqtulu, and the suffix verb form qatala. The perfect was used for events viewed as a simple whole (i.e., perfective or aoristic aspect). The binary opposite of the perfect was the imperfect. The imperfect was used for events that were viewed as being non-perfective (i.e., as somehow unfolding in time, whether continuous, habitual, iterative, or future). The suffix verb form qatala seems to have been primarily used with stative verbs (without regard to time), but it was also used with dynamic verbs in the apodosis of conditional constructions. There was also a jussive conjugation that was identical to the perfect (yaqtul) in form.
Over time, it seems that the imperfect lost its final vowel. This resulted in the imperfect coming to have the same form as the perfect yaqtul and the jussive (i.e., they all had the form yaqtul). This in turn resulted in a restriction in the use of the perfect yaqtul to clause-initial position with a vav prefix in prose (i.e., wayyiqtol in Biblical Hebrew). The use of the suffix verb form qatala was expanded with it being conscripted to be used in place of the perfect yaqtul in non-clause-initial situations in prose. In this way, the suffix verb form qatala came to be fully perfective (i.e., used for states and events viewed as a simple whole regardless of time). The similarity in form between the imperfect and the jussive also led to the imperfect taking on board the non-indicative modal senses of ability, necessity, and possibility of the jussive, leading to the situation in Biblical Hebrew where the imperfect is used to express non-indicative modality as well as non-perfective aspect. On analogy with the clause-initial use of the wayyiqtol, it seems that the weqatal form developed from the sequential sense of qatala in the apodoses of conditional constructions. The weqatal construction ended up becoming, therefore, the imperfective verb in clause-initial position.
The verb system of Biblical Hebrew, therefore, is best thought of as primarily marking aspect. Tense has to be determined primarily from the context, although it should also be said that, because the imperfective aspect marks verbs as unfolding in time, perfective verbs naturally gravitate to the past while imperfective verbs gravitate to the future.
The end result in Biblical Hebrew can be summarized as follows:
perfective yiqtol: either as wayyiqtol in prose, or yiqtol in poetry;
qatal: perfective, usually non-clause-initial;
imperfective yiqtol: imperfective aspect or non-indicative modality, non-clause-initial;
imperfective weqatal: imperfective aspect or non-indicative modality, clause-initial;
participle (qotel) = continuous or gnomic aspect, or else used in place of a relative clause whose aspect must be picked up from the context.
20 February 2011
The Idolatry of Israel in Ezekiel 8
When you go sightseeing, you normally have a general idea of what you want to see. Japanese tourists coming to Australia like to see the Sydney Opera House, the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and koalas! If a Japanese tourist came to Australia, and didn’t see the Sydney Opera House, the Harbour Bridge, or a koala, I reckon they’d go back home very disappointed.
Well what about a sightseeing tour of Jerusalem? I reckon you can’t go to Jerusalem without seeing the Temple Mount, the place where the temple of God used to be. I had the opportunity to do that back in 2004, and going up to the Temple Mount was definitely the highlight of my trip, even more so because back then, due to the sensitive political situation, the Temple Mount had been closed to visitors. One day I was visiting the Wailing Wall with my sister and brother-in-law when all of a sudden we saw the Israeli police open up the gates of the ramp way leading up to the Temple Mount. We decided to go for it, and in the space of a few seconds not knowing where I was heading, all of a sudden I found myself virtually alone standing on top of the Temple Mount in brilliant sunshine. It was definitely the highlight on my trip, not only because the Temple Mount is the most famous place in Jerusalem, but because actually getting there was so unexpected.
In the year 592 B.C., Ezekiel was in Babylon, some 1,000 km away from Jerusalem. He had been taken there by the Babylonian army, and had been away from Israel for six years, when all of a sudden God gave him the opportunity in a vision to go back to Jerusalem, and visit the temple. What an opportunity! The chance to go back home, and visit the holiest place on Planet Earth.
Well, after being transported to Jerusalem by “Holy Spirit Airways” (according to Ezek 8:3), Ezekiel finds himself back where he wished he could have been all along … in the temple in Jerusalem. Ezekiel was of priestly descent, so the temple was the place for him to be. If he hadn’t been taken off into exile, he would have been working there. So you’d think that this opportunity to go back to the temple should’ve been a wonderful journey for him. You could imagine how happy he would have been at the prospect of going back.
He turns up in Jerusalem, and rocks up to the northern gate to the inner court of the temple. And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there (Ezek 8:4)! The same vision of the glory of God that Ezekiel had witnessed in ch. 1 was the vision of God that was facing him in temple. How wonderful! Perhaps Ezekiel was feeling a bit like the psalmist who wrote in Ps 63: “O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water. So I have looked upon you in the sanctuary, beholding your power and glory.”
How wonderful to see God’s glory again! But wait a minute. Behind Ezekiel was something that shouldn’t be there in the temple. In fact it was God who pointed it out to Ezekiel. There, north of the altar gate, was something grotesque: the image of jealousy. It was called the image of jealousy because it made God jealous. It was probably a statue of Asherah, a Canaanite fertility goddess; but whatever it was, it shouldn’t have been there, and it made God jealous.
English speakers generally grow up with the idea that jealousy is bad, so this idea of God being jealous sometimes sounds a little strange. Was God right to be jealous of this image? Well, the short answer is yes! God was right to be jealous. Here we need to remember what God had done for Israel previously and the nature of their relationship. We need to remember that when God saved Israel out of Egypt, Israel entered into a covenant with God at Mount Sinai, and God appeared to them on the mountain, and said to them: “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exod 20:2). And then he gave them the Ten Commandments, with numbers one and two as follows:
(1) “you shall not have any other gods before me” (Exod 20:3): in other words, God alone was to be Israel’s God; this was an exclusive relationship with no space possible for any other gods.
And (2) “you shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod 20:4–6): in other words, no worship of idols was permitted in Israel. No image or any other object was to be worshipped as a god. Israel was to worship the one true God, Yahweh, and him alone.
But here was Israel sticking up a statue of a Canaanite fertility goddess in the temple, the place that was meant to be the exclusive domain of the worship of God. No wonder God was jealous! He had every right to be! Doing what Israel did in the temple is akin to a married person brazenly committing adultery at home in the marriage bed.
But that wasn’t all. In Ezek 8:7–12 we see that at the entrance to the court, after Ezekiel dug through a wall, seventy of the elders of Israel were worshipping idols made in the image of various creepy-crawlies and other kinds of disgusting beasts that had been engraved on the wall. The leaders of Israel were in the dark secretly worshipping animal idols. And they were doing this because they thought that God hadn’t seen their difficulties but had abandoned Israel in the face of the Babylonian armies (Ezek 8:12).
But that wasn’t all! At the entrance of the north gate, Ezekiel saw women were “weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek 8:14). They were weeping as part of the worship of this goddess, their tears representing the rain that they hoped Tammuz, a Babylonian fertility god, would send.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, Ezek 8:16–17 goes even further. In the inner court, 25 men had their backs turned to the Lord’s temple. They were facing east, worshipping the sun! They had turned their backs and their backsides on God, literally as well as figuratively!
Israel had become idolatrous, unfaithful, and had filled the land with violence; and because of this God had been provoked to anger (Ezek 8:17). Israel had provoked God’s jealousy and anger so much so that God said to Ezekiel: “I will act in wrath. My eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. Even if they cry in my ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them” (Ezek 8:18).
With idolatry rampant in the temple, Ezekiel’s sightseeing tour must have been a terrible disappointment. But what is the significance of all of this?
The message of Ezek 8 is clear. God can get angry with his people if they turn their backs on him and engage in rampant idolatry. Chapter 8 is significant in the flow of the book of Ezekiel because it precedes the vision of the glory of God leaving the temple, which is recorded in ch. 10. In other words, we find here in ch. 8 the key reason why God allowed the Babylonian army to capture and destroy Jerusalem. It was because of their idolatry. It was idolatry that led to God’s presence withdrawing from his people. It was because the people of Judah followed the practices of the peoples around them, and worshipped what everyone else worshipped, different gods, each under the form of a particular image, that led God to give effect to the sanctions of the Mosaic covenant. Just as had been agreed upon at the foot of Mount Sinai, if Israel did not want God, then God would leave Israel, leaving her to her own devices. Israel would be easy prey for the next strong army that came along, and this is exactly what happened. In the year 586 B.C., the Babylonian army came and captured Jerusalem; and the temple, the symbol of God’s presence among his people, was destroyed.
The awful picture of a city destroyed speaks powerfully of the consequences of idolatry for God’s people. Idolatry is like a deadly infectious virus against which we must strive to protect ourselves. The sin of idolatry is deadly serious. All sins are bad, but the most serious sin of all is actually the sin of idolatry. The first two commandments of the Ten Commandments come first because they are the most fundamental in terms of our relationship with God. Idolatry is like unfaithfulness in a marriage. There is no faster way than unfaithfulness to destroy a marriage, because the act of unfaithfulness itself is a repudiation of the relationship, which is by definition an exclusive relationship. In a similar way, idolatry strikes at the heart of our relationship with God. If left unchecked and unrepented of, it has the potential to lead to apostasy.
And idolatry was not just a problem for the Old Testament people of God. It is also something that affects Christians today. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor 10:1–21: “Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12); “these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did” (1 Cor 10:6); “therefore … flee from idolatry” (1 Cor 10:14). “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor 10:21–22).
Like the Thessalonian Christians, being saved means that Christians have turned away from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thess 1:9). The problem is, however, that idol worship is all around us, and it can easily creep up on us. John Calvin, the famous Reformer, once said: “Every one of us is, even from his mother’s womb, a master craftsman of idols.” What idols have we been tempted to craft for ourselves lately?
Westerners have traditionally not been tempted to worship physical idols of gods on a large scale. But if we look around at Western society today, there are many idols being worshipped. We may not see many temples with images of Buddha, Shiva, or other gods very often in the West; but they do exist. Around Cabramatta in Sydney where I normally go to church, and where there are many people of Chinese and Vietnamese background, there are lots of Buddhist temples, for example. But just because most Westerners don't see statues doesn’t mean that our society doesn’t have idols. The well-known American evangelist D. L. Moody has said in an American context: "You don’t have to go to heathen lands today to find false gods. America is full of them. Whatever you love more than God is your idol.”
These words apply just as equally to any Western country, not just America. The famous Reformer, Martin Luther, said: “whatever man loves, that is his god. For he carries it in his heart; he goes about with it night and day; he sleeps and wakes with it, be it what it may: wealth or self, pleasure or renown.” As was his want, there’s a bit of overstatement in the teaching of Luther just quoted, but what he is saying is that whatever one loves more than God, that is one’s god.
Is there anything or anyone you love more than God? Luther mentioned wealth. In Col 3:5, Paul describes greed or covetousness as being idolatry. If you find yourself thinking all day about money, chances are you’ve got a problem with the idol that many Westerners worship today: the idol of wealth. Or perhaps your idol is your self? Or perhaps pleasure? Or renown (otherwise known as fame)? Perhaps even your wife or husband? Or your children’s scholastic achievements? Maybe it’s real estate.
If there’s anything that we love more than God, it’s actually an idol! But the message of Ezek 8 is warning us not to turn our backs on God. It is warning us not to engage in idolatry. Idolatry has the potential to destroy our relationship with God, so we need to be extremely careful here. Whatever idol we are tempted to worship, we need to turn our back on it, and make sure that we stay true to the one true and living God, the God who has revealed himself to humanity in Jesus.
Whatever we are tempted to worship, even if it’s a good thing in itself, God calls upon each one of us today to get rid of it! If the idol is something bad, then we’re to get rid of it from our lives. But if the idol is something good, then what we need to do is to put it back in the place it belongs, somewhere below God on a scale of priority.
Idolatry is deadly serious. In Gal 5, Paul lists as one of the works of the flesh, idolatry. He then warns his Christian audience: “I warn you, as I warned you before … those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21). A similar message emerges in 1 Cor 10. We need to be careful that our lifestyle or what we do is not provoking the Lord to jealousy.
Christians have been saved to worship the Lord! Christians have been saved to have God as our number one! But idolatry has the potential to destroy this relationship. We need to make sure, therefore, that we do not endanger our heavenly inheritance, but to repent of any idolatry that has been in our life recently.
Paul said: “you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (1 Cor 10:21). A person cannot worship God and follow demons. May God give each of us the strength and wisdom to ruthlessly root out idolatry from our lives, and to be committed to the pure worship of God instead. We don’t want to provoke the Lord to jealousy, do we?
Well what about a sightseeing tour of Jerusalem? I reckon you can’t go to Jerusalem without seeing the Temple Mount, the place where the temple of God used to be. I had the opportunity to do that back in 2004, and going up to the Temple Mount was definitely the highlight of my trip, even more so because back then, due to the sensitive political situation, the Temple Mount had been closed to visitors. One day I was visiting the Wailing Wall with my sister and brother-in-law when all of a sudden we saw the Israeli police open up the gates of the ramp way leading up to the Temple Mount. We decided to go for it, and in the space of a few seconds not knowing where I was heading, all of a sudden I found myself virtually alone standing on top of the Temple Mount in brilliant sunshine. It was definitely the highlight on my trip, not only because the Temple Mount is the most famous place in Jerusalem, but because actually getting there was so unexpected.
In the year 592 B.C., Ezekiel was in Babylon, some 1,000 km away from Jerusalem. He had been taken there by the Babylonian army, and had been away from Israel for six years, when all of a sudden God gave him the opportunity in a vision to go back to Jerusalem, and visit the temple. What an opportunity! The chance to go back home, and visit the holiest place on Planet Earth.
Well, after being transported to Jerusalem by “Holy Spirit Airways” (according to Ezek 8:3), Ezekiel finds himself back where he wished he could have been all along … in the temple in Jerusalem. Ezekiel was of priestly descent, so the temple was the place for him to be. If he hadn’t been taken off into exile, he would have been working there. So you’d think that this opportunity to go back to the temple should’ve been a wonderful journey for him. You could imagine how happy he would have been at the prospect of going back.
He turns up in Jerusalem, and rocks up to the northern gate to the inner court of the temple. And behold, the glory of the God of Israel was there (Ezek 8:4)! The same vision of the glory of God that Ezekiel had witnessed in ch. 1 was the vision of God that was facing him in temple. How wonderful! Perhaps Ezekiel was feeling a bit like the psalmist who wrote in Ps 63: “O God, you are my God; earnestly I seek you; my soul thirsts for you; my flesh faints for you, as in a dry and weary land where there is no water. So I have looked upon you in the sanctuary, beholding your power and glory.”
How wonderful to see God’s glory again! But wait a minute. Behind Ezekiel was something that shouldn’t be there in the temple. In fact it was God who pointed it out to Ezekiel. There, north of the altar gate, was something grotesque: the image of jealousy. It was called the image of jealousy because it made God jealous. It was probably a statue of Asherah, a Canaanite fertility goddess; but whatever it was, it shouldn’t have been there, and it made God jealous.
English speakers generally grow up with the idea that jealousy is bad, so this idea of God being jealous sometimes sounds a little strange. Was God right to be jealous of this image? Well, the short answer is yes! God was right to be jealous. Here we need to remember what God had done for Israel previously and the nature of their relationship. We need to remember that when God saved Israel out of Egypt, Israel entered into a covenant with God at Mount Sinai, and God appeared to them on the mountain, and said to them: “I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exod 20:2). And then he gave them the Ten Commandments, with numbers one and two as follows:
(1) “you shall not have any other gods before me” (Exod 20:3): in other words, God alone was to be Israel’s God; this was an exclusive relationship with no space possible for any other gods.
And (2) “you shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, Yahweh your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children of the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exod 20:4–6): in other words, no worship of idols was permitted in Israel. No image or any other object was to be worshipped as a god. Israel was to worship the one true God, Yahweh, and him alone.
But here was Israel sticking up a statue of a Canaanite fertility goddess in the temple, the place that was meant to be the exclusive domain of the worship of God. No wonder God was jealous! He had every right to be! Doing what Israel did in the temple is akin to a married person brazenly committing adultery at home in the marriage bed.
But that wasn’t all. In Ezek 8:7–12 we see that at the entrance to the court, after Ezekiel dug through a wall, seventy of the elders of Israel were worshipping idols made in the image of various creepy-crawlies and other kinds of disgusting beasts that had been engraved on the wall. The leaders of Israel were in the dark secretly worshipping animal idols. And they were doing this because they thought that God hadn’t seen their difficulties but had abandoned Israel in the face of the Babylonian armies (Ezek 8:12).
But that wasn’t all! At the entrance of the north gate, Ezekiel saw women were “weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek 8:14). They were weeping as part of the worship of this goddess, their tears representing the rain that they hoped Tammuz, a Babylonian fertility god, would send.
And if that wasn’t bad enough, Ezek 8:16–17 goes even further. In the inner court, 25 men had their backs turned to the Lord’s temple. They were facing east, worshipping the sun! They had turned their backs and their backsides on God, literally as well as figuratively!
Israel had become idolatrous, unfaithful, and had filled the land with violence; and because of this God had been provoked to anger (Ezek 8:17). Israel had provoked God’s jealousy and anger so much so that God said to Ezekiel: “I will act in wrath. My eye will not spare, nor will I have pity. Even if they cry in my ears with a loud voice, I will not hear them” (Ezek 8:18).
With idolatry rampant in the temple, Ezekiel’s sightseeing tour must have been a terrible disappointment. But what is the significance of all of this?
The message of Ezek 8 is clear. God can get angry with his people if they turn their backs on him and engage in rampant idolatry. Chapter 8 is significant in the flow of the book of Ezekiel because it precedes the vision of the glory of God leaving the temple, which is recorded in ch. 10. In other words, we find here in ch. 8 the key reason why God allowed the Babylonian army to capture and destroy Jerusalem. It was because of their idolatry. It was idolatry that led to God’s presence withdrawing from his people. It was because the people of Judah followed the practices of the peoples around them, and worshipped what everyone else worshipped, different gods, each under the form of a particular image, that led God to give effect to the sanctions of the Mosaic covenant. Just as had been agreed upon at the foot of Mount Sinai, if Israel did not want God, then God would leave Israel, leaving her to her own devices. Israel would be easy prey for the next strong army that came along, and this is exactly what happened. In the year 586 B.C., the Babylonian army came and captured Jerusalem; and the temple, the symbol of God’s presence among his people, was destroyed.
The awful picture of a city destroyed speaks powerfully of the consequences of idolatry for God’s people. Idolatry is like a deadly infectious virus against which we must strive to protect ourselves. The sin of idolatry is deadly serious. All sins are bad, but the most serious sin of all is actually the sin of idolatry. The first two commandments of the Ten Commandments come first because they are the most fundamental in terms of our relationship with God. Idolatry is like unfaithfulness in a marriage. There is no faster way than unfaithfulness to destroy a marriage, because the act of unfaithfulness itself is a repudiation of the relationship, which is by definition an exclusive relationship. In a similar way, idolatry strikes at the heart of our relationship with God. If left unchecked and unrepented of, it has the potential to lead to apostasy.
And idolatry was not just a problem for the Old Testament people of God. It is also something that affects Christians today. The Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor 10:1–21: “Let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12); “these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did” (1 Cor 10:6); “therefore … flee from idolatry” (1 Cor 10:14). “You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” (1 Cor 10:21–22).
Like the Thessalonian Christians, being saved means that Christians have turned away from idols to serve the living and true God (1 Thess 1:9). The problem is, however, that idol worship is all around us, and it can easily creep up on us. John Calvin, the famous Reformer, once said: “Every one of us is, even from his mother’s womb, a master craftsman of idols.” What idols have we been tempted to craft for ourselves lately?
Westerners have traditionally not been tempted to worship physical idols of gods on a large scale. But if we look around at Western society today, there are many idols being worshipped. We may not see many temples with images of Buddha, Shiva, or other gods very often in the West; but they do exist. Around Cabramatta in Sydney where I normally go to church, and where there are many people of Chinese and Vietnamese background, there are lots of Buddhist temples, for example. But just because most Westerners don't see statues doesn’t mean that our society doesn’t have idols. The well-known American evangelist D. L. Moody has said in an American context: "You don’t have to go to heathen lands today to find false gods. America is full of them. Whatever you love more than God is your idol.”
These words apply just as equally to any Western country, not just America. The famous Reformer, Martin Luther, said: “whatever man loves, that is his god. For he carries it in his heart; he goes about with it night and day; he sleeps and wakes with it, be it what it may: wealth or self, pleasure or renown.” As was his want, there’s a bit of overstatement in the teaching of Luther just quoted, but what he is saying is that whatever one loves more than God, that is one’s god.
Is there anything or anyone you love more than God? Luther mentioned wealth. In Col 3:5, Paul describes greed or covetousness as being idolatry. If you find yourself thinking all day about money, chances are you’ve got a problem with the idol that many Westerners worship today: the idol of wealth. Or perhaps your idol is your self? Or perhaps pleasure? Or renown (otherwise known as fame)? Perhaps even your wife or husband? Or your children’s scholastic achievements? Maybe it’s real estate.
If there’s anything that we love more than God, it’s actually an idol! But the message of Ezek 8 is warning us not to turn our backs on God. It is warning us not to engage in idolatry. Idolatry has the potential to destroy our relationship with God, so we need to be extremely careful here. Whatever idol we are tempted to worship, we need to turn our back on it, and make sure that we stay true to the one true and living God, the God who has revealed himself to humanity in Jesus.
Whatever we are tempted to worship, even if it’s a good thing in itself, God calls upon each one of us today to get rid of it! If the idol is something bad, then we’re to get rid of it from our lives. But if the idol is something good, then what we need to do is to put it back in the place it belongs, somewhere below God on a scale of priority.
Idolatry is deadly serious. In Gal 5, Paul lists as one of the works of the flesh, idolatry. He then warns his Christian audience: “I warn you, as I warned you before … those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:21). A similar message emerges in 1 Cor 10. We need to be careful that our lifestyle or what we do is not provoking the Lord to jealousy.
Christians have been saved to worship the Lord! Christians have been saved to have God as our number one! But idolatry has the potential to destroy this relationship. We need to make sure, therefore, that we do not endanger our heavenly inheritance, but to repent of any idolatry that has been in our life recently.
Paul said: “you cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons” (1 Cor 10:21). A person cannot worship God and follow demons. May God give each of us the strength and wisdom to ruthlessly root out idolatry from our lives, and to be committed to the pure worship of God instead. We don’t want to provoke the Lord to jealousy, do we?
16 February 2011
The Theme of the Glory of God in Ezekiel
One of the major themes of the book of Ezekiel is the glory of God. In the English mind, when we think of glory, we usually think of something that is bright, something that has a radiance to it, something or someone with magnificence and splendor, like a king, for example. This is reflected in Chinese culture as well. In the word rong yao (荣耀), the Chinese word for glory, the longer form of rong has a double fire above a crown. The word yao has guang or light as one of its components, and itself means to shine. The etymology of the Chinese word for glory suggests that glory from a Chinese perspective was originally thought of in terms of brightly shining, majestic light.
The book of Ezekiel reminds us that the God of Israel is a glorious and majestic God. He is the King of glory, who is in and of himself magnificent, majestic, full of glory and splendor. He is the God who, as the Apostle Paul teaches, is the true God, Creator of the universe, “who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, which no person has ever seen, nor can see” (1 Tim 6:16). The true glory of God is something that no mortal person can fully observe.
Yet God is not a God who has hidden himself away, but a God who reveals his glory. Ezekiel’s vision in Ezek 1 is an example of the fact that God is a God who reveals his glory to his people. The revelation of God’s glory is developed in four stages in this chapter.
The first stage is the vision of the cherubim in Ezek 1:4–14. Ezekiel observed a black storm cloud coming from the north. This massive cloud had brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually within it, and in the middle was something like gleaming bronze. From this Ezekiel could make out the shapes of four strange creatures, whom we learn later on were cherubim. These four creatures are described as having four faces: the face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. The four faces, enabling 360° vision, emphasize the global perception of the cherubim. The faces of the man, lion, ox, and eagle are also all symbols of strength. The human being is the pinnacle of creation, and the lion, ox, and eagle are the rulers of the domains of the wild, domesticated, and winged animals respectively. This global perception and great strength on the part of the cherubim is particularly appropriate given that their job is basically that of being the guardians of God’s holy space. The cherubim function as the bodyguards standing around God’s throne. Not that God needs bodyguards. However, the presence of the cherubim shows that access into God’s holy presence is ordinarily restricted.
The second stage of the vision is recorded in Ezek 1:15–21. These verses describe the wheels upon which God’s throne was transported. This vision of the glory of God is nothing other than a vision of God as a King seated on his throne. The only thing is that God’s throne is able to move around in accordance with the promptings of his Spirit. God’s throne is not fixed in one place (unlike the throne of most kings), but it is pictured in Ezekiel’s vision as being mounted on wheels. Each wheel is described as being composed of two wheels placed at right angles. This symbolizes the omnipresence of God, that God moves easily wherever he wants to go. He does not have to waste time doing a U-turn as it were, but moves straight to wherever he wants to go. The fact that the wheels have rims filled with eyes also symbolizes the all-seeing ability of God. There is nowhere that God cannot go, and nothing that God cannot see.
The third stage of the vision is recorded in Ezek 1:22–25. These verses zoom in to look at what lies above the cherubim and the wheels. The firmament of crystal above the cherubim is nothing other than the floor of heaven. The floor of heaven is often pictured in the Bible as a crystal sea, like in Rev 4:6.
The fourth and final stage of the vision is recorded in Ezek 1:26–28. These verses focus in on what is found in heaven itself. Above the firmament was a likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire, and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness of a human form. Ezekiel could see a human form, but it was just so bright that he could not really see the figure with any great clarity. Apart from God’s waist, all that Ezekiel could see was something like gleaming bronze and burning fire, and around the figure was a brightness like the brightness of a rainbow.
This wonderful vision functions as a prelude to Ezekiel’s call to the office of prophet (recorded in ch. 2). It is definitely a spectacular call to the ministry, but it is necessary at this point to recall that the description of God’s glory in the form of a bright cloud has links back earlier into the Old Testament. The cloud of God’s glory is symbolic in the Old Testament of God’s presence with his people. After God manifested his glory to Moses in the burning bush, God saved his people Israel from slavery, and led them out of Egypt by a fiery cloud. This was the same fiery cloud that came down upon Mount Sinai. The people saw something of God’s glory then, but it was really only Moses who was allowed to see God’s glory up close every time he went up the mountain to meet with God. Then, after the tabernacle was built, God’s glory resided in the tabernacle; and when the tabernacle was replaced by Solomon’s temple, God’s glory filled the temple.
The glory cloud seen by Ezekiel is the same glory cloud that was revealed to Israel in earlier generations. It is significant, however, that, as we read on in chs. 9 and 10 of Ezekiel, it is evident that God’s glory was slowly moving out of the temple. The significance of Ezekiel’s vision in the historical context of his day is that the collective sin of God’s people had become so bad that God was at the point of abandoning his people to their enemies. They wanted to live like the nations around about them? Well, God would deliver them over to the nations. He would even let his temple be destroyed by the Babylonians. In fact at the time of the vision in Ezek 1, sometime around 593 B.C., Ezekiel was in exile in Babylon, some six years before the final fall of the kingdom of Judah. In six years time, the temple, the symbol of God’s presence among his people, would be totally burnt to the ground.
Because of the great idolatry of God’s people, which took place even within the temple precinct itself with the worship of images of animals and foreign fertility gods, God was going to withdraw his presence from his people. God’s glory can only reside among his people provided that they are holy. But because Israel was not holy, and because they had abused God’s grace, God’s glory left the temple; and the Jews were defeated by the Babylonians, and taken off into exile.
This vision of the glory of God in Ezek 1 is basically a wonderful beginning to a sad story! Separation between God and human beings because of sin is always sad. The resultant distance between God and his people meant that Israel would not experience the blessing of life in all its fullness, the blessing of life which stems from living in proximity to God himself. Separated from communion with God, Israel would suffer the full extent of God’s curses rather than his blessings.
Now it would be very sad if all that there were to the theme of God’s glory in the book of Ezekiel was God packing up and leaving his people—God’s glory leaving the temple—never to come back. But in a wonderful way, the book of Ezekiel is sandwiched by two great visions of God. If the first is a vision of God’s glory leaving his people, then the other slice of the sandwich is a quite magnificent vision of a new temple, to which God’s glory cloud returns. Ezekiel 43–44 records how God’s glory came back and “filled the temple” with God’s presence once more, this time eternally. God would never have to leave his people again. According to this final vision, the new temple filled to overflowing with God’s glory would be the centerpiece of the new city of God. This city would no longer be called Jerusalem, but instead it would be called Yahweh-shamah, which means Yahweh is there. The final prophetic vision in the book of Ezekiel, therefore, is a wonderful picture of a relationship restored. God would deal with the sin of his people, and would come back to dwell in their midst again … eternally!
A Christian response to the theme of glory in the book of Ezekiel should note that Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament as being the fulfillment of this prophetic vision about the return of the glory of God to be among his people. As the Apostle John taught: “the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us, full of grace and truth. We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” The Apostle John in penning those words was asserting the idea that God’s glory has returned to his people in the person of the Lord Jesus. Because God has dealt with the sin of his people in the death of Christ, through his resurrection and ascension into heaven the relationship between God and humanity has finally been restored. Seated in the heights of heaven, humanity in Christ is now dwelling in the glorious presence of God.
The magnificent glory of God is also what Christians have been and will be privileged to behold. For all the splendor of Ezekiel’s visions of God’s glory, that, says Ezekiel, was merely “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezek 1:28)! It was not the real thing, but only the likeness of the real thing. Now if that wonderful vision was only the likeness of the glory of the Lord, then imagine how magnificent, how splendorous, how absolutely blindingly bright must be the true vision of God’s glory! This is why the Apostle Paul could describe the light of God’s glory as unapproachable. Even the darkest of sunglasses will not be enough to deal with the brightness of the glory of God.
Yet this is the true glory of God that Christians are privileged to observe and behold on the face of Christ. Although in this world we behold Christ’s glory through the eyes of faith, we do so in the sure hope that one day we will see him face to face. On the day that Christ returns in glory, we shall no longer see from a distance like Israel before Sinai, but face to face! And it will not be like Moses who only got to see God’s glory occasionally every time he went up the mountain or into the tent of meeting; but rather, from that day forth, God’s people will have the privilege of beholding the fullness of God’s glory constantly and forever more.
If this is true, then we need to live our time on earth in the hope that as we have beheld the glory of God in the person of Jesus in the gospel story, then so also there will come a day when we shall be invited into the very presence of God, where we will behold the fullness of his glory, and be changed fully and completely by the experience.
The famous Christian writer, C. S. Lewis, once said: the glory of God “is the business of life.” The glory of God is what life is about. The whole purpose of creation is for God to reveal his glory, and share it with his most special creature, us human beings. In the end, God’s plan for the glorification of humanity will be fully realized.
David Livingstone, the famous missionary to Africa, once wrote: “Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger ... may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this be only for a moment. All these are nothing when compared with the glory which shall hereafter be revealed in, and for, us.” Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger … nothing compared to the glory of God.
If anyone could write about “anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger,” it would be David Livingstone. He travelled over six thousand miles in Africa during the nineteenth century. He had to endure debilitating illnesses, and put up with danger from wild animals and hostile tribes. At the end of his life, he was found dead kneeling at his bedside, still in Africa yet still in prayer. It was the vision of God’s glory that kept Livingstone going through all the difficulties of life; and even at the end, it was the vision of God’s glory, and the hope of sharing in this, that inspired him on. I believe that meditating on Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of God can also inspire God’s people today to pursue the true business of life.
The book of Ezekiel reminds us that the God of Israel is a glorious and majestic God. He is the King of glory, who is in and of himself magnificent, majestic, full of glory and splendor. He is the God who, as the Apostle Paul teaches, is the true God, Creator of the universe, “who alone has immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, which no person has ever seen, nor can see” (1 Tim 6:16). The true glory of God is something that no mortal person can fully observe.
Yet God is not a God who has hidden himself away, but a God who reveals his glory. Ezekiel’s vision in Ezek 1 is an example of the fact that God is a God who reveals his glory to his people. The revelation of God’s glory is developed in four stages in this chapter.
The first stage is the vision of the cherubim in Ezek 1:4–14. Ezekiel observed a black storm cloud coming from the north. This massive cloud had brightness round about it, and fire flashing forth continually within it, and in the middle was something like gleaming bronze. From this Ezekiel could make out the shapes of four strange creatures, whom we learn later on were cherubim. These four creatures are described as having four faces: the face of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle. The four faces, enabling 360° vision, emphasize the global perception of the cherubim. The faces of the man, lion, ox, and eagle are also all symbols of strength. The human being is the pinnacle of creation, and the lion, ox, and eagle are the rulers of the domains of the wild, domesticated, and winged animals respectively. This global perception and great strength on the part of the cherubim is particularly appropriate given that their job is basically that of being the guardians of God’s holy space. The cherubim function as the bodyguards standing around God’s throne. Not that God needs bodyguards. However, the presence of the cherubim shows that access into God’s holy presence is ordinarily restricted.
The second stage of the vision is recorded in Ezek 1:15–21. These verses describe the wheels upon which God’s throne was transported. This vision of the glory of God is nothing other than a vision of God as a King seated on his throne. The only thing is that God’s throne is able to move around in accordance with the promptings of his Spirit. God’s throne is not fixed in one place (unlike the throne of most kings), but it is pictured in Ezekiel’s vision as being mounted on wheels. Each wheel is described as being composed of two wheels placed at right angles. This symbolizes the omnipresence of God, that God moves easily wherever he wants to go. He does not have to waste time doing a U-turn as it were, but moves straight to wherever he wants to go. The fact that the wheels have rims filled with eyes also symbolizes the all-seeing ability of God. There is nowhere that God cannot go, and nothing that God cannot see.
The third stage of the vision is recorded in Ezek 1:22–25. These verses zoom in to look at what lies above the cherubim and the wheels. The firmament of crystal above the cherubim is nothing other than the floor of heaven. The floor of heaven is often pictured in the Bible as a crystal sea, like in Rev 4:6.
The fourth and final stage of the vision is recorded in Ezek 1:26–28. These verses focus in on what is found in heaven itself. Above the firmament was a likeness of a throne, in appearance like sapphire, and seated above the likeness of a throne was a likeness of a human form. Ezekiel could see a human form, but it was just so bright that he could not really see the figure with any great clarity. Apart from God’s waist, all that Ezekiel could see was something like gleaming bronze and burning fire, and around the figure was a brightness like the brightness of a rainbow.
This wonderful vision functions as a prelude to Ezekiel’s call to the office of prophet (recorded in ch. 2). It is definitely a spectacular call to the ministry, but it is necessary at this point to recall that the description of God’s glory in the form of a bright cloud has links back earlier into the Old Testament. The cloud of God’s glory is symbolic in the Old Testament of God’s presence with his people. After God manifested his glory to Moses in the burning bush, God saved his people Israel from slavery, and led them out of Egypt by a fiery cloud. This was the same fiery cloud that came down upon Mount Sinai. The people saw something of God’s glory then, but it was really only Moses who was allowed to see God’s glory up close every time he went up the mountain to meet with God. Then, after the tabernacle was built, God’s glory resided in the tabernacle; and when the tabernacle was replaced by Solomon’s temple, God’s glory filled the temple.
The glory cloud seen by Ezekiel is the same glory cloud that was revealed to Israel in earlier generations. It is significant, however, that, as we read on in chs. 9 and 10 of Ezekiel, it is evident that God’s glory was slowly moving out of the temple. The significance of Ezekiel’s vision in the historical context of his day is that the collective sin of God’s people had become so bad that God was at the point of abandoning his people to their enemies. They wanted to live like the nations around about them? Well, God would deliver them over to the nations. He would even let his temple be destroyed by the Babylonians. In fact at the time of the vision in Ezek 1, sometime around 593 B.C., Ezekiel was in exile in Babylon, some six years before the final fall of the kingdom of Judah. In six years time, the temple, the symbol of God’s presence among his people, would be totally burnt to the ground.
Because of the great idolatry of God’s people, which took place even within the temple precinct itself with the worship of images of animals and foreign fertility gods, God was going to withdraw his presence from his people. God’s glory can only reside among his people provided that they are holy. But because Israel was not holy, and because they had abused God’s grace, God’s glory left the temple; and the Jews were defeated by the Babylonians, and taken off into exile.
This vision of the glory of God in Ezek 1 is basically a wonderful beginning to a sad story! Separation between God and human beings because of sin is always sad. The resultant distance between God and his people meant that Israel would not experience the blessing of life in all its fullness, the blessing of life which stems from living in proximity to God himself. Separated from communion with God, Israel would suffer the full extent of God’s curses rather than his blessings.
Now it would be very sad if all that there were to the theme of God’s glory in the book of Ezekiel was God packing up and leaving his people—God’s glory leaving the temple—never to come back. But in a wonderful way, the book of Ezekiel is sandwiched by two great visions of God. If the first is a vision of God’s glory leaving his people, then the other slice of the sandwich is a quite magnificent vision of a new temple, to which God’s glory cloud returns. Ezekiel 43–44 records how God’s glory came back and “filled the temple” with God’s presence once more, this time eternally. God would never have to leave his people again. According to this final vision, the new temple filled to overflowing with God’s glory would be the centerpiece of the new city of God. This city would no longer be called Jerusalem, but instead it would be called Yahweh-shamah, which means Yahweh is there. The final prophetic vision in the book of Ezekiel, therefore, is a wonderful picture of a relationship restored. God would deal with the sin of his people, and would come back to dwell in their midst again … eternally!
A Christian response to the theme of glory in the book of Ezekiel should note that Jesus is portrayed in the New Testament as being the fulfillment of this prophetic vision about the return of the glory of God to be among his people. As the Apostle John taught: “the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us, full of grace and truth. We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” The Apostle John in penning those words was asserting the idea that God’s glory has returned to his people in the person of the Lord Jesus. Because God has dealt with the sin of his people in the death of Christ, through his resurrection and ascension into heaven the relationship between God and humanity has finally been restored. Seated in the heights of heaven, humanity in Christ is now dwelling in the glorious presence of God.
The magnificent glory of God is also what Christians have been and will be privileged to behold. For all the splendor of Ezekiel’s visions of God’s glory, that, says Ezekiel, was merely “the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (Ezek 1:28)! It was not the real thing, but only the likeness of the real thing. Now if that wonderful vision was only the likeness of the glory of the Lord, then imagine how magnificent, how splendorous, how absolutely blindingly bright must be the true vision of God’s glory! This is why the Apostle Paul could describe the light of God’s glory as unapproachable. Even the darkest of sunglasses will not be enough to deal with the brightness of the glory of God.
Yet this is the true glory of God that Christians are privileged to observe and behold on the face of Christ. Although in this world we behold Christ’s glory through the eyes of faith, we do so in the sure hope that one day we will see him face to face. On the day that Christ returns in glory, we shall no longer see from a distance like Israel before Sinai, but face to face! And it will not be like Moses who only got to see God’s glory occasionally every time he went up the mountain or into the tent of meeting; but rather, from that day forth, God’s people will have the privilege of beholding the fullness of God’s glory constantly and forever more.
If this is true, then we need to live our time on earth in the hope that as we have beheld the glory of God in the person of Jesus in the gospel story, then so also there will come a day when we shall be invited into the very presence of God, where we will behold the fullness of his glory, and be changed fully and completely by the experience.
The famous Christian writer, C. S. Lewis, once said: the glory of God “is the business of life.” The glory of God is what life is about. The whole purpose of creation is for God to reveal his glory, and share it with his most special creature, us human beings. In the end, God’s plan for the glorification of humanity will be fully realized.
David Livingstone, the famous missionary to Africa, once wrote: “Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger ... may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this be only for a moment. All these are nothing when compared with the glory which shall hereafter be revealed in, and for, us.” Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger … nothing compared to the glory of God.
If anyone could write about “anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger,” it would be David Livingstone. He travelled over six thousand miles in Africa during the nineteenth century. He had to endure debilitating illnesses, and put up with danger from wild animals and hostile tribes. At the end of his life, he was found dead kneeling at his bedside, still in Africa yet still in prayer. It was the vision of God’s glory that kept Livingstone going through all the difficulties of life; and even at the end, it was the vision of God’s glory, and the hope of sharing in this, that inspired him on. I believe that meditating on Ezekiel’s vision of the glory of God can also inspire God’s people today to pursue the true business of life.
12 February 2011
The Content and Central Concern of the Pentateuch
The central concern of the Pentateuch is God’s relationship with the people of Israel. The Pentateuch is basically a story about the establishment of a covenant relationship between God and Israel. The covenant in question is the Mosaic covenant. The term the Mosaic covenant (also known in the Bible as the old covenant) is used as a shorthand way of referring to two covenants: the Sinaitic covenant and the Deuteronomic covenant (see “Mosaic Covenant or Covenants?”). The Sinaitic covenant, as its name suggests, is the legal agreement that God and the people of Israel entered into with each other at Mount Sinai (Exod 24:1–11), whereas the Deuteronomic covenant is effectively a confirmation and expansion of the substance of the Sinaitic covenant in a manner appropriate for Israel’s life in the promised land (Deut 29:1). The account of the establishment of the Deuteronomic covenant is recorded in Deut 29–32. This covenant was established by God with the people of Israel in the desert of Moab, opposite the promised land.
Apart from the traditional division into five books, the Pentateuch can be divided into six main sections (as per D. A. Hubbard, “Pentateuch,” NBD2): the origin of the world and the nations (Gen 1–11); the patriarchal age (Gen 12–50); the exodus from Egypt (Exod 1–18); the Sinaitic legislation (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10); the wandering in the wilderness (Num 10:11–36:13); and the final speeches and death of Moses (Deut 1–34).
The climax of the Pentateuch is Israel’s encounter with God at Mount Sinai (Exod 19–24). Leading up to this point, the Pentateuch describes the circumstances and reasons that led to the establishment of the covenant relationship between God and Israel at Sinai. Having recorded the establishment of this relationship at Sinai, the Pentateuch is concerned to explore the nature of this relationship in more detail and the beginnings of the historical outworking of this relationship for Israel. Standing at the heart of this relationship were the promises of God. God’s promises are referred to in the Pentateuch under the terms blessing and curse (e.g., Deut 28:2, 15; 30:1). The term blessing describes the positive benefits that would accrue to Israel if the nation as a whole was committed to the covenant relationship with God, whereas the term curse denotes the negative consequences of disobedience. The terms or stipulations of the covenant spelled out God’s promise to Israel, and Israel’s obligation to respond in covenant faith, i.e., faithfulness. God promised to bless Israel on the condition of obedience (i.e., faithfulness) to the stipulations of the covenant revealed in the law of Moses (Exod 19:5–6; 23:22; Deut 28:1–14). But God also promised to punish Israel on the condition of disobedience (Exod 23:20–21; Deut 28:15–68). In a nutshell, God promised that if the people of Israel would obey his commandments (i.e., be faithful to the covenant), then they would live in his presence, and experience blessing in close communion with him in the promised land.
The concern of the Pentateuch with tracing the historical background, the establishment, and the initial stages in the subsequent outworking in history of the covenant relationship between God and Israel means that the backbone and dominant genre of the Pentateuch is historical narrative. Interspersed within this narrative structure, we also find the genres of law, prophecy, and poetry. The genre of law is particularly significant. Within the Pentateuch, this genre relates especially to the stipulations of the covenant, and highlights the significance of the concepts of covenant and obedience in Israel’s relationship with God.
Apart from the traditional division into five books, the Pentateuch can be divided into six main sections (as per D. A. Hubbard, “Pentateuch,” NBD2): the origin of the world and the nations (Gen 1–11); the patriarchal age (Gen 12–50); the exodus from Egypt (Exod 1–18); the Sinaitic legislation (Exod 19:1–Num 10:10); the wandering in the wilderness (Num 10:11–36:13); and the final speeches and death of Moses (Deut 1–34).
The climax of the Pentateuch is Israel’s encounter with God at Mount Sinai (Exod 19–24). Leading up to this point, the Pentateuch describes the circumstances and reasons that led to the establishment of the covenant relationship between God and Israel at Sinai. Having recorded the establishment of this relationship at Sinai, the Pentateuch is concerned to explore the nature of this relationship in more detail and the beginnings of the historical outworking of this relationship for Israel. Standing at the heart of this relationship were the promises of God. God’s promises are referred to in the Pentateuch under the terms blessing and curse (e.g., Deut 28:2, 15; 30:1). The term blessing describes the positive benefits that would accrue to Israel if the nation as a whole was committed to the covenant relationship with God, whereas the term curse denotes the negative consequences of disobedience. The terms or stipulations of the covenant spelled out God’s promise to Israel, and Israel’s obligation to respond in covenant faith, i.e., faithfulness. God promised to bless Israel on the condition of obedience (i.e., faithfulness) to the stipulations of the covenant revealed in the law of Moses (Exod 19:5–6; 23:22; Deut 28:1–14). But God also promised to punish Israel on the condition of disobedience (Exod 23:20–21; Deut 28:15–68). In a nutshell, God promised that if the people of Israel would obey his commandments (i.e., be faithful to the covenant), then they would live in his presence, and experience blessing in close communion with him in the promised land.
The concern of the Pentateuch with tracing the historical background, the establishment, and the initial stages in the subsequent outworking in history of the covenant relationship between God and Israel means that the backbone and dominant genre of the Pentateuch is historical narrative. Interspersed within this narrative structure, we also find the genres of law, prophecy, and poetry. The genre of law is particularly significant. Within the Pentateuch, this genre relates especially to the stipulations of the covenant, and highlights the significance of the concepts of covenant and obedience in Israel’s relationship with God.
09 February 2011
The Meaning of Pentateuch
The word Pentateuch denotes the five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The word Pentateuch has come into English from Greek via Latin. It is an uncommon yet appropriate word to use of the five books of Moses, because the etymological meaning of the word is five books.
According to Jewish tradition, the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Christian Old Testament) is divided into three main parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Pentateuch corresponds, therefore, to the Jewish canonical division of the Law, also known as the Torah. The Law is considered in Jewish tradition to be the foundational and most important part of the Hebrew Scriptures.
According to Jewish tradition, the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Christian Old Testament) is divided into three main parts: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Pentateuch corresponds, therefore, to the Jewish canonical division of the Law, also known as the Torah. The Law is considered in Jewish tradition to be the foundational and most important part of the Hebrew Scriptures.
05 February 2011
God, Jonah, and the Great City of Nineveh
The book of Jonah describes the city of Nineveh as “a great city.” The phrase a great city occurs once in the book (Jon 3:3), and the phrase the great city three times (Jon 1:2; 3:2; 4:11).
Archaeological research has shown that Nineveh was indeed a great city comparatively speaking. The city enclosed by its walls was roughly rectangular in shape. The four lengths of the city walls were around 2 km, 5 km, 1 km, and 5 km, giving an area of about 8 square km inside the walls. There is also strong evidence of settlement occuring outside of the city walls. The walls included fifteen monumental gates, and inside the city were magnificent temples and a royal palace. Nineveh was definitely a very large city in the timeframe of the eighth century B.C. when Jonah was sent by God to warn the city of his intention to destroy it (2 Kgs 14:25; Jon 3:4).
The size of the city is significant in the narratorial world of the book of Jonah. A narratorial aside at the end of Jon 3:3 tells us that “Nineveh was an extremely large city (עיר־גדולה לאלהים), a journey of three days.” It is interesting that the translations of Jon 3:3 have generally taken the phrase לאלהים as an adverbial intensifier, even though the phrase literally means to God.
So should עיר־גדולה לאלהים be translated as an extremely great city or as a city great in the sight of God? We need to keep in mind at this point that Hebrew is a very contextual language. A lot of exegetical decisions in the Hebrew Bible are decided by context. The focus of the disjunctive clause in Jon 3:3 is on the size of the city. The immediate context suggests, therefore, that it makes sense to translate לאלהים as an adverbial intensifier: Nineveh was “an almighty great city” to put it in more colloquial terms, where the word almighty also captures something of the etymological connotation of strength or importance that the אלהּ root possibly communicates.
But at the same time, the immediate context needs to be viewed in the light of wider contextual considerations, where it is to be noted that the three instances of the phrase the great city in Jonah all occur on the lips of … God! It is also clear from Jon 4:11 that the 120,000 person population of Nineveh, and its many animals, were a key component of the greatness of the city from God’s perspective. The wider context, therefore, pushes us in the direction of the LXX translation: that Nineveh was a great city to (i.e., in the sight of) God.
So how is this to be resolved? I take it that the ideal reader of the text (an orthodox Israelite with an intimate knowledge of ancient Hebrew culture and language) would understand the phrase לאלהים in Jon 3:3 as being a case of double entendre. Nineveh was almighty big, and big to the Almighty! Its large human and animal population meant that God was rightfully concerned about the fate of the city, and that it should rightly experience God’s pity upon the condition of repentance. After all, those people and animals were created by God in the first place (note the logic of God’s argument in Jon 4:10–11).
The effect of the double entendre is to help us to realize that the almighty large cities of our world are important to the Almighty.
Archaeological research has shown that Nineveh was indeed a great city comparatively speaking. The city enclosed by its walls was roughly rectangular in shape. The four lengths of the city walls were around 2 km, 5 km, 1 km, and 5 km, giving an area of about 8 square km inside the walls. There is also strong evidence of settlement occuring outside of the city walls. The walls included fifteen monumental gates, and inside the city were magnificent temples and a royal palace. Nineveh was definitely a very large city in the timeframe of the eighth century B.C. when Jonah was sent by God to warn the city of his intention to destroy it (2 Kgs 14:25; Jon 3:4).
The size of the city is significant in the narratorial world of the book of Jonah. A narratorial aside at the end of Jon 3:3 tells us that “Nineveh was an extremely large city (עיר־גדולה לאלהים), a journey of three days.” It is interesting that the translations of Jon 3:3 have generally taken the phrase לאלהים as an adverbial intensifier, even though the phrase literally means to God.
So should עיר־גדולה לאלהים be translated as an extremely great city or as a city great in the sight of God? We need to keep in mind at this point that Hebrew is a very contextual language. A lot of exegetical decisions in the Hebrew Bible are decided by context. The focus of the disjunctive clause in Jon 3:3 is on the size of the city. The immediate context suggests, therefore, that it makes sense to translate לאלהים as an adverbial intensifier: Nineveh was “an almighty great city” to put it in more colloquial terms, where the word almighty also captures something of the etymological connotation of strength or importance that the אלהּ root possibly communicates.
But at the same time, the immediate context needs to be viewed in the light of wider contextual considerations, where it is to be noted that the three instances of the phrase the great city in Jonah all occur on the lips of … God! It is also clear from Jon 4:11 that the 120,000 person population of Nineveh, and its many animals, were a key component of the greatness of the city from God’s perspective. The wider context, therefore, pushes us in the direction of the LXX translation: that Nineveh was a great city to (i.e., in the sight of) God.
So how is this to be resolved? I take it that the ideal reader of the text (an orthodox Israelite with an intimate knowledge of ancient Hebrew culture and language) would understand the phrase לאלהים in Jon 3:3 as being a case of double entendre. Nineveh was almighty big, and big to the Almighty! Its large human and animal population meant that God was rightfully concerned about the fate of the city, and that it should rightly experience God’s pity upon the condition of repentance. After all, those people and animals were created by God in the first place (note the logic of God’s argument in Jon 4:10–11).
The effect of the double entendre is to help us to realize that the almighty large cities of our world are important to the Almighty.
26 January 2011
The Theme of Flooding in the Old Testament
In considering the theme of flooding in the Old Testament, it is best to view the initial period that the earth was covered by water after God created the world as being the first instance of flooding recorded in the Bible (Gen 1:2). God dealt with the “problem” of the formlessness and emptiness of the intial creation by creating form and filling the domains so delineated. God did this through the power of his word. As part of this, God spoke such that the waters upon the earth might be gathered to one place, in order that dry land might appear (Gen 1:9). In this way, God divided the land from the seas (Gen 1:10). The original flooded state of the world could not continue on if animal and human forms of life were to exist and flourish.
The work of God separating the dry land from the seas at the time of creation established a dichotomy between the dry land and the sea, a dichotomy that is reflected in a number of places in the Old Testament (e.g., Exod 14:16, 22, 29; Neh 9:11; Ps 66:6; 95:5; Jon 1:9, 13; Hag 2:6). Proverbs 8:29 describes this work of separation as involving a divine command, reflecting divine wisdom, by means of which God assigned a limit to the sea, a command that the sea could not ordinarily “transgress.” Just as Gen 1 implies, it is God who controls the boundary between the land and the waters of the rivers and the seas. Thus, the psalmist could say that God “puts the deeps in storehouses” (Ps 33:7).
Yet ever since this first separation, the waters have always threatened to overcome the land; nevertheless the word of God has maintained the boundary between the land and the sea, preventing the flooding of the land by the waters on a worldwide scale, apart from the time of the great flood of Noah (see “The Theme of Flooding in the Bible: Noah’s Flood”). The role of the word of God in this matter is important. If it was the word of God that brought order out of chaos in the beginning, then without the word of God the world would revert to its default state with the waters overcoming the land. This is what happened at the time of Noah: “all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened” (Gen 7:11). Through that event, God showed the human race the consequences of disobedience. Human disobedience results in a reversion to the default state, which is chaos.
The theme of flooding also occurs in the account of the exodus. The water of the Reed Sea stood as a symbol of the impending death of Israel at the hands of the pursuing army. But God “divided the sea, and let [Israel] pass through it … he made the waters stand like a heap” (Ps 78:13). Or as the Song of Moses puts it: “At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up; the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea” (Exod 15:8). Conversely, the destruction of the Egyptian army was as a result of flooding. As the Song of Moses celebrated: “The floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone” (Exod 15:5). See also Ps 106:9–11.
The relationship between water, chaos, and death on the one side, and dry land, salvation, and life on the other, as developed in Gen 1, the Noah narrative, and the incident of the Reed Sea, provides the conceptual framework for the biblical metaphor of being overcome by water as an image of death, and also for the related metaphor of being rescued through or from water as an image of salvation from death.
In Psalm 18, for example, David pictures the threat of death from the opposition of enemies as being like a torrential flood dragging him down to Sheol (Ps 18:4–5). But in response to the psalmist’s cry for salvation, God acted to “lay bare” “the channels of the sea” through his word of rebuke (Ps 18:15). “He sent from on high, he took me; he drew me out of many waters … He brought me out into a broad place; he rescued me, because he delighted in me” (Ps 18:16, 19).
Psalm 69 is another example:
Finally, it should be noted that the power of floodwaters is also used as an image of the power of God. The floodwaters surge and roar, but “mightier than the thunders of many waters, mightier than the waves of the sea, Yahweh on high is mighty!” (Ps 93:3–4). “Yahweh sits enthroned over the flood; Yahweh sits enthroned as king forever!” (Ps 29:10).
The work of God separating the dry land from the seas at the time of creation established a dichotomy between the dry land and the sea, a dichotomy that is reflected in a number of places in the Old Testament (e.g., Exod 14:16, 22, 29; Neh 9:11; Ps 66:6; 95:5; Jon 1:9, 13; Hag 2:6). Proverbs 8:29 describes this work of separation as involving a divine command, reflecting divine wisdom, by means of which God assigned a limit to the sea, a command that the sea could not ordinarily “transgress.” Just as Gen 1 implies, it is God who controls the boundary between the land and the waters of the rivers and the seas. Thus, the psalmist could say that God “puts the deeps in storehouses” (Ps 33:7).
Yet ever since this first separation, the waters have always threatened to overcome the land; nevertheless the word of God has maintained the boundary between the land and the sea, preventing the flooding of the land by the waters on a worldwide scale, apart from the time of the great flood of Noah (see “The Theme of Flooding in the Bible: Noah’s Flood”). The role of the word of God in this matter is important. If it was the word of God that brought order out of chaos in the beginning, then without the word of God the world would revert to its default state with the waters overcoming the land. This is what happened at the time of Noah: “all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened” (Gen 7:11). Through that event, God showed the human race the consequences of disobedience. Human disobedience results in a reversion to the default state, which is chaos.
The theme of flooding also occurs in the account of the exodus. The water of the Reed Sea stood as a symbol of the impending death of Israel at the hands of the pursuing army. But God “divided the sea, and let [Israel] pass through it … he made the waters stand like a heap” (Ps 78:13). Or as the Song of Moses puts it: “At the blast of your nostrils the waters piled up; the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea” (Exod 15:8). Conversely, the destruction of the Egyptian army was as a result of flooding. As the Song of Moses celebrated: “The floods covered them; they went down into the depths like a stone” (Exod 15:5). See also Ps 106:9–11.
The relationship between water, chaos, and death on the one side, and dry land, salvation, and life on the other, as developed in Gen 1, the Noah narrative, and the incident of the Reed Sea, provides the conceptual framework for the biblical metaphor of being overcome by water as an image of death, and also for the related metaphor of being rescued through or from water as an image of salvation from death.
In Psalm 18, for example, David pictures the threat of death from the opposition of enemies as being like a torrential flood dragging him down to Sheol (Ps 18:4–5). But in response to the psalmist’s cry for salvation, God acted to “lay bare” “the channels of the sea” through his word of rebuke (Ps 18:15). “He sent from on high, he took me; he drew me out of many waters … He brought me out into a broad place; he rescued me, because he delighted in me” (Ps 18:16, 19).
Psalm 69 is another example:
Save me, O God! For the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in deep mire, where there is no foothold; I have come into deep waters, and the flood sweeps over me … Deliver me from sinking in the mire; let me be delivered from my enemies and from the deep waters. Let not the flood sweep over me, or the deep swallow me up, or the pit close its mouth over me (Ps 69:1–2, 14–15).Flood imagery also appears in Ps 88:
You have put me in the depths of the pit, in the regions dark and deep. Your wrath lies heavy upon me, and you overwhelm me with all your waves … Your wrath has swept over me; your dreadful assaults destroy me. They surround me like a flood all day long; they close in on me together (Ps 88:6–7, 16–17).Similarly Ps 124:
If it had not been Yahweh who was on our side when people rose up against us, then they would have swallowed us up alive, when their anger was kindled against us; then the flood would have swept us away, the torrent would have gone over us; then over us would have gone the raging waters (Ps 124:2–5).Flood imagery also occurs in Ps 32:6; 42:7; and Jonah describes his experience in the stormy sea in terms of flooding (Jon 2:3, 5–6).
Finally, it should be noted that the power of floodwaters is also used as an image of the power of God. The floodwaters surge and roar, but “mightier than the thunders of many waters, mightier than the waves of the sea, Yahweh on high is mighty!” (Ps 93:3–4). “Yahweh sits enthroned over the flood; Yahweh sits enthroned as king forever!” (Ps 29:10).
21 January 2011
The Theme of Flooding in the Bible: Noah's Flood
The tragedy of the widescale flooding in Queensland and other parts of Australia recently has prompted me to consider the theme of flooding in the Bible.
The most famous flood in the Bible is, of course, Noah’s flood. As a response to the growing wickedness of humanity (Gen 6:5–7), God “brought a flood of water upon the earth” with the intention of “destroying all flesh” with the exception of Noah and his family and a remnant of the land animals and birds (Gen 6:17–19). This was achieved by the unleashing of torrential rain over a period of forty days and forty nights (Gen 7:11–12). The floodwaters were so great that “all the high mountains that were under all of heaven” were covered by up to seven meters of water (Gen 7:20).
The effect of the flood was catastrophic:
Yet God’s purposes for the world would continue. The repetition of the creation mandate of Gen 1:28 to Noah in Gen 9:1–2, 7 signaled that the work of extending the kingdom of God on earth (a privileged task that God had assigned to the human race back in the beginning) was to continue.
The theme of flooding in the rest of the Old Testament will be explored in my next post; but it should be noted that, because Noah’s flood is the paradigmatic flood in the Bible, it provides the referential point for the metaphor of being encompassed by floodwater and the related metaphor of being rescued from floodwater, which occur at various points thoughout the Old Testament.
The most famous flood in the Bible is, of course, Noah’s flood. As a response to the growing wickedness of humanity (Gen 6:5–7), God “brought a flood of water upon the earth” with the intention of “destroying all flesh” with the exception of Noah and his family and a remnant of the land animals and birds (Gen 6:17–19). This was achieved by the unleashing of torrential rain over a period of forty days and forty nights (Gen 7:11–12). The floodwaters were so great that “all the high mountains that were under all of heaven” were covered by up to seven meters of water (Gen 7:20).
The effect of the flood was catastrophic:
“all flesh that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all of humanity, died. Everything in whose nostrils was the breath of life from all that was on the dry ground died. [God] exterminated every living thing that was on the face of the ground: human beings, and animals, and creeping things, and the birds of the sky. They were exterminated from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark” (Gen 7:21–23).The floodwaters “prevailed upon the earth” for five months (Gen 7:24)! On the seventeenth day of the seventh month (around seven days after what would later on become the Day of Atonement, during the period of the Feast of Tabernacles) the ark came to rest on Mount Ararat, and the floodwaters began to abate (Gen 8:3–4). It was not until some two and a half months later that the tops of the mountains were seen (Gen 8:5), and another three months until the floodwaters had dried up completely! In the meantime, the olive leaf in the mouth of the dove was a sign to Noah that the waters had begun to abate, a sign that new life had emerged out of the destructive waters of the flood. The day that the floodwater had dried up completely was the first day of the first month (Gen 8:13), a new beginning for the human race. Even then, Noah had to wait another 57 days until the ground was dry (Gen 8:14). Altogether, the floodwaters ravaged the earth for around 315 days, while Noah was in the ark for around 378 days. This was an enormous flood.
Yet God’s purposes for the world would continue. The repetition of the creation mandate of Gen 1:28 to Noah in Gen 9:1–2, 7 signaled that the work of extending the kingdom of God on earth (a privileged task that God had assigned to the human race back in the beginning) was to continue.
The theme of flooding in the rest of the Old Testament will be explored in my next post; but it should be noted that, because Noah’s flood is the paradigmatic flood in the Bible, it provides the referential point for the metaphor of being encompassed by floodwater and the related metaphor of being rescued from floodwater, which occur at various points thoughout the Old Testament.
15 January 2011
An SIL Biblical Hebrew Keyboard for Linux Operating Systems
One of the advantages of Linux is the ability to customize your computer’s operating system. In this regard, Linux seems to be a lot more flexible than Microsoft Windows. Like when it comes to designing your own Hebrew keyboard; all it basically requires is the editing of a single file! Vern Poythress has some helpful information on the “Keyboard Entry of Polytonic Greek and Biblical Hebrew in GNU/Linux” on his website. Poythress shows you how to edit the xkb keymap so that you can customize your Hebrew keyboard according to the way you like it. For Poythress (and me), this is a keyboard that is similar to the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard that was designed by SIL International and built by John Hudson (who also designed the SBL Hebrew font).
But there is another way of mapping your own Hebrew keyboard using IBus, the Intelligent Input Bus, which is now the default input method for Ubuntu and some other Linux systems. This involves editing the he-kbd.mim file in the ibus-m17n software package. I have edited this file to develop a Hebrew input method that substantially simulates the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard. The result is an input method that replicates the keystrokes of the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard for all numbers and English punctuation marks, all Hebrew consonants, all common Hebrew vowel points, plus the maqef, dagesh, meteg, atnakh, rafe, and sof pasuq. The accent ole is also included as it can be used as a general marker of syllabic stress in non-accented texts. Departing a little from the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard, the backslash key inputs a backslash rather than the paseq. The layout also uses CTRL+ALT for the third and fourth keyboard levels rather than ALTGR.
For anyone interested in typing Hebrew on a Linux system using a keymap similar to the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard using IBus, the necessary steps are as follows (in Ubuntu 10.04; 10.10; and 11.04):
1) Make sure you have the ibus software package installed, and download and install the ibus-m17n package;
2) Backup the original /usr/share/m17n/he-kbd.mim file somewhere safe;
3) Download my version of the file he-kbd.mim—if the link is down, a copy of the content of the file can be found at Vos Linux—and copy it into your /usr/share/m17n/ folder; or
4) If you prefer to design your own Hebrew keyboard, then edit the he-kbd.mim file—you need to edit the file yourself particularly if you want the full range of Hebrew accents to be available;
5) Configure General IBus Preferences (in Keyboard Input Methods in the System Preferences Menu in GNOME 2.32) by defining the keyboard shortcuts and language bar behavior;
6) Configure Input Method IBus Preferences by clicking on Select an input method to select your desired language and input method, then press add for it to be listed;
7) Reboot;
8) Run the ibus-daemon (if this is not automatically run by the system), and use your IBus Preferences keyboard shortcut in a text editor, word processor, or input window, to enable the IBus language bar;
9) Toggle to select א kbd on the language bar by using the appropriate keyboard shortcut (if necessary);
10) Start typing Hebrew SIL style!
If for some reason the ibus-daemon does not run automatically at startup, you can create an ibus-daemon.desktop file in the /etc/xdg/autostart/ folder with content as follows:
[Desktop Entry]
Type=Application
Name=IBus Daemon
Comment=The IBus input method daemon
Exec=ibus-daemon -d
OnlyShowIn=GNOME;LXDE;XFCE;
Recommended fonts to use for typing Hebrew are the stylish SBL Hebrew font, and the more traditional Ezra SIL font. If you intend to use the SBL Hebrew font exclusively, then the entries for the key sequences "f=", "f+", "j=", and "j+" can be removed from the he-kbd.mim file. These key sequences allow the dagesh to be entered with the letters sin and shin when using the Ezra SIL font (and others).
Please note that SBL Hebrew is a trademark of the Society of Biblical Literature.
But there is another way of mapping your own Hebrew keyboard using IBus, the Intelligent Input Bus, which is now the default input method for Ubuntu and some other Linux systems. This involves editing the he-kbd.mim file in the ibus-m17n software package. I have edited this file to develop a Hebrew input method that substantially simulates the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard. The result is an input method that replicates the keystrokes of the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard for all numbers and English punctuation marks, all Hebrew consonants, all common Hebrew vowel points, plus the maqef, dagesh, meteg, atnakh, rafe, and sof pasuq. The accent ole is also included as it can be used as a general marker of syllabic stress in non-accented texts. Departing a little from the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard, the backslash key inputs a backslash rather than the paseq. The layout also uses CTRL+ALT for the third and fourth keyboard levels rather than ALTGR.
For anyone interested in typing Hebrew on a Linux system using a keymap similar to the SIL Biblical Hebrew keyboard using IBus, the necessary steps are as follows (in Ubuntu 10.04; 10.10; and 11.04):
1) Make sure you have the ibus software package installed, and download and install the ibus-m17n package;
2) Backup the original /usr/share/m17n/he-kbd.mim file somewhere safe;
3) Download my version of the file he-kbd.mim—if the link is down, a copy of the content of the file can be found at Vos Linux—and copy it into your /usr/share/m17n/ folder; or
4) If you prefer to design your own Hebrew keyboard, then edit the he-kbd.mim file—you need to edit the file yourself particularly if you want the full range of Hebrew accents to be available;
5) Configure General IBus Preferences (in Keyboard Input Methods in the System Preferences Menu in GNOME 2.32) by defining the keyboard shortcuts and language bar behavior;
6) Configure Input Method IBus Preferences by clicking on Select an input method to select your desired language and input method, then press add for it to be listed;
7) Reboot;
8) Run the ibus-daemon (if this is not automatically run by the system), and use your IBus Preferences keyboard shortcut in a text editor, word processor, or input window, to enable the IBus language bar;
9) Toggle to select א kbd on the language bar by using the appropriate keyboard shortcut (if necessary);
10) Start typing Hebrew SIL style!
If for some reason the ibus-daemon does not run automatically at startup, you can create an ibus-daemon.desktop file in the /etc/xdg/autostart/ folder with content as follows:
[Desktop Entry]
Type=Application
Name=IBus Daemon
Comment=The IBus input method daemon
Exec=ibus-daemon -d
OnlyShowIn=GNOME;LXDE;XFCE;
Recommended fonts to use for typing Hebrew are the stylish SBL Hebrew font, and the more traditional Ezra SIL font. If you intend to use the SBL Hebrew font exclusively, then the entries for the key sequences "f=", "f+", "j=", and "j+" can be removed from the he-kbd.mim file. These key sequences allow the dagesh to be entered with the letters sin and shin when using the Ezra SIL font (and others).
Please note that SBL Hebrew is a trademark of the Society of Biblical Literature.
11 January 2011
Using Linux Operating Systems for Bible Research
I have had fun experimenting over the last year or so with Linux computer operating systems. Many of these operating systems are available for free download. I am particularly impressed with the Ubuntu distribution;
and the lightweight derivative Lubuntu has extended the life of my favorite 2005 year model laptop, probably for several years into the future.
The Linux operating systems are an amazing resource, and I can’t help to think of the potential for the use of Linux systems to promote biblical research in less developed parts of the world. There are also Bible software programs freely available for use on Linux systems. My favorite among these is Xiphos.
I will be a very happy man when the Open Scriptures Morphological Hebrew Bible finally has Hebrew morphology attached. At the moment it has been tagged with Strong’s numbers, but it is still a great resource.
 |
| Ubuntu 10.04 Gnome Desktop |
and the lightweight derivative Lubuntu has extended the life of my favorite 2005 year model laptop, probably for several years into the future.
The Linux operating systems are an amazing resource, and I can’t help to think of the potential for the use of Linux systems to promote biblical research in less developed parts of the world. There are also Bible software programs freely available for use on Linux systems. My favorite among these is Xiphos.
 |
| Xiphos 3.1.3 Showing the Open Scriptures Morphological Hebrew Bible |
I will be a very happy man when the Open Scriptures Morphological Hebrew Bible finally has Hebrew morphology attached. At the moment it has been tagged with Strong’s numbers, but it is still a great resource.
06 January 2011
The Worth of a Child according to Scientific Atheism Compared to Christianity
How valuable is the life of a child? What value would you place of the life of a child?
What value would you place on the life of this child?
Is she precious? I may be biased, but I reckon she looks rather cute.
Well, how about this one? What value do you place on the life of this little boy?
As you look at the two of these children, can you honestly say that one is more precious than the other? Yet according to the majority opinion in many societies in the world, one of these children—the little boy—should have been destroyed in the womb. One of these children, to quote the obstetrician, “has so many problems it won’t last long.” This particular doctor said three times that the normal thing to do in this situation is to terminate the pregnancy. Because the child was not “normal” or “perfect,” it no longer had the right to live.
Suffering from the effects of spina bifida (such as being unable to walk), this child may have more difficulties to face than others, and even though I cannot say that he is more precious than the little girl, perhaps the child that your heart goes out to more is the child who through no fault on his own will have more challenges to face in life than many of us able-bodied types.
But why should you pity him? In fact, why should we pity any child? Do you pity the child destroyed in the womb? Do you pity the newborn child abandoned by its mother, left to die in a shoe box, or left to drown in a toilet? If the existence of this universe and life on our planet is merely the product of chance, if we human beings are merely the result of a random process of evolution, then why pity anyone? If there is no God, if we exist here as a result of some random fluke, then life is merely the survival of the fittest.
Western civilisation is currently in the middle of a battle between two philosophical systems: a battle between Christianity and so-called scientific atheism. Some of us might think that we do not need to make a choice between these two systems, but to sit on the fence is not an option. Either God exists, or he doesn’t.
According to the latest theories of scientific atheism, our universe somehow—without any cause but simply by chance—began with the big bang some 13.75 billion years ago. They say that life on this planet is simply the result of 3.5 billion year process of random mutation and natural selection.
But what do you think? The universe is actually so big that the scientists say that it is effectively infinite. The observable universe has a diameter of 93 billion light years. In terms of kilometers, that’s virtually a 9 followed by 26 zeros. And they reckon that this observable universe is filled 100 billion galaxies, and contains at least sextillion stars (that’s 10 to the power of 21 stars), although a recent study has suggested that this figure is out by a factor of 300 (that makes it 3 times 10 to the power of 23). The maximum possible number of stars the average person can see on a dark night in the countryside is about 45,000, but typically it’s only about 5,000 or so. The figures are simply mind-blowing. If this is just random, we have to conclude that it is amazingly productive randomness.
And I am yet to mention the abundance of life on the planet that we call Earth. Have a guess how many species of life exist on this planet! I can’t give you a definite number, because the scientists themselves can’t. Their best guess is that the total number of species on earth is anything from 7–100 million. This includes anything from 5–100 million species of bacteria (possibly many more); around 100,000 kinds of fungi (which includes around 14,000 different kinds of mushroom); and around 300,000 plant species. When it comes to animals, there are over a million different species, most of them insects. Altogether there are around 950,000 different species of insect (including 4,500 different species of cockroach); over 30,000 species of fish; over 6,000 different kinds of amphibian (mainly frogs); over 8,000 species of reptile (mainly lizards and snakes); around 10,000 species of bird; and around 5,400 kinds of mammal. Millions of different species, and this all the result of of 3.5 billion years of random mutation?
Honestly, what is easier to believe? That all of this variety—the billion upon billions of stars, and the millions of different species that inhabit our planet—is just a fluke; or that there is some amazingly powerful, creative designer behind the universe? Which view requires the biggest leap of faith? What odds do you give everything coming from absolutely nothing? What odds of a new species randomly developing on earth on average every 35 years (assuming there are 100 million different species)? Yet scientific atheism laughs at Christianity for believing in miracles!
But putting aside the incredulous nature of the kind of faith demanded by scientific atheism, the biggest problem with scientific atheism is the consequences of this worldview for morality. If this is all some big fluke, if the existence of the universe and life on earth is simply the result of chance and the survival of the fittest, then whoever has the biggest gun wins, and you have no right to complain about it when you lose. Scientific atheists have no real right to speak of love, of justice, and what’s fair and what’s not. Why are you fighting for the rights of workers when they are just random blobs of genetic material? Why cry for the poor children of Africa? Why care for the sick, or the aged, or the young? If it’s all just chance, then why not be honest with yourself, and admit that you have no sound philosophical basis for any non-arbitrary moral code in life? Scientific atheism is logically amoral.
Scientific atheism is about the survival of the fittest, the converse of which is the elimination of the weak; and that is why in many societies today it is considered the norm for children diagnosed with spina bifida to be destroyed within the womb. I have been told by a doctor specializing in spina bifida that the rate of termination in Australia is heading toward 75%. This is particularly tragic when you consider that most kids with spina bifida are children of average intelligence with nice personalities and the ability to speak. The one pictured above has a wonderful sense of humor, an infectious laugh, and is a budding cricketer. So what if they can’t walk, or if they need a shunt in their head to deal with hydrocephalus? They don’t deserve to live or to be protected and nurtured like any other child? Eliminating such children before they travel through the birth canal is consistent with the scientific atheistic worldview, which promotes the idea that the history of the world is structured on the principle of natural selection, where the stronger random blobs of genetic material subjugate or terminate the weaker random blobs of genetic material.
But this is not the Christian understanding of reality. Christianity says that this universe was made by a powerful Creator. It also says, as the story of the incarnation of Christ clearly reveals, that the Creator of this universe values his creation so much that he was willing to enter into his creation, to take his place within it. Many religions believe in God, but Christianity is the only religion radical enough to say that the Creator values his creation, and human beings in particular, so much that the powerful Creator himself was willing to become one of us, to come down to our level in order to take us up to his. The story of the incarnation of God is not a story about the survival of the fittest. It is a story about the strongest becoming weak in order that the weak might become strong. The incarnation of God is God affirming the value of human life. The incarnation of God honors the human race, and places great value on every individual human being. And to think that Christianity says that the Creator of this universe became incarnate with a view to dying on the cross for humanity! Surely this is one of the most radical ideas that has ever been proposed in the history of religion and philosophy. The incarnation is the Creator saying that you are so valuable as to be worth the Creator of the universe dying for. In this way Christianity gives a sound moral basis for the ideals of love, justice, and human rights. God the Creator becoming a child means that every child is more than just a random blob of genetic material, and that every child (no matter their ability or disability, whether born or unborn) deserves to live and to grow to his or her full potential.
So which philosophical system affirms the value of humanity, and the precious worth of every child? Scientific atheism or Christianity? Philosophically I think the answer is obvious.
What value would you place on the life of this child?
Is she precious? I may be biased, but I reckon she looks rather cute.
Well, how about this one? What value do you place on the life of this little boy?
As you look at the two of these children, can you honestly say that one is more precious than the other? Yet according to the majority opinion in many societies in the world, one of these children—the little boy—should have been destroyed in the womb. One of these children, to quote the obstetrician, “has so many problems it won’t last long.” This particular doctor said three times that the normal thing to do in this situation is to terminate the pregnancy. Because the child was not “normal” or “perfect,” it no longer had the right to live.
Suffering from the effects of spina bifida (such as being unable to walk), this child may have more difficulties to face than others, and even though I cannot say that he is more precious than the little girl, perhaps the child that your heart goes out to more is the child who through no fault on his own will have more challenges to face in life than many of us able-bodied types.
But why should you pity him? In fact, why should we pity any child? Do you pity the child destroyed in the womb? Do you pity the newborn child abandoned by its mother, left to die in a shoe box, or left to drown in a toilet? If the existence of this universe and life on our planet is merely the product of chance, if we human beings are merely the result of a random process of evolution, then why pity anyone? If there is no God, if we exist here as a result of some random fluke, then life is merely the survival of the fittest.
Western civilisation is currently in the middle of a battle between two philosophical systems: a battle between Christianity and so-called scientific atheism. Some of us might think that we do not need to make a choice between these two systems, but to sit on the fence is not an option. Either God exists, or he doesn’t.
According to the latest theories of scientific atheism, our universe somehow—without any cause but simply by chance—began with the big bang some 13.75 billion years ago. They say that life on this planet is simply the result of 3.5 billion year process of random mutation and natural selection.
But what do you think? The universe is actually so big that the scientists say that it is effectively infinite. The observable universe has a diameter of 93 billion light years. In terms of kilometers, that’s virtually a 9 followed by 26 zeros. And they reckon that this observable universe is filled 100 billion galaxies, and contains at least sextillion stars (that’s 10 to the power of 21 stars), although a recent study has suggested that this figure is out by a factor of 300 (that makes it 3 times 10 to the power of 23). The maximum possible number of stars the average person can see on a dark night in the countryside is about 45,000, but typically it’s only about 5,000 or so. The figures are simply mind-blowing. If this is just random, we have to conclude that it is amazingly productive randomness.
And I am yet to mention the abundance of life on the planet that we call Earth. Have a guess how many species of life exist on this planet! I can’t give you a definite number, because the scientists themselves can’t. Their best guess is that the total number of species on earth is anything from 7–100 million. This includes anything from 5–100 million species of bacteria (possibly many more); around 100,000 kinds of fungi (which includes around 14,000 different kinds of mushroom); and around 300,000 plant species. When it comes to animals, there are over a million different species, most of them insects. Altogether there are around 950,000 different species of insect (including 4,500 different species of cockroach); over 30,000 species of fish; over 6,000 different kinds of amphibian (mainly frogs); over 8,000 species of reptile (mainly lizards and snakes); around 10,000 species of bird; and around 5,400 kinds of mammal. Millions of different species, and this all the result of of 3.5 billion years of random mutation?
Honestly, what is easier to believe? That all of this variety—the billion upon billions of stars, and the millions of different species that inhabit our planet—is just a fluke; or that there is some amazingly powerful, creative designer behind the universe? Which view requires the biggest leap of faith? What odds do you give everything coming from absolutely nothing? What odds of a new species randomly developing on earth on average every 35 years (assuming there are 100 million different species)? Yet scientific atheism laughs at Christianity for believing in miracles!
But putting aside the incredulous nature of the kind of faith demanded by scientific atheism, the biggest problem with scientific atheism is the consequences of this worldview for morality. If this is all some big fluke, if the existence of the universe and life on earth is simply the result of chance and the survival of the fittest, then whoever has the biggest gun wins, and you have no right to complain about it when you lose. Scientific atheists have no real right to speak of love, of justice, and what’s fair and what’s not. Why are you fighting for the rights of workers when they are just random blobs of genetic material? Why cry for the poor children of Africa? Why care for the sick, or the aged, or the young? If it’s all just chance, then why not be honest with yourself, and admit that you have no sound philosophical basis for any non-arbitrary moral code in life? Scientific atheism is logically amoral.
Scientific atheism is about the survival of the fittest, the converse of which is the elimination of the weak; and that is why in many societies today it is considered the norm for children diagnosed with spina bifida to be destroyed within the womb. I have been told by a doctor specializing in spina bifida that the rate of termination in Australia is heading toward 75%. This is particularly tragic when you consider that most kids with spina bifida are children of average intelligence with nice personalities and the ability to speak. The one pictured above has a wonderful sense of humor, an infectious laugh, and is a budding cricketer. So what if they can’t walk, or if they need a shunt in their head to deal with hydrocephalus? They don’t deserve to live or to be protected and nurtured like any other child? Eliminating such children before they travel through the birth canal is consistent with the scientific atheistic worldview, which promotes the idea that the history of the world is structured on the principle of natural selection, where the stronger random blobs of genetic material subjugate or terminate the weaker random blobs of genetic material.
But this is not the Christian understanding of reality. Christianity says that this universe was made by a powerful Creator. It also says, as the story of the incarnation of Christ clearly reveals, that the Creator of this universe values his creation so much that he was willing to enter into his creation, to take his place within it. Many religions believe in God, but Christianity is the only religion radical enough to say that the Creator values his creation, and human beings in particular, so much that the powerful Creator himself was willing to become one of us, to come down to our level in order to take us up to his. The story of the incarnation of God is not a story about the survival of the fittest. It is a story about the strongest becoming weak in order that the weak might become strong. The incarnation of God is God affirming the value of human life. The incarnation of God honors the human race, and places great value on every individual human being. And to think that Christianity says that the Creator of this universe became incarnate with a view to dying on the cross for humanity! Surely this is one of the most radical ideas that has ever been proposed in the history of religion and philosophy. The incarnation is the Creator saying that you are so valuable as to be worth the Creator of the universe dying for. In this way Christianity gives a sound moral basis for the ideals of love, justice, and human rights. God the Creator becoming a child means that every child is more than just a random blob of genetic material, and that every child (no matter their ability or disability, whether born or unborn) deserves to live and to grow to his or her full potential.
So which philosophical system affirms the value of humanity, and the precious worth of every child? Scientific atheism or Christianity? Philosophically I think the answer is obvious.
29 December 2010
A Summary of the New Covenant Paradigm
My current doctoral thesis is concerned to develop something of the bigger biblical-theological flow of salvation history in the Bible under the rubric of justification. I have called the resulting model the new covenant paradigm. The model can be summarized under 15 main theses as follows:
1) The condition of justification inside the garden of Eden was perfect (holistic) faith;
2) The condition of justification outside the garden of Eden is imperfect (holistic) faith;
3) The primary dispensational distinction in the Bible is that between the old covenant and the new covenant;
4) The condition of justification for Israel under the old covenant was not perfect faith but imperfect faith, as the presence of a system of sacrificial atonement within the law proves;
5) Under the old covenant, the condition of faith, being holistic, was characteristically described in terms of doing torah;
6) Hence, a legitimate doctrine of justification by the works of the law existed under the old covenant;
7) The old covenant is, therefore, a covenant of grace; but Israel's continuation in grace was conditional upon Israel continuing in imperfect (holistic) faith (i.e., doing torah);
8) But Israel as a nation broke the covenant by not doing torah;
9) Therefore, the Mosaic covenant of grace functioned historically primarily as a covenant of condemnation and death, compounding the original transgression of Adam;
10) The failure of the old covenant was part of God’s plan to highlight the supreme expression of the grace of God to be revealed under the new covenant in Christ;
11) Because the new covenant solves the problem of the failure of the old covenant, and is the fulfillment of the old covenant, the new covenant exhibits the same relational dynamics as the old covenant;
12) Therefore, justification under the new covenant is also justification by imperfect faith;
13) But with the coming of a new revelation in Christ, the content of faith has been redefined in terms of this new revelation (the gospel), which can be contrasted with the previous revelation that came via Moses (the law);
14) The new covenant definition of faith can be contrasted, therefore, with the definition of faith that was understood to apply under the old covenant, hence the covenantal distinction between justification by faith in Christ under the new covenant and justification by the works of the law (i.e., Mosaic faith) under the old;
15) Under the new covenant (like under the old), perseverance in faith is necessary in order to experience the fullness of salvation at the time of the consummation of the new covenant.
In other words, what I am suggesting is that, outside of the garden, justification has always been by (imperfect) faith. But because faith is typically viewed in the Old Testament in a holistic manner, justification by faith under the old covenant was typically thought of as being by way of obedience to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant in the context of grace, what came to be known in Jewish parlance as justification by the works of the law. The New Testament works of the law versus faith in Christ distinction, therefore, is primarily a terminological distinction that expresses pragmatically the element of discontinuity between the covenants on the level of the mediator and content of revelation. In sum, if you wanted to be right with God under the old covenant, you had to follow the revelation that had been given to Israel via Moses (Deut 6:25; Rom 10:5); but if you want to be right with God under the new covenant, you need to follow the revelation that has been given to the world in Christ (John 8:31–32; Rom 10:8–13).
1) The condition of justification inside the garden of Eden was perfect (holistic) faith;
2) The condition of justification outside the garden of Eden is imperfect (holistic) faith;
3) The primary dispensational distinction in the Bible is that between the old covenant and the new covenant;
4) The condition of justification for Israel under the old covenant was not perfect faith but imperfect faith, as the presence of a system of sacrificial atonement within the law proves;
5) Under the old covenant, the condition of faith, being holistic, was characteristically described in terms of doing torah;
6) Hence, a legitimate doctrine of justification by the works of the law existed under the old covenant;
7) The old covenant is, therefore, a covenant of grace; but Israel's continuation in grace was conditional upon Israel continuing in imperfect (holistic) faith (i.e., doing torah);
8) But Israel as a nation broke the covenant by not doing torah;
9) Therefore, the Mosaic covenant of grace functioned historically primarily as a covenant of condemnation and death, compounding the original transgression of Adam;
10) The failure of the old covenant was part of God’s plan to highlight the supreme expression of the grace of God to be revealed under the new covenant in Christ;
11) Because the new covenant solves the problem of the failure of the old covenant, and is the fulfillment of the old covenant, the new covenant exhibits the same relational dynamics as the old covenant;
12) Therefore, justification under the new covenant is also justification by imperfect faith;
13) But with the coming of a new revelation in Christ, the content of faith has been redefined in terms of this new revelation (the gospel), which can be contrasted with the previous revelation that came via Moses (the law);
14) The new covenant definition of faith can be contrasted, therefore, with the definition of faith that was understood to apply under the old covenant, hence the covenantal distinction between justification by faith in Christ under the new covenant and justification by the works of the law (i.e., Mosaic faith) under the old;
15) Under the new covenant (like under the old), perseverance in faith is necessary in order to experience the fullness of salvation at the time of the consummation of the new covenant.
In other words, what I am suggesting is that, outside of the garden, justification has always been by (imperfect) faith. But because faith is typically viewed in the Old Testament in a holistic manner, justification by faith under the old covenant was typically thought of as being by way of obedience to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant in the context of grace, what came to be known in Jewish parlance as justification by the works of the law. The New Testament works of the law versus faith in Christ distinction, therefore, is primarily a terminological distinction that expresses pragmatically the element of discontinuity between the covenants on the level of the mediator and content of revelation. In sum, if you wanted to be right with God under the old covenant, you had to follow the revelation that had been given to Israel via Moses (Deut 6:25; Rom 10:5); but if you want to be right with God under the new covenant, you need to follow the revelation that has been given to the world in Christ (John 8:31–32; Rom 10:8–13).
19 December 2010
A Balanced Protestant Biblical Hermeneutic on Law and Gospel
Understanding the teaching of the Apostle Paul regarding law and gospel in the light of Old Testament theology and prophecy suggests that Protestant exegetes of Paul have frequently overemphasized the condemnatory power of the law, resulting in an overly-rigid law versus gospel hermeneutic.
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses the need for a balanced biblical hermeneutic on law and gospel in Paul:
“Traditional Protestant exegesis has exhibited a strong tendency to understand the righteousness terminology of the Bible, and of Paul in particular, in absolute terms, which in turn means that the condemnatory function of the law is emphasized with no place left for the justifying and vivifying function of the law when written on the human heart by the Holy Spirit” (pp. 141–2);
“A more balanced biblical hermeneutic on law and gospel would ... pay attention to the Old Testament teaching on the gospel as including the concept of the Holy Spirit writing God’s law on the hearts of his people. The biblical position is that where the Spirit is present writing divine law on human hearts, law is effectively gospel, and gospel effectively law” (p. 143);
“the Old Testament view of the gospel, which speaks of the triumph of the justifying and vivifying function of (eschatological) torah over the condemnatory and mortifying function of (Mosaic) torah, is the correct perspective to bring to our reading of Paul in Galatians and Romans” (p. 143).
My view is that Paul’s law versus gospel distinction should to be understood as being Paul’s way of distinguishing old covenant revelation from new covenant revelation. In other words, Paul’s law versus gospel distinction is primarily a salvation-historical distinction rather than being a distinction of linguistic form wherein command is strictly opposed to promise.
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses the need for a balanced biblical hermeneutic on law and gospel in Paul:
“Traditional Protestant exegesis has exhibited a strong tendency to understand the righteousness terminology of the Bible, and of Paul in particular, in absolute terms, which in turn means that the condemnatory function of the law is emphasized with no place left for the justifying and vivifying function of the law when written on the human heart by the Holy Spirit” (pp. 141–2);
“A more balanced biblical hermeneutic on law and gospel would ... pay attention to the Old Testament teaching on the gospel as including the concept of the Holy Spirit writing God’s law on the hearts of his people. The biblical position is that where the Spirit is present writing divine law on human hearts, law is effectively gospel, and gospel effectively law” (p. 143);
“the Old Testament view of the gospel, which speaks of the triumph of the justifying and vivifying function of (eschatological) torah over the condemnatory and mortifying function of (Mosaic) torah, is the correct perspective to bring to our reading of Paul in Galatians and Romans” (p. 143).
My view is that Paul’s law versus gospel distinction should to be understood as being Paul’s way of distinguishing old covenant revelation from new covenant revelation. In other words, Paul’s law versus gospel distinction is primarily a salvation-historical distinction rather than being a distinction of linguistic form wherein command is strictly opposed to promise.
14 December 2010
The Apostle Paul’s Teaching on the Law
The Apostle Paul’s teaching on the law is derived from, and fully consistent with, the teaching of the Old Testament concerning Mosaic law and eschatological law. Understanding the Old Testament teaching on torah is the key to understanding Paul on the law.
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses Paul’s teaching on the law:
“When Paul’s teaching on the law is examined in the light of the Old Testament teaching on torah, it comes as no surprise to discover that his view of the law is both positive and negative, corresponding to the dual function that the law exhibited under the old covenant. Positively, the Mosaic law offers the possibility of life (Rom 7:10) … In and of itself the Mosaic law is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12). Paul’s positive description of the Mosaic law in Rom 7:12 reflects the language of those parts of the Old Testament which praise the utility of the law for the believer, such as Ps 19:7-11; 119:1-2, 24, 72, 92-93, 98-100, 105, 130, 165, 175. Paul also speaks of the law as being “spiritual” (Rom 7:14), by which he means that the Mosaic law is a product of the Spirit, implying that there is no fundamental opposition between the Mosaic law and the Holy Spirit. Negatively, however, the Mosaic law was an instrument used by sin that led to the condemnation, enslavement, and death of the carnal majority in Israel, and indeed the nation as a whole (Rom 7:8-11, 13-24; 9:31; 2 Cor 3:6-7, 9)” (pp. 136–7).
“having come to understand the concept of the death of Israel through the instrumentality of the Mosaic law (which climaxed with the rejection of Christ), this is precisely where Paul saw the new covenant work of Christ and his Spirit entering the salvation historical equation. The Mosaic law was an instrument of condemnation and death to those among Israel who were “fleshly” (Rom 7:14), i.e., to those who did not have the Spirit writing the law on their hearts. But this former human unresponsiveness to God had now begun to change. Paul had come to understand that the new covenant had already commenced with the resurrection of Jesus. The new covenant work of spiritual regeneration had already begun and was being mediated through the proclamation of the gospel of the resurrection and lordship of Jesus (Acts 2:33, 36, 38; 10:44-45; Gal 3:2, 14) … Since faith is about submission to Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9), Christian faith is equated in Paul’s thinking with the eschatological teshuvah of Israel (and the nations). Hence, Paul equates the eschatological law that is written on the heart with the gospel that is received into the heart through faith. It is through the preaching of the gospel and our submission to Jesus as Lord that the law in its eschatological form becomes written on our hearts. The benefit of this for those who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, i.e., for those who are walking in the Spirit, is that we can now fulfill our covenantal obligations, and thus the law proves to be the way of life (Rom 8:2, 4, 6-8) as God had always intended (e.g., Deut 30:15-20)” (p. 139).
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses Paul’s teaching on the law:
“When Paul’s teaching on the law is examined in the light of the Old Testament teaching on torah, it comes as no surprise to discover that his view of the law is both positive and negative, corresponding to the dual function that the law exhibited under the old covenant. Positively, the Mosaic law offers the possibility of life (Rom 7:10) … In and of itself the Mosaic law is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12). Paul’s positive description of the Mosaic law in Rom 7:12 reflects the language of those parts of the Old Testament which praise the utility of the law for the believer, such as Ps 19:7-11; 119:1-2, 24, 72, 92-93, 98-100, 105, 130, 165, 175. Paul also speaks of the law as being “spiritual” (Rom 7:14), by which he means that the Mosaic law is a product of the Spirit, implying that there is no fundamental opposition between the Mosaic law and the Holy Spirit. Negatively, however, the Mosaic law was an instrument used by sin that led to the condemnation, enslavement, and death of the carnal majority in Israel, and indeed the nation as a whole (Rom 7:8-11, 13-24; 9:31; 2 Cor 3:6-7, 9)” (pp. 136–7).
“having come to understand the concept of the death of Israel through the instrumentality of the Mosaic law (which climaxed with the rejection of Christ), this is precisely where Paul saw the new covenant work of Christ and his Spirit entering the salvation historical equation. The Mosaic law was an instrument of condemnation and death to those among Israel who were “fleshly” (Rom 7:14), i.e., to those who did not have the Spirit writing the law on their hearts. But this former human unresponsiveness to God had now begun to change. Paul had come to understand that the new covenant had already commenced with the resurrection of Jesus. The new covenant work of spiritual regeneration had already begun and was being mediated through the proclamation of the gospel of the resurrection and lordship of Jesus (Acts 2:33, 36, 38; 10:44-45; Gal 3:2, 14) … Since faith is about submission to Jesus as Lord (Rom 10:9), Christian faith is equated in Paul’s thinking with the eschatological teshuvah of Israel (and the nations). Hence, Paul equates the eschatological law that is written on the heart with the gospel that is received into the heart through faith. It is through the preaching of the gospel and our submission to Jesus as Lord that the law in its eschatological form becomes written on our hearts. The benefit of this for those who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them, i.e., for those who are walking in the Spirit, is that we can now fulfill our covenantal obligations, and thus the law proves to be the way of life (Rom 8:2, 4, 6-8) as God had always intended (e.g., Deut 30:15-20)” (p. 139).
08 December 2010
Paul's Understanding of the Gospel as the Fulfillment of the Prophetic Hope of the Old Testament
In my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell, after establishing Paul’s Old Testament theological context (see the posts entitled “The Apostle Paul’s Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Law” and “The Apostle Paul’s Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Gospel”), and after providing some key observations regarding the nature of Paul’s Jewish opponents (see “The Identity and Theology of Paul’s Jewish Opponents”), I turn to consider how we should understand the teaching of the Apostle Paul in Galatians and Romans.
As I state in the introduction to the third section of my essay, which is entitled “Understanding Paul in his Historical Context,” I believe that “an understanding of the Old Testament’s teaching about the new covenant is crucial to understanding Paul’s teaching on grace and the law” (p. 134).
Here is a quote from the sub-section that discusses Paul’s understanding of the Christian gospel as the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope:
“Paul understood Jesus’ work and the outpouring of the Spirit in direct continuity with the Old Testament prophetic hope. Paul was convinced that the coming of Jesus and the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit was the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies of the restoration of Israel. As part of this work of restoration, Paul saw the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ as God’s main instrument in the new covenant age for bringing people, both Jew and Gentile, into a state of righteousness before God. In contrast to the old covenant age where covenant righteousness was defined in terms of commitment to the Mosaic law, Paul understood that the determining factor in the new covenant age is not a person’s commitment to the Mosaic law (i.e., the works of the law) but a person’s commitment to Jesus, the Lord of the new covenant, and to the gospel which proclaims his lordship (i.e., faith). In the new covenant age, where (according to God’s plan) righteousness is opened up to the nations, righteousness is no longer defined in terms of the Mosaic law, which was by definition mono-ethnic in its operation. The Mosaic law was a fence that divided Jew from Gentile (Eph 2:14-15). Applying to only one nation (Exod 19:5-6), the Mosaic law can no longer be used, therefore, as the determining factor of righteousness before God, for the age of the new covenant is a time when Gentiles will be included within the people of God. Therefore … the determining factor of righteousness in the new covenant age is whether a person has accepted the gospel and submitted to the lordship of Jesus in his role as Messiah” (p. 135).
My suggestion at this point to the world of Pauline scholarship is, therefore, that Paul’s concern lay not so much with defending Christ as the ground of absolute justification—the atoning value of the death of Christ was common ground between Paul and the Judaizers—but with defending faith as the instrument of justification on the level of the covenant. The dispute between Paul and his Jewish opponents centered around how covenant righteousness was to be defined (now that the new covenant in Christ had come). The Jews thought in covenantal categories. To interpret Paul and his opponents correctly, we need to do so too.
As I state in the introduction to the third section of my essay, which is entitled “Understanding Paul in his Historical Context,” I believe that “an understanding of the Old Testament’s teaching about the new covenant is crucial to understanding Paul’s teaching on grace and the law” (p. 134).
Here is a quote from the sub-section that discusses Paul’s understanding of the Christian gospel as the fulfillment of the Old Testament hope:
“Paul understood Jesus’ work and the outpouring of the Spirit in direct continuity with the Old Testament prophetic hope. Paul was convinced that the coming of Jesus and the eschatological outpouring of the Spirit was the fulfilment of the Old Testament prophecies of the restoration of Israel. As part of this work of restoration, Paul saw the preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ as God’s main instrument in the new covenant age for bringing people, both Jew and Gentile, into a state of righteousness before God. In contrast to the old covenant age where covenant righteousness was defined in terms of commitment to the Mosaic law, Paul understood that the determining factor in the new covenant age is not a person’s commitment to the Mosaic law (i.e., the works of the law) but a person’s commitment to Jesus, the Lord of the new covenant, and to the gospel which proclaims his lordship (i.e., faith). In the new covenant age, where (according to God’s plan) righteousness is opened up to the nations, righteousness is no longer defined in terms of the Mosaic law, which was by definition mono-ethnic in its operation. The Mosaic law was a fence that divided Jew from Gentile (Eph 2:14-15). Applying to only one nation (Exod 19:5-6), the Mosaic law can no longer be used, therefore, as the determining factor of righteousness before God, for the age of the new covenant is a time when Gentiles will be included within the people of God. Therefore … the determining factor of righteousness in the new covenant age is whether a person has accepted the gospel and submitted to the lordship of Jesus in his role as Messiah” (p. 135).
My suggestion at this point to the world of Pauline scholarship is, therefore, that Paul’s concern lay not so much with defending Christ as the ground of absolute justification—the atoning value of the death of Christ was common ground between Paul and the Judaizers—but with defending faith as the instrument of justification on the level of the covenant. The dispute between Paul and his Jewish opponents centered around how covenant righteousness was to be defined (now that the new covenant in Christ had come). The Jews thought in covenantal categories. To interpret Paul and his opponents correctly, we need to do so too.
04 December 2010
The Identity and Theology of Paul's Jewish Opponents
In my previous posts entitled “The Apostle Paul’s Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Law” and “The Apostle Paul’s Understanding of the Old Testament View of the Gospel” I have presented some thoughts regarding the first aspect of the Jewish context of the theology of the Apostle Paul, namely, the theological context of the Hebrew Scriptures (i.e., the Old Testament) in which the Apostle Paul operated. The second aspect of Paul’s Jewish context is the identity of his Jewish opponents.
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses the identity of Paul’s Jewish opponents:
“Paul’s Jewish opponents in general were not ignorant of the Old Testament doctrines of grace, sin, or faith. Their key characteristic was that they were fierce advocates of Mosaic covenant theology. They believed that this system of theology (which was based on the Old Testament) was still normative. Paul, however, no longer viewed Mosaic covenant theology as normative in the way that it had been previously. Since his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, he had come to view Mosaic covenant theology in effect as old covenant theology (2 Cor 3:6-14). That is to say, the system of Mosaic covenant theology, which had been valid during the old covenant age, had now been rendered obsolete through the coming of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant, a situation that had been foreshadowed in the Mosaic law itself. Paul’s Jewish opponents had more or less correctly understood the way that things were under the old covenant, but they had failed to see how the old covenant would be surpassed or exceeded (2 Cor 3:9-10) by the new covenant in Christ. The fundamental issue for Paul, therefore, was upholding, in the face of opposition from the advocates of traditional Mosaic covenant theology, God’s new covenant arrangement in Messiah Jesus” (p. 133).
“The non-Christian Jews of Paul’s day rejected Jesus and the Christian gospel primarily in the name of faithfulness to Moses and traditional Jewish teaching (see John 5:16, 18; 7:14-24, 45-52; 9:16; 16:2; Acts 22:3; Rom 10:2), while the Christian Judaizers sought to change the universal Christian gospel (which offered salvation to Gentiles on equal footing with Jews) into a Jewish gospel, where conversion to Judaism and keeping the law of Moses were viewed as being necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1, 5). In this way, the Judaizers were attempting to make Christianity fit snugly into the framework of the Mosaic covenant” (p. 133).
In other words, I agree here with William Dumbrell’s assessment of the Antiochene Judaizers as being Jews who “probably endeavoured to fit Jesus into the Sinai compact, which they saw as continuing … By their demand for the imposition of the Mosaic Law on Christian converts, they were in fact making demands for Christian incorporation into the Mosaic and Sinaitic structure” (William J. Dumbrell, Galatians: A New Covenant Commentary [Blackwood: New Covenant, 2006], 38–39).
“The dispute between Paul and his Jewish opponents, therefore, fundamentally revolved around the proper interpretation of the Mosaic covenant in God’s plan of salvation. At stake between Paul and his Jewish opponents was the proper interpretation of the Old Testament” (Coxhead, “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm,” 134).
In general, Paul’s Jewish opponents were advocates of orthodox Mosaic covenant theology, which defined righteousness in terms of obedience (i.e., commitment or faithfulness) to the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations (i.e., the law of Moses) in accordance with the teaching of Deut 6:25. The Jewish nature of the theology of Paul’s Jewish opponents needs to be understood correctly before we can truly understand the significance of the Christian doctrine of justification by faith apart from the works of the law, which Paul strongly defended in his epistles to the Galatians and Romans.
Here are some quotes from my essay “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm” in the book An Everlasting Covenant: Biblical and Theological Essays in Honour of William J. Dumbrell from the sub-section that discusses the identity of Paul’s Jewish opponents:
“Paul’s Jewish opponents in general were not ignorant of the Old Testament doctrines of grace, sin, or faith. Their key characteristic was that they were fierce advocates of Mosaic covenant theology. They believed that this system of theology (which was based on the Old Testament) was still normative. Paul, however, no longer viewed Mosaic covenant theology as normative in the way that it had been previously. Since his encounter with Christ on the road to Damascus, he had come to view Mosaic covenant theology in effect as old covenant theology (2 Cor 3:6-14). That is to say, the system of Mosaic covenant theology, which had been valid during the old covenant age, had now been rendered obsolete through the coming of Christ and the establishment of the new covenant, a situation that had been foreshadowed in the Mosaic law itself. Paul’s Jewish opponents had more or less correctly understood the way that things were under the old covenant, but they had failed to see how the old covenant would be surpassed or exceeded (2 Cor 3:9-10) by the new covenant in Christ. The fundamental issue for Paul, therefore, was upholding, in the face of opposition from the advocates of traditional Mosaic covenant theology, God’s new covenant arrangement in Messiah Jesus” (p. 133).
“The non-Christian Jews of Paul’s day rejected Jesus and the Christian gospel primarily in the name of faithfulness to Moses and traditional Jewish teaching (see John 5:16, 18; 7:14-24, 45-52; 9:16; 16:2; Acts 22:3; Rom 10:2), while the Christian Judaizers sought to change the universal Christian gospel (which offered salvation to Gentiles on equal footing with Jews) into a Jewish gospel, where conversion to Judaism and keeping the law of Moses were viewed as being necessary for salvation (Acts 15:1, 5). In this way, the Judaizers were attempting to make Christianity fit snugly into the framework of the Mosaic covenant” (p. 133).
In other words, I agree here with William Dumbrell’s assessment of the Antiochene Judaizers as being Jews who “probably endeavoured to fit Jesus into the Sinai compact, which they saw as continuing … By their demand for the imposition of the Mosaic Law on Christian converts, they were in fact making demands for Christian incorporation into the Mosaic and Sinaitic structure” (William J. Dumbrell, Galatians: A New Covenant Commentary [Blackwood: New Covenant, 2006], 38–39).
“The dispute between Paul and his Jewish opponents, therefore, fundamentally revolved around the proper interpretation of the Mosaic covenant in God’s plan of salvation. At stake between Paul and his Jewish opponents was the proper interpretation of the Old Testament” (Coxhead, “Paul and the New Covenant Paradigm,” 134).
In general, Paul’s Jewish opponents were advocates of orthodox Mosaic covenant theology, which defined righteousness in terms of obedience (i.e., commitment or faithfulness) to the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations (i.e., the law of Moses) in accordance with the teaching of Deut 6:25. The Jewish nature of the theology of Paul’s Jewish opponents needs to be understood correctly before we can truly understand the significance of the Christian doctrine of justification by faith apart from the works of the law, which Paul strongly defended in his epistles to the Galatians and Romans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)