Preach the "Old Testament" #2: The Gracious & Compassionate God

The following is an actual sermon preached at Southside Church of Christ. I post this as an example of preaching from the Hebrew Bible. Those out there who are master homileticians please be merciful.

OPENING

A young man once loved his bride. In fact he simply adored her. He practically "worshipped" the ground upon which she walked (as young men are prone to do). He married her. She, however, did not return his love with with faithfulness. They were scarcely back from the honeymoon when he discovered he exploits with other men. Everyone told him she was trouble and to put her away. She cried for him to forgive her. He loved her dearly and he forgave her. Not long after he discovered she was with yet another man -- this time she was pregnant. What was he to do? She had had her chance so everyone told him to divorce her! But he loved her dearly so he forgave her. By this time, as you can imagine, people began to think this husband was crazy but he loved her. Within a year she had simply ran off with yet another man leaving him with children not his own.

I do not know the people personally in the that story but I can feel the pain, I am sure you can too. The amazing thing is this woman has surfaced again. What do YOU think this husband should do? Should he take her back? What would you do? Think on that deeply.

Another true story -- as sad as the first. There was a man, rich andpowerful. He was a politician. We would probably call him "wicked!" He was guilty of adultery not once but dozens of times. He had people killed. He got involved in witchcraft and lead almost his whole nation into this evil. He was so deranged that during one of his demonic services he murdered his own son in a ritual. Sick! Depraved!Degraded! We cannot multiply the adjectives enough. I do not want this man as a senator, congressman, or president. In fact this man has been thrown into a prison for his crimes. Yet he has had the audacity to ask for forgiveness. What shall we do?

MERCY, MERCY, MERCY, LOVE, LOVE, LOVE

Before you answer that question let's look at our text for this morning in light of these painfully true stories. Our text comes comes fromExodus 34. 5-9. Read with me:

"Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And when he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming `The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Yahweh, the Lord God, claims to be a compassionate and gracious God. He claims to be a God of Steadfast Love (RSV). He claims to be slow in anger and rich in forgiveness. Now I am free to identify the people in our opening stories because I feel they are perfect examples of what this text claims. The man in the first painful story is Hosea and his wife is Gomer. You may want to know that he did forgive her and he did take her back. In fact it may surprise you that God commanded him to take that unloving and unfaithful wife -- who has already blown a number of chances -- he told Hosea to take her back. This was to symbolize his own compassionate and gracious forgiveness of us. We are the unfaithful Gomer, yet he accepts us back -- over and over again!

The sick -- disgustingly evil -- man in the second story is Manasseh, king of Judah. Not only did God quickly forgive this man when he asked, the Lord to but he restored him to power and kingship. Talk about grace. Talk about undeserved compassion. I know -- beyond doubt that had Manasseh been president of the United States and had done the things he had done his chances for a public life would be less than zero. But God is not man -- his compassion, his graciousness, his love proves that beyond doubt. The Bible uses these stories to show uswith concrete and specific examples what Exodus 34 claims. The God of the Bible is a Gracious God. The God of the Bible is slow to anger and a God who is rich in forgiveness.

We learn that God loves us, he pursues us like a man does his bride, he enters into a covenant of love with us. Yet we daily go after other gods. Things and people in this world take away our love that should be directed solely to Yahweh. But God, like Hosea, takes us back. God offers to us, like he did Manasseh, mercy, compassion and forgiveness. Exodus says he does that simply because that is what kind of God Yahweh is.

It is "easy" to be forgiving when nothing really bad is going on. But a lot of "bad" things are going on in the context of Exodus 34. Starting with ch. 32 (only a month after Israel's "wedding" vows[sticking with our analogy of Hosea] and only two months after the miracle at the Red Sea -- and Israel is unfaithful. She is building other gods/idols. Moses had gone up the mountain and the people wandered off after false gods. The people wanted "gods they could see -- humbler gods, gods who would comfort them with a gentler, VISIBLE presence" as Walter Wangerin insightfully notes (The Book of God, p. 140). So Aaron gave them what they wanted - a visible god. He made a golden calf and dared to call it the God of the Exodus. The people went cheerfully into their adultery against Yahweh -- less than a month after their honeymoon! Like any husband, Yahweh is angry, as any husband would be, but he forgives his people (32.9-15). God did not destroy her or desert her. He took her back.

After that unfaithfulness, God calls Moses back up the mountain and there in the grievous context of sin claims to be a compassionate, gracious and loving God. "Yahweh, Yahweh," is pronounced. Then God proceeds to "exegete" his name -- he tells us what "Yahweh" means. His name defines who he is. His name means "compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, full of great and abounding love, full of faithfulness and forgiveness." That is what God says his name means, that is what kind of God we serve. That is the kind of God that deserves our whole hearted devotion, our worship, our obedience. These six aspects of God are practically indistinguishable. Ones cholar noted there isn't any real difference in the words. "The whole list [compassion, gracious, steadfast love, slow to anger, etc] boils down to: mercy, mercy, mercy. Does God have just one attribute -- this text seems to suggest that." (Ronald M. Hals, Grace and Faith inthe Old Testament, p. 16). Each word contributes to a picture that compliments and extends the rest. For example "merciful/compassionate" (Hebrew, rhm) literally comes from a root that means "womb." The word conjures up the image of the tenderness of a mother's care with the newborn infant she has carried in her womb. What a moving picture of God and his dealing with you and me. The word translated "abounding love" or better "steadfast love" (RSV, Hebrew, hsd) is closely related to the word "grace." The term simply means that God will not, indeed refuses to give up on us. He is a God who loves FOREVER (Ps. 136) despite our rebellion and sin. So, indeed, God is compassion, compassion, compassion! Mercy, mercy, mercy! Love, love, love! Did not the apostle John say "God IS love."

The text says that when Moses heard God pronounce his awesome and holy name he fell to the ground and worshipped. You know that is the only acceptable response we can give to such a great God as ours. We pay homage to our great and compassionate God.

------------
At this point have the congregation sing, "Glorify Thy Name" to worship him for his love for us
------------

ARE YOU LEAVING SOMETHING OUT??

I can already hear someone objecting to the text and saying, "Bobby you are leaving out the part about punishing sin! See there is more to God than this love stuff!" My response to that is -- No I am not leaving anything off about sin. God does not overlook, minimize or excuse sin. But in the Hebrew text -- and in the English -- the judgment on sin is NOT part of the explanation of God's holy and awesome name!! Wrath is "not a continuous aspect of the nature of God but a PARTICULAR response to a historical situation" (T. Fretheim, Exodus: Interpretation, p. 302).

God does punish because it is an affront to his holiness but that is NOT the point of this text. God in pronouncing his name deliberately contrasts the fact that he shows love to THOUSANDS -- forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin -- with punishing a FEW. The contrast is unmistakable and glaring. The context of Exodus 34 highlights this very thing. God says to Moses that if we are to know the one true God and not some idol of our own making (of the kind Aaron made) then we must know him as a compassionate and gracious God who is rich in forgiveness. God says you cannot say his name without saying compassion, graciousness and love -- to do so is to evoke a false deity. Due to his name, God acts in forgiving ways. He forgives unbelievable sin. Look at the life of Manasseh. Look at Gomer. Look at Christ on the cross and hear him say "Father forgive them!" The cross proves beyond a doubt that God does not excuse our sin -- he suffers for it and forgives it and there is a huge difference. At the cross Christ took the punishment that would fall on all of us. In that event, in the bloody murder ofthe Innocent One we see Exodus 34 in full action. God forgave"wickedness, rebellion and sin." He forgave the ones who not only were committing adultery but the ones torturing his own Son. The voice of God thunders through the universe -- "Father Forgive them!" Brothers and sisters that voice was heard in Exodus: "The LORD, theLORD, the compassionate and gracious God . . . " God forgives overand over and over. It cost him dearly to forgive.

CONCLUDING STATEMENTS

If you and I are to know God we must become people who are like him. We must become compassionate, merciful, and loving. We must become slow to anger, full of love and forgiving -- even in the face of painful and grievous sin. Just like Gomer's. Just like Manasseh's. Just like mine! In the NT these same traits are calledthe Fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5.22-23: "love, joy, peace,patience, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." When we know Godwe start to look and act in a manner that looks like him.

[remainder deleted]

To God's glory and grace,
Bobby Valentine

Preach the "Old Testament" #1

Preach the "Old Testament" #1

This post was written out of frustration ...

This post, and perhaps a few more to follow, has been inspired by a series of discussions with two preaching brothers I have had in the last few days regarding the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. I was most distressed by the course of the conversations. The conversations were a reaction to this statement I made: "I would love to write a book that finally convinced folks that the God of the "Old Testament" is truly a God of love and grace...the same exact God in the "New Testament!"."

Conversations like these make me really doubt the validity of our old dispensational hermeneutic that has been so vitally important in the history of the Stone-Campbell Movement. Yes, I believe there is a "new" covenant and we are part of it. But "old" covenant cannot simply be equated with "old testament," nor can the "new" covenant be divorced from, or even understood, apart from the Hebrew Bible.

The dispensational hermeneutic, in my view, seriously handicap's our ability to hear God's word in the first 39 books. In what way? Because the the Old Testament was not and is not allowed to speak for itself. It is the contention of my dialogue partners that God was NOT a God of grace and love in the First Testament, that the Old Testament was essentially legalistic and concerned with carnal (fleshy) perspectives - because John 1.17 states that "law" came through Moses but "grace and truth" came in Jesus. I maintain that this text does not mean there is no grace in the Old Testament, if I make that claim do I also claim there is not "truth?" Surely not. I believe the view of many of our brothers is in fact subtle Marcionism. Even if we do not believe in two literal gods we have turned the one God into a schizophrenic! Not only are we often not so subtle Marcionites, we may even be Bultmannians unaware (Bultmann maintained that the Old Testament was ultimately a failure and worthless to the Christian). In my years of preaching I know that my own personal experience has been confirmed through countless conversations.  Just one example. A few years ago I did a sermon series from Genesis (of all books) and had a 78 year old sister thank me for preaching from the OT because she could never recall hearing a sermon on Genesis. Whether her memory was accurate is beside the point. There was not enough of it to make an impact. I am quite comfortable in cutting across the grain on this however.

I have often observed that my brothers who maintain such a low view of the Hebrew Bible for Christians have a corresponding low grasp of both the actual content and the meaning of the "Old Testament." Here are some critical facts though from the "New" Testament regarding the "Old" (such language is not biblical btw and I resort to the NT rather than the OT here because the latter is often not allowed to testify for itself in these conversations):

1) The Law of Moses is Spiritual, holy, righteous and even good (Rom 7.12, 14).

2) Paul uses the Law and the Prophets to prove his doctrine of salvation of grace through faith. That is Abraham is the paradigm of justification through faith; David celebrates this truth; and Habakkuk bore witness to it (Rom 4)

3) Paul told Timothy the Hebrew Bible was good for equipping the people of God unto every good work (2 Tim 3.14-16)

These three cardinal truths are often not even given lip service in our churches and our preaching. The Old Testament is Spiritual according to Paul but many claim it is "fleshy" (code for unspiritual, legalistic or unimportant). In the Old Testament salvation is utterly by grace and not law keeping! In fact the Old Testament calls the relationship between Yahweh & Israel a "covenant of love" (Deuteronomy 7.9, 12) not covenant of law ... there are many who will reject this simply out of hand.

Yet, the treasure of the Hebrew Bible is more relevant to our lives than simply teaching us about grace and faith though that is of utmost importance. Without the Hebrew Bible it is impossible to understand who the Creator God is, what humanity is, or even to grasp the meaning of Jesus. In future posts I will explore these in more detail.

Before we can preach from the Hebrew Bible I must be convinced it has a powerful word from God that address us today. In order to be convinced of this we must also master the content and the meaning of that content. To do this we need to learn to listen to the text. Let me recommend three books that will help us be better listeners to the text and at the same time move us to appreciate the essential narrative unity of Scripture.

Ronald M. Hals, Grace and Faith in the Old Testament (Augusburg). This small hundred page book has only six chapters and is incredibly easy to read. If I were teaching OT Survey I have no doubt this little book would be required reading for both the midterm and final. Unfortunately this book is out of print but get it through an interlibrary loan and copy it. Also Amazon is a wonderful place to buy older used books. Run, do not walk, to get this small treasure. Devour it - read it - then read it again.

Thomas H. Olbricht, He Loves Forever: The Enduring Message of the Old Testament (College Press). Again this is a short and easy to read introduction to the heart of the OT. The book plunges into the meat of Exodus 34.6-7 and traces God's redeeming love throughout. This is also a very good book to use for an adult Bible class and I have done so several times through the years.

Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Baker Academic). This is the most academic book in this list but it is still easy to read. This book models the narrative unity of Scripture and shows how it invites us to become participants in the drama.

Tomorrow I will use the book of Exodus as a model or test case to see if we can preach from the Torah. As for me and my house we will maintain that Yahweh has always been nothing but a God of supreme love and grace. Any other god one finds in the "Old Testament" is an idol of their own making.

Thank you for letting me vent. Tomorrow will be better! I promise, :-)

While we wait ... here is a verbal exercise: Read Psalm 136 orally and see what the impact is.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Community of the Kingdom - The "Look" of Jesus

Community of the Kingdom: The "Look" of Jesus
Have you ever wondered what a Christian looks like? Recently this question was posed to me. It caught me off guard so I responded with a few superficial answers. Yet I was dissatisfied with my responses so I turned to the Scripture to help in determine what a Christian looks like.

The proper place to begin, is to find out what the Savior looked like. As I read through the Gospels seeking an answer to my question I began to notice a certain look over and over again. At the center of the Gospels is the remarkable compassionate love of Jesus. It is in plain view, yet we sometimes do miss it.

I read John's reflections on Christ's mission as being about saving, not condemnation (John 3.17). The Master's compassion for one caught in the very act of a capital "crime" is almost shocking (John 8). I noticed Jesus using the image of the Good Shepherd who gives himself in service to others (John 10.10-11). Luke told me that Jesus explained his whole purpose for living included the goals of freedom, healing and releasing the oppressed (Luke 4.18-19).

My journey through the Gospels revealed the Master gripped with compassion as he saw people as helpless sheep without a shepherd (Matt. 9.36). His heart ached when he saw the sick (Matt. 14.14) and he literally broke down at the death of a friend (John 11.35). His love was aroused for two blind men outside the ancient city of Jericho (Matt. 20.34). The masses of men, women and children hungry moved him deeply (Matt. 15.32). When a lady experienced the tragedy of death in her family, we read that Jesus' "heart went out to her." I noticed that Jesus was even willing to risk the censure of the church folks in order to "do good" (Luke 6.6-11).

As I continued to read through the Gospels wondering "what does a Christian look like" I came across these words from the Messiah's lips "love one another as I have loved you. By THIS everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13.34-35). I dawned on me that the "look" or "mark" of a Christian was none other than the "look" or "mark" of Jesus himself. What Jesus looked like was compassion pure and simple. Compassionate love! That is the answer to my question. Christians, real Christians, will have the look of Jesus. Jesus said that his look, the look of love, will be the mark of all Christians.

The community of the kingdom of God is filled with little Christ's filled with and moved by compassionate love. Herein is heart of the Christian ... and the Church.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Community of the Kingdom - Its Unity

The year 2006 marks the 100th anniversary of a "year of infamy." That was the year that a secular human government had to point out the obvious to a group of people known simply as disciples of Christ, who had insisted they were going to practice only the religion of Jesus no matter what, were as divided as any sect or denomination in existence. This truly is a moment that shall live in infamy. If this does not make our head hang in shame what will? And if 1906 was bad ... what about 2006?

In our quest to parcel out all the correct doctrine of the Bible we forgot one doctrine that ties the Bible together: The indivisible unity of God's People. God's family cannot be divided without the admission of serious failure on the part of that family.

The unity of God's People is an important theme throughout Scripture. The Table of Nations in Genesis 10 emphasizes the oneness of all races because each human comes from a common ancestor. In Genesis 13 we see Abram's concern for the unity (peace, harmony, love) within Lot. The story of Israel is one of unity until the division occurred in 1 Kings 12 with the disastrous results that followed. Division was recognized as a curse from God as punishment for sin.

Scripture is chalk full of admonitions to keep the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph 4.3). Paul chides the Corinthian church for their divisions. The apostle says, "I appeal to you ... that there may be no divisions among you ... Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor. 1.10-13). The same apostle urges the Roman congregations to "accept those whose faith is weak without passing judgment on disputable matters" (Rom 14.1). He continues "who are you to judge another man's servant ... Accept one another, then just as Christ accepted you" (Rom 14.4; 15.7). Paul told the Galatians, Philippians and Cretans the same thing. John, the apostle of love, even warns those who are "schismatics" (those who would divide God's church).

Unity is one of the most important "marks" of God's church. Jesus prayed that his disciples would be one (united) as he and the Father are one (John 17.10-11, 20-23). Unity is important because our unity validates the message of reconciliation brought by the Messiah. Disunity, according to Jesus, will cause unbelief. Sometimes we in God's church may be guilty of undermining the very message we claim to cherish - not by our worship or traditions - but by our disunity!

Many of the early Christian Fathers wrote on the importance of unity. Clement of Rome, a first century Christian contemporary with John, wrote that schism (division) is foreign to true Christians. In fact, echoing Scripture, he says that division is the surest sign of "godlessness" (1 Clement 1). According to a recent article on "Unity in the Apostolic Fathers" published in The Patristic & Byzantium Review, unity and harmony were as important as baptism. In fact the validity of our baptism was shown in keeping the unity that fills the community of the Kingdom of God.

One cannot fail to believe the Bible and not believe unity is a mark of God's family. Yet if this is so, then why are we so divided? It is so bad on the contemporary scene that socalled "progressives" and "conservatives" cannot even talk to one another. Clement answer to the question was pride and jealousy. What ever the correct answer we know that a divide church is less than perfect church. A divided church is less than God desires ... is it possible that God sends the curse of division in response to our shameful arrogance and sin of self-sufficiency? I do not know.

But my vision of the community of the Kingdom states that any congregation that values the story of God in Scripture will seek to heal the shame we have brought to the beautiful bride of Christ. Many will use such a congregation or individual for target practice ...

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

A Vision of the Church: The Community of the Kingdom

A Vision of the Church: The Community of the Kingdom

In the history of the American Restoration Movement the doctrine of the church has been of central importance. What began primarily as a dream of uniting the church became a quest for the true church. In the years following the founding years of the Stone-Campbell Movement ecclesiology became almost identified with focus on issues of structure but very little thought went into what the "soul" of the church might be.

In this blog I wish to explore some of those soul issues of what it means to be the community of the kingdom of God. I do not dismiss concerns of form outright but recognize that form can be overstressed. Water is water whether it is ice, liquid, or vapor. The "soul" of water is two hydrogen atoms combined with one oxygen atom ... the form does not alter that fact. In the same way there is a "soul" of the church.

I believe that every facet of the church is to be focused and grounded on the person of Jesus, his ministry and his death and resurrection. This community founded upon the Man functions as a redemptive community that shares in and continues the ministry of Jesus. Thus the church is to have a good reputation in the community, being aware of the unique spiritual and physical needs of those around her. She will be known for her compassion and concern for the poor, for mercy toward those stained and tortured by sin, and for her openness to all who embrace the Savior.

The community of the kingdom should be known, like Jesus, as a "friend of sinners." The church is where both saved and unsaved people can find love, hope, purpose in life, and most of all grace. Grace is the ministry of the family of Christ. It is a true community "where everybody knows your name." While the church never diminishes the demands of the way of cruciform discipleship, and thus calls all to follow the way of holiness, the redeemed community will always point to the Cross of Christ because none of us even come close to meeting those demands.

The community of the kingdom is also a place of joyful worship. My vision of the church sees a vast number of sinners redeemed by the blood of the Lamb gathered in praise in the presence of His Holiness, the Almighty. The church offers only the best she can as a sacrifice to God because he has already done the best in his Son.

The community of the kingdom is where disciples discover gifts for ministry they never dreamed of. Church is where we find meaning in holy relationships with one another, it is the family we never knew we had. The community of the kingdom is where sacrifices are joyfully made for one another so that our Abba's will may be done one earth as it is in heaven.

The community of the kingdom is a place of prayer. In this community we cry for the fullness of the kingdom of God to come. Church is where God's children intercede for each other. It is where we come before the throne and experience intimate fellowship the world of this age can never grasp.

The community of the kingdom is a non-judgmental and non-denominational fellowship of redeemed sinners united by faith in Christ and adopted by grace into the divine family. The community of the kingdom recognizes there is only One who sits on the throne while she kneels as the foot of the Cross. She never trust in her own sufficiency but always prays for the empowering Spirit to lead her into further understanding of the profound depths of God's word.

The church is a community that lives in the shadow of the coming fullness of the kingdom of God. It is a community that embraces its alien status as we wait for the redemption of the cosmos at the end.

This is a brief description of the vision I have of God's church.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Kingdom Come: What They Are Saying ...

KINGDOM COME: What They Are Saying

Welcome to Stoned-Campbell Disciple. This blog will be a little different and longer than typical.

Earlier this year at the Pepperdine Bible Lectures my book with John Mark Hicks, Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding (Leafwood 2006) was released. The book will never sell like The DaVinci Code but it is our prayer it will have a leavening effect in Churches of Christ.

The book was nearly a year and a half in the making with many sleepless nights (literally) going into it. The book was thought through, argued through, read through and yes, even prayed through. It remains our prayer that God can use it to bring glory to his name and help the Churches of Christ recover a vision of kingdom of living in the shadow of the second coming.

A number of folks have shared with the public their responses to the book. I probably do not know all of these but I have brought some together. Some have said good things and others have said some not so good things. What follows will be from those "reviews." There are times it seems that folks are really reading two different books judging from the reactions.

Darin L. Hamm at Grace-Centered Magazine posted on May 30, 2006 (to my knowledge Darin was the first to post anything about the book so I start with him)

Overall I give the book Kingdom Come high marks. It is a well written book. It is also clear that the writers are passionate in their cause. As I thought about the book I decided that it would be a good read for CoC people who are Christ-centered and tired of the endless division and legalism.

The book is strongest when the writers share their convictions. In some sections the quotes flow very well but in others they seem somewhat forced. I could see how it would be an encouragement to know that the attitude they see today wasn’t the understanding of everyone in the CoC. I think it would be an encouragement to understand that the CoC did have teachers who embraced the indwelling Spirit and the power of God over rationalism.

God used the book, along with a Bible class comment, to bring me to a much richer prayer life. A prayer life I am committed to keep. (I must take a break from writing this post in fact for my prayer time. I will be back. It was powerful. God used it to convict me to stay the course.)

The book touches on many hot button issues of today. The book tends to focus on all of the issues that the emergent movement is bringing to the forefront IMO. It gives a good image of Kingdom and what it means to be kingdom people.

I would recommend the book to CoC people who are disenfranchised with the movement. I don’t know if it will make you feel less disenfranchised, it didn’t me, but at least it will make you wonder what could have been and it can give you hope that things can change. If teh CoC went from a movement that embraced the Spirit to one of total rationalism over many years then it would stand to reason that it could go back.I do present my personal opinion on the history of the book.

One section uses Alexander Campbell quotes almost entirely, so I struggle with the idea that the book is truly a history about Lipscomb’s and Harding’s legacy. I have read Hicks book Come to the Table and actually had the privilege of talking with and hearing his presentation a few years ago in Ulysses, Kansas of all places, so the material on the LS wasn't really new or even something I would attribute to Lipscomb or Harding. It reminds me of a book I own entitled Early Christians Speak produced by Everett Ferguson and copyrighted 1971. I read the book and I see how Ferguson used the early church history. I remember going in and reading the source documents he used to defend baptism is by immersion. I remember finding that one of the documents he quoted certainly talked of baptism by immersion, but the entire focus was actually on the fact that baptism by water was not as important as baptism by the Holy Spirit. The entire document was about Spirit baptism and yet was being used by a group that didn't even believe in the indwelling Spirit. If I really let the early Christians speak I would have to change my attitude towards Spirit baptism. I went on to read other source documents and decided that Ferguson, at least at that point in history, had an agenda and he went to the early church writings with that agenda and he found what he needed to bolster his claims.From a purely historic POV I find the book takes issues that are prevalent in today’s church and it seems looks for quotes and statements from SC people in an attempt to say look, our movement had these same ideas. I personally think these two men’s way of thinking would put them in a sectarian light regardless of their positions on the Holy Spirit and premillinialism. This quote from page 180 says it all to me, "Lipscomb himself was agnostic on premillennialism."

John Gaines on GP (Gospel Preachers) Talk.

Reaction to Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding by John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine

I was asked early in the summer to offer to the list my reaction to this book. I am sorry it has taken several weeks for me to accomplish the task. I read the book slowly and carefully. My copy is heavily marked and underlined with a few “X’s”, a few exclamation marks, and quite a lot of question marks, indicating ideas I want to study more but am initially skeptical about.

I’ve tried to read with an open mind and avoid any bias either toward or against the authors of this book. I’ve been acquainted with John Mark Hicks for thirty years or more (we were students together at Freed-Hardeman). He was a brilliant student and his intelligence and scholarship is evident in whatever he writes. I know Bobby Valentine only through mutual participation in e-mail lists and several personal e-mails exchanged back and forth over the last several years. Bobby is a prolific writer and appears to take the time to do his homework so that what he writes is worth considering, even if one ultimately ends up disagreeing with many of his conclusions.

The first chapter is titled ”Introducing a Spiritual Legacy: Foreigners at Home.” This title briefly sets forth Hicks and Valentine’s thesis that David Lipscomb and J. A. Harding were men of tremendous influence who powerfully impacted the church in their day and whose influence has continued down to the present. They use the shorthand NBST (for Nashville Bible School Tradition) and suggest that it counterpoints the “Texas Tradition” (represented by writers and preachers such as Austin McGary, J. D. Tant, R. L. Whiteside, and Foy E. Wallace, Jr.). They state, “David Lipscomb and James A. Harding were the most significant “Editor-Bishops” and educators (“Founder/President-Bishops”) east of the Mississippi in the early twentieth century. Lipscomb is regarded as the “father” of southern Churches of Christ while Harding is the “father” of Bible Schools (colleges) among Churches of Christ.”

That quotation highlights the first of several unfortunate tendencies I see in this book. The authors are given to overstatement. Who regards Lipscomb as the “father” of southern churches? Who says Harding is the “father” of colleges among us? On what basis do they offer such claims? Tolbert Fanning started Franklin College near Nashville in 1845, three years before James A. Harding was born. Lipscomb graduated from Franklin College in 1849. Perhaps the meaning of “father” is open to interpretation but obviously Lipscomb and Harding were not the progenitors of churches of Christ or church-related colleges in Tennessee or the South. No student of Restoration Movement history would deny the influence exerted by Lipscomb and Harding. Their lives are worthy of study, but their reputations are not enhanced by unmerited overstatement.
A second problem comes with Hicks and Valentine’s treatment of Lipscomb and Harding. Kingdom Come is not (and does not claim to be) a biography of Lipscomb and Harding. It gives fairly scant treatment to the details of their lives. The authors’ purpose is to emphasize the legacy springing forth from their lives and teachings and show how that continues, especially, in the more progressive elements of the brotherhood today. The book is filled with a great many brief quotations to provide the gist of Lipscomb and/or Harding’s teachings on various topics including God’s providence, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the “four duties” or “four great means of grace” – Bible reading, ministering to others (especially the poor), participating in the Lord’s Day meeting, and habitual prayer. As I read through the book, I inserted this comment at the end of chapter four, “Readers are obligated to trust that Hicks and Valentine have accurately represented Harding’s views since the preponderance of quotations are mere phrases and snippets.” I believe that John Mark and Bobby are honorable men and do not accuse them of deliberately misrepresenting anything. However, this approach has the appearance of “proof-texting.” That is a dangerous approach in Biblical exposition because it lends itself to a selective presentation of a message suited to the speaker’s purpose but which may not be representative of the Bible teaching in its proper context. The same possibility of manipulation exists when so many brief quotations are used without providing context for the statements.

The chapter dealing with worship provides an example of the authors clearly going beyond what their subjects believed and taught. In a section under the subhead “Sacrificial Living,” they state, “Worship is much more than the corporate assembly. It is the submission and sacrifice of our lives for the purpose of glorifying God in everything we do.” A few paragraphs later, they continue, “Ministry (e.g. benevolence), then, is as much worship as singing praises to God. . . . There is no absolute difference between praising God with our lips and sharing our possessions with others. Both are worship.” Here they offer no quotations or citations from Lipscomb or Harding. Actually, they make no claim that Lipscomb or Harding ever taught or believed such an “all-of-life-is-worship” doctrine.

The bottom line is Kingdom Come is John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine’s vision for what they would like for the church to be. Whenever possible, they tie that vision in with the legacy of Harding and Lipscomb. When necessary, they cast aside the Harding-Lipscomb mantle and argue their own case. This is not necessarily bad because Lipscomb and Harding are not the authorities. They were men and, like all men, were wrong in some of their beliefs and practices. However, it would have been useful if the authors had been more forthcoming in making it clear to the reader when they are reporting on the teaching of Harding or Lipscomb and when they are speaking with their own voices.

In the conclusion to Chapter 10, Hicks and Valentine write, “Freedom to think and speak was an integral part of the NBST. This does not mean its leaders never drew the line in the sand, because that is clearly not the case. Yet the leaders of this rich theological tradition in Churches of Christ were convinced that it was only through the freedom to think and speak that the community as a whole moved to a greater understanding of God’s holy will.” Read Lipscomb’s commentaries, articles, and books and you’ll find areas where you disagree with “Uncle Dave.” If Hicks and Valentine are right (and I think they are on this point), he wouldn’t mind that too much. Lipscomb did publish views contrary to his own frequently in the Gospel Advocate. But he did take strong stands which progressives in the church today are not willing to take. Lipscomb opposed missionary societies and he opposed instrumental music in worship. However, he was not quick to erect barriers to fellowship and was willing to allow those with whom he disagreed time to study, learn, and come to a better understanding of truth.

Kingdom Come has value. There are better biographies of both Lipscomb and Harding, but as was stated earlier, this book is not primarily biographical. My conclusion after reading the book carefully and thinking about what it says is that its message is worth considering in some part because of what it teaches about the legacy of Harding and Lipscomb and in greater part because of what it reveals about where the mindset shared by the authors and numerous other “progressive spirits” in the church today want to take us. When all is said and done, Kingdom Come looks to the future more than it looks to the past. From my perspective, some of this “spiritual legacy” is desirable; some isn’t. Some of it needs more thought and time to digest."

Thomas H. Olbricht retired head of Pepperdine University's Religion Department posted on Stone-Campbell e-mail list.

John Mark Hicks & Bobby Valentine, Kingdom Come: Embracing the Spiritual Legacy of David Lipscomb and James Harding (Abilene: Leafwood Publishers, 2006), 224 pp.

A phrase from the dedication page sums up the intent in this recent work by Hicks and Valentine, "May the past help guide us securely into the future." The authors have researched in detail the writings of Lipscomb and Harding not simply to better ascertain their thoughts and efforts, but in order to recommend what they said and did to a new generation of adherents in restorationist churches.

"Their kingdom theology and spirituality, we believe, provides the contemporary church with a way forward into the future. If Churches of Christ—and other parts of the Stone-Campbell Movement as well—would re-appropriate their kingdom themes and practices, we believe the church would more fully participate in the emerging kingdom of God which will one day fill the earth with divine righteousness." [p. 10]

In order to achieve these ends Hicks and Valentine first set the various topics for consideration in the context of the world in which Lipscomb and Harding lived, as well as that of other restorationists with whom they associated and sometimes differed. The next section in each chapter, which comprises the burden of the book, sets forth the views and actions of Lipscomb and Harding, one or the other predominating. Harding came in for more attention than did Lipscomb. (Chapters 2-5, 8 and 11 principally developed ideas from Harding; chapters 6, 7 and 9 those of Lipscomb, and 10 the views of J. N. Armstrong and R. H. Boll). The authors argue that in regard to the particular themes under consideration the influence of Harding was the weightier.

Lipscomb, while always respected, did not have the same impact upon his students that Harding did. Harding lived and breathed the themes of this book and nurtured them in his students. The tradition was highly dependent upon Harding. [p. 194].

The history contained in each chapter is excellent. Hicks and Valentine have explored far more of the journal articles of these two men on the topics at hand than likely any previous historian. The result is that new and more definitive insights appear with some frequency. I would have preferred more of this in depth history, but I am willing to honor the goal of the authors who especially seek to adumbrate the manner in which the views of Lipscomb and Harding may contribute to life in our times.

A third section in each chapter contains the reflections of Hicks and Valentine upon the topics under consideration in respect to Biblical materials as well as comments from twentieth century scholars. Each chapter ends with discussion questions, challenges, a prayer and suggested readings. I think the format of the book successfully assists the authors in their challenge to current believers to embrace as worthy exemplars these two spiritual forefathers. Since I am particularly interested in historical perspectives and actions, however, I think another question or two in each case focused upon the lives and outlooks of Harding and Lipscomb would add to the discussions.

In the first chapter the authors set out the thesis that the Nashville Bible School Tradition differed from alternate views that were dominant in Texas centered around the Firm Foundation and in the upper Midwest reflected in the Christian-Evangelist and the Christian Standard. Further they point out that the perspectives of the Firm Foundation came to be the more predominant of views in Churches of Christ by the 1930s. Hicks and Valentine therefore suggest that many persons in Churches of Christ in the twenty-first century will be surprised to learn what Lipscomb and Harding believed. I conclude there is merit in the distinctions set forth by Hicks and Valentine, as long as one does not suppose that the Firm Foundation outlooks are absent in Tennessee or that the Nashville Bible School Traditions have no supporters in Texas.

Hicks and Valentine have divided this book on the spiritual legacy of Lipscomb and Harding into three parts. Part I is titled, "Kingdom Dynamics: Divine Action." The chapters regard (2) the focus of believers on the coming kingdom of God, and not the kingdoms of the world, (3) trusting God’s providential care, and (4) the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. Part II is "Kingdom Spirituality: Four Means of Grace". The chapters are (5) reading Scripture, (6) fellowship with the needy, (7) the Lord’s Day and the Lord’s table, (8) prayer. The Part III heading reads, "Kingdom Life: Free to Serve" with chapters on (9) pacifism, (10) freedom to think and speak, and (11) end times on earth. The final statement is labeled "Afterword" which is a concluding challenge to the readers to embrace the commendable aspects of the views of Lipscomb and Harding.

A first question we might asked is whether Hicks and Valentine have taken up the necessary the topics to be considered in setting out a spiritual legacy. They have certainly touched upon the majority of such topics. I should think, however, that a chapter on singing as a spiritual discipline would be highly appropriate. Another topic could well be family and personal devotions, though certain aspects are touched upon in the chapter on reading the scriptures. I also think that sharing the biblical message with others personally at home and aboard would have been a worthy topic. These three topics while important and interesting, would however have expanded the book and situated it in a different category in regard to price and use in church class studies.

Another matter has to do with the twentieth century authors to which Hicks and Valentine referred. Most of the reading listed and authors cited are commendable. I likely would have added an entry or two from church historians in various cases [final comments deleted for space but do not alter the substance of the review.]

Jason Retherford posted on his blog, Kingdom Adventure, on August 17, 2006.

A while back I had posted my early reflections on Kingdom Come: The spiritual legacy of Harding and Lipscomb. I just finished reading this book today. This book needs to be required reading of all serious Bible students, church historians and disciples of our Lord. The kingdom thinking and living of Harding and Lipscomb was ahead of their time. It is unfortunate that their robust kingdom theology was replaced by a deistic rationalism that has infected the church universal. The church of Christ in 2006 would do well to get reaquainted with these two giants of faith and the teachings of the Nashville Bible School of Theology.

The kingdom teachings of Lipscomb and Harding are not innovations or additions to Holy Writ. No, their understanding of the kingdom arises out of their time in the Word of God and their understanding of the Sermon on the Mount, as well as their living with the real hope of the 2nd Coming.

Lipscomb and Harding called the church to a kingdom life. For these two men, the only agenda worth living and dying for was a kingdom agenda. A kingdom agenda seeks to right broken relationships, eradicate poverty, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, care for the orphaned and widowed, anc care for the earth. Harding and Lipscomb saw allegiance to the kingdom of God as their first priority. As a matter of fact, Hicks and Valentine share a story of an accusation of treason to the Confederacy at the time of the Civil War. Lipscomb was accused of being disloyal to the cause of the Confederacy, so a Conferderate military man was sent to check him out. What was said about Lipscomb is amazing, “whether or not he is not loyal to the confederate, I do not now, but he is faithful to the kingdom of God.” I want to have others say that about my own allegiance, that it is to the kingdom of God over any earthly kingdom.

The real tragedy in all of this is that since the death of these two men, a once robust kingdom theolgy has been replaced by a rationalistic, complacent, nationalistic view that has crippled the church. We would do well to encounter the kingdom teachings of Lipscomb and Harding. Our postmodern world needs the church to rediscover the kingdom agenda. One that is more than saving souls, for the sake of saving souls, but one that seeks wholeness and the shalom of God.

Whatever is on your reading list, move it down. Read this book first. And once read, let’s start living out the kingdom agenda of God. Our world needs us to let the light of Christ shine."

Clark at ClarkeComments.com published this on August 7, 2006:

I just finished reading Kingdom Come by John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine.

It took me a while because I’ve been really busy with work. The book itself is an easy read and is a fascinating look into the beliefs and eschatology of our forgotten past.

Between the lecture they gave at Pepperdine, the book, and reading some blog posts by Travis and Greg, I’ve been thinking alot about these subjects.
And I’ve changed my mind.

I grew up in a very patriotic family. My grandfather wasn’t just an elder, he was also a soldier. I grew up reading the Constitution, Decleration of Independence and the Monroe Doctrine. I read those documents more than my bible. I persued a career working in government.

But now I’d have to say that I agree more with Lipscomb’s thoughts on government. If I remember correctly from the book, Lipscomb believed that human governments existed because man was unable to govern himself under the law of Christ.

So…on pacifisim. While I’m not sure I would take a completely pacifict position, especially when it comes to protecting my family, I think I can say that Jesus was serious when he taught “turn the other cheek,” and I don’t think he was alluding to just verbal insults.

And as far as religous nationalism…. it is nothing less than idolatry. While we live here in the United States and should be thankful to God that we have it easy, we should not assume that America has a special place in the heart of God. The thought that the United States is the new Israel is wrong. To view the United States as anything other than the Babylon, Assyria, or Rome that it is is to fool oneself and elevate the temporal state to a place that it doesn’t belong.

But, this is a mistake that has been made since Constantine. Its nothing new. But we as Christians must see it for what it is.

Bobby and John Mark’s book helps us do just that. Get a copy, and read it. If you read any book besides the bible this year, this should be the one.

Alan Highers, editor of The Spiritual Sword posted on Stone-Campbell email list June 19, 2006.

I would like to make some general comments and observations about the Hicks-Valentine book on the spiritual legacy of David Lipscomb and James A. Harding. I realize this is somewhat in advance of the scheduled beginning of the chapter-by-chapter review, but I read the book in its entirety this past weekend and I would like to register my impressions while they are fresh.

These comments are not necessarily intended as criticisms. They are more in the nature of general impressions from the reading, although I am focusing on what I consider weaknesses in the presentation.

1. The book is not primarily about David Lipscomb. Although there are generous references to Lipscomb, if I had read the book not knowing the title, I would have surmised this title: The Apocalyptic Vision of James A. Harding and Friends. M. C. Kurfees said: "Among what are called well-balanced men, David Lipscomb is probably without a superior on the church of God" (West 253). Harding himself referred to Lipscomb as "the greatest man on the continent" (West 214).

2. The book is not simply a compendium of the views of Lipscomb and Harding. At some points and in some chapters, the views of the subjects are merely platforms for the authors to explicate their own positions. For example, to suggest that "all of life is worship" (118) is not quoted from either Lipscomb or Harding, and no reference is given to document that either of the subjects so held.

3. Chapter 10 emphasizes "freedom to speak" and makes reference especially to R. H. Boll and J. N. Armstrong. The authors go beyond Lipscomb and Harding to flesh out their own perceptions of this freedom. The reader might perceive that the authors are only enhancing the views of Lipscomb and Harding. But, so far as I can tell, no reference is made to the fact that R. H. Boll's removal as front-page writer for the Gospel Advocate was specifically approved by Lipscomb. The toleration of Lipscomb and Harding for divergent views was not without limit.

4. Although, in 2006, the topic again is one of much discussion, almost nothing is said in the book regarding the positions of Lipscomb and Harding about instrumental music and the 1906 division. Harding said: "God forbid that I should ever turn from following Christ and the apostles to follow the Catholics and thereby to divide the churches of Christ" (Sears 82).

5. The writers point out that nothing was to be made a condition of fellowship unless it was essential to salvation (164). Yet both Lipscomb and Harding considered the use of instrumental music a disruption of fellowship, therefore it follows that they regarded it as a matter of salvation. I think one would not get this impression from reading the book. The effort to protray Lipscomb and Harding as magnanimous (which they were) seems to overshadow real convictions that both held.

6. In the chapter on the work of the Holy Spirit (4), the emphasis again is primarily on Harding, not Lipscomb. The chapter begins with three quotations from Harding, but none from Lipscomb. My impression from quotations in the book is that Harding's view of the Holy Spirit related more to his belief in "special providence" than to the indwelling.

7. At the beginning of their treatise, the authors uphold the vision of Lipscomb and Harding for the church, but they speak condescendingly about those who are shaped by "debates with denominationalists" and "supreme confidence in our church forms" (15-16). No mention is made of the debates of both Lipscomb and Harding with "denominationalists." Harding's debate with Moody (Baptist) in 1889, known as "the Nashville Debate," is regarded as a classic. Harding stated: "A public discussion, in which the truth is properly set forth in a proper spirit, will accomplish more good, I believe, than two or three protracted meetings" (Sears 95). This selective use of facts tends to provide a distorted view of the subjects of the book.

8. There are good things about the book. Both Lipscomb and Harding were spiritual giants. Both made contributions worthy of examination. If this book cultivates an interest in their life and work, it has served a good purpose. But I hope the reader will be aware of the weaknesses of the book as well as its strengths.

If I have misrepresented the book in any way, I hope the authors (both are contributors to this list) will correct me. I have attempted to give my overall impressions, but it is not my wish or intention to misrepresent or misstate in any way whatsoever.

From George Mearns also on Grace-Centered Magazine and Open Bible Study posted on August 24, 2006.

"If you are looking for a very good book to read about how we got to where we are, then this new book by John Mark Hicks and Bobby Valentine is excellent. Kingdom Come is published by Leafwood. They explore the spiritual aspects of Lipscomb and Harding contrasting it with some of the criticisms they faced and we see today.

The Sermon on the Mount plays a vital roll in the background of Lipscomb and Harding. Divided into three parts, part one introduces us to some of the thinking of these brothers in prayer, providence, the Holy Spirit and civil government. Part two uses Acts 2:42 as its theme and looks at prayer, worship, Bible reading and serving others. Part three explores civil government and war and peace issues, the need for a willingness to listen to others rather than branding this or that, and how we should expect to see the final coming of Jesus and the return to Eden.

I personally think that chapter eleven is the most important. The Gospel Advocate of Lipscomb's day often presented various sides to an issue, with Lipscomb (and Harding in his papers as well) allowing readers to make up their own minds by their own study. We do not see this today in brotherhood publications. One side, and only one side is presented - all others are condemned, and sometimes misrepresented as well. This attitude has effected churches as well, where leaders often do not want other points of view presented. That attitude has shut off discussion and cause people to either sit back or leave, sometimes with the blessings of the elders.

This book is an important book and needs to be read by as many as possible. It might even appear on one of those "most dangerous" lists, that is how important and challenging it is."

There are a number of others that I am aware of out there but do not really review the book. I have included a few reviews that I personally do not agree with for the sake of being open minded and balanced. If you have read the book why not share some of your perspectives on it. My feelings will not be hurt. Kingdom Come is available through Amazon.com.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Books, Books, & More Books

Books, Books and more Books

Many hundreds of years ago the nameless editor, of the nameless Preacher's reflections, opined, "Of making many books there is no end ..." (Ecclesiastes 12.12b). This is obviously a true proverb. Hundreds of thousands of books are published every year some outstanding and some they could have saved the trees.

It seems customary among bloggers to periodically list the books they have recently read or are currently reading. I suppose the motive behind this is to suggest some good books that may bless others and with that motive in mind I join this blogging tradition. Here a few books that I have read in the recent past.

Edwin P. Hoyt, Angels of Death: Goering's Luftwaffe (Forge 1994). This is a history of the Luftwaffe as it overlaps with the life Hermann Goering the architect of Hitler's Air Force. This is a highly readable account of Goering rise and fall. Hoyt makes the interesting claim that Goering while a rabid supporter of Hitler did not buy into the racist ideology of Nazism.

Monford Harris, Exodus and Exile: The Structure of the Jewish Holidays (Fortress 1992). Harris is a Jewish scholar who taught in Chicago. This is a very insightful work on the theology and meaning for Jewish life of the major holy days. He makes an observation that I had not thought of before but is quite significant: the Pilgrimage festivals all celebrate the Exodus but not one holiday celebrates the conquering of the Land.

Bernard of Clairvaux on the Song of Songs (Cistercian Publications) This is a compilation of Bernard's famous sermons on the Song of Songs. I love this book. I have read pits and pieces of Bernard's sermons but these are cutting "edge." Not only does Bernard have tremendous insight into love but he also has a very good sermon on the "Two Operations of the Holy Spirit."

Nicolaus Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, edited by Stephen Hawking (Running Press 2002). I am about half way through this classic that set off the great debate about the structure of the Solar System (indeed the universe itself). This is anything but an easy read, however, the book is very interesting. Dust off all of those long forgotten theorems of Geometry and Trig. or do like me and simply skim that part, :)

Barbara Ellen Bowe, A Church in Crisis: Ecclesiology and Paraenesis in Clement of Rome (Fortress 1988). This book is part of the Harvard Dissertations in Religion series. I picked it up on sale for 3 bucks and it is worth every penny. This is a full length Ph.D dissertation on the rhetoric, structure and argument of 1 Clement (one of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament ... it is a First Century document). I have seen Bowe's book in footnotes before but now I am reading it for myself. She practically overturns older scholarship that asserted 1 Clement depicted a power grab by the Roman church over other churches and that it is concerned primarily about structural ecclesiology. Rather she argues that Clement is interested in unity through solidarity and an exhortation to a communal ethics of brotherhood. It is a very stimulating work.

Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Westminster 2001). Having recently read David deSilva's Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity (IVP 2000) I have come to see an entire dimension to biblical study that I had not availed myself too. Malina is the scholar to read when it comes to the social and cultural context of the NT. Issues of honor and shame are on almost ever page of the NT but simply go unrecognized because these thought categories are alien to modern western readers. This is a very helpful book as is deSilva's.

Finally, I started to reread C. S. Lewis classic Till We Have Faces. This is my all time favorite of Lewis' works. It is rich and multidimensional. It was written near the end of his life and it reflects much more nuanced patterns of thought than some of his earlier work (which I also love btw). It is unfortunate that this book is not a well known among Evangelicals who seem to love parts of Lewis' legacy.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Hebrew Grace: Eyes to See

"In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed. In your strength you will guide them into your holy dwelling" (Exodus 15.13, RSV).

Contrary to a popular, and persistent, myth God's grace was not a new revelation in the New Testament. Israel looked upon the Exodus from slavery in Egypt in the same way Christians do the Cross of Calvary. The comparison of Exodus and Cross shows jus how crucial deliverance from bondage is to biblical faith. In the text quoted above from Exodus 15 notice that it is God's "unfailing love" that leads and redeems Israel. The Hebrew word lying behind "steadfast love" is hesed which is a difficult word to translate into English. It is a powerful word that perhaps means what we understand as grace and unending love compounded together ... and much more.

It is absolutely alien to the Hebrew Bible that Israel somehow earned or deserved to be God's People. According to the First Testament, the Exodus was an act of utter grace on Yahweh's part. Moses wrote in Deuteronomy that God "did not set his affection" on Israel because they were powerful, numerous "for you were the fewest of all peoples." No it was not because Israel was the prize of the Ancient Near East rather they were nomadic nobodies! Moses likewise obliterates any notion of Israel's self-righteousness. The Prophet says it was simply that God "loved you and kept his oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you" (Deuteronomy 7.7-9).

The Exodus is often undervalued by Christians but it was the greatest act of God's grace (after Creation) and was not surpassed until the incarnation of the Word. Some even call the Exodus the "Old Testament Gospel." This is not far from the mark in my view. Israel knew beyond a doubt that she existed solely because of Yahweh's love and grace. If we read the Hebrew Bible carefully we will notice dozens of references to the Exodus in the narratives, the Prophets and the Psalms (see Joshua 24; Psalms 106-107; 114; 136, etc).

God's grace to Israel is the foundation of his grace to you and me. Our relationship with God is based upon grace, not law, just as it was in the Hebrew Bible. God redeemed Israel through the Exodus and then invited them into a covenant of love with him at Sinai. This progression is essential for understanding biblical faith in either Testament. God redeems us through the blood shed at Golgotha and then invites us to covenant with him. In both cases God's grace is prior to and establishes ground for our human response. God acts; we respond. Exodus comes before Sinai; Calvary comes before Pentecost; Grace comes before faith; It always has and it always will.

Rejoice over God's grace.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine