A Continuing Look at Hebrews

A Bit About the Creator

In this post, I am continuing on from a previous one where I began discussing the prologue of the book of Hebrews. 

In Acts 4, Peter and John were presenting their case. They were speaking about this “Jesus” and what they had “seen and heard.” In 4.24 “they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, ‘O Lord, it is You who made the Heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them.”
The creation of the world was unquestioningly accredited to Israel’s ancestral deity, Yahweh, as their Scriptures attested: Exod 20, Deut 4.32; Psalm 146; 148.1–6; Isa 42.5; 44.24; 45.11–12; Neh 9, Job 38.1–41; Matt 19.4. In this story, they quote “David” (who they call their father) from Psalm 2, who they credit as being the servant of Yahweh (the context of Psalm 2 shows Yahweh and the anointed, messiah): “Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your [the same God, Yahweh they attribute with the creation of the world] servant [someone different, who did not create the world], said, 'why did the gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? 'The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers were gathered together against the LORD [Yahweh, the creator] and against his [Yahweh, creator] Christ [not Yahweh or creator]’” Acts 4.25-26.

They continue praying to God, the Father (Jesus himself taught them to pray in this manner, Matt 6.9) as verse 24 presents and the contexts of Exodus, Nehemiah, and Psalms bear out, “For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your [God, Yahweh, the creator] holy servant Jesus [someone different, not God, Yahweh the creator], whom You [Yahweh] anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel” Acts 4.27.

Jesus is clearly portrayed (Matt 27.46; Mark 15.34 from Psalm 22; John 20.17; Rev 3.12;) as having called Yahweh his Father and God. If I am processing this correctly, the disciples pray to God, called the Father (who is Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible– Deut 32.6; Jer 31.9, Isa 63.16, 64.8, Mal 2.10) and to whom they credit the creation of the world. They call David his servant, and then Jesus, as the one anointed by Yahweh.

A similar episode is found in Acts 17 where Paul spoke to the Stoic Philosophers in Athens. Paul declared to them that “the God who made the world [kosmos] and all things in it” (vs. 24) desires all to repent, because this God “has fixed a day in which he [the God] will judge the world in righteousness through a man [someone other than the God] whom he [the God] has appointed” and provided “proof to all men by raising him [someone other than the God] from the dead” (vs. 31). 

Paul did not say that the one raised was the creator of all (as John 1 and Hebrews 1 are often interpreted to say), or that Jesus was this “God.” Quite the opposite, he said that this man has been appointed to judge in righteousness and was raised from the dead by this “God,” as a testimony of that choice.

If Jesus was being communicated as the second member of the Trinity, then why wasn’t he given proper credit for the creation of the world (according to traditional John 1; Col 1; Heb 1 interpretation) in this text? It was the God, called Father who was instead credited with the material creative role. They were not praying to Jesus and certainly not to the spirit as a separate entity. What should a proper Trinitarian response be to these apparently confused disciples?

 Back to Hebrews 1, here is another thought that grabbed my attention. As a member of the human race, I am prone to reflect upon my own mortality. When reaching the phrase regarding those “who are about to inherit salvation” (v. 14), it reminded me of the larger NT theme of God’s restorative eschatology. It drew my attention back to how the writer began the chapter, “in these last days.” In the use of the word eschaton, the writer refers to the time but emphasizes the means by which God is communicating. Perhaps the author believes that these “last days” may continue for any length of time. The point is that God has now spoken through a son, in a way similar to what had been done through the prophets.

The whole point I saw being communicated was that as Christians, we have hope. This chapter seems set to that tune. The old saying goes, “hope is hearing the music of the future, and faith is dancing to it today.” The world is a mess and things are bad, but through this son, God has revealed more of the cosmic plan of remediation and justice than had been revealed before. 

The author of Hebrews continues to develop these themes throughout the book, and as we immerse ourselves in the message, it places our hope on the one for whom we wait. While today and tomorrow may not signify the end, that is not ultimately what matters. What matters is that he has been seated at the right hand of God and at the proper moment, the tide will turn and justice will be the order of the day. I like N. T. Wright’s exclamation in his book Surprised by Scripture, “Jesus is coming – plant a tree.”

Review of Aviya Kushner's "The Grammar of God"

"A Hebrew Speaker's Response to the Bible in English." xxxii.

It is important to note that most of the reading I do is in biblical academia, so my judgment of this book is not based on the same criterion. The reason I mention it is because I read some other reviews of this book in which they were quite unfair, attempting to judge it as a work of biblical or linguistic scholarship. That is not what this book is, nor does the author claim this (see Introduction xxxii); reading the book you will find that to not be the point.

This book was recommended to me and now I am so glad it was; what a fantastic work! I appreciated her insights and background of having been raised in a Jewish home where speaking and reading Hebrew was at the center of the family life.

Again, while it is not a scholarly work, The Grammar of God does contain many trails for the chasing, if the reader possesses the notion. This book will thrill both the grammarian and lover of the Bible, as it is written beautifully and is full of heart. She investigates the histories of English translational difficulties and tells the story of her own personal journey with the realization that "some of the most politically charged issues of our time are rooted in biblical translation." xxiii

Here is one of my favorite quotes from the book:

"It [the Bible] is a story that is part of every man and woman who has ever felt the need to claw against destiny, to insist on a different future than what God appears to be offering. And sometimes, in the Bible, what man wants so passionately is unacceptable to God. What man wants is so destructive that is is a threat to the earth, to the creatures that live on it, to other humans." 114.

Also, the book is available in multiple formats and editions, including audiobook.

A Look at Hebrews

The prologue of Hebrews begins by recalling how God had spoken in times past to Israel’s ancestors. God was still speaking, but now God had spoken through a perfect representative. The idea of God using agency seems to be continued here with the contrast between speaking by the prophets in ancient times to speaking by a son in these days.

There are several themes that grabbed my attention as I read through the chapter. The first is the author’s quotation from the Hebrew Bible (HB) in almost every verse. This says something to me; if the author wanted to draw his reader’s attention to a theme of the HB and intended them to gain insight, perhaps I too can gain insight in these ancient contexts when applied in a new way.

The writer cites the HB authoritatively, as in v. 6; “he says.” The writer quotes the LLX of Deut 32:43 and seems to use the “he” in reference to God. Interestingly, this is part of Moses’ speech and not God directly speaking. This writer takes the words of Moses with divine authority, as though they have come from God. Now, God has spoken through a son, divine speech through agency.

In this citation, the writer makes reference to “firstborn.” In the HB, firstborn is a matter of status, position, rank and eventually power, authority, and inheritance. It is not a term that demands a chronological order of any kind. This is a unique (Heb. yachid) son. Such ideas are reflected in Genesis among the patriarchs. There are the examples of Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Ephraim etc., none of which were chronologically first but yet took the preeminence of “firstborn.”

Another thing I noticed is “aiōnas” (world, age, universe) has often been translated as though it corresponds to material ontology. We live in a post-modern world that takes the enlightenment for granted. Therefore, our epistemology is governed by scientific parameters and our ontology is generally material oriented. This is even the case when reading Genesis. When interacting with a text of origins, it’s natural for us to bring our assumptions regarding material ontology to the text as though it shares the same ideals. We are more prone to read ontological creation into a text rather than a functional one (for more on this see John Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis One"). I am not sure that material ontology makes the best sense of the writer’s point regarding Jesus’ relationship to the “eon.” If this did speak of the creation of material ontology, with Jesus as the creator, it would put the writer in a conundrum.

The Hebrew Bible – which is cited authoritatively – would be blatantly contradicted. The reader would have to assume Jesus was “something else” and not human. I would have to assume that he existed before he was born. Does the writer of Hebrews actually start with these parameters? If I were a Jew living in the first century, the God I would be worshipping is the Israelite ancestral deity, Yahweh, the God of the HB. I would have no inclination toward tritheism, but rather would be aware of exalted and idealized human figures. If the writer is indicating that Jesus is ontologically identical with Yahweh, it creates a host of hermeneutical problems and flat out contradictions. If the writer desires to identify Jesus with Yahweh, Israel’s God, that is another matter. His sonship is closer in proximity than any before, he has been the first who was resurrected, he has been given a “name,” he acts as Yahweh does, he carries out divine prerogatives. If I am to assume that Jesus is ontologically identical with Yahweh, and he, through the incarnation, is paradoxically having a human experience, it seems to minimize the strong rhetorical value of his argument with the comparisons of Jesus to the angels, Moses, etc. 

If Jesus is fully God for the writer of Hebrews, then why is it necessary to say he is better than the angels? Wouldn’t that be stating the obvious? Or, as will be encountered later in 3:3, Jesus is “deserving of more merit,” “worthy of more glory” than Moses. If the writer is trying to convey that Jesus just is the mighty God of Israel rather than the anointed agent, priest, prophet, servant, son and savior, why does he feel the need to say that Jesus is deserving of more merit than Moses? It reminds me of the book of Acts. I’ll get to that in the next post.

Ad Hominems and False Prophets

False prophet is a label haphazardly thrown around far too frequently in Christendom today. When I hear someone use this derogatory phrase, I find it to be approximately the equivalent of that individual picking up a megaphone and announcing, "I don't read my Bible closely!" Presuppositions regarding the biblical text abound today, but I'm sure I didn't need to tell you that. This practice of "calling names" with Bible words exemplifies the pervasive attitude which seeks to provide scriptural support for an ad hominem against "them," "those people," the ones who, "obviously," have it wrong. "The Scripture couldn't be more clear," the mantra goes.

A "prophet" (in biblical lingo) is an individual commissioned by the God of Israel (Yahweh) to deliver a given message, verbal or otherwise. This is by no means an individual who is merely "telling the future." Actually, prophets do far more forth-telling (delivering a relevant message to their contemporary hearers), than foretelling (giving a message that means nothing to their contemporaries and is only relevant many years in the future). Therefore, a "false prophet" is one who purports to speak on behalf of or deliver a message for Yahweh (Deut. 18) but rather speaks from himself, "presumptuously."

Regardless of "Christian speak," "Christianese," or whatever we want to call the catch phrases that roll off Christian lips today, a "false prophet" is NOT someone who my spiritual guru or I ascertain to hold heretical or heterodoxical (opposite of my own orthodoxy) views, and/or fails to accept doctrines I may believe to be "soteriologically" (a fancy way of speaking about salvation) essential.

If I were a coach, I would challenge the call, and ask for an instant replay. Listen, if there would ever happen to be someone you know of, or God forbid, someone in your life who holds a view different than your own, it does not mean they are claiming to speak in the name of or on behalf of the God of Israel, hence making them a false prophet; there is a big difference. 

Jesus' use of "false prophet" in the Synoptics (all the Gospels but John) is not what many today may think he meant. He was referring to actual prophets, not renegade pastors or teachers from other denominations, with differing points of view. Even the epistle of Peter makes a distinction: 

"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves" (2 Pe 2:1 NAU).

A false prophet, a false messiah (christ) and a false teacher are not all synonymous.

A prophet is also NOT someone who may believe - through either discernment and other pieces of evidence - that certain events may be about to unfold, false or not. An example could be a stockbroker at the New York Stock Exchange, who observes a shift or evidence in numbers that there may be an imminent, economic bubble-burst (see The Big Short, 2015). This however, has nothing to do with prophecy, a word from Yahweh (aka. the LORD, God of Israel). Jesus referenced this when speaking to his followers about recognizing the "signs of the times" (Matt 16; Luke 12). 

Christians need to stop inventing definitions for the express purpose of smearing others with whom they may disagree. Someone who has a theological or doctrinal position other than your own does not make that individual a false prophet. It does, however, reveal the ignorance of the accusing individual(s) with the ad hominem baton. 

Acts' Story: Sent from Jerusalem

Acts 8.4-9.43.
The time came and the witnesses to all that had happened in Jerusalem made their way into other regions of the ancient world. New challenges arose, but also many joys unfolded. In this story, we find a mirror to our own world: who are the unsung heroes behind the scenes of our lives? Are we proclaimers of our Lord or rather of ourselves?

Here is the podcast, and on iTunes.

Here is the PowerPoint

Acts' Story: Strife in Jerusalem

In Jerusalem, God’s power through Jesus’ spirit, and the actions of the apostles has taken center stage. In the next part of the story, other characters are faced with obstacles and challenges as the Church grows and continues to spread the word about what God has done for his people through Jesus.

Here is the podcast and here on iTunes.

Here is the video.

Acts' Story: Power in Jerusalem

The story of emergent Christianity continues with the early followers still frequenting the Temple. In this next chapter of the story, Peter and John go up to the temple for the time of prayer. Here, miraculous power is observed through the connection to the name of Jesus. How is it that this power drove the message onward?

Here is the link to the podcast, for those who would prefer it. Also in iTunes.

Here is the video:

Here is the PowerPoint:

Acts' Story: Anointed in Jerusalem

Much of Luke’s purpose is recognized through the story he tells. He demonstrates how Israel’s earlier history was being realized in new ways. He told his story with Israel’s legacy as a backdrop, and stuck to a pattern of using Hebrew Bible themes for the sake of showing the continuity of salvation history.

The people for whom he wrote would have readily understood the themes from which he formed his story, as these were quite familiar.

In the same way that story can powerfully motivate us today, so it did for them. But it was not just any story; it was the legacy of an entire people. By retelling, howbeit in new forms and different ways, the truths of the past were carried into their present to bring to light how God was at work. Without the spirit there would be no story to tell, there would be no assembly and no way to follow.

Here is the PowerPoint:

Acts' Story: Beginning From Jerusalem

I will continue posting my series on the "Gospel as Peace" in the next few weeks. This post, however, is to share something a bit different with you. I have been afforded the privilege to fill-in at a local congregation for a few months. Throughout my time there, we will be examining the book of Acts.

The Acts of the Apostles is without question the most exciting and dramatic book in the New Testament, and possibly in the entire Bible. The story of the beginnings, of what became known as Christianity, is narrated with great vigor and vividness, leaving its reader wide-eyed in amazement. Even today, this book has the ability to ignite passion and stir emotion from those within the faith community.

We will begin this adventure examining what we can know about who, where, when, why, and how, and then, as best as we can, listen with their ears, read through their eyes to see what God is saying to us in our time. It all began in Jerusalem…
Note: The last few minutes of my final text, comments, conclusions, application were cut-off due to a technical glitche.

Here is the PowerPoint:

Gospel as Peace: Part One

This post begins a short three or four part series on the Gospel as a source of peace in our world. 

“If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.”[1]

To call oneself Christian implies a certain loyalty to the eponymous rabbi whence the title derives. His question still lingers in the ears of any would-be follower, “Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46 NRS). He expected those who heard him, to take his words seriously.

Luke describes Jesus preaching the kingdom of God:[2] “I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God . . . I was sent for this purpose” (Luke 4:43 NRS).[3] The kingdom of God is the overarching theme of Jesus’ action and teaching.[4] This begs the question, if Jesus’ purpose was preaching the kingdom of God, what was he proclaiming? When posing the question “what is the gospel?” to modern Christians, I generally get an answer pertaining to Jesus’ death burial and resurrection. But according to the Synoptics, it was not until the last third of his ministry that Jesus revealed he was going to die. And when he did, he was met with opposition: “God forbid it, Lord! This must never happen to you.”[5] It’s not the response one would expect if the disciples had already been preaching that Jesus was going to die for the sins of the world and be resurrected. And indeed, the disciples had been preaching the gospel of the kingdom prior to Jesus revealing his death and resurrection, “he [Jesus] sent them [disciples] out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal” (Luke 9:2 NRS).[6] If Jesus’ death and resurrection were the central components of the gospel of the kingdom of God message, why didn’t they know?

John the Baptist had a similar message, “the kingdom of heaven has come near” (Matt 3:2 NRS). The interesting thing about John is that when in prison, he sent word to Jesus by his disciples asking, “Are you the one who is to come, or are we to wait for another?” (Matt 11:3 NRS, cf. Luke 7:19). This “coming one,”[7] according to some sources, was expected to be a liberator: giving sight to the blind, making the lame walk, cleansing lepers and causing the deaf to hear.[8] These were all actions that met chaos with shalom in the name of the Lord. Surely, if the death of Jesus was being preached as the “gospel of the kingdom,”[9]  John would have known. After all, it is he who baptized Jesus and had been preaching a similar message. But we get no such message from anyone.

---

[1] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, revised ed. (The Random House Publishing Group, 1982), 290.

[2] Matthew 19:23 offers a parallelism showing kingdom of heaven and kingdom of God to be synonymous terms. Matthew is the only gospel writer to use kingdom of Heaven, meaning, the God of Heaven establishing a Kingdom. Heaven was a word that was used by the Jews as a replacement of God’s name. There is no sense of “going to heaven” in the use of kingdom of Heaven.  

[3] Other elements of his mission could be “sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:6; 15:24); “calling sinners to repentance,” (Luke 5:32); “save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10); “destroy the works of the Devil” (1 John 3:8).

[4] Richard Bauckham, The Bible and Ecology : Rediscovering the Community of Creation (Waco, TX.: Baylor University Press, 2010), 164.

[5] Matt 16:23 cf. Mar 8:32; 9:31 “they did not understand”; Luke 18:34.

[6] Luke 9:8; 60; 10:9. 9:22 is the first mention of Jesus predicting his suffering in Luke.

[7] I. Howard Marshall, The New International Greek Testament Commentary : The Gospel of Luke : A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), 287-90.

[8] Isa 35:5-6; 61:1-2. Jesus leaves out “freedom to prisoners” in his response to John, almost as if to say, “sorry John, you are not going to be released from prison.” He even adds, “blessed is anyone [John?] who takes no offense.”

[9] Matt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Luke 16:16; Mark seems to reduce to just “gospel.” (Bauckham 2010, 164).
Click here for part two.

Reclaiming the Apocalypse: Some Thoughts on Revelation 19:11-21

Fear is powerful. It can elicit awe, foster motivation, induce panic, create division and frequently cause disruption. Fear is chaotic and disrupts inner shalom. It can be created in various ways, one of which is ignorance. Often, that which is not understood and cannot be controlled is a source of fear.

In response to the disturbing content within the Apocalypse, there are Christians today that express a response of fear when reading or discussing Revelation. Experiences range from neglecting Revelation for reading, study, and preaching, as well as questioning its authentic inclusion in the NT canon. I am not necessarily taking a position one way or another, just pointing out the variety of feelings toward this book.

Juxtaposed to a response of fear, theories have been proposed to explain the imagery in the apocalyptic text. Often, these propositions ignore the genre and view the Apocalypse as speaking only to the future. Up to the present time, every attempt to force the text into a modern framework for predicting or elucidating current and expected events has failed completely.

“Those to whom John originally wrote Revelation may have known how to interpret apocalyptic texts. Most present-day people do not, so the possibility of unqualified readers going astray is even greater than with other parts of the New Testament. Let readers beware.”[1] 

These approaches have wreaked fear into the hearts and minds of those on whom the paradigm has been forced. Unfortunately, this “fleecing good-minded folks”[2] has become all too common and is partially responsible for the disdain many have of Revelation.

When examining the text with consistent hermeneutical methods and in light of its historical and literary context, a clearer vision emerges. Richard Bauckham said it well:

“Revelation itself allows no neutral perception: either one shares Rome’s own ideology, the view of the Empire promoted by Roman propaganda, or one sees it from the perspective of heaven, which unmasks the pretensions of Rome. Revelation portrays the Roman Empire as a system of violent oppression, founded on conquest, maintained by violence and oppression. It is a system both of political tyranny and of economic exploitation.” [3] 

Focusing on the aspects of war and violence as though it were the point of the vision seems to miss the allusions being represented.[4]

An import element to note in this passage is the image of a slaughter. Although universal in language, “flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great” (19:18 NRS),[5] these are not worshippers of God but those who have refused and rebelled. Here, God is crushing a political system for refusing to acknowledge heaven’s kingship. This system has usurped the divine prerogative for personal greed and oppressed the weak.[6] 

The paradoxical conquering motif is prevalent throughout the Apocalypse. While often accused of being a violent depiction of slaughter and carnage only, Jesus in the Apocalypse – it can be consistently argued – is dripping with his own blood, rather than that of his enemies. The Greek word for “slaughtered,” is always used in the Apocalypse in relation to the violent acts of empire.[7] The only weapon this text describes in Jesus’ arsenal as a conquering Messiah is the sword of his mouth,[8] not in his hand.[9] To suggest this text is denoting acts of violence counteracts the intentional apocalyptic imagery that the book evokes; Jesus, as the slain Messiah, has conquered through self-sacrifice.

The irony regarding the Apocalypse of John is that this message, intended as a declaration of hope to early followers, has turned into fearful dread for some modern readers. The response to Revelation – and this text – should be that of shalom, not terror. God’s people can be a people of peace precisely because the Lamb has conquered through self-sacrifice.
Divine judgment is never for justifying human oriented acts of violence or physical aggression. Interpretations used to justify unethical behavior toward humanity and environment merit reconsideration on these grounds alone. Readers are encouraged to “persist in rendering faithful witness, in imitation of Jesus and his ‘patient endurance’ (1:5, 9).”[10]    

---

[1] Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for living in a small world (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 248.

[2] Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 324.

[3] Richard Bauckham, New Testament Theology Series: The Theology of the Book of Revelation (New York, NY.: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 35.

[4] The Isaianic root of Jesse, the servant of Yahweh (Isa 11:4; 49:2 cf. Rev 19:11) with a mouth like a rod and sharp sword is he who will fairly treat the poor and oppressed. Even faithfulness and righteousness are around his waist.

[5] Cf. 19:19; cf. 6:15; 13:16.

[6] This is also reminiscent of Psalm 2, where the “kings of the earth” (2:2) set themselves against Yahweh and his anointed in rebellion. “Probably also from the psalm is John's use of the phrase 'the kings of the earth' as his standard term for the political powers opposed to God which Christ will subdue (1:5; 6:15; 17:2, 18; 18:3, 9; 19:19; 21:24; cf. 16:14).” Bauckham, 1993, 69.

[7] Wes Howard-Brook and Anthony Gwyther, Unveiling Empire: Reading Revelation Then and Now (Bible & Liberation) (Maryknoll, NY.: Orbis Books, 2005), 140.

[8] Cf. 1:16; 2:12, 16; 19:15, 21.

[9] See Michael J Goreman, Reading Revelation Responsibly: Uncivil Worship and Witness : Following the Lamb into the New Creation (Eugene, OR.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010), 153-155.

[10] McDonald 2004, 275.

Learn War No More - Micah 3:1-4:5

“If only God were worshipped, there would not be dissensions and wars. For men would know that they are the sons of one God.” – Lactantius.[1]

“No one will make them afraid.” More beautiful words have rarely been uttered. There will be worship instead of war and wickedness, bounty rather than bribery and bloodshed, peace in place of perversion.

There is nothing pleasant surrounding the prospect of judgment or impending doom. But at this time, the proclamation of justice against civil authorities and spiritual leaders of the nation[2] would have been welcome news. Micah posits to deliver the words of Yahweh, making accusations against the rich who have acted oppressively by coveting, seizing fields, houses and inheritance (2:2); tearing the skin off (3:2); eating the flesh and breaking the bones (3:3) of the people. This is “the sin of abusing one’s fellow man.”[3] Unfortunately, it was not the only time when the leadership of Israel was convicted of this charge.[4]

Yahweh in this oracle is portrayed in an “old tradition of the theophany of the divine warrior,”[5] having been roused to action due to the injustice, cruelty, and abominations done by a select group.[6] Finally, because of God’s action, peace and salvation would come to the troubled remnant of Israel.

Commentators have suggested these visions and others similar (Isa 2; 60) reflect the culmination of the ages, or eschaton where all wars will cease. David Leiter observed that such outlining is often perceived as having “little or no practical implications for our current age. . . . The vision indeed had contemporary implications for Israel and if taken seriously can also have implications for our world today.”[7] Yet, there are social critiques within this oracle that are able to be applied to various situations in the present, as well as hope for peace in the future.

In consideration of the warrior imagery, Scott Holland noted that we are more comfortable with a God who fits our own ideology and are sometimes willing to substitute divine “otherness” for our own system of ethics. “We tend to make God in our image and thus in the process make ourselves like God.”[8] If a religious group becomes violent about their religion, it is possibly because their violent perspective has created a god to meet that desire. I conclude – from a meta-narrative perspective – that ultimate redemption and reconciliation is the final objective.  However, the way God goes about that is not always clear. [9]

Ultimately, we must leave vengeance up to God, “precisely because God has the prerogative to give and take life that we do not have.”[10]  These words of Scott Holland have stuck with me since I first read them: “Could it be that because Yahweh is a warrior, we can be a people of peace?”[11] Willard Swartley, also citing this statement, eloquently explained that attributing violence to God is an inaccurate and wrong accusation from a Scriptural perspective. It undermines God’s moral character and redemptive intentions as well as confuses the perversion of human violence with God’s divine prerogative to establish justice. It can also depend on how "violence" is defined. If it entails a violation of a norm, Swartley would argue that for Christians the terms should not apply to God, who is the transcendent source of norms. Nevertheless, judgment characterizes the sovereign and holy God, who punishes humanity for their sins expressly to end human violence.[12]

Micah’s promise of restoration and deliverance is one of hope, and relevant to all those who long for peace and justice to be the order of the day.[13] Embedded within the purpose of prophetic oracles is the call for repentance. If repentance occurs, right relationship with God is restored, divine judgment can be averted and peace will be the result.[14]    

---

[1] The Divine Institutes, 5.8.66 (ANF 7.143).

[2] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 10:305

[3] Ralph L. Smith, Word Biblical Commentary: Micah-Malachi, vol. 32 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 5.

[4] E.g. Isa 3:12-15; 56:11-12; Ezek 13; 22:24-31; 34; Jer 10:21; 12:10-11; 23:1-5; 50:6-7; Zech 10:2-3.

[5] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: Second Edition (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2014), 340.

[6] 2:1–2, 8–9; 3:2–3, 9–11; 7:2–6.

[7] David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 72.

[8] Scott Holland “The Gospel of Peace and the Violence of God,” Seeking Cultures of Peace: A Peace Church Conversation, ed. Fernando Enns, Scott Holland, and Ann Riggs (Telford, PA.: Cascadia Publishing House, 2004), 141.

[9] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (London: SPCK, 2007), 206.

[10] Holland 2004, 141.

[11] Ibid., 144.

[12] Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 395.

[13] Elelwani B. Farisani, “Micah” The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures From Africa and the African Diaspora, ed. Hugh R. Page, Jr. (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2010), 192.

[14] Leiter 2007, 93-4.

BibleWorks and Wise Words of Caution

BibleWorks has been my choice for textual study for a few years. Recently I acquired version 10, and as expected, I like it a lot, although I need to spend a few days just going through the excellent tutorial videos provided by their team.

As I was exploring the Module page on BibleWorks' site, I came across some brief comments at the bottom of the page titled "Some Thoughts About Electronic Libraries." 

Now, just so I'm clear, I am by no means against electronic libraries. For those who invest solely in them and have found them to be the best option in their study routine, that is great. I use electronic resources frequently, as they make research efficient through search capabilities. Resources that I use a lot, I may decide to acquire the digital edition, but I always choose the print edition over the electronic edition if I am purchasing one or the other. Personally, I prefer to have a book in my hands to read rather than an iPad or some other eReader.

However, I have also had reservations about investing my money into resources that I actually do not own. What I mean by that is, when buying an electronic resource, most of the time one is merely purchasing the rights to use or view it, such as commentaries, books, etc. This concerns me a little bit, but perhaps I have read Nineteen Eighty-Four too much.  

In this regard, my respect for BibleWorks has greatly increased. As a digital company whose mission is to "provide pastors, teachers, students, and missionaries with the tools they need to 'rightly divide the word of truth,'" it is impressive for them to caution customers with what they perceive to be weaknesses of technology and to think historically. We, as humans, can easily forget the past. We don't even have to turn the clock back one hundred years to make the point. We take many things for granted and can be prone to assuming that it will always be this way. Here are the points they make:

"We continue to encourage our users to think carefully before building large electronic libraries, for three reasons:

1. There is no guarantee computers will, in as few as ten years, be able to read today's electronic media. For example, read "Cerf sees a problem: Today's digital data could be gone tomorrow " from ComputerWorld (June 4, 2013), "At Libraries, Taking the (Really) Long View" from Inside Higher Ed (July 23, 2008), and "The Digital Ice Age" from Popular Mechanics (December 2006).

2. Even more significantly, almost all electronic libraries are in proprietary formats: there is no standard. Proprietary formats, and the software that reads them, come and go (remember DOS?). A recent article in Christian Computing, "Is It Time for a Second STEP?", noted the unlikelihood of a standard format emerging. When an electronic library's proprietary format is abandoned, one's investment in the library is lost.

3. Finally, in most cases one cannot purchase anything more than a license to use the content of an electronic book. Such a license is vulnerable to being revoked, as this April 2014 article from World magazine points out: http://www.worldmag.com/2014/04/liberty_as_secure_as_your_books

Books, on the other hand, are independent of computers. If you use certain reference works on a daily basis, it may make sense to purchase electronic editions, and, for this reason, we are providing (and will continue to provide) a limited collection of locked electronic resources for those who want them. But in our opinion it makes sense to buy print editions first, then electronic editions if you find you really need them."

I don't need extra reasons to like BibleWorks, but I certainly won't disregard them when they come along. Thank you, BibleWorks, for offering wise words of warning.

The Bloody City – A Reflection of Ezekiel 22

As I sit at my desk reading, writing and listening to the enchanting melodies of master guitarist Phil Keaggy,[1] I am transported into the ancient world of a Zadokite[2] priest. Ezekiel lived in Jerusalem and was active (594 – 571 B.C.E.)[3] before the first group of exiles were taken to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.E.[4] He was at the heart of Judean society and a proponent of Zionist covenantal theology, which was a tradition emphasizing them as Yahweh’s choice people, Jerusalem as the capital of a perpetual Davidic dynasty, and Zion (Jerusalem) –with the Solomonic Temple – as the divine habitation.[5] The exile considerably challenged this belief, as it called into question God’s promised protection of the holy city.[6]

Following the destruction of Jerusalem, the tone of Ezekiel’s proclamations changed. This is reflected in the book’s division into three distinct sections: chapters 1-24 are primarily oracles against Jerusalem and Judah and contain material preceding the Babylonian invasion.[7] Chapters 25-32 are directed against foreign entities, and the third – chapters 33-48 – contains oracles regarding Israel’s future salvation and restoration. Chapter 22 is also divided into three units: vv 1-16, 17-22 and 23-31.[8] The textual and historical tradition of Ezekiel has a long, complicated history of criticism and is far too extensive to address here.[9]

“The bloody city” rings loud and clear at the onset of these oracles in chapter 22. This is a phrase used to describe Nineveh in Nahum 3:1. The divine decision was been made to punish God’s chosen, but guilty city.[10] The list of wrongs is detailed throughout this chapter: v 6 rulers are shedding blood; vv 7, 25, 29 aliens suffer extortion, fathers and mothers are treated contemptuously, orphans and widows are wronged; vv 10-11 women are violated in horrific ways, adultery, fornication and incest are taking place; v 12 bribes are made for killing; v 26 priests have done violence; v 27 officials portrayed as wolves; v 28 prophets are declaring lies as though from Yahweh; v 29 the poor and needy are oppressed.[11]

It is also important to note that God warns people to adjust their course and honors repentance. Even in verse 30, with its military metaphor,[12] there is the hyperbolic sense of God looking for one for whom the city could be spared.[13] Regardless, the people’s actions have brought these consequences on themselves.[14]

Surveying this spectacle, I cannot help but shudder at the eerie familiarity it has to our own day. Jesus made pronouncements similar to that of Ezekiel when dealing with the corruption of his own time. Israel in our time still finds itself as the center of attention for unethical behavior. As a Christian who has some Jewish ancestry, I can appreciate that these issues are sensitive for many. Yet, there are still questions. When will God deal with corruption? Does God still protect Israel? Does Israel still oppress its own people and countrymen?

In a class lecture,[15] John Goldingay made this statement,

“God still protects the Jewish people. In our time we have to make a distinction between the state of Israel, which is a state like any other and the Jewish people, most of whom live outside the state of Israel. And declaring that God is committed to the Jewish people does not mean that you reckon that God is committed to the state of Israel, particularly over against the Palestinians. But it’s hard, I think, for Christians to make those distinctions.”

This is crucial because today there are Christian and messianic Zionist movements who have not been able to make a distinction. Some are of the mind that Israel – the state – can do no wrong. “We must bless Israel,” goes the mantra. This is not about Israel but rather an ideology that desires to nationalize God to fit political agendas.

Regardless of one’s eschatology and opinions of political policy, categorizing the State of Israel as though it is the legitimate recipient of God’s favor before all others is a gross mistake with detrimental ethical repercussions.

“For believing that God accompanies one’s army is always comforting, and a people can perhaps be braver the more inclined they are to view God as able and willing to come out in their defense.”[16]

The history of humanity, including Christianity, is strewn with a trail of blood where imperialistic aspirations have been religiously justified as though it were God’s own desires.[17]

“It is always easier to assume that God is with us more than he is with our enemies. In war, how can God be on the side of the foe? Whether it was the time of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, or the Persian Empire (etc) those Israelites who heard or read the story . . . were all people who chafed under subjugation by a foreign power. Their natural tendency would be to presume that God was with them and not with their oppressors.”[18]

---

[1] “Study helps for the book of Ezekiel should include a musical instrument—a guitar or recorder. Ezekiel is noted as a musician, one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument (33:32).” Millard Lind, Ezekiel, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1996), 13.

[2] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: Second Edition (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2014), 371.

[3] Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Philadelphia, PA.: The Westminster Press, 1970), 1.

[4] Ezek 33:21; 40:1.

[5] Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” New Interpreter’s Bible, A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. VI,  Leander E. Keck, et al., eds. (Nashville, TN.: Abington Press, 1994), VI:1082-3.

[6] Michael Coogan, The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version, 4^th ed. (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1160.

[7] L. S. Tiemeyer, “Ezekiel, Book of,” Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, IL.: IVP Academic, 2012), 219.

[8] Leslie C. Allen, Word Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel 20-48, vol. 29 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), xx.

[9] G. W. Bromiley, “Ezekiel,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988; 2002), 2:250-52; David Noel Freedman, “Ezekiel, Book of,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4 vols. (New York, NY.: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 2:714-16.

[10] Eichrodt 1970, 308.

[11] This is my compilation, cf. Lind’s list, “Ezekiel has his own list of Ten Commandments”: (Lind 1996, 187).

[12] Darr 1994, 1315.

[13] Cf. Gen 18:20-33; Jer 5:1-5, although seemingly contradictory to Ezek 14:12-20.

[14] Cf. 9:10; 11:21; 16:43. Jesus, when dealing with the corruption of his own time made references similar to that of Ezekiel: Matt 23:37-39; Luk 13:33-35; 23:28-30. Upon contemplation of this, I recalled the poem by William Blake, “Prologue, Intended for a Dramatic Piece of King Edward the Fourth.”

[15] John Goldingay, class lecture, Chronicles and Esther Part 2 (27:49),” OT500: The Writings as an Introduction to the Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Fall 2010.

[16] Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for living in a small world (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 77.

[17] David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 10.

[18] Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 502.

For All Nations - A Reflection of Mark 11:12-25

I sincerely apologize again for my negligence in posting new material on the blog. I have finished my school semester so I will try to post more frequently, as time allows.

           Mark has the theme of “son of God”[1] as its bookends.[2] This work was written at a time when the emperor claimed divine status with this title. Here, Jesus was declared the son of God, and there could hardly have been a more “counter-political message”[3][4] for the Markan audience. However, he was characterized by acts of mercy, kindness, and intervention on behalf of the oppressed rather than cruelty, brutality and selfish ambition.

            When considering the content of Mark and the ways it differs from the later traditions found in Matthew and Luke, there are numerous elements that stand out. Matthew and Luke[5] quote from Jeremiah 7 but only Mark has the more complete reference to Isaiah 56:7, “for all the nations.”[6] While there are multiple possibilities present in this text,[7] there are two particular themes of interest for this post.

First, it does not appear in Mark that Jesus is against the temple or ritual in and of itself.[8] There is the suggestion that commercialization and corruption of the priesthood,[9] at the people’s expense, is the focus of his protest. This is seen in the contrast between “house of prayer for all nations” and “den of robbers.”[10] Sources indicate that many Jews in this period were overtly perturbed with the way the leadership was abusing their authority[11] and failing to guide the God-ordained system of worship in just ways.

The second theme is the exclusion (“for the nations”) of outsiders. If the outer court[12] was the location of this scene – where the “other nations” worshiped – it opens the possibility to Jesus addressing the exclusion of those desiring a close proximity to God and being interrupted by an elite system of greed. Israel’s calling was to be a light to the nations and a kingdom of priests. The intended role was to put God on display, thus drawing others in, not keeping them out. And it appears that the temple had grown quite popular among the Gentiles[13] in the time of Jesus.

Jesus’ action, as N. T. Wright comments, was more than only symbolizing the Temple’s destruction and a “mere intention to replace the present temple with a new one,” it was also a critique of what the system had become, which fits within the eschatological dynamic of Jesus.[14] Daniel Kirk summarized it well: “Thus, the cursing of the fig tree, together with the indications that a new exilic state for the temple is looming, make a stark statement about the state of the temple and likely its leadership, according to Jesus. Not being a time for fruit,[15] it is a time for judgment.”[16]

In sum, if Christians today earnestly seek to be a peaceful people, the ethics and concerns of Jesus must be adopted in practical ways. At times, unity among God’s people is sacrificed in favor of uniformity. Those “who understood their humanity and their religiosity differently that that of the dominant voices of the text”[17] have often been marginalized for it.

The point is not necessarily to emulate Jesus’ actions exhibited here, but rather conclude that action belongs with conviction. Even though tensions can appear too mountainous to move, this is not a new phenomenon. When one individual is willing to take a stand on behalf of those who will not, or cannot, anything is possible. “For those” – says the Apostle Paul – “who are led by the Spirit of God are children [sons] of God” (Rom 8:14 NRS).

---

[1] Nuances to this title are found within Hellenism and Hebraic tradition. See Karl-Josef Kuschel, Born Before All Time?: The Dispute Over Christ’s Origin, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY.: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992), 311-13.

[2] There are however numerous manuscripts from various text groups lacking the phrase “son of God.” Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins, King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2008), 126.

[3] Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 93.

[4] Cf. Romans 1:4.

[5] Matthew 21:13; Luke 19:46.

[6] J. Marcus draws the distinction that the citation in 1 Macc 7:37 is restricted to Israel alone, while Mark has a universal nuance. Joel Marcus, Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries: Mark 8-16. (New Haven, US: Yale University Press, 2009), 783.

[7] Eugene Boring notes five proposals having been argued in this text. Eugene. M. Boring, Mark : A Commentary  (Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 320-21.

[8] Judgment against the temple could be concluded from 11:12-25; 13:1-2. He is accused in 14:49, 58; 15:29. Exposing the corruption of what the system had become is arguably different than opposing the Temple cult.

[9] It is also worthwhile to note the critique of scribes in 7:1-13; 12:39; etc.

[10] Steve Moyise, Jesus and Scripture: Studying the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2010), 22.

[11] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, Christian Origins and the Question of God, vol. 2 (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1996), 413.

[12] This is not the most plausible historically as Adela Yarbro Collins notes, “The narrative description of Jesus' actions does not emphasize the Gentiles or their relation to the temple. This lack is especially important since the outer court, where the actions probably took place, was not called the 'Court of the Gentiles' in the time of Jesus and Mark.” Adela Yarbro Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark A Commentary: Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2007), 526.

[13] Marcus 2009, 783.

[14] Wright 1996, 417-18.

[15] Or perhaps it could be that the Messiah disagrees with the tree about whether it is time for fruit. The demons believe that Jesus has come to torment before the proper time. But if the Messiah is already here, it is time for the temple to be producing the fruits of righteousness.

[16] J. R. Daniel Kirk, “Time for Figs, Temple Destruction, and Houses of Prayer in Mark 11:12-25,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 74 (2012): 522.

[17] Renita J. Weems, “African American Women and the Bible,” in Stony the Road We Trod, ed. Cain Hope Felder (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 1991), 74.