Stoned-Campbell Disciple

Daniel & the Life of Faith

2012-01-17T11:40:00.006-07:00

A few thoughts on the Book of Daniel that emerged from reflecting early this morning ...

Every person who has been baptized into Christ has been born again by God's grace. Christians, therefore, exist in what may be called a state of grace or a state of salvation. Because we believe the testimony of God's Spirit through Scripture and his witness to our spirit, we know we are his.

Yet every person who is, by grace, in Christ also knows that Satan has not put a "Do Not Disturb" sign around us. Rather he has hung a Bull's Eye on us in order to destroy us. Christians know more than their critics that living a godly, holy and Spirit-filled life is a struggle. Paul even compared it to warfare! So we look for resources to live a life of faithfulness before God.

The stories in the book of Daniel were written precisely to help God's people face the assaults that come from a hostile and pagan world - the attacks of the Enemy. From the book of Daniel we learn two important truths about discipleship: we must have a strong sense of identity and we must have integrity.

Daniel does have a strong sense of identity. He knew that he belonged to God. In chapter one he refused to "defile himself" which meant he did not allow himself to be put under obligation to a pagan king (1.8). In chapter nine Daniel prays to Yahweh, this prayer reveals his deep roots in the story of Israel with God. Daniel knew if he was not only to survive in a worldly, pagan environment he needed a strong sense of "who he was and whose he was" - identity. His identity was rooted in and derived from the God of heaven.

Daniel also had a strong sense of integrity. His integrity was that of faith. From reading the book of Daniel we see this young man was a student of Scripture and a prayer warrior. Twice this man of God is indebted to Jeremiah (2.36-38, cf. Jer 27.6-7; and 9.2-3, cf Jer 29.10) and frequently uses language from Ezekiel. Daniel's faith had integrity. He knew he would not be able to live faithfully without constant feeding upon Story of God in Scripture. When he needed insight or strength, Daniel had God's word imprinted on his heart due to his habit of meditating upon it.

Daniel's integrity is also seen in his prayer life. Few characters in the Bible are said to have prayed as often as Daniel. He prays in ch. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 12. The reason Daniel was put in the dungeon with wild lions was because of his commitment to prayer.

Daniel, who was kidnapped from his homeland as a youth, was taken to a strange land, a land of a different language, different values, and different religion. It would have been easy for him to throw in the towel on living as a resident alien for Yahweh - but he didn't. We live in a world very similar to the world of the book of Daniel. We are exiles in a foreign land. But if we have a strong sense of identity, we are God's people and have integrity to spend time to be nourished by Scripture and prayer, I believe we will live lives full of faith for God our King.

Do you know who you are? Do you have integrity before God? - the questions of the Book of Daniel.

Paul the Jew, His Nazirite Vow and Restorationist Response to It

2012-01-15T16:24:00.005-07:00

The episode recorded by Luke in Acts 21.17-26 is one of his most fascinating vignettes. It certainly is a “bump” in any patternistic hermeneutic. The thought of Paul (James and the Jerusalem church does not usually bother anyone but perhaps would if we actually understood it) actually taking a vow, offering a sacrifice in the temple {with instruments} and undergoing purification causes no little stress! That the text is meddlesome is evident by the way Stone-Campbell restorationists have wrestled with the text. I think our reactions to this passage in Acts also sheds light on our attitude toward the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament in general and the Jewish context of the first century church in particular.

I have not found a discussion of Acts 21 in Alexander Campbell’s writings. If someone has a reference please let me know. In his Acts of the Apostles Campbell offers only the briefest of notes and mostly of a translation nature. His most extensive comment is whether or not Paul was arrested during or after the period of the vow (Acts, p.144).

Robert Milligan and J. W. McGarvey seem to have provided the grist for most restoration thought on Acts 21 in the late 19th and going into the 20th centuries. I will summarize Milligan first. Milligan published his Analysis of the New Testament in 1874. Volume one covers only the Gospels and Acts (I do not know if volume 2 was ever published).

For Milligan there are three possible explanations of Paul’s behavior in Jerusalem in Acts 21. First we can simply affirm that Paul acted ignorantly. In spite of having written Galatians he still was not aware that the Law of Moses was no longer binding. The second possible interpretive move for Milligan is that Paul’s action falls in the same category as Peter’s in Galatians 2. He acted out of fear of his Jewish brethren and thus not wholeheartedly. The third possible interpretation is that Paul was simply bowing to Jewish weakness and prejudice. (See Milligan, Analysis, p. 392). Milligan shows no interest in the fact that the Jerusalem church under the leadership of James, and Luke the writer, have no apparent qualms with this course of action.

Milligan’s interpretation is picked up by B. W. Johnson in his People’s Notes on the New Testament, Vol 1. In Johnson’s Notes God gradually lead the church into understanding that the Old Testament had been done away with, “God taught the church lesson by lesson, but up to this time that at Jerusalem had not yet learned that they were freed from the obligation to keep the law of Moses” (Vol 1, p. 511). Johnson suggests, in line with Milligan, that Paul took James advice for the sake of “peace and unity” (p. 512). But in Johnson’s own view “we cannot be certain that the advice was just, or that Paul did just right to comply” (ibid). Johnson follows this up by quoting “Pres. Milligan” (without giving the source but it is his Analysis quoted above) and opts for his third suggestion as the “best.” This was Jewish prejudice and “even Paul evidently at this time thought of the sacrifices as, like circumcision, a matter of indifference.” It was the next generation, Johnson states, that grasped the real truth of the matter.

J. W. McGarvey has the most extensive discussion on the episode and does so twice in his Original Commentary on Acts (pp. 258-261) and in his New Commentary (vol 2: 204-209). McGarvey confesses that Acts 21 “to be the most difficult passage in Acts to fully understand, and to reconcile with the teaching of Paul on the subject of the Mosaic law” (Acts, 258).

McGarvey argues that Paul had repudiated the obligation of the law but not the innocence of observing it as cultural ideal. Colossians 2.14, along with Ephesians and Hebrews (which Paul wrote according to McGarvey) clearly indicate that the repudiation of the “authority of the law” as obligatory on Christians.

Holy days and food was one thing, for McGarvy, but sacrifices were another. It is clear that James and the Jerusalem church thought continued sacrifice was “innocent” and approved the course of the four men and Paul himself (p. 259). Similarly to Milligan, McGarvey postulates that perhaps Paul simply made a mistake like Peter in Antioch. But “Peter finally discovered that he was wrong in that matter, and Paul at length discovered that he was wrong in his connection with the offerings of these Nazarites” (p. 260). Other than supposing that Paul went on to write Hebrews no proof is offered for Paul’s recognition of his error in Jerusalem. In the final analysis, McGarvey, says that the actions by Paul in Acts 21 “was inconsistent with the truth as finally developed by the apostles, but not with so much of it as was then understood by Paul” (ibid).

McGarvey does not alter his conclusions much in his New Commentary. He concludes his discussion in his New Commentary saying,

“That which renders this proceeding a more striking exhibition of Paul’s present attitude toward the law is the fact that in it he participated in the offerings of sacrifices, which seems to be inconsistent with his repeated declaration of the all-sufficiency of the blood of Christ as an atonement of sin. I think it must be admitted that subsequent to the writing of the epistle to the Ephesians and more especially to the Hebrews, he could not have consistently have done this …” (Vol 2., p. 208).

F. L. Rowe and John A. Klingman take up McGarvey’s views in work entitled The Bible in Questions and Answers (1924). I was not even aware of this book until I discovered it in a used bookstore in Milwaukee of all places. Rowe and Klingman reproduce a whole paragraph from McGarvey (without a citation btw).

So far most of the interpreters have concluded that Paul was simply ignorant, fearful or suffered from vestiges of Jewish prejudice and likely a combination of all three. E. G. Sewell was asked about Paul’s strange behavior too. For Sewell Acts 21 was simply “a case of human weakness, like Peter.” It was absolutely “certain [Paul] was not acting under inspiration” at the time he had this lapse in judgment. Sewell tells his solicitor that “it was almost impossible to convince the first Jewish Christians that they were to entirely lay aside the customs of the law.” As such “the action of Paul was not an act of the Spirit of God in contradiction to itself, but simply a specimen of Jewish prejudice and weakness.” (Sewell’s article is easily available in Questions Answered by Lipscomb and Sewell, edited by M. C. Kurfees, pp. 389-390).

One thing that never occurred to Milligan, McGarvey, Rowe or Sewell is that they may have misunderstood Luke and Paul rather than the other way around. Another question that never seems to have been raised is why Luke, the inspired writer, would not have indicated that Paul and the Jerusalem church were in error. But when Acts is actually read in its entirety Paul’s actions and those of the Jerusalem church seem quite consistent with the narrative - this is not the first vow Paul makes, cf. 18.18. Another question that seems not to have been raised is when is an “apostolic” example actually approved? Clearly James approved of it. Clearly Paul also approved of it. And it would seem that Luke approved of it … three inspired men have approved it. Just when is the early church a source for "pattern?" Is it only pattern when it behaves in a way you already believe? This seems to have been normal procedure for James and the Jerusalem church.

Yet we have routinely called Paul and Jerusalem church mistaken? They were simply prejudiced or ignorant! Another question that seems to have escaped notice is “What if the prejudice is not Jewish but Gentile in this case?” The only mistake seems, in my opinion, is the application of a false presupposition and judging the Lord’s brother and an apostle on the basis of a restoration hermeneutic. What happens when our theory of hermeneutics conflicts with the actual biblical text??

At any rate this is most interesting to me how this particular episode in Acts is excised from our theology.

Blessings,
Bobby Valentine

Fiddler, Tradition, & God's Word

2012-01-12T10:02:00.004-07:00

Tradition. It is something each one of us values and shares. We have national traditions and we have family traditions. It is a national tradition to celebrate Independence Day with fireworks and cookouts. It is a national tradition, for many, to place flowers on the graves of soldiers on Memorial Day. With these traditions we pass on certain values to our children that we want them to have. We want them to value freedom and recognize the cost of it. And these are worthy values.

In our families we have traditions. We have traditions around Christmas, Easter, and birthdays. We might cook a turkey a certain way, do certain things on vacation, enjoy certain pastimes - all traditional. And there is nothing wrong, per se, with these traditions in the least.

In the church we have lots of traditions. Tradition in church, like family and nation, can be good. Tradition can give us a sense of continuity and identity - good values in themselves. But tradition can also be unhealthy in each of these areas when we become blind to the fact that we do indeed have tradition. Sometimes we might even mistake our tradition as the will of God and demand conformity to our way of doing things.

Traditions are nothing more than the invention of some human through the years. Each arose out of a real life need. Examples. Why do churches across the land have service at 11 am? It is pure tradition rooted in the 19th century. Farmers milked the cows and then would go to the Gathering for worship. What about songbooks? did the church of God at Corinth have any? What about a "church building?" - did the church of God at Corinth have one? What about tiny crackers and tiny cups for communion? What about "Sunday School?" According to historian Earl West, there were no Churches of Christ with Sunday Schools prior to the first decade of the 20th century. What about exclusive congregational singing? Vacation Bible Schools? etc. All of these are traditions. There is nothing wrong with any of these traditions in and of themselves. But we must always recognize the difference between the Word of God and even a good tradition. Everyone must obey God's Word but nobody has to obey a single one of our traditions! As Jesus said,

"These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules invented by men" (Matthew 15.8-9)

May we always value our heritage but seek wisdom to recognize that tradition is not the Word of God. May we grant freedom and love in the area of tradition.

Enjoy the video of Tevye from one of the Valentine favorites: Fiddler on the Roof.

Sabbath: Bridge Between the Commandments (Deut 5.12-15)

2012-01-08T20:26:00.006-07:00

Introductory Thoughts

“Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the LORD your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey, or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.”

The Sabbath is the center of the Ten Words as they are known in Deuteronomy. It forms a bridge from the first half to the second half of the our covenant responsibilities to God and to our fellow creatures. The Sabbath word connects love for God with our love for our neighbor. In other words it deals with our relationship with our Redeemer and our responsibility to our neighbor. Thus it forms the gracious center of the Decalogue.

The Sabbath Word is the only word that is significantly different here in the Deuteronomy than the parallel passage than in Exodus 20. Those differences should not be slighted or passed over in silence but taken in light of the purpose of these respective books.

From even a casual reading of the Ten Words it becomes apparent that God spends more time (and space) on the Sabbath than any of the other words. In this section God gives one explanation as to WHY Israel is to keep this wondrous word. At its root the Sabbath is the most humanitarian and gracious of all God’s commandments. It is vitally important to see the Hebrew perspective on the Sabbath to understand Jesus’ attitude toward it. The Sabbath is the ground of the Second Commandment, the outline of Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ ministry and many other important themes in Scripture. Sabbath should bring, if our minds are shaped by the Story of God, images of grace and love in our mind.

In Exodus the Sabbath is based on creation. God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. In Deuteronomy, however, there is no reference to creation at all, instead the Sabbath is rooted and grounded in the mighty redemptive act of Yahweh of rescuing Israel from slavery . . . this is the Hebrew Bible Gospel. According to Deuteronomy we accomplish two things by honoring the Sabbath: 1) we “remember” the work of God in redeeming us; 2)we provide rest for the slaves, aliens and even animals in our care. . . . and ourselves. Redemption and Community!

What this Word Expects from Us

This Word wants those in the believing community to:

1) on a regular basis set aside our normal routine and work activities to gain respite and refreshment. This gives us freedom to relax from the daily grind;

2) that time we take out on a routine basis is set aside in God’s honor, to worship and to simply enjoy what he has done. This is an important aspect of “rest” in Deuteronomy;

3) on that day we are to recall the creating and redeeming work of God. In short we are to remember grace and love;

4) We show grace to others in gratitude for the rest and salvation that Yahweh has granted to the believing community. Toil is not our lot in life . . . the Sabbath reminds us of that.

We in Churches of Christ have had drilled into our heads that the First Day is the Lord’s Day, not the Sabbath. The First Day is Resurrection Day, this is true, but we have, perhaps, allowed a shallow understanding of what the Sabbath was all about to rob us of the grace in this word from God. I have said before, and I will say it again, it is methodologically wrong to read Paul’s debates with legalists and Jesus’ debates with Pharisees back into the Hebrew Bible. Pharisees did not exist in Moses’ day and there were no legalists in his day either . . . this is very important to remember.

The Sabbath is a gift from God to man. Jesus said that God made the Sabbath for man. The Lord’s blessing of a Sabbath is a provision to rise above mere existence. It was meant to bless us . . . not condemn us. Perversion turned it into something it was never intended to be.

As a gift of grace the primary character of the Sabbath is rest and joy. Rest from work and toil. It places in the cycle of life a provision for freedom from tyranny and the oppression of unrelenting labors. It places a check on our own driveness and increased pressure of unceasing demand to get ahead. It calls us to trust in the God who redeems.

Sabbath Eschatology

The Sabbath looks backwards to the grace of God in the Exodus . . . the single greatest miracle in history until the Incarnation of the Word. In breaking from our slavery to work (and dependence upon self), we will be reminded of God’s breaking you free . . . without your working contribution and the greater bondage to sin.

The Sabbath looks forward to our promised Rest with God. This theme is vital our understanding our promise of heaven. The writer of Hebrews states, that we Christians still honor the Sabbath, our goal is the real Sabbath . . . resting in God’s Presence (Hebrews 4).

The Year of Jubilee is an extension of the Sabbath. And this provides the food for thinking about heavenly rest in Hebrews 4. There is an old rabbinic legend that says,

“At on time when God was giving the Torah to Israel, He said to them:
‘My Children! If you accept the Torah and observe my mitvot [i.e. commands] I will give you for all eternity a thing most precious that I have in my possession.’
‘And what,’ asked Israel, ‘ is that precious thing which Thou wilt give us if we obey Thy Torah?’
‘The world to come!’
‘Show us in this world an example of the world to come,’ asked Israel.
‘The Sabbath,’ said the LORD, ‘is the example of the world to come.’”
(Quoted in Abraham Heschel, The Sabbath, p. 73)

"The World to come . . ." I think the Hebrews’ Preacher would nod in approval.

Concluding Thoughts

Regularly setting apart time for the Lord inhibits the human inclination to justify oneself by job or work. The Sabbath is a concrete symbol of God’s saving grace that redeems human life rather than humans saving themselves by work and effort. The Sabbath is a regular time to STOP striving, to STOP trying to keep up with the Jones’, to STOP trying to gain approval by our success. The Sabbath is a chance to GIVE love, time and rest . . . in the name of him who grants us gracious rest.

The Sabbath is the great equalizer, for that day is a fore taste of the Kingdom when all – great or small – are reckoned to be exactly the same and equal. There are no masters and slaves on that day . . . only Family!

There are many texts in the Hebrew Bible related to the Sabbath, find them and relish the images God puts in your mind’s eye. The Sabbath is that picture of the way a community redeemed by the blood will live both in relation to God and to each other. So I encourage us all to cultivate the spiritual discipline of taking a sabbath rest ... the Bridge Between the Commandments to Love our God and Our Fellow Creatures.

Revised Update 1/09/12

This morning I had two emails asking if I could recommend a book or two on the Sabbath day. I will recommend three in descending.

1) The first book I would read on the Sabbath is Abraham J. Heschel's The Sabbath. Heschel was a very insightful Jewish biblical scholar. His small classic on the Sabbath simply changed the way I understood what this day was all about. Read this before anything.

2) Anything by Marva J. Dawn will challenge you and bless your heart and your mind. Keeping the Sabbath Wholly is no exception. She makes a nice compliment to Heschel.

3) Wayne Muller writes in a way that reminds me of Henri J. M. Nouwen and is a feast for the heart. His Sabbath: Restoring the Sacred Rhythm of Rest I have found to be a wonderful guide to spiritual thinking.

Rage Against the Storm: Jeremiah, Prayer & Honest Faith (Jer 20.7-18)

2012-01-04T11:31:00.015-07:00

Meet Jeremiah

Over the years Jeremiah has become one of my favorite places in the Story to meditate, ruminate and munch scripture. He is one of the few biblical characters I've ever taken the time to read a novel about, Thom Lemmons wonderful Jeremiah: He Who Wept. (See How Jeremiah Was Made) Last night I was up laaatttteeeee as I skimmed Jeremiah and settled on chapter 20 for some lectio divina time. I have written down some reflections that emerged in that period with God's word. Here they are ...

After 20 years of full time ministry in Churches of Christ the life of Jeremiah is more meaningful to me than ever before. There have been plenty of rumors and whisperings, complaints about kids, about the wife(s), about divorce, about facebook, sermons are to long, sermons are to short, you're in the ministerial alliance, you're not in the ministerial alliance, illustrations are not real enough, illustrations are too real, you are to scholarly, you preach from the Old Testament, you don't preach what I grew up with, you meddle with my life, being fired ... anyone in ministry long enough has dealt with all of these complaints and sometimes the sheer pettiness of it all. Jeremiah dealt with it all too.

Jeremiah is frequently called the "weeping prophet." He was just a kid when the Lord called him to the ministry (1.6). We read "Before I was formed in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (1.5). His ministry is characterized by uprooting and tearing down (1.10). God said "today I have made you a fortified city, an iron pillar and a bronze wall to stand against the kings ... and the people of the land (1.18). Jeremiah lives in a terrible time and his ministry will be full of misery and heartache. God did give a message that he did not always like to share. It sounded unpatriotic. It sounded unreasonable.

After preaching for approximately 25 years in Jer 20, five more than I have been currently, the people of God hate the Preacher more than ever! He has been jailed, nearly beaten to death in response to his sermons, he has been destitute, cold and hungry. The people of God believe Jeremiah is actually a false prophet who has betrayed the nation of Judah and had formed an alliance with her arch enemy - Babylon. A message had been sent throughout the land that the "madman who acts like a prophet" is to "be put into stocks and neck-irons" - Jeremiah was that madman (29.26-27, NIV). Twenty five years has taken its toll on Jeremiah. He is tired of being God's man. It hurt too much - both physically and emotionally. He is worn out and just wants out!!

The Bed of Roses

As we look at ch. 20, Jeremiah has just preached a sermon in the temple courts, using a clay jar as an illustration (we know illustrations can get you in trouble). He dramatically throws the jar to the ground declaring this is how God is breaking Judah herself apart (19.10ff). Pashur, a temple officer, did not like the sermon and was deeply offended. He literally had Jeremiah arrested, thrown in jail and beaten - for what amounted to treason (20.2). Jeremiah was released in the morning. In the face of this opposition to his sermon, Jeremiah is strong like a pillar and solid like walls of brass while dealing publicly with critics.

Once the action settles and the prophet is alone with his thoughts, however, he falls apart. Jeremiah had had enough! Listen to his gut wrenching words. Listen to a man who gets brutally honest with God. This is prayer in the raw and his honesty is literally shocking:

O Lord, you deceived me, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me. Whenever I speak, I cry out proclaiming words of violence and destruction. So the word of the Lord has brought me insult and reproach all day long. But if I say, "I will not mention him or speak any more in his name," his word is in my heart like a fire, a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in; indeed, I cannot. I hear many whispering, "Terror on every side! Report him! Let's report him!" All my friends are waiting for me to slip, saying, 'Perhaps he will be deceived; then we will prevail over him and take our revenge on him." (20.7-10)

Some feel Jeremiah's rage against the storm is on the verge of blasphemy. I do not! This is authentic faith. I love the Hebrew Bible's integrity! God has overpowered Jeremiah. Or at least that is how he feels. Jeremiah is saying, like some psalmists, "why don't you leave me alone!" Why do I suffer since I am in your service? The "congregation" mocks him, his so called friends actually are biding their time to see him flub up and then they can revel in it.

Can we hear the burning emotion in this prayer? It is hard to miss. Does God get angry with Jeremiah for accusing him of lying? That is bold! Indeed what is revealed is the depth of authenticity in the relationship between Jeremiah and his Lord. God respects those who are in covenant with him. Yahweh is not threatened nor angered by Jeremiah's outburst. What faith is revealed. How you ask? Because Jeremiah is not afraid, he does not "play it safe," in his prayer. He lays it on the line because his life is on the line. Only a heart supremely confident in trust and faith in the kind of God Yahweh is dares to pray like this. This is prayer from a bed of roses - full of beauty and thorns.

Fire in Our Bones

From the early days of my life 20.9, "his word is like a fire in my bones, has been proof texted in sermons on evangelism. But I never heard a sermon on this verse in its context. Jeremiah's words are hardly positive to him. They are negative. God's Word is an alien, all consuming fire that is beyond the preacher's control and he wants to get rid of it. Jeremiah, after 25 years, is not under the delusion that being a prophet was some glorious easy task. The opposite is true. Being a prophet is the last thing he wants to do. We all must admit there are times in our lives when we have felt like Jeremiah but were perhaps not quite as secure in our relationship with the Lord to verbalize our frustrations as he did. But perhaps it really is necessary to grow into authentic biblical God-honoring faith.

Even with his bold raging against the storm, Jeremiah still has unconquerable faith in Yahweh. He knows that he will be taken care of in the ultimate sense. He has suffered but the God of Israel has been there. Hear more words in his prayer ...

"But the LORD is with me like a mighty warrior; so my persecutors will stumble and not prevail. They will fail and be thoroughly disgraced; their dishonor will never be forgotten. O LORD Almighty, you who examine the righteous and probe the heart and mind, let me see your vengeance upon them, for to you I have committed my cause. Sing to the LORD! Give praise to the LORD! He rescues the life of the needy from the hands of the wicked (20.11-13).

In the midst of his rage, Jeremiah confesses the Lord will eventually make things right. He has put his life in the hands of God and that is a fearful thing to do. Yet according to the Story of God in the Bible that is, ironically, the safest place to be.

As I reflected last night on this brutally honest text I was reminded in my prayer that God has often, and mysteriously, approached his Creation from a position of weakness and powerlessness. From that "power base" he interweaves glory with suffering to bring honor to his name. Israel suffered slavery. Jesus left equality with God to become flesh to suffer alongside us. God used that suffering in Egypt and in the life of Jesus - especially at the Cross - to set the captives free, to set creation free, to conquer death. In Jeremiah's life he became a Suffering Servant because God's people had abandoned him. They deserted him and it would take a man who could get dirty to bring them back. But the truth and fact of the matter is that Jeremiah failed! There was Jesus the Nazarene and the powers declared him, like Jeremiah, a fraud and failure. That is why they killed him. Yet God declared him to be True and the "winner" and opened his tomb. It was through Suffering that victory emerged in the healing of the world ... and made Jeremiah a winner too.

Faith is Sometimes a Thin Cord

Even though Jeremiah knows God will reverse the world's verdict one day ... even the verdict of God's own people ... that still does not take away the loneliness and misery he experienced and felt in the here and now. In verses 14-18, the Prophet sinks even deeper in the abyss of despair. His words can, and will, make your heart hurt - if it is a heart of flesh. These words of prayer show faith hanging on by a very fine thread. They are words of raging against the storm. In my twenty years of preaching, when I have been viciously attacked for some minor infraction (often no infraction at all except somebody's opinion) by the very people I have prayed with, sat with, buried, married, struggled with and the like, I can be honest enough and say that though I never prayed with Jeremiah's boldness I have "wondered out loud" in prayer ... Jeremiah gives no quarter to those who place value on facades in faith. Jeremiah has become Israel personified: He is Wrestling with God! May we become authentic in our faith ...

"Cursed be the day I was born! May the day my mother bore me not be blessed! Cursed be the man who brought my father the news, who made him very glad, saying, "A child is born to you-- a son!" May that man be like the towns the LORD overthrew without pity. May he hear wailing int he morning, a battle cry at noon. For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave, her womb enlarged forever. Why did I ever come out of the womb to see trouble and sorrow and to end my days in shame?" (20.14-18)

Verse 14 is nearly as shocking as verse 7! Our western pious sensitivities are unprepared for the brutal honesty of biblical faith at times. But there Jeremiah gives voice to such pain that we dare not become vain wise men like Job's comfortless comforters after he voiced almost the same curse (cf. Job 3). But Jeremiah also once said, on a prettier day perhaps, "the human heart is deceitful above all things" (17.9). Jeremiah's cry is simply that of hundreds of disciples who have endured Dark Night(s) of the Soul - Why Lord Why?

God's love and protection have been eclipsed by the pain he is experiencing. He sees the evil. He sees the suffering. He sees the pain. The wicked prosper and the righteous are persecuted and maligned - just as he is. He preaches the Word of the Lord and is jailed for treason. He delivers a sermon with powerful illustrations and he is beaten. He serves God and is thrown into a slimy mud pit. He cries out in protest in this prayer! Why, O Lord? Why?

Final Reflections on Rage, Grace & Honest Faith

Jeremiah's prayer ends in misery. There is no reply from heaven. No still small voice. Only dreadful silence! God has heard the prayer of his suffering servant. I believe ... (I surely do believe this because of Jeremiah 8-9, See God's Tears or Mine?) ... that the God of the Universe's eyes welled up with tears for the sake of Jeremiah. Jeremiah did not understand. God did not and does not delight in the pain of Jeremiah. God did not take joy in that any more than in the abuse by the people Jeremiah preached too. But Jeremiah knew his preaching was not going to save his family, his friends, his nation and that was even more suffering than the abuse from his audience. But God did shed tears and he listened to his man rage against the storm. In the venting there was grace.

Can we identify with Jeremiah? Can we pray like he did? I think Martin Luther, who also knew a great deal about suffering had a wise and biblical perspective on Jeremiah. He said it was easy "to condemn this impatience [in Jeremiah] and call attention to the need of patience, these are merely speculative theologians. If you will listen with actual experiences of practical life, you will understand [Jeremiah]. Stories such as this one are too great we should dispute them in only theoretical fashion" (quoted in Theodore Laetsch, Jeremiah, p. 179).

Any disciple who has experienced the tactics of Satan knows how wearing the battle can be. Jeremiah speaks for all of us - thank God for him. Praise God that he opened up in honest prayer. Thank God he gave us a prayer for the kingdom.

God never censures his man because of these bold words. In fact even though the word is not here, you will never find a moment of greater grace in the life of Jeremiah! There are few passages in the Bible where the contrast between humanity and God's magnificent grace is brought in sharper focus than right here. With the storm blowing with all its fury, Jeremiah can only turn to Yahweh and vent - even Rage against the Storm! God is big enough, God is loving enough, God is gracious enough to allow Jeremiah to find healing for his soul by casting his hurts and disillusionment upon him. Just as Jesus has told us too. That is what Jeremiah did.

Then God sent him to preach ... again!

God in Weakness: A Thought on Jn 19.16-17 & Lk 23.26

2011-12-28T00:03:00.009-07:00

Introductory Thoughts

Have you ever wondered to yourself if Jesus knew what it was like to hurt so bad he wanted to quit? Have you ever wondered to yourself, perhaps after that secret fall, if Jesus knew what it was like to fall? Have you ever wondered if Jesus became weary, exhausted or just plain tired? I have! I have wondered to myself often if Jesus knew what it was like to really fall flat on his face. Could Jesus understand when my body not only wanted to give out -- but did give out? I have wondered, have you? In fact one of my favorite poems is by Donna Swanson called "Did You Ever Cry, Jesus?"

Did you ever cry, Jesus?
did the world ever pile up on you 'til you wanted to
quit?

Did you ever cry, Jesus?
Did you ever get so tired of humanity you wished
you'd never come?

Did life ever throw you too much hate?
Were there more lies and apathy than could be born
silently?

Did you ever ache, Jesus?
Did you sometimes fret at family obligations
and long to be about your Father's business?

Did the blind eyes, the twisted bodies,
The warped minds and maimed souls get to you? Were
you ever just plain mad?

Were you ever lonely, Jesus?
When your friends misunderstood and walked out on
you, did you ever cry, Jesus?

I think you must have, for you know me so well. So
well!

I think you must have cried a little.
(in Calvin Miller, The Book of Jesus, p. 242-243).

He Identifies With Us!

The Gospel texts for ruminating reads ...

"So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the skull . . . Here they crucified him . . . (Jn. 19:16b-17)."

"As they led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene . . . and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus (Luke 23: 26)."

According to our text in John JESUS was forced to carry his cross. But according to Luke (and Mt & Mk) Simon was forced to carry the cross. How are we to understand this? There is no reason to assume a contradiction between the two. The explanation is much simpler than that -- it is hinted at in the NT and explicitly declared in early church tradition. Jesus of Nazareth fell beneath the load of the Roman cross and Simon was forced to carry it the rest of the way to Golgotha!

It makes perfect sense actually. Think about what he has been through. He hasn't slept in over 48 hours. Think of Gethsemane? Did he have visions of the countless sins pressing down on him -- tortures, murders, rapes, slander, lies? Did he visualize shattered families, molested children, millions of murdered babies? Did he see my disobedience. Did he see the warfare his brothers and sisters would eventually make upon one another!? What unspeakable emotional agony the Messiah went through in Gethsemane! Emotionally he was spent!

His body has been tortured, battered and abused. Now it is failing him. Just as yours and mine fail us at times. For Jesus isn't God dressed up as a man. He is a REAL MAN! He bleeds real blood. He shares the weaknesses and limitations of the flesh with you and me. The reason the African, Simon of Cyrene, has to carry the cross is because Jesus falls ... He falls to the ground ... Do you see what the Cross teaches us here? Jesus is one of US! He was a Man!

He understands when our bodies are subject to fatigue as well as pain. He knew his own body would fail even as the disciples did in the Garden of Sorrows.

We rush past the cross sometimes. We must see how the Cross teaches one of the hardest of all lessons to learn-- Jesus is one of us! The Cross teaches the humanity of Jesus. What do you see when you see the Lord of the Universe fall to the ground under the burden of the cross, under the burden of our sin? Do you see raw and bloody knees as the hit the stone pavement? - I see his weakness, I see his humanity. I see just how far the love of God really goes. I see how completely the Son of God identified with human beings calling himself the `Son of Man.' I see a man who knows what it is like to fall. His is not due to personal sin but because his human body is just like mine. We get bruised just as he was bruised. We are spent emotionally just as he was spent emotionally. To fall is a very visible sign of our vulnerability. It is even embarrassing at times. But we fall because we are human.

Listen to it. The One who falls under the horrible burden of sin does not look away as we fall under the burden of life or sin. When we are down he is there at our side. He understands, he has been there. He is one of us! That is comforting to know. In fact there are days that that is the ONLY thing that gets me through! There are times I want to quit. There are times I fail terribly as a husband, as a father, as a minister, and as a Christian -- praise be to God Jesus knows what I am going through! Each step I take he is by my side, he has never deserted me, and he leads me closer home. In fact, Jesus who fell under the cross said,

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light . . . (Mt. 11.28ff)

How can his yoke be easy and his burden light? The picture we have of him is some falling to the dirt under a burden. The answer is the yoke and the burden he's carrying to the cross is not his own. They're ours. He's carrying our burdens, our sins; he falls under our yoke of condemnation -- Not his! But he offers us an easy yoke and light burden. Jesus understands. Now isn't that Good News! You have to come to the cross for this Good News from the Lord. Maybe Hebrews will mean more to us when we understand this message. Listen:

Since the children have flesh and blood, he too SHARED IN THEIR HUMANITY so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death . . . FOR THIS REASON lie had to be made like his BROTHERS in EVERY WAY . . . Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted (2: 14-18).

God In Weakness

The lessons of the cross are never discovered by those in a hurry. They are never discovered by those who spend little time watching the One carrying the cross. Yet it is at the heart of the Gospel. The Epistle to the Hebrews is built upon it. The amazing message proclaimed by the Cross is that the omnipotent Creator of the universe is at this moment in his life on earth to weak to carry a wooden cross! Yes, to weak to even stand. Perhaps we can just begin to grasp the distance our great God would go to save you and me.

Because Jesus bore the cross, because he fell beneath the load he says to you and me, "I understand your weakness. There was a time when I couldn't even stand upright like a man." Our Savior descended from the realm of perfection to imperfection. From the strength of heaven to the weakness of earth. That is a long, long journey to make. Christians fall! And Jesus falls do to weakness as well.

Radical? Indeed! True? Absolutely! Comforting? It gives us strength because he is there with us.

Wrapping Up

Max Lucado in his classic, God Came Near, tried to communicate this truth of the gospel (that Jesus is one of us) in these memorable words:

He was touchable, approachable, reachable. And, what's more, he was ordinary. If he were here today you probably wouldn't notice him as he walked through a shopping mall... (p. 54).

Don't rush past the cross, We in the church do that to often. The cross is telling us the wonderful news of grace -- Jesus understands when we fall. He is one of us. He didn't come to condemn us but to save us by being condemned on the Cross for us. Did Jesus cry? You bet he did! He still cries for us ... and with us!

May these thoughts bless you ...

Supreme Savior: Late Nite Thoughts from Col 1.15-20

2011-12-26T22:15:00.005-07:00

I was reading through Colossians this evening and began to mull over its message in my head. As I reflected these thoughts began to percolate through my mind. I doubt they are that scholarly but perhaps they are going in the right direction what Paul was after - especially in chapter 1 of this rich letter.

INTRODUCTORY THOUGHTS

The Epistle to the Colossians was written by Paul and Timothy to a group of disciples about 100 miles east of Ephesus. Paul had never been there before, however, a coworker named Epaphras was from there and he started the church in that city. This probably happened while Paul was living and preaching in Ephesus (cf. Acts 19).

This letter was written several years after Paul's ministry in Ephesus for he is in prison awaiting trial (4.3b). His good friend, Epaphras had come to minister to him and inform him of the condition of God's work in the Lycus Valley. The Colossian Christians are doing fairly well but they have taken their eyes off of the center of the Faith. The Christians, or at least some of them, in Colosse are being led astray by what Paul calls a "hallow and deceptive philosophy" (2.8). A great deal of scholarly effort has been spent on this heresy and the nearest equivalent to it today would probably be a "Christianized" form of the New Age Movement pr perhaps an early form of gnosticism.

This teaching did not deny that Jesus was important: Jesus is after all the Message of Christianity. But this "philosophy" did, apparently, deny that Jesus was of SUPREME importance! Jesus was just one of many spirit beings (angels, powers, planets, etc) that we would be "wise" to give each its proper place. Paul confronts this problem on two fronts in our text (which is called the "Christ Hymn"). Jesus is not one among equals, Paul argues, because Jesus created all things including the spirit beings. Second, Jesus defeated the evil powers and brought peace through his death on the Cross. Therefore, says Paul, Christ is the Ultimate and the Supreme that Christians should look to.

SUPREMACY IN CREATION (1.15-16)

"He is the IMAGE of the invisible God, firstborn over all creation. For by
him all things were created: things in heaven and things on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers, whether rulers [principalities] or authorities [powers], all things were created by him and for him."

The first half of the Christ Hymn exalts the center of the Faith, Christ, as the Creator of all things in the universe: physical or spiritual. Paul calls Jesus the "IMAGE of the invisible God." The One True Living God is invisible and cannot be seen with the human eye. But we can see his "image." In the Hebrew Bible God had forbidden the making of images of him. The reason is that Jesus is the Image of God.
Perhaps we could say if we had a photograph of God it would be an image of Jesus. Jesus told Philip in John's Gospel, "if you have seen me you have seen the Father" (14.9ff). Paul is recognizing the true significance of Christ. He is God in the flesh, he is God among us. He is in a category all his own.

Jesus is not just one among the spirit beings but the Image of God himself. Paul continues to undercut the philosophy that would lower Christ's status by saying not only is he the image of God he is the the "Firstborn BEFORE (NIV="over") all creation because in him all things were created . . ." The NIV, and other versions as well, do not make the force of the genitive as clear as should be, Jesus is the firstborn BEFORE creation. The phrase denotes priority as well as supremacy. To say that Jesus is the Firstborn is talk about the eternality of Christ with God. It is to talk of his divine nature or Godhood. It does not mean that Christ was/is a creation: that would contradict both the grammar of the text and the context that says Jesus himself is the Creator not the created. Jesus is ultimate no
matter how you slice it according to Paul.

If it exists in any form then Christ created it (cf. Heb. 1.3ff). The NIV has helped the reader out with its punctuation of vv. 16b through 17. The colon is indicating that what follows is a summary of the things created by Christ. Paul emphasizes whether it is in heaven, an angel, another spirit [principalities and powers are references to the spirit world] Christ created them and is therefore no their equal or to viewed as such.

The church at Colosse had people who believed that the ancient equivalent of horoscopes and astrology could help them out or better - protect them. Now let me make it clear today that Paul does NOT DENY that there is in fact a evil power behind these things. Rather he says Christ is supreme over them and he alone is to be served and worshiped. In the modern world it is the psychic hot lines that Paul is talking about. Christ controls the universe he is supreme over it.

SUPREMACY IN REDEMPTION (1.18b-20)

"He is the beginning and the first born from among the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood shed on the cross."

If the first half of the Christ Hymn celebrates Christ's role in the First Creation then the second half celebrates his role in the New Creation, especially with regard to redemption and reconciliation. The Supremacy of Christ is again emphasized. He was the beginning of the old order and he is the beginning of the new.

The point of the second half of the Christ Hymn is that Christ has defeated these celestial beings the Colossians are tempted to follow. They, the Christians who were deceived by this philosophy, believed in a hierarchy of powers among which the divine fullness was distributed and these power or beings occupied the "space" between us and God. Each one had to be given its due place in order to get to God. They controlled the flow of communication. They function sort of like toll booths along some interstates. Paul though cuts that by saying that God was pleased to have ALL of the divine fullness to dwell in Christ alone. Christ did not share it with any power – including Satan!

Paul's point is that the divine fullness manifested itself in Christ's work of reconciliation on the Cross. Because God has reconciled the creation to himself through Christ's work, we do not need to pay a "toll" to the spirit beings. Yes, the world is at odds with the Creator but through the Cross peace has been IMPOSED on the powers and authorities. Paul describes the downfall of the powers in powerful language in 2.15: though they certainly did not submit willingly. Christ had to defeat them in a great victory:

"And having DISARMED the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them triumphing over them by the cross."

Why give these spirit beings any glory or "due," if Christ has defeated them at Calvary? Why divide our loyalty to Christ when he has made it possible "by the cross" for us to have peace in our lives again? Or more likely it was not simply to give "glory" to these beings but a sense of FEAR of them that drove the Colossians to these measures. But Christ, says Paul, has defeated them! Christ is Supreme. He is to have "supremacy in everything." Paul does not say some things, but everything. Jesus does not share pride of place with anyone or anything. It is important for us as Christians to remember that.

How do we, even unintentionally, undermine Christ's supremacy at times today? Some Christians still have horoscopes and believe in astrology, mantras and crystal balls. Perhaps we are also driven by fear of the unknown future and we seek "outside" assistance. Every time I consult one of those I am saying Christ did not really gain the victory over the powers. But we know he did. Some Christians want Christ to share pride of place with their pet doctrine or theory. Sometimes they want him to share his glory with the church. It is important to watch our doctrine and the church is certainly magnificent and important. But Christ is supreme even in these matters. Christ is Lord of doctrine and Head of the Church. He is IT'S glory not the other way around. We simply need to be reminded of that from time to time.

We must remember that it was not doctrine that defeated the powers. Rather it was the Suffering of the Son of Man that did that. We must remember that the church did not overcome the principalities (Colossians itself is proof of that). No, it was as Paul says the shedding of his BLOOD that did that. We must remember that the powers are not for us -- they hate us with a passion and that is why Christ had to "subdue" them. We owe it all to the Supreme Savior – Jesus the Christ.

WRAPPING UP LATE NIGHT THOUGHTS

Paul declares that Jesus is the Supreme Savior. He is supreme in creation because he is the Creator. He is supreme in redemption because he disarmed the powers through his great victory at the Cross. Even among the Colossians themselves the victory of the Cross had been manifest. Some of them had been enslaved to the "spirits" of greed which Paul says is idolatry (3.5). Some were enslaved to the "spirit" of anger, malice and slander (3.8). Some were enslaved to the spirit of guilt and fear or impurity. But Christ the Supreme Savior has defeated all of these spirits at the Cross. If the Savior has set us free he should be supreme in our life, he should be supreme in the church, he should be supreme in our worship. Paul says he should be our very life for "he IS your life" (3.4).

May Shalom be the blessing of those who read these words.

P.S. The image above is Colossians 1 in Minuscule 321 - a 12th century mss located in the British Museum

Alexander Campbell, The Spirit of Intolerance & Fellowship

2011-12-19T19:30:00.007-07:00

In light of my last three posts that share dialogue on unity and fellowship in which the "approved apostolic example" of Paul was appealed to ... especially his relationship with the Corinthians - I want to share some thoughts from the Stone Campbell giant Alexander Campbell on unity.

In the late 1820s as things heated up in the Redstone Baptist Association, pressure was brought upon Alexander Campbell. The drawing a line in the sand disfellowshipping kind of pressure! A group met together and "Resolved" not to fellowship Campbell and his "doctrines." What follows is his rather enlightening response - a response I believe needs to be heard in Churches of Christ today. It is more than worth reading.

"The Spirit of Intolerance

What means this intolerant spirit? I ask again, What is the meaning of it? Is every man who acknowledges in word and deed the supreme authority of Jesus of Nazareth as Lord Messiah; who has vowed allegiance to him, who is of good report as respects good works, to be sacrificed upon the alter of opinion, because his opinion upon some speculation, fact or doctrine differs from mine? Because, while he admits that Jesus died for our sins, he will not dogmatize upon the nature, extent and every attribute of 'the atonement,' is he to be deemed unfit for the kingdom of heaven? Admitting 'an election of favor,' is he to be given over to Satan because of some opinion about the the conditionality or unconditionality of that election? In one word, are we to understand that an exact agreement in opinion, a perfect uniformity is contended for as a bond of union? If so, let our Baptist brethren say so, Let them declare to the world that

'Tenth, or ten thousandeth, breaks the chain alike.'

That a disagreement in the tenth opinion, or in the ten thousandeth opinion, breaks the bond of union. If this be the decree, let it be published and translated into all languages -- let it be known and read by all men. If, again, a perfect uniformity be not decreed, but a partial uniformity, let it be proclaimed in how many opinions an agreement must be obtained; then we shall know who are, and who are not, to be treated as heathen men and publicans.

"What makes divisions now? The man who sets up his private judgements as the standard of truth, and compels submission to them, or the man who will bear with a brother who thinks in some things differently from him? No man can, with either reason or fact on his side, accuse me of making divisions among Christians. I declare non-fellowship with no man who owns the Lord Jesus in word and deed. Such is a Christian. He that denies the Lord in word or deed is not a Christian. A Jew or Gentile he may be, a Pharisee or Sadducee he may be, but a Christian he cannot be! If a man confess the Lord Jesus, or acknowledge him as the only Savior sent by God; if he vow allegiance to him and submit to his government, I will recognize him as a Christian and treat him as such. If a man cause divisions and offenses by setting up his own decisions, his private judgement, we must consider him a FACTIONIST, and as such he must be excluded -- not for his difference in opinions, but because he makes his opinion an idol, and demands homage to it.

"There are some preachers in the East and in the West -- some self-conceited, opinionated dogmatizers -- who are determined to rend the Baptist communities into factions by their intolerance. They wish, moreover to blame it upon us. As well might blame the sun for its light and heat as blame us for creating divisions. When we shall have cut off from the church any person or persons because of difference of opinion, then they may say, with reason, we cause divisions. Till then it is gratuitous. They are the heretics, not we. Yes, they are the heresiarchs, and will be so regarded by all the intelligent on earth, and by all in heaven."

Quote taken from Christian Baptist, Burnett's Edition, p. 651.

I believe these words of Campbell are incredibly relevant to our day. They deserve thoughtful and careful reading. The spirit of factionism, of dogmatism, of intolerance, and of homage to our own opinions is as rampant today as in Campbell's.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Worship Acts, Hermeneutics & Fellowship: Continuing Dialogue - Pt 3

2011-12-17T18:04:00.014-07:00

Read Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Pt 1 HERE
Read Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Pt 2 HERE

This is the third part of a dialog with a brother. After practicing a "principle of avoidance" (see the end of our previous dialogue) for about a week I got a five page letter which I reproduce all but he first page. I have chose to refrain from reproducing the first part because it was, in my view, very unfriendly. The second part seems to be his attempt to shift the discussion to "acts of worship." There are the standard appeals to Nadab and Abihu and the like ... I post this completely unedited. I actually suspect the material under "Is All Service to God Worship?" has been excerpted from another source. As before I will share my own reply just as I sent it. If take the time to read this I ask your indulgence for the length today.

To Bobby V,

Yes, you're right I have been silent for a time Bobby. The reason is because it is clear to see when certain things are going to be a hindrance to my work here. I do have an obligation to "charge false doctrine" (1 Tm. 1:3). However, if I do not put some boundaries on the extent of this work, Satan will easily consume all my time, while the local congregation is consumed by false doctrines in my own backyard.

I hope you can understand that. We are clearly at odds brother, and after seeing what I saw at the preachers meeting last time, these controversies extend beyond yourself. I will seat myself to the teachings of false teachers like N.T. Wright, nor should any Christian (1 Tm. 6:20-21). I believe, and know, that you have strayed off from the old paths, and refuse to walk in them (Jer. 6:16).

Bobby, I'm not sure when I will return my message to you should you reply, but I will tell you that my focus here is on the local work. Surrounding preachers can be a great help, but they can also be a great hindrance as it is apparent the latter will be the case. It is sad to see when local preachers from churches of Christ have strayed from the path, but such is a reality all the same.

I'm sure I will hear from you again, and should I have the time I will answer any of your questions.

Here is some additional information I promised you concerning worship...

IS ALL SERVICE TO GOD WORSHIP?

The churches of Christ Greet You (Romans 16:16)

Worshiping God in spirit and in truth is one of the most demanding, yet meaningful and rewarding, activities in which a Christian can engage. However, for worship to be meaningful and rewarding, it must be done according to God’s word, in both action and attitude (cf. John 4:24). If God has not authorized worship then there is no basis for it. However, if God has authorized worship, then it is to be regulated by His word.

Many in the denominational religious world and even some brethren are not aware of the grave consequences of affirming that everything one does is godly worship. However, the devil is fully aware of the great potential for leading men astray in this area. Our adversary (1 Pet. 5:8) has performed his destructive task well. He has convinced multitudes to stray from the pure pattern of truth that is set forth in the Bible.

The Old Testament was “written for our learning” (Rom. 15:4). From it we learn that engaging in ungodly worship has long been an activity that has left man outside the fellowship of God. The first record of mankind’s attempt to worship God is found in the first book of the Bible. Able worshiped God by faith (Heb. 11:4) and his offering was accepted. Cain attempted to worship the same God as his brother, yet his offering was in vain (Gen. 4:3-7). Since “faith” comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17), the implication is evident: at the dawn of time God told man how to worship. Abel worshiped the way God directed while Cain did not follow God’s instructions. Cain engaged in ungodly worship. His worship originated by his own will and was rejected by the Lord.

Nadab and Abihu were worship leaders, priests under the Levitical system (Num. 3:1-3). However, they offered “strange fire” in worship which God had not commanded. The result: they were consumed by that which they offered (Lev. 10:1-2). These worship leaders sinned presumptuously. They failed to follow God’s instructions in worship. The result was death. God has always told mankind how to worship. Jesus condemned some for worshiping in vain by following the doctrines/commandments of men (Matt. 15:9). There worship was directed to God, but it was not directed by God (cf. Mark 7:6-13).

The subject question is a doctrine that has seen an evolution in its development over the years. Initially, there were those who asserted that EVERYTHING a Christian does in his or her life is an act of worship to God. The foolishness of such an assertion would mean that lying, cursing, or even fornication would qualify AS ACTS OF ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP. If everything one does in life is worship, than that includes exactly that – everything. This false concept was later refined and cleverly affirmed that everything a person does is godly worship, except sin. We challenge this ungodly assertion with a few questions: “Do we worship God when we brush our teeth? What about while listening to a rap or country song on the radio? Do we engage in worship when we crank up the mower and cut the lawn?”

The newest twist to this false doctrine affirms that every act of SERVICE we render to God is worship. At first it was claimed EVERYTHING was worship, then everything EXCEPT SIN, and now everything is worship involving SERVICE to the Lord. Those who believe that all service is worship do not distinguish between worship and service. They contend that worship and service are one and the same. If their contentions are true, then no longer are there only five acts of acceptable worship to God. If their contentions are true there are literally thousands upon thousands of divinely sanctioned acts of worship in which a Christian can engage. This surely is a contradiction to what Jesus instructed the woman of Samaria regarding the nature of true worship (Read John 4).

If everything we do in service to God is worship, one could pass out a religious tract, cut the church building lawn, drive someone to the doctor, and on and on as claims of acceptable worship to God. While one must avoid the extreme that says worship includes everything a Christian does, one must also avoid the extreme that says worship is only that which takes place in the church building. However, if everything we do in service to God is worship; one could stay at home on Sunday in order to cook a pot of soup for a sick person and could claim that he or she has worshiped the Lord through their act of service. If such a doctrine is true, the rebuke of the Hebrew writer is presumptuous
(Heb. 10:25-26).

Worship and service, although closely related, should not be confused as synonymous terms. There are many examples in Scripture where both terms are used in the same context, yet are not to be understood as describing the same exact thing. In Deuteronomy 11:16; 17:3; 29:26; and 30:17, God warns His people not to “worship” other gods and “serve” them. If all service is worship, why did the Holy Spirit make a distinction between worshiping gods and serving them? (cf. 2 Kings 21:20-21).

In the New Testament Jesus said, “…Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. 4:10; cf. Rom. 1:25). Why make a distinction between the two if all service is worship? The answer is because, although all worship is a type of service, not all service is a type of worship. Worship and service are not interchangeable terms. Paul taught that Christians are to “serve” one another (Gal. 5:13). If “serve” and “worship” are interchangeable terms, then it would be correct to teach that Galatians 5:13 demands that we “worship” one another. Consider Hebrews 13:10. It refers to those who “serve” the tabernacle. Did the priest worship the tabernacle or serve it?

It is not necessary that anyone learn Greek or Hebrew in order to understand what God wants a person to know. However, we will give a brief introduction to three of the thirteen Greek words that are translated by a form of “worship” in the KJV. The most common Greek word translated “worship” is from the compound word proskuneo. The literal meaning is to kiss (kuneo) the hand towards (pros) one. This term reveals the outward expression of the reverence paid toward the Creator (Matt. 2:2; 4:10; 1 Cor. 14:25; Rev. 4:10) or a creature (Acts 7:43; 10:25; Rev. 22:8), by kneeling or prostration; to do homage or make obeisance.

The second most common word translated by a form of “worship,” with its accompanied forms, is the Greek word sebomai. From the root original meaning (to step back from someone or something, to maintain a distance), sebomai came to be used to denote an attitude of respect which was given to gods, people, or things. This word moved from the idea of respect to denote religious veneration – including acts of worship (cf. Rom. 1:25). The noun form denotes that the object of worship is to be revered, and thus honored in some way (cf. 2 Thess. 2:4). In the New Testament, sebomai is always associated with deity and involves a deep reverence for the object of worship (cf. Matt. 15:8-9; Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 19:27).

The third most common word translated by a form of “worship” is the Greek word latreuo. This word is only rarely translated “worship” in the KJV. The root meaning of the word is service rendered for hire; then any service or ministration - the service of God. It is used for the carrying out of religious duties by human beings. Latreuo is more often translated by “serve” than by any other term. Its primary usage relating to worship centers upon service rendered (cf. Matt. 4:10; Luke 1:74; Acts 7:7). This religious service may also include that rendered to false gods (Acts 7:42 ASV; Rom. 1:25). Because worship is a part of religious service, latreuo also carries the idea of “worship” in some contexts (Acts 7:42-44; 24:14; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 10:2). A way to explain the entire situation with latreuo and its forms would be the following: all worship may be said to be a vital part of our service to God, but not all of our service to God is worship.

In Summary: Latreuto reveals that worship involves service rendered to God. It shows that man is serving God when he worships Him. Worship is not merely an attitude, but involves specific acts according to the requirements of God (cf. Col. 3:17). Sebomai shows that man must have the right kind of heart when approaching God in worship. It involves an attitude of reverence and respect. God and God alone, is the only true, sublime and majestic One, and must be worshiped reverently (Ps. 114:7; Hab. 2:20). Proskuneo shows that worship involves an outward expression along with the inward frame of mind. It involves humility on the part of the worshiper (cf. James 4:10; Matt. 28:9).

Worshiping God acceptably involves the proper attitude and authority (John 4:23-24). The acts of worship are not worship in and of themselves without the involvement of one’s spirit, or attitude (cf. Isa. 1:11-15). Thus, worship is something done intentionally (cf. 2 Sam. 12:15-20). Unless one’s intention is to worship, any act or series of actions cannot be worship. One can be engaged in similar actions as those done in worship and not be worshiping, because the intent to worship is not present. For example, a person can eat unleavened bread and drink “fruit of the vine” for breakfast without violating God’s pattern for worship. The difference between eating breakfast and partaking of the Lord’s Supper is not found in the contents, but in the intent and manner in which it is consumed. For breakfast the intent is nourishment, but for worship the intent is to “shew the Lord’s death till he come” (1 Cor. 11:26). Being intentional, it follows that the worship of God is also momentary and not continual. It should be understood that we may worship at other times than on the Lord’s Day. However, the Lord’s Day is the only day authorized to take the Lord’s Supper.

Worship is also to be regulated by the truth – God’s word (John 17:17; 2 John 4). If worship lacks the proper attitude and/or the proper authority, it is “vain” – Matthew 15:9 (i.e., to no purpose), ignorant – Acts 17:22-23, or will worship - Col. 2:20-23 (i.e., self-chosen). God reveals “in truth” a set of approved actions for worship. The total teaching of the New Testament authorizes only singing, praying, teaching, giving, and partaking of the Lord’s Supper as acts of worship. Worship has always required specific action. Worship has always had a “starting" place and a "stopping" place (cf. Judges 7:15; 1 Sam. 1:19; 2 Sam. 12:20; Isa. 66:23; Zech. 14:16; Matt. 2:2; 15:25; Acts 8:27; 24:11; Rev. 3:9; 15:4).

The example of Abraham is perhaps one of the most convincing arguments against the doctrine that all service is worship. In Genesis 22 Abraham was commanded to take his son and go to a mountain to offer him as a sacrifice. Abraham collected wood and saddled his ass, and after coming near to the place of sacrifice, “…Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you” (Gen. 22:5). Remember that Abraham had been traveling for three days, and had already been involved in acts of service. Yet he indicated that something special was about to occur…he and the lad would “go yonder and worship.”

If only some who teach that all service is worship had been there…! They could have straightened Abraham out on his “incorrect” view of “service” and “worship.” They could have enlightened Abraham to the fact that he had been worshiping God the whole time he was traveling, and he did not even know it. In fact, Abraham did understand the difference. He knew that although he had been engaged in service prior to coming to the place of sacrifice, worship was a unique and special type of service that was different than what he had been doing.

Before closing this lesson we also must note the fact that some in and out of the church seem to have worship confused with entertainment. While it is true that worship should be enjoyable to all worshipers (cf. Ps. 122:1), its focus is not upon pleasing the flesh. Worship is not a spectator/performer situation with the congregation in the spectator role while the preacher and song leader are performers. Every effort to honor, adore, and praise God in true worship demands the involvement of the spirit, the inner person (1 Pet. 3:1-4), the heart of a person. Without the involvement of the heart, “worship” becomes a type of performance. The performance may be appealing to people; it may indeed be entertaining, but God is neither honored nor pleased. True Christians need to know the difference between acceptable worship and entertainment.

Conclusion

The Bible does not support the doctrine that everything one does or all service is worship. Christians who love the truth will not hold to such foolish assertions. Jesus makes it clear that one must know the object of true worship in order to worship correctly (Matt. 4:10). The only object of true worship is deity (Rev. 22:9). In true worship, our spirit connects to God who is Spirit. All worship may be said to be service to God, but not all service rendered to God is worship.

BTW, I believe (its been some time) but I do remember looking at your link you provided for me (Alexander Campbell, etc.). I don't necessarily see how Campbell supports you. In fact, I believe Bobby that you have a habit of twisting the ideas and thoughts of the restoration brethren to your thoughts. I know of one time you did it with brother Warren concerning "remote context." Its funny, because I studied Warren's book in preaching school, and here are the notes I took...

I read the above "note" repeatedly. Let it sit for a week and for good or ill composed the following reply.

Brother ....,

I have thought long, hard & prayed about how to respond to your 5 page "note" of Nov 24. Like you, I have a lot to get done that consumes a great deal of my time. However, since I genuinely respect you I believe you deserve to heard, regardless of the tone you use, your material deserves to be reflected upon and you deserve a reply. I have heard it, I have read every word numerous times and I intend to reply to you.

Since your 5 page “note” was rather lengthy I do not think I will be able to reply to everything at this moment but I will get to all of it. Here is my plan: I intend to focus, briefly, upon the center of the letter or what I take to be the conceptual center. Then I will at the second post that begins with "Is All Service to God Worship?" Brother .... , I intend to reply kindly but firmly and as clearly as I can.

A PRELIMINARY NOTE: Let me begin beloved brother with an observation that may be kind of sticky. I am sorely disappointed in the general "tone" of your communication with me. There is enough debatable points in the material you and I have talked about to refrain from dogmatism and personal attacks. There are things beloved that you do not know and you just simply do not know you don't know them. I have been studying the word for a long time, and have encountered just about any situation you can think of in ministry ... and I can assure you (though you will not believe me at this stage of the game) you simply will have to experience.

#1) Another important note. Brother .... I am astonished that you are so quick to draw some major conclusions about godly men. How long were you at the meeting brother - 10 minutes?? Yet based on that you drew the astounding inference that they are "dangerous" to your spiritual well being. Your boldness, beloved brother, is reminiscent of Paul's lamentation in Romans about some Jews who had a "zeal for God" however it was not "according to knowledge" (10.3). May I suggest a mediation exercise for you: dont just memorize passages like Romans 14.4, 13; 15.7 and James 4.11-12. Let your righteousness exceed the scribes and Pharisees who could quote the text from here to doomsday but did not have "knowledge" anyway according to Paul. Meditate brother ... even Michael the archangel did not have the arrogance, or perhaps guts to put is crassly, to judge Satan himself (Jude 8-10). I am sorry .... but your brothers deserve better from you. You know virtually NOTHING of them ... and for that matter me and yet you feel sufficiently omniscient to cast reflection and judge them.

#2) I do not know what your motives are ... I did not speculate on them before and will not now. All I know is that you are very quick to judge

#3) On N.T. Wright the "well known false teacher." It is interesting that you agreed to discuss this book ... The reason for reading the book in the first place was because a brother's relative was. Now brother, according to your own words, you never heard of N. T. Wright at that time. But now he is a "known false teacher." Of what may I ask? The book which we are reading is a defense of the Christian doctrine of resurrection and what it means for the christian faith and christian hope. There are places in which I am sure preachers here will say "I dont agree with that" but that still does not make the work as a whole unworthy or false. Closedmindedness is a sectarian trait I am sorry to say.

#4) Now on this next point I feel sort of almost embarrassed like Paul in 2 Cor 10; 11.16-33 and into 12 or Phil 3.4b-6 where he has to defend himself and "boast." So here goes with great reluctance. ... you flat out accused me of having a "habit of twisting the ideas and thoughts of the restoration brethren to your thoughts." This brother is something you could not prove if your life depended upon it to be blunt. You claimed that "I do remember looking at those links you provided for me (Alexander Campbell, etc)." Which link brother? I do not even give you a single link on Campbell - except his rules on biblical interpretation. How did I misrepresent Campbell

I am going to be quite frank here .... You could not and you cannot demonstrate that I have misrepresented J.W. McGarvey, Alexander Campbell or anyone else if your life depended upon it. But you made the accusation now back it up. I am not the one who has taken words out of context or twisted them ... you in a previous post cited Bruce Metzger and it was a bogus citation that doesnt even exist and then you declared you were not really interested in that man made book.

Now I apologize for being so blunt in this section.

#5) Regarding "Is All Service to God Worship?" I have to be selective. First on Nadab and Abihu. Here is another meditative exercise for you. Why do you observe the passover on half the chapter like you have Corinthians!? Eleazar and Ithamar are in the very same chapter? Do they not worship God incorrectly? Did they not do their worship in error? Why were they not fried?? Did God accept their worship? Look at the text brother - deal with the Word of God. Why do you simply act as if it was not written at all? Is the second half of Lev 10 not the word of God!!?? So beloved brother think deeply and prayerfully ... why the difference? One set of brothers were fried and another received grace. Why? Is Yahweh simply arbitrary? When you meditate on WHY there is difference between these two sets of brothers you will see our God in a brand new light -- not the light of idolatry but the light he reveals himself to be on every page of the inspired book.

As I read what you wrote it appears, at least on the surface, you let predetermined dogma define the meaning of the text rather than letting the text determine dogma. Churches of Christ have accused many a Baptist of refusing to let the text mean something because it conflicted with a pet theory. You state "IF {my emphasis} their contentions are true, THEN {my emphasis} no longer are there only five acts of acceptable worship to God." Brother it certainly does appear as if your doctrine is the standard rather than the biblical text. You cite John 4 to prove such the position of five acts is a "contradiction to what Jesus instructed." How so brother? Where in John 4 does it say a single iota about five acts of worship or any number of acts for that matter? It isnt there brother. You have made an ASSERTION but you have demonstrated absolutely nothing. The text has nothing in the slightest to do with the number so called acts of worship. Does the biblical text shape belief or does belief "filter" out of the text all except what we already believe?????

You attempt to show, citing Deuteronomy 11.16; 17.3; etc that "worship" and "service" are different realities. In each of those examples the Hebrew words abad and histahwah occur. There is not a Hebrew lexicon or dictionary that will sustain your argument on this point brother. The paralleling of these terms shows the manner in which certain worship would take place. The abad of some deity is in the cultic rituals done in the honor of that god or Yahweh himself.

You cite Matt 4.10 to which I have previously commented upon. Rather than showing a distinction between "worship" and "serve" in this text it shows they are synonymous! The parallelism of the text demands it. If you choose you can look in my book with John Mark Hicks and Johnny Melton for more on that: A Gathered People.

Then you state "Worship and service are not interchangeable terms. Paul taught that Christians are to 'serve' one another (Gal. 5:13). If 'serve' and 'worship' are interchangeable terms, then it would be correct to teach that Galatians 5:13 demands that we 'worship' one another." Brother ....!!! Surely you did not think this through. You are simply mistaken on a number of grounds here beloved brother. You seem to be under the impression that the English word "serve" in Galatians 5.13 is the same in either Matt 4.10 or Romans 1.25 since your assertion is in the same paragraph. You do realize that "serve" in Gal 5.13 is douleuo which quite literally means serve/be slave and the like. It is not latreuo brother. I am at a loss to understand why you would use this text to score rhetorical points.

BTW since you cited Romans 1.25 it is quite interesting to see what the classic restoration commentary by Moses Lard says on this text: "and worshiped and served the creature instead of him that made it.' The word here rendered worshiped is generally assumed to denote so much of our duty to God is internal, while the one rendered served denotes the outward part. The distinction may possibly have been intended here, but I can not see it. The two words together simply denote the whole of the worship due to God." (Lard, Commentary on Romans, pp. 58-59).

Interesting isnt it? Lard sees latreuo as meaning worship not something "distinct" from it.

In the same paragraph you cite Hebrews 13.10 and say "Consider Hebrews 13.10. It refers to those who 'serve' the tabernacle. Did the priest worship the tabernacle or serve it?" Brother ... again I scratch my head on this one. The meaning of the Greek text of Hebrews 13.10 is not that the priest worshiped the temple/tabernacle. It means that is WHERE he did his worship or service. The temple/tabernacle is the location where such worship takes place. Any number of English translations can help on this matter. But one from good old brother Alexander Campbell makes it quite clear: "We have an altar of which they have no right to eat, who serve IN the tabernacle" (Living Oracles).

Further on Hebrews 13.10 Vincent's Word Studies in the NT says of our word latreuein (our word) "is used throughout the N.T., with the single exception of Heb 8.5, of the service of the worshipper and not the priest" (p.1178). On the same word in Romans 1.25 that i commented on a moment ago Vincent says the term refers to "worship through special rites or sacrifices" (p. 672). He says to see Revelation 22.3. So when we turn in his volume of word studies to that point we read: "The word originally means to serve for hire. In the New Testament, of the worship or service of God in the use of the rites intended for His worship. It came to be used by the Jews in a very special sense to denote the service rendered to Jehovah by the Israelites ..." (p. 643).

Now Brother .... why is it that you assert that in Hebrews 10.2 latreuo carries the "idea of worship" but deny it in 13.10. I think the denial is arbitrary and driven by other concerns for your pet doctrine rather than the text. Chapter 10.1-5 mentions worshipers, sacrifices, cultic stuff. Chapter 13.10 speaks of the same cultic activities and then goes on to speak of a "sacrifice of praise" ... surely an act of worship!! Yes the priests worshiped IN the tabernacle!!

#6) ... you assert, with no documentation, "the second most common word translated by a form of 'worship' with its accompanied forms, is the Greek word sebomai." Where did you get this information ....? This is simply wrong. sebasma occurs 2x in the NT; sebozomai 1x and sebomai a grand total of 10x. The word has more to do with simply reverence or fear (occurs for example in Acts 17.23 see vv. 4, 17; 18. 7). It occurs about 9x in the LXX (Greek Old Testament) five of those occuring in the Apocrypha {Wisdom 15.16; Bel and the Dragon 3, 4, 23; 3 Maccabees 3.4 & 4 Maccabees 5.24). BTW latreia is the second most used word for worship in the NT ... 26x.

In that same paragraph you said "In the New Testament, sebomai is always associated with deity and involves deep reverence for the object of worship." Then you say "cf. Matt 15.8-9; Acts 13.43, 50; 16.14; 19.27." In Acts 13 it is rendered "devout" in vv 43 & 50 in your New King James Version. In 19. 27 it speaks of the pagan worship of Diana ... you can look up the references I gave in the previous paragraph above. The word sebomai is a minor word in either the LXX or the Greek NT and contributes little to understanding Christian worship. The most significant use is in Matt 15.

#7) Concluding thoughts. Beloved brother you and I do not disagree one iota that "worshiping God in spirit and truth is one of the most demanding and and rewarding activities in which a Christian can engage." Amen. I absolutely agree. I do not think you have shown {as this discussion came from our discussion of Romans 12.1-2 and that was the material you brought to the preachers meeting} I was wrong or am wrong. Your information is factually wrong on a number of points and I have shown that.

I have also denied taking any one, Campbell or anyone else, and twisting their words. You have an obligation to show where I have done that.

I have lamented your tone and quick judgment of men you couldnt even pick out of a line up. They deserve better, I deserve better and believe it or not you deserve better.

I hope I have not been unkind or unloving. I have endeavored to stick with the inspired text. I have endeavored to treat you as one of God's children deserving of the utmost respect. I have endeavored to be open and honest. It is up to you to determine if I have.

I would love to take you to lunch one day brother. Or even better to have you and your lovely bride over to my home and we can cook on the grill. We can have food and get to know one another.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Hermeneutics & Fellowship, Pt 2

2011-12-15T18:12:00.009-07:00

Read Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Hermeneutics & Fellowship, Pt 1HERE
Read Worship Acts, Hermeneutics & Fellowship: Continuing Dialogue (which is Part 3) HERE

The following is the second part of a brotherly on again and off again discussion I allowed myself to get drawn into with another preacher. I felt it would be valuable to develop a Christian bond with this brother. As for the actual initial initiation of the discussion regarding music and fellowship I did not make. In what follows I will leave my own replies in normal type and his in italic. I think this exchange illustrates - in my view - the disease of sectarianism and the dangers of hop-scotch hermeneutics rather than dealing with context. I have not edited either him or myself except to take names out. I have been asked why I have talked to this brother - the reason is simple I really do value unity and I believe I need to do for this brother what others have done for me: be loving and patient. Blessings to those who strive to honor the prayer of Jesus in John 17.

This is his reply to my message that appears at the bottom of my previous blog, from my Correspondent ...

Bobby,

I cannot be long, but I did want to clear up a few things from your reply. Then, I will continue another day...

First of all, you will have to forgive me for my lack of precision on terminology. I was not referring you to the "new age movement," but what I was referring to was the prominent denominational idea concerning truth. The idea that truth is like an putting a blind fold on, and you only can touch part of the elephant, and never see the whole. This false doctrine has only lead to further denominationalism, and the ""agree to disagree, you go your way, I go my way"" philosophy.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you view truth in the same manner.

Concerning your references to the restoration movement. I don't care, and I believe they have no bearing on a discussion of spiritual truth. I respect many of the men in the restoration movement, but I will not get into a debate about what they did or did not believe or promote.

You accuse me of ""observing the passover"" as you like to cleverly put it (I kind of find that terminology funny haha, but be careful in its use because I believe it can easily become malicious). I actually might easily flip this on you. Is this not the exact same thing you have done with the question that I asked to initiate ALL of this?

""Would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM?""

Perhaps I should ask you to eat your own passover before replying to youraccusation. I'm still waiting for a clear ""yes or no""

Now, most importantly. You are mistaken to believe that I seem or want to draw lines over instrumental music. I realize you don't use them. You might take note that at no point have I ever set forth arguments against instrumental music. What I am asking goes beyond the dangers of instrumental music in many ways. It concerns the Lord's desire for purity and unity in the church. Unity doesn't come through acceptance of sin, but through obedience to God's word. We must keep sin out of the camp.

I will say this and clarify this again. I have only raised this question to know where you stand on the Lord's plea for purity in the church. Any inferences and suspicions that arise in yours, or anyone else's thoughts, are merely that, inferences and suspicions, and may even qualify as ""evil thinking"" (1 Co. 13).

Before I had opportunity to respond to the above my brother sent the following also in reply to my last at the bottom of my previous post.

Now, its another day Bobby. Hope you got some sleep and you're feeling a little more bushy eyed today.

I want to comment on a greater concern that perhaps now surpasses your "passover" of the question I raised from the beginning. (sorry, don't take that offensively. I seriously get a kick out of your catch phrase. It's funny, and I'm not offended in anyway)

This matter of knowledge and truth. I think it definetly extends beyond my beginning question about disfellowship of impurities like instrumental music, and so forth. (And please, always remember that my question was never set forth as an accusation, but as a quest to know where brethren such as yourself, here in AZ, stand and handle such things as Instrumental music among the Lord's churches)

Now this matter of truth is a serious one. It brings into question how we rationalize and logic about God's word and the search for truth. You have fully revealed your stance by the following statements:

"And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

and further stated here...

"Though truth has been fully revealed in Jesus of Nazareth there is not one single human being since the Lord Jesus returned to heaven that has fully grasped that entire truth. Did the Apostles? I ask this in sincerity?? I just read through the Gospels and how often does Jesus lament and wail at their dense understanding, their failure to SEE or HEAR or to grasp ... the answer is frequently."

It seems without a doubt that you believe complete truth is without grasp in any one of God's children. I can't help but categorize this idea with denominationalist who plead for the "agree to disagree, you go your way, I go my way, any one of us could be wrong," attitude.

This concept opposses all that Jesus, the word, and some very faithful brethren who have been true to God's word have, and continue to stand for. I would highly a reconsideration of your stance here, and recommend you to first and foremost the words of Christ (Jhn. 8:32, 7:17), and to the writings of faithful brethren such as Thomas B. Warren and his books like "Logic & the Bible."

You see, your stance opposses rational thought. You question my stance that one can know grasp complete truth on a spiritual matter. Yet, I will turn this around on you and ask you to answer for your proposition. Doesn't your proposition, "that anyone of us could be wrong, and that not one human being can grasp entire truth" demand a complete knowledge of truth in order to propose such a statement?? In other words, how do you make such a proposition without claiming a grasp for entire truth?? You're arguments are without logic Bobby, and they contradict rational thought, as well as Scripture.

A day after my brother's email (above) I sent the following reply

My Reply

Beloved Brother ....,

This will be very short because I have three hundred things to do right now. Let me make this as concise and clear as I can ...

1) You are my brother. I love you. And I refuse to not enjoy the fellowship that God created between us.

2) I think you misunderstand my statement that you quote. The statement has nothing to do with denominational anything. I believe that Jesus Christ and his Word are the ultimate authority. Your understanding of that word nor my understanding is NOT the authority. I submit my understanding to that word and will change as I come to see greater truth. How, my friend, can this can be denominational in your mind confuses me greatly.

3) I believe you are mistaken greatly on Corinthians - which you continue to observe the Passover on. And I am quite familiar with the writings of Thomas B. Warren and actually used his lingo earlier in this correspondence without mentioning his name already by referring to the "remote context" of Rev 2 & 2 Jn 9 ... from his book When is an Example Binding. My reasoning is neither irrational nor unbiblical - as I see it.

I was not intending any ill-will by using the phrase observing the passover. I will not use it again.

4) I believe Jesus is THE truth. He says so explicitly. I believe you and I can know the truth that sets us free. And I am convinced I do know the truth that sets us free. I do not believe, however, that either you or I know ALL truth or know all truth perfectly. So brother ... answer me clearly as you say:

1) do you know all truth? Yes or No?

2) do you know all truth PERFECTLY? Yes or No?

These are the real questions .... The question is not if it is theoretically possible for some human being to know absolute truth absolutely. The question is do YOU know absolute truth absolutely? I am convinced you do not. I am certain I do not. Now if neither you nor I have reached that level of perfection than it stands to reason ... it is logical to infer ... that we both not only could be wrong but likely are wrong on some matters.

THEREFORE the standard of truth is not you, it is not me ... it is the Bible ... which is what I said all along.

3) It is quite interesting that you sort of got defensive (or it appears that way) when I mention the restoration movement and then you turn around and cite the aforementioned Thomas B. Warren and his books. Do you see the irony in that? But if the truth be known Warren is a part of the restoration movement just as much as anyone I mentioned before.

4) Finally for now ... I have never thought evil of you. If I have appeared to so I apologize to you from the bottom of my heart. That was not my intent.

May the Lord bless you and keep you and make his face shine upon you.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

His Reply
Bobby,

My friend, and I mean that...it doesn't matter which way you want to spin, flip, or twirl your viewpoint with a child of God's arrival to truth. Whether you say full truth cannot be grasped, or you say a believer cannot come to a complete understanding, and is always open to new discovery, is really the same when it comes to practicality. I reject this with all my heart and will continue to remind you that this is exactly what a majority of denominations teach concerning religious truth..."agree to disagree, you go your way, I go my way, any one of us could be wrong," attitude. In fact, it seems almost similar to something called the "new hermeneutic" of neo-orthodoxy.

Why do I reject this? Because the Bible is full of statements from Christ such as John 7:17, and 8:32 on knowing the truth. Jesus is truth, but the word is also the embodiment of Jesus. In other words, the word is truth (John 17:7). You cannot escape John 8:32 so easily.

I beleive also that your understanding of remote context is mistaken. This comes from a misunderstanding of canonization. Here are a few scriptures that I think you should consider: Col. 4:16; 2 Pe. 3:16; 1 Tm. 5:18. The scriptures were copied and cierculated among the churches long before formal canonization. As brother Dave Miller put it: "in fact, impetus for the multipliaction of copies of the New Testament documents existed virtually from the moment they came from the pen of the inspired writer." You might see Bruce M. Metzer's "The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Ed. p. 14, and p. 416 for further evidence on that.

Also observe the following statment, "Consider the parallel situation that exists with the O.T. Early Jews did not have access to all the Old Testament. Yet Jesus and the writers of the N.T. gleaned passages from various locations in the O.T. canon in precisely the same fashion that we do from the N.T.. Jesus treated the Old T. canon as a totality-- a complet body of scripture.

Also consider more from the word of God: Acts 2:40, 42; 5:42; 20:20, 27, 31.
Examine these passages and tell me something, could early Christians have access to a sufficient amount of God's will through oral sources? Paul had preached the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

You speak Bobby, and yet do not realize the implications. You treat the 66 books of the word of God as if they aren't interdependant or as if God hadn't intentionally bound them together as a single body of truth, God's complete and total revelation to man. There is one author, the Holy Spirit.

We are not living in a period of progressive revelation as brother Miller put it. We have the complete inspired material from God and we're required to take the whole and interpret it accordingly.

As far as your questions toward me, I will ignore them till you respect mine. I've asked a simple question...

Would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM? Si or No?

My Reply to My Brother
Beloved ....,

I look forward to your leading us in this study. I encourage you to continue studying. I know that I have not arrived at all truth so perhaps I can learn a great deal from you. I remain convinced in the mean time you are more than mistaken on the quoted statement you feel is "denominational" ... send it to brother Miller and get his opinion on it.

Now you are throwing around some really big words: Neo-Orthodoxy and New Hermeneutic ...

You may want to reread those cited texts yourself though beloved brother. And if brother Miller is correct how much time is included in those words "virtually from the moment" the documents came from the pen of the writers?

For example you cite 2 Peter 3.16 but I think u meant v.15 ... from a historical standpoint is it not interesting that either you or Miller cite this text as evidence of canonization from the "virtual" moment (but that is a slippery term so we do not know just how much time is included in it) but from early canonical lists we know that Second Peter itself was quite late before being accepted as one of the apostolic writings. You can read that, btw, also in Metzger. And I ask honestly are you citing Metzger from actually having read him or are you getting this info from a secondary source ... brother The Text of the NT does not have 416 pages. But I refer you to his work The Canon of the New Testament: Its, Origin, Development; and Significance. I have both the works in my office and would be glad to let you examine them ... if you do not have them.

I have answered your questions.

Love you brother but you must be patient with me ...

And btw I do believe in the Scriptures as a complete body. I believe all sheds light on the rest. But the individual text still has to be understood FIRST in its OWN context. Thus Paul in Corinthians is still inspired and authoritative on seeking ground to maintain unity rather than division.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

This is his Reply
Bobby,

I'm looking at your message here, and it appears it will be the last. From our short discussion, I find you to be a man that enjoys intellectual thought, but I also take you for one who probably fears the possibility of being inferior in knowledge, intellect, and wisdom. Comments such as "I have both the works in my office and would be glad to let you examine them ... if you do not have them..." Tell me alot about a man such as yourself.

I'm a suburban boy Bobby. Never really paid attention much in high school, and I only experience college for a year. I really don't have any interest in appearing intelligent, or knowledgable. Trust me, you won't hurt my feelings by catching me on some misquote of a man-made book, or anything else. I only have one interest: bringing the lost to salvation. This means preaching the word of God in its sound, and healthy wholeness. I feed off passages such as 2 Co. 11:3, "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." I preach this text with passion in an age that tells us scientific jargon reveals some kind of intelligence. That evolution is truth because of it's intelligent thought. This of course has spilled over into religion, just like everything else has and continues to do through the ages. The world always will have the upper hand in influence.

It didn't take me long to discover your over-complicated interpretation of God's word. When a guy has to play mental gymnastics with the text, he is up to something. And it's never any good. That is why I continue to ask the question that has never been answered: Would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM?

I continue to put forth scripture such as Jhn. 8:32, 7:17, 17:7; Col. 4:16; 2 Pe. 3:16 (YES, 2 Pe. 3:16, notice that Paul was already calling the things Paul wrote SCRIPTURE); 1 Tm. 5:18; Acts 2:40, 42; 5:42; 20:20, 27, 31. And without shame or hesitation: Rev. 2 & 2 Jn. 1:9 All this to defend truth, the canonization, and proper interpretation of Scripture.

I will continue to reason with you, and challenge you to realize the implications of your stance on truth, and interpretation.

I will continue to challenge you to answer questions that demand a yes or no.

Why? For the sake of love. For you? Yes of course... but maybe more so that even if I can't reason with you.

My words to you Bobby are special, because Jam. 3:1ff reveals a stricter judgment for those who teach. I think you should already know better, beccause you spend time in the word, and you know what the text says. I would looove to have fellowship over disfellowship ANY DAY. However, I won't do it at the expense of twisting God's word, and disgracing His command to disfellowship. This is what is done though when brethren declare "remote context" on 2 Jn. 1:9 and Rev. 2 and say that 2 Jn. 1:9 only refers to the doctrine of not confessing Jesus as Lord. This is false Bobby. Remember Jesus and the apostles who proof-texted the Old Testament themselves and treated the O.T. as a complete body of scripture.

Yes, I will do the study. I will lead it as soon as you answer and respect my question: Would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM?

My Reply a Couple Days Later ...
Beloved Brother ....,

I am dismayed by this response. I assure you beloved brother that I take my task as a teacher of the word with INCREDIBLE seriousness.

.... how have I offended you? I never claimed to be smarter than anyone else and have asked you repeatedly to be my teacher. I am willing to learn. All I have done is confess that I do not know all truth perfectly and I confessed that I do not believe you do either.

I dont think I have ever tried to appear intelligent brother. I have no need to impress you nor anyone else. I have not tried to impress you except with Paul's example to the Corinthians. I have not sought your accolades ... I am truly "just me." I have NO FEAR that there are folks out there a whole lot smarter than me brother. I am near the bottom of the divorced preacher totem pole brother ...

For the record, I apologize that I offended you by suggesting you were in error on Metzger, that "man made book." But in my own defense on this point, brother you are the one who suggested I consult that "man made book" giving the appearance that it was and is a reliable source of information. My question sought to learn if you actually read the work. And all "man made books" are not bad brother. You, not me, recommended (by implication) Metzger and previous to that Thomas B. Warren's "man made books."

Now brother the last thing I desire is for bad blood to be between us. We are brethren. Some final random thoughts: I dont think I have interpreted scripture in an overcomplicated way. Everything I said about Corinthians comes straight out of Acts 18 and the Corinthian correspondence itself. I do not believe I disgraced God's commands. I have no problem with citing scriptures ... even lots of them. But context rules brother. At least that is what we have always said.

So ... blessings be with you.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

The Next Day I followed the above reply up with this one

Greetings to you from Alabama ... I will be home on Saturday. I'm enjoying my time with Tifani and the kids but we have not found resolution in court yet. This, as you know, was the entire purpose of our visit. I hope we are on for our luncheon.

Now ...., my beloved brother, I hope and pray that you do not harbor any ill feelings towards me. As of yet I do not think you have accused me of false doctrine just overly complex biblical interpretation ... something I will ask you to clarify in a moment. But in the mean time our fellowship was purchased with the outrageously expensive blood of Jesus Christ so I am praying that you are not going to sever that bond between us. I don't believe you will though.

My question is, Just how have I been guilty of overly complex biblical interpretation? I think my reading of First Corinthians would be confirmed by consulting most any commentary out there: from the time line I gave to the multiple letters and visits to that city by Paul and his associates. Even most basic NT Surveys will confirm this outline. It is not overly complex rather it comes from reading the information within the letters themselves. This historical exegesis has been the bread and butter of sound brethren all along. You provided a link to Dave Miller (and I have watched his first lecture and plan on watching all of them) so I feel free to provide this classic summary of good rules of biblical interpretation by Alexander Campbell: Principles of Interpretation

http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/cs/ac4c2.html

These basic rules have been the backbone of exegesis all along. Understanding a document in its context (date, occasion, etc), understanding the argument and words within a given context are bedrock foundations for objective bible study. Those specific rules are the very ones I appeal to for interpreting 1 Cor 8 ... asking those basic questions the demand answering ...

1) Who are those with Knowledge
2) What did those with Knowledge KNOW?
3) Who are those without knowledge
4) What did those without knowledge NOT know?

Those questions, every last one of them, are answered in the text itself. We know what those "in the know" knew ... :-) { you knew i was going to do that didnt you!!! LOL!} We also know, from the text itself, what those who didnt know ... didnt know. Further we also know what Paul did in that situation.

Now asking us to read the text itself, and dealing with said text is not overly complex. In fact it is plain common sense in my opinion.

This is something we have always done brother. We insist that context matters. When our Baptist friends go to Acts 16.30-31 and say all you need to do is "believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved." What has been "our" response ... we say "you left the jail house too soon!" ;-) We say to them that context matters because v.31 is not the end of the story. We point out that Paul then spoke the word of the Lord and they were baptized. Context rules, context explains that v.31 is true it just means more than what some say it means. If we insist on this principle with others we need to heed it ourselves.

Just a few thoughts. Look forward to seeing you brother.

Blessings,
Bobby Valentine

His Reply to Me
Hello,

Hope you are all doing well. I'm not sure if there was a preachers meeting?

Either way, my visit would've been short. Bobby, you are right. I haven't accused you or anyone of false doctrine, but at the same time you have not really given me reason not to believe there is a sense of liberalism here. Why do I say that? Because there is an omission to answer a straigtht forward question on the disfellowship of instrumental music. I guess I would really get myself in trouble if I asked about MDR? Furthermore, your viewpoint Bobby on truth is absolutely wrong. Anyone of us could be wrong? That is false to the bone. There are facts about the gospel that one can know undeniably (John 8:32; Eph. 5:17).

I guess what I'm saying is, give me a reason to believe that I'm surrounding myself with brethren conservative to the Word of God. I think that's a perfectly honorable question for a preacher to ask. I'm in a position right now where I need assistance and encouragment in the area. I can't afford to immerse myself in warfare yet. Not that I'm not willing for the sake of saving a soul, but its a battle that I know wouldn't end soon.

Therefore, I'm ending this conversation until you can give me a straightforward answer on whether or not you would disfellowship a church that has been warned, and rebuked, and taught the truth on instrumental music, yet they continue to practice. It would help too, if I knew brethren in the area that followed Christ's teaching on MDR. The Bible teaches divorce is a sin unless a spouse committs fornication. And a person who has been divorced for any other reason than fornication cannot marry again. (Mat. 19:1-9).

Hopefully, you can understand where I come from. I'm not in a position of warfare right now. In fact, I need to avoid it. Disfellowship of instrumental music, and MDR, etc., are issues that are serious and I believe they demand disfellowship, especially teachers who do not teach these truths.

No, I'm not looking to draw lines Bobby. Understand that I'm looking to avoid the necessity of doing at this time. Would I? Of course, but not until I've taught in love, and longsuffering for as much as I could bear. I just don't want to go through that process right now while I'm settling into a new congregation, and especially when I'm not sure anyone would care to listen.

My Reply Today Later ... After I had some Coffee
....,

Greetings beloved brother. I pray that you are doing well and you and your bride are experiencing the all the shalom our Abba can give.

I hope and pray you will meet for our next lunch date. The Lord commanded that we love one another. His servant John exhorted us to "love, not in word or speech, but in truth and action" (1 Jn.3.18). He tells us later that if we love "God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us" (4.12).

I confess dear brother that your last communication puzzled me. What is with language like "I can't afford to immerse myself in warfare yet." Warfare? YET? Such militant language is strange to my ears especially in light of your confession of not having a desire to draw lines. I do not know how to interpret that language .... in a way that sounds "loving" and SEEKING fellowship and unity rather than lines in the sand.

Now beloved brother on the other matters you mention. I answered your question. And for the record there are "facts about the gospel that one can know undeniably." I affirm that. But why cite Jn 8.32 or Eph 5.17 for that "truth?" What are the "facts" of the Gospel? Paul tells us in no uncertain terms in 1 Cor 15.1-4. The Fact of Jesus; the Fact of his Death; the Fact of his burial; the Fact of his resurrection. It was not THESE facts that those poor Corinthians did not have "knowledge" of in chapter 8. They knew Jesus died for them (v.11). It was other "truth" they did not know or understand or grasp.

You and I agree that we can know the facts of the Gospel. And we do. You and I have not, however, been discussing the facts of the Gospel. Indeed it was only upon those FACTS that Paul retained fellowship with those doctrinally erroneous brethren in 1 Cor 8 and v.11 makes this explicitly clear. They believed in Jesus but they were not clear on monotheism!

As for MDR I am not sure the preachers in Tucson have ever discussed the subject so I honestly do not know what the views are of those guys. I suspect that we all hate divorce and believe that divorce is sin except for the reasons outlined by Jesus in Mt 5 & 19. I know from personal experience that divorce is a horrid evil. And I know WHY God "hates divorce."

Nobody here uses IM or advocates it.

Christian love -- that is love that is like Christ's love -- should be the bedrock of our relationship to one another .... I am striving for that. And I am sure that you believe you are too. Loving each other is just as much sound doctrine as IM perhaps more so ... so it would behoove us to go the extra mile in love with one another. In obedience to Paul's apostolic example with the Corinthians.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

His Reply to Me

Okay Bobby... Just answer the question and I'd love to discuss things with you further...

Would you disfellowship a church that has been rebuked, exhorted, and warned? Yes or No?

...sorry, just so that you don't pick me apart on the specifics regarding the question. I'm asking about a church using IM.

And just so we're clear Bobby, I don't want to discuss anything else until this question is answered. I know what the Bible says about love, and trust me, I have nothing but love in this conversation. You don't like my terms? I'm sorry you feel that way, but there is nothing wrong with them.

"This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. "1 Tim 1:18-20 (NKJV)

"Such militant language is strange to my ears..." Really? Then the Bible must be strange to your ears also. No sarcasm intended, but I don't appreciate your accusation about my unlovingness. I love, but I don't use love as a front to make myself look good or put another person in a position where I can make them feel bad for charging me with straightforward answers. Perhaps I should accuse you of this, but it would be against my conscience to judge your heart when its not my place. Nonetheless I will warn you that if you are you had better be very careful. My friend, I know when I'm doing things in love and when I'm not. But, lets just leave that to God to judge. I do love you, but I will not stand for false doctrine, and I will be straightfoward with men who stand in a position such as yourself.

I don't really understand your confusion about what I said "there are facts you can know about the gospel." Perhaps you are getting stuck into the precision of my language again. That may be my fault, so let me clarify. "TRUTH" can be known. The "Gospel" is truth, and it is the will of God, therefore it can be FULLY known, and FULLY understood, BECAUSE of Jhn. 8:32 & Eph. 5:17. NOT just the death, burial, and resurrection. But also what to do to be saved, worship, church organization, and especially DISFELLOWSHIP. This is what my question is to you....

Would you disfellowship a church that has been rebuked, exhorted, and warned about IM? Yes or No?

Please respect my request and withhold yourself from discussing anything else with me until you answer this question with a solid yes or no. It's a black and white question Bobby, and it demands a black and white answer. If you can't then I have to conclude that you must believe the Bible is somehow unclear on this matter, or you are afraid, ashamed, or something to give your answer.

My Reply a day Later

Beloved Brother ....,

I did not judge you brother. My final paragraph said that I was striving for Christ - ian love for you and I believe you think the same thing. What I did say was that the language of warfare seems incongruous with the stated desire not to sever fellowship. As I read through you post I get the feeling (and I could be wrong and I hope that I am to be honest but this is how it came across to me) you have already decided we (PV) or at least me are unworthy of your fellowship.

It seems to me that Paul's appeal to the metaphor of "fighting the good fight" and being a good soldier is not license for using each other for target practice. Endurance and not giving up seem to be what he is appealing too ... not soldiers use of artillery on each other. Now what exactly did Hymaneaus and Alexander deny my brother. Paul mentions Hymaneaus again in 2 Timothy. They teach that the resurrection has already taken place (2.17-18). These false teachers in Timothy seem to love to argue and lust for controversy. See 1 Timothy 6. 4-5 ... they have a "morbid craving for controversy." In the context of making an example of Hymaneaus again the apostle places him and Philetus in the larger picture of godly or spirit handling words and arguing. Look at 2.14 all the way down to 26. The admonition to

"Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth" (2.15)

is preceded by the command to avoid arguing and is followed by the same exhortation to avoid godless chatter. At that point Paul gives the example of Hymaneaus, a man who taught deadly error on one of the facts of the Gospel, his godless chatter would make those listening to it unclean (that is Paul's point by appealing to the utensils illustration). When Paul finishes that illustration he returns to the concern of v.14, which of course he never left. That is the concern that the disciple, the soldier of Christ, pursues love and peace and has nothing to do with "stupid and senseless controversies" (v. 23) and correct others in a spirit of gentleness. Paul makes it very clear that it is the unstable false teachers that yearn for conflict.

My point here is that Hymaneaus did not just have a wrong opinion. He left the basis of the Gospel itself. He and his companions loved to fight and the implication of 2 Tim 2.15 is that the word of truth was being used in ways that produced fights and Paul tells Timothy that is a sure sign of spiritual sickness. No one at PV is guilty of anything remotely like Hymaneus, Alexander or Philetus. The brothers here deserve respect just like you deserve respect.

Now concerning knowing all truth and fully grasping it. I have said before and I will say again that I know that I do not know everything and I am certain you do not either (no offense brother). Now if one has to know "all truth" and "fully grasp" it to be either saved or in fellowship then the apostle paul himself was wrong. But I dont believe he was do you? The Apostle tells us what the Gospel is (1 Cor 15) and he said the Gospel saved. This same apostle makes is abundantly clear in 1 Cor 8 that some members of the Corinthian church did not know "all truth" and they certainly did not "fully grasp" all that truth and they are both saved and in fellowship. Beloved brother .... this is the plain as the nose on your face reading of the text.

And there are churches and/or groups that I do not fellowship. I am not aware of any passage in the NT about disfellowshipping a church but there are those who I believe have indeed departed from the faith. Whoever they are I will love them but I cannot retain fellowship as I understand the word to mean. But most of the NT teaching on this subject is within a given congregation. A divisive person I will, as you say, teach and exhort, and I have had to call a person or two out in my 20 years of preaching. A most unpleasant and distasteful thing brother.

We are dedicated to search the scriptures, to learn to handle the word of truth in a manner that is worthy of the Spirit of Christ. We love as Jesus did and suffer with our brothers as Paul did the Corinthians.

Shalom brother,
Bobby Valentine

My Brother's Reply to Me
Bobby,

I don't think you make any sense about what you said in regards to disfelloshiping a church. If you can disfellowship an individual, than why not a church (a larger body of Christians, who follow and practice the same false doctrine). Would it really matter if I phrased the question this way?...

Would you fellowship a church of Christ, that follows all the doctrines of Christ, except, they practice instrumental music, and they've been warned, exhorted, and taught concerning the matter, but the whole church continues to worship in such a manner?

I have every reason to believe you are avoiding the question. It seems you are almost playing games. Also, Bobby, I would never consider you or anyone unworthy of my fellowship. The question is, do you have fellowship with the Lord's doctrine? If not, then you are not in the Lord. How can I have fellowship with that which is not in the Lord? You may want to put IM on a non-basis of the gospel level. However, you would be wrong. IM is on the basis of the gospel level. Christ would call IM "vain worship" (Col. 3:17).

If I do not recieve a straight "yes or no" in your next reply (should you reply again), then Bobby, I wish not to have this discussion any more. This will not result in a "disfellowship," but the Scriptures do teach that anyone who doesn't bring the doctrine of Christ should not be greeted (2 Jn. 1:9ff). So, in truth, God would consider this a matter disfellowship. However, when it be possible, I would go through every avenue to bring you or anyone else on this subject to the knowledge of truth, before delivering such a one to Satan.

IM is wrong Bobby. The Lord's church and members of her cannot have fellowship with those who worship God vainly with IM. Should a church fall into IM, it would also demand a disfellowship (Rev. 2, a chapter in the N.T. that might answer your question about passages on disfellowship of churches).

My Reply Two Days Later again after Coffee
Beloved Brother ....,

Can I ask you something brother. Do you ever stop to ask how you come across. Perhaps it is just me but you come across as one who has in fact decided who is and who is not worthy of your fellowship. You state, and have stated, you are not seeking a reason to sever fellowship (I stress the word seeking) but as I read you and "hear" you in my head that is exactly what it appears you are doing. You have stated that I am not guilty of any false doctrine yet you continue to erect hurdles for me to jump. Why brother? Why do you take this course of action? Why do you set up a court to hand out rulings on men you have met once?

I ask you in all seriousness beloved brother is this what Paul would do?? What biblical right do you have to address me in the manner in which you have? I am your brother period. You are my brother period. Why dont you begin to act like you and I are part of the family of Christ. I am not your enemy ... Recall how Paul began his address to the Corinthians both 1 and 2 Corinthians. He thanked God for the GRACE given to THEM!!

You dont like it that i will not acquiesce to your demand for a simple yes or no. That is ok brother but I did answer the question. And my answering your question with a question is a good biblical - in fact a good Jesus way of doing things. Why didnt Jesus just say "from heaven" when the teachers of the Law demanded to know "by what authority" he did these things? He declared he would tell them IF they answered his question. They didnt ... so he didnt. I asked you some basic questions about a biblical passage and you refused to answer. I refused your simply yes or no but I did answer your question. More than once I might add.

Now my fellowship with the Lord does not depend on my reply to your questions about IM. And for you to make those kinds of hurdles to unity brother takes you way beyond apostolic example or teaching. How is instrumental music more fundamental to the Gospel then monotheism and yet look what Paul did in 1 Cor 8!!??

You know brother ...., love is part of the doctrine of Christ. And it is not a shield to hide behind. It is the heart of the matter. the men that serve the Lord here in AZ are good men. They deserve respect brother. You may find beloved brother that they are dedicated servants. You might find that they are godly men. You might discover that they love the Lord and his word every bit as you do. And believe it or not brother you may find out that you just might be able to learn something from them.

Why dont you and I start fresh and commit to the apostolic word to make EVERY effort to maintain the bond of unity in the spirit of peace. Paul did this brother. He went the second and third mile with the saints at Corinth. He did the same in Jerusalem in Acts 21 when he offered animal sacrifices to demonstrate his unity with the Jewish brother and sisters. Loving is long suffering brother. Love forbears. Love seeks reasons to hold my hand rather than rejecting my hand.

Later that Day I Received this Reply:

Bobby,

I will not play these games. Again you can accuse me of many things, but the Lord knows my heart. I asked a simple question that you have NOT answered. That is fine though, because you've said more than enough for me. Trust me, I know where you stand with things. You also continue to repeat things that I've clarified for you over and over. That im seeking to draw lines, etc etc. Bobby I've observed ur spirit of letter and things are clear for me. You have ur ideas of who I am, what my heart is like, and ur own personal bible interpretation. Ur on a personal agenda to prove something in this conversation, seeking to be some kind of teacher guru to me. Bobby, in the words of Paul, it is a SMALL thing to be judged by you. No Bobby, I will not accept brotherhood merely because u call urself a brother. What makes a brother is one who is faithful to the family of God. I have every right to question everyones stances on things, before accepting brotherhood (1 jn. 4:1ff). Wouldn't you Advise the same to someone looking for the Lords church? You wouldn't just tell them to look for the name outside the building. The only thing you've shown me is a name, and a liberalness for truth and fellowship, and an unwillingness to reveal yourself. Don't put yourself as our Lord and Savior. He did reveal Himself in plain terms over and over to His disciples and many times plainly with his enemy. Nevertheless, you've shown enough for me. I'm going to depart from this conversation now. I hope the time will come when we can sit down and study the scriptures together. Until then I wish not to discuss this any further.

A Few Days Later I Sent this Reply

Brother ....,

I was not aware that I was playing games with you. I told you before that though I try not to take MYSELF that seriously I do take the Lord and his word with deadly seriousness.

I have never judged your heart. Never. I do not have insight into your heart. I ask that you remember that same principle when interacting with me too. I have no idea of who you are or judged what type of person you are either. I have attempted to assume the best of you just as Paul commands. I have taken the time this evening to go back and reread our ENTIRE exchange and I do not believe that I have been unkind to you at any point. If I have behaved in an unchristian manner than I apologize to you.

You assert, brother, that I have some sort of personal agenda. What might that be brother? If I have one, my agenda is two fold: 1) to have the fellowship of my preaching brothers; and 2) to study the word together. You simply do not know me well enough to come up with any other conclusion.

And on the matter of my supposed "personal interpretation" ... what do you mean by that? Do you mean that I have invented it? Do you mean that I have twisted 1 Corinthians? Yet beloved brother I reject the accusation. I believe I could walk into my office at this very moment and pull down half a dozen standard scholarly commentaries on 1 Cor and they would support my so called personal interpretation. It is not "my" interpretation rather it is an interpretation that is based squarely on letting 1 and 2 Corinthians speak for themselves. One the matter of 1 Cor 8, which you have not touched with a ten foot pole, how do you interpret those words to mean something other than what they say?? Some knew the truth (knowledge) and some did not know the truth (did not have knowledge and did not grasp it). If language means ANYTHING brother other than some willy nilly pulling something out of a magic hat then there were those at Corinth who knew and those who didnt ... what they did not know was of considerable more importance than IM. Yet Paul FELLOWSHIPPED THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am pleased it is a small thing to be judged by me ... especially when I never have. Now once again we are brothers. It is a fact of birth brother and there is nothing you can say or do about it.

I'm glad you brought up the disciples again. Yes Jesus did reveal himself to them. Over and over and over again. According to Luke 24 he spent even his last moments teaching them yet their joy was mingled with "disbelief" (v. 41) and according to Matthew 28 while they worshipped some "doubted" (v. 17). This reminds me of our previous exchanges ... there is nothing wrong with the "truth" but there is something wrong with many of us humans. We are sometimes slow to understand.

It may have been a slip of your keyboard beloved brother but yes I have a "liberalness for truth and fellowship." The truth of Jesus and his cross are the most important things in my life. I am open to the truth. i seek the truth. I pray for God to teach me everytime i open the word. The prayer on my lips is that of the Psalmist, "open my eyes, so I may behold wonderous things out of your torah" (119.18) and "teach me, O LORD, the way" (v.33). Yes every time I open that grand old book, brother, I expect God to blow my mind ... because I have lived long enough to know that I dont know everything. I've been wrong about stuff that I KNEW I could not be wrong about!!

As for being liberal in fellowship, beloved brother dont you agree that is what Paul was with the Corinthians? Even if I am mistaken on chapter 8, the Corinthians were one messed up church. And Paul loved them, he praised God for them, he was in fellowship with them. Let me remind you yet again of his words:

"I give thanks to my God always for you BECAUSE OF THE GRACE OF GOD ..."

"He will strengthen you to the end, so that you may be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by him you were called into the FELLOWSHIP (koinonia) of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord"

1 Cor 1.4, 8-9

I will not turn my back from you .... I will not withdraw my hand. I would have to disobey the example of Paul to do so. I will not.

You say I have "revealed" myself. Well I pray to our Father (the Father that made you and I brothers ... not step brothers!) that what was "revealed" is pleasing in his sight. I pray that it is something that is reflective of the love he has for the world, he has for his people and the love Paul had for those who were in the family too. I am sure I have failed miserably but that brother is what i hope was revealed.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

This Reply was in the Mail the Next Day

Alright Bobby,

Well, I'm a man of my word. I will no longer have this discussion with you.

You are right though, you are a brother, but a brother that I see contrary to the doctrine of Christ, and I think it best to practice a principle of avoidance right now (Rom. 16:17ff).

However, I truly hope someday to sit and study the Scriptures with you, because it isn't my wish that it ends in this manner by any means.

I Sent this Reply the Next Day ... After a Spoonful of Sugar!

Beloved brother ...,

What do you want me to say? Wow! Is about all I can say. Do you not believe you have slightly overstepped any biblical authority here? On what biblical grounds do you have for taking this "principle of avoidance?" You cite Romans 16.17 ... So I ask what division have I caused or promoted? To be quite frank and honest you, dear brother, are the only one who has come in here like a bull and have sought to cause division.

Dear brother you are on record as saying I am not teaching false doctrine. So how beloved brother do you think you can explain your action to the one who is actually on the throne?

Read your words to me brother then read once again 1 Cor 1.4,8-9. Read your words and ask did Paul practice this "principle of avoidance" with the Corinthians? Where is that long suffering brother? You think after meeting one or two times and a few short emails that you have the biblical right to, for all intents and purposes, disfellowship me. Arrogance is a poor companion for one who professes to be the Lord's servant brother ....

For some reason my mind keeps drifting back to the words of Paul to the Galatians

... serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: "love your neighbor as yourself." If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other" (5.13ff)

Something, and someone, other than Christ is being honored in your actions beloved brother. Your zeal for fighting is not what Paul calls us too.

The work of the flesh is among other things discord, jealousy, and dissension. I have walked with you and talked with you and held my hand out to you and you have for all intents and purposes spat on it. But the fruit of the one true Spirit is love, peace, patience ... are these things the aroma of your communications ... especially the last one?

I refuse to withdraw my hand brother. It will not happen. We are brothers. Not half brothers. Not step brothers. Not cousins. We are brothers. Paul taught explicitly and by his actions that fellowship is more important than your little personal axe grinding.

So I will end with a quote from our spiritual father in the faith, Barton W. Stone in item 7 of the Last Will and Testament ...

"We WILL, that preachers and people, cultivate a spirit of mutual forebearance; pray more and dispute less ..."

That is my intention. I am in complete and total fellowship with the Triune God. I am in fellowship with the brothers in this fair city. I AM in fellowship with you. You can choose to behave in ways that deny that absolute truth but that will not negate that absolute truth.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Hermeneutics & Fellowship, Pt 1

2011-12-15T09:19:00.009-07:00

The following is part of a brotherly on again and off again discussion I allowed myself to get drawn into with another preacher. I felt it would be valuable to develop a Christian bond with this brother. As for the actual initial initiation of the discussion regarding music and fellowship I did not make. In what follows I will leave my own replies in normal type and his in italic. I think this exchange illustrates - in my view - the disease of sectarianism and the dangers of hop-scotch hermeneutics rather than dealing with context. I have not edited either him or myself except to take names out. Blessings.

September 15

Hello brother,

I really enjoyed our visit together. However, I have a serious question to ask you all now. This is in regards to the discussion you had with me in the vehicle.

I have a question, and it is very straight forward. A simple yes, or no will suffice. A straight forward answer would be much appreciated. My purpose in asking at this point is merely for knowledge sake. I hope to meet and visit with you all in the future regardless of your answer. So, I ask in love...

Can the church of our Lord have fellowship with those who worship God with instrumental music?

If you don't feel comfortable anwering this question via computer, just give me a call ...

My Reply

Brother ... it is good to hear from you once again. Sorry to be slow in my reply to you but I have been sort of busy (well no sort about it!!).

I have read your question. Put it down. Then read it again yesterday, and today. I have debated with myself about replying. I truly enjoyed visiting together the other day and pray for more in the future.

As I recall we never discussed the issue of IM per se. As you will recall you had mistaken some congregations in the Midwest that say "Church of Christ" for acappella and I simply pointed out that they had never been "ours." They had not "introduced" the instrument. You will also recall that you said you did not know anything about that history. So we discussed the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ ... here is a brief wikipedia article ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Churches_and_Churches_of_Christ

We did talk about whether "we" have to be doctrinally perfect in order to be saved. You will recall I pointed to the example of the Corinthians. I suggest that it is empirically demonstrable that Paul went the extra extra mile on this matter and I suggest we should do that too ... The problems of Corinth include ...

1) They had division and partyism (baptism played a key role in this schism)
2) They had "issues" with Paul's authority and apostleship
3) They not only had sexual perversion but openly approved of it as a sign of
superior wisdom
4) They had lawsuits in public court destroying the unity and witness of the Body
5) They had problems regarding sexuality, marriage and asceticism
6) They had folks who still had not accepted the doctrine of monotheism (cf. 8.7)
7) They had doctrinal issues regarding worship: problems with the Lord's Supper
8) They had huge issues over spiritual gifts and the worship assembly
9) They even had folks who denied the resurrection!
10) They seem to have had a great lack of love for one another

Did Paul fellowship error?? Yes he did! That does not mean he approved it, or endorsed it, but there is no way to get around the historical fact that he was in fellowship with the Corinthians. If we could only follow the apostolic teaching and example.

Listen to Paul’s language regarding this messed up church: “To the church of God . . . to those SANCTIFIED in Christ Jesus . . ." Paul then says "I ALWAYS thank God for you because of his grace given you in Jesus . . ." Those are remarkable words from Paul in light of what we know about Corinth and in light of our own historic non-practice of this example. Paul does not give thanks because the Corinthians got everything right or anything right. He thanks God for the grace that has been given them.

Brother ... I would like to recommend that when we get together that you lead a study on this matter. I for one am open to learning more ... just like Apollos.

Blessings,
Bobby V

His Reply

Hey Bobby,

I appreciate you taking the time and effort out of your busy schedule (and I believe you, its busy for all of us heh). Now I want something to be clear Bobby, I believe we did talk about instrumental music, because that is how our discussion about independant churches and so forth arose. Nevertheless, I don't want you to feel that I'm accusing you of anything. In fact, that is the whole purpose I asked this question. I want to see where some of the fellow preachers of the Lord's church are standing on an issue such as fellowshipping instrumental music. Specifically yourself.

Now, concerning your answer Bobby, though I appreciate your long and thoughtful answer. I would have much more appreciated a simple yes or no. The answer that you gave me would perhaps be acceptable if someone ever asked me if there be a time that God endures with a congegation before completely removing the lampstand. I would certainly use 1 Co. along with Rev. 2, in order to show that God does endure with impurities in the church (for a season). But now, that wasn't my question. I already know the complexities and details that go on before we have disfellowship with a church or Christian for that matter. However, My question is simple and straightforward, and I think a room full of preachers can understand what I'm ultimately asking. My question is this beloved brethren...

Can the church of our Lord have fellowship with those who worship God with instrumental music?

I would love to lead a study on this question at some point Bobby. Concerning this message though, I'm not going to go into any detail. I simply would like to know where you stand.

In Christ,

P.S.

One last comment brethren, before I leave this page.

I did notice Bobby, that your response brings up a broader issue. "Does the church have to be doctrinally perfect to be saved?" I want to reply to that quickly, because I don't want there to be any impressions that I agree with even your answer to that.

Your answer is obviously no. Yet, I fully disagree with that. The Bible makes it clear that a church must be doctrinally perfect (2 Jn. 9-10; Rev. 2; and yes even the book of 1 Co. testifies to that). I believe the church of Christ is doctrinally perfect, but made up of imperfect people. Of course, there is a season of the Lord's longsuffering, and that is what I believe many denominations and sometimes brethren confuse.

But, I don't wish to get into that and just end up broadening the issue. I just want to know if the church of Christ can have fellowship with independant churches and the like. Those who vainly practice instrumental music!

My Reply
Brother ...,

I will not be around much today for any further discussion ... I will be hanging out with my wife today and she takes precedence even over stimulating brotherly discussions such as this. I want to emphasize the word BROTHERLY. Before I leave I want to add one or two caveats to this discussion. And I apologize if it is too long brother but I have learned through both many years of study and several years of getting beat up by life that most of life never boils down to a simple yes or no. There are some things that do but most do not. Especially if they are actually of importance.

First. I reject as completely unbiblical that a person or congregation has to be "doctrinally perfect" to experience salvation. From the start such a position makes salvation hinge upon doctrinal perfectionism rather than God's grace in Christ Jesus. If a people were doctrinally perfect that negates the NEED (yes NEED!) for Grace. Second I deny - indeed reject outright - that the texts you proof text support the position you apply them too. Simple citation does not demonstrate they MEAN what you claim they do.

Second I will not let you simply brush off the Corinthians (and they are just simply the most obvious example in the NT for our purposes). This is clearly a doctrinally aberrant congregation and Paul is in complete fellowship with them. Their imperfection did not keep him from thanking God for Grace (not doctrinal perfection) given to them. He even says unambiguously that they ARE the church (not were or will be). He says that they ARE (present tense) sanctified ... and Paul wrote that with the full knowledge of the state of that congregation. The apostle also testifies to his faith in God who will "strengthen you to the end so that you may be blameless on the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor 1.8-9). That is how Paul prefaces all of his discussion with Corinth. Wouldn't it do our brethren a world of good if they began all their discussions about the error they see in one another with such language?? I think it would!!

Third, and this is from memory bc I have no resources at home with me, but Paul's problems with the Corinthians was no fly by night, here today, and gone tomorrow phenomena. Here in brief is a general outline his relationship with them that is his apostolic example of going the extra mile for the sake of unity:

1) initial 18 month ministry recorded Acts 18 we know this dates to AD 51 because of the Gallio inscription at Delphi

2) After he leaves Corinth, Paul exchanges letters we no longer have. He refers to this in 1 Cor 5.9 in which he dealt with sexual immorality. This is Corinthians A

3) The Corinthians appear to benefit from the teaching of both Apollos and Peter. Paul learns that the church then sectarianizes on these great teachers thru Chloe household AND in a letter. So our 1 Corinthians deals with the substantive issues in that congregations. This is second corinthians ... again after a period of teaching - orally and written.

4) Paul sends Timothy to the Corinthian church to see that his directives in our 1 Cor are followed. This was, apparently, an unsuccessful visit.

5) Paul returns to Corinth himself and calls this a "painful" visit (2 Cor 2.1)

6) Paul follows up his painful visit with what he calls the "tearful letter" (2 Cor 2.2f; 7.8) Titus, rather than Timothy, brought this letter to the Corinthians who reported a good reception to that letter (2 C 7.5ff)

7) Paul writes our 2 Corinthians after the communication from Titus

All of this took place over a period of several years. There is no evidence in the surviving letters from this exchange that Paul ever severed fellowship with any of the Corinthians EXCEPT the man in open sexual sin. Most scholars date 1 C to AD 55 and 2 C to late 56 or 57. So the relationship from Acts 18 to the end of 2 Corinthians is around 6 or 7 years.

I ask you, where in any of the literature we have regarding the Corinthians, does Paul disfellowship or even threaten to do so - anyone except the man in blatant immorality? And again look over that list in my previous note ... this is not a list of insignificant stuff. If we claim that apostolic example is a mode of authority then I ask brother why is this example NOT BINDING??

Finally regarding in the car and IM. My recollection is that you indicated that several of the churches in ... had "introduced" IM (at least that is what I understood you to be saying). I simply and as kindly as I know how, objected and pointed out they were never non-IM churches in the first place but part of the independents, to which you confessed you were not aware of that group of people.

I will, until I learn otherwise, strongly disagree that we are saved by doctrinal perfection. We already have a discussion on the docket for our next meeting but I am more than willing to have you lead me in a discussion of salvation by doctrinal perfection. I may be totally wrong and if so I am willing to learn and hopefully God will do for me what he does what Paul claims in 1 Cor 1.8-9 or what Jude says in vv. 24-25. Either way I know I am not perfect ... Sorry for being so long but I think this is a discussion that deserves actual depth.

I look forward to more in person. And once again we are brethren and we need to do for one another what Paul does the Corinthians. Thank God for one another and the grace given to all of us.

Shalom,
Bobby V.

His Reply
Late Night
Brother,

I want to clarify this once again, before I reply to the following messages again. My question is asked in the name of love, peace, without accusation, implication, and for the endeavorment for unity of the faith in which our Lord and Savior desires among His children:

Can the church of our Lord have fellowship with churches that practice instrumental worship to God?

Now, I understand the complexities of studying this issue. I also understand the complexities of the process in which we must go through before disfellowshipping anyone or any church. But the ultimate conclusion can only be a yes or no. There is no in between. When a church puts instrumental music in the church for purposes of worshipping God, and they are warned, rebuked, exhorted, and yet continue in their sinful ways, the churches of Christ must decide to either fellowship or disfellowship. Therefore, this question does come down to a simple yes or no.

I don't believe there is any other way for me to be more brotherly in approaching this situation. I'm not putting anyone in a catch 22, as the Pharisees and Saducees liked to do with our Lord at times. My endeavor to know your answer to this is pure, and should we disagree I hope to study on this issue so that either you or I may be lead in the more perfect way.

Perhaps your unwillingness to answer this question Bobby is for that reason. But, I strongly persuade you brother that my intention is not to put you down in any way.

All and all at this point though, I feel like you've already given me a "yes, churches of Christ can fellowship churches that practice instrumental music." So I'm not gona ask you any further, lest I feel like I'm beginning to harass in some way, ha. If you wish to correct me on this though, please do. I'm simply trying to understand, not debate.

God Bless,

My Reply
Hey Brother I have had a busy weekend, as I am sure you have had as well. I enjoyed the company of Tifani for the weekend, dropped her off at the airport and then rushed to northern AZ to preach for a small congregation there. Got back yesterday afternoon exhausted. Sunday was a blessed day at PV and I was delighted to be Gathered around the throne of God in worship with my brothers in this correspondence.

Brother. I don't think you are harassing me and hope I have not given that impression. We ARE brothers and talking to my beloved brothers is a blessing regardless of the subject.

Yet beloved brother there is a danger in putting words into my mouth. I have answered your question by going underneath it. By examining the example of unity rather than division. I do not use IM or desires to see it introduced. It is a mute point. I have no dog in the fight as they say. What I have an interest in is what I think Paul had an interest in ... unity. Your first questions to me, without even knowing me, are about division. I am not in that orbit and I dont think Paul was either.

Rather Paul SOUGHT reasons to maintain fellowship, he did not look for excuses to sever it. That is what I want to do with you. Why find a reason to sever fellowship when I have a million reasons to keep it?

I appealed Paul's teaching and his example with the Corinthians. It is as relevant as anything to our discussion ... which has been salvation by perfect knowledge of doctrine and its corollary unity/fellowship by perfect knowledge of doctrine. I laid out Paul's relationship with that congregation in a previous contribution and asked a pointed question: WHERE and WHEN in the writings of Paul do we have him severing fellowship with any of the Corinthians except the man in sexual sin? I ask again where is it. You have been as silent on the actual biblical text regarding the Corinthians as the grave. It is as if this material does not even exist.

I stress, once again, this congregation had the benefit of teaching from not one but TWO apostles (Paul and Peter). They had the luxury of instruction from two apostolic delegates (Timothy and Titus). They had the providence of being fed by one famous non-apostle (Apollos) who was "mighty in the scriptures." And they had at least four letters and repeated visits by Paul over that span of 6 or 7 years. That is a lot of teaching, a lot of words, a lot of time ... (see the chronology I laid out previously)

Why, brother, is Paul's example here not relevant?? Tell me straight up.

But what also of his teaching? Paul destroys the false "soteriology of knowledge" held by some of the Corinthians. Some apparently believed that salvation was merely by correct knowledge of doctrine and thus treated their brothers in a cavalier manner. Chapter 8 is quite enlightening on this point and shows Paul's teaching in practice. What, my beloved brother, was the real issue about meat sacrificed to idols??

Paul begins his discussion by contrasting "gnosis" (knowledge) with agape (love). Knowledge "puffs up" but agape builds up, it serves, it ... love does what 13.4ff says. BTW I think Paul is anticipating chapter 13 here in chapter 8.

There is a correct knowledge, a correct position, on idols and the meat sacrificed to them. There is also a false knowledge, an incorrect position, on meat sacrificed to idols. My question dear brother is WHY didnt Paul simply say to those who were wrong ... "get over it!?" Rather it is the ones that were doctrinally "correct" ... had knowledge ... that Paul calls on the carpet. There are those who are so imperfect in their knowledge/doctrine that Paul says quite explicitly that some "do not know THIS" (v.7).

Carefully study the context brother. Context. Context. Context. What is the "this" that is not fully known and grasped by certain members of the Dysfunctional Church of Christ in Corinth? it is those that think an idol is REAL! They believe, incorrectly, that a spiritual reality does in fact stand behind the image! (if they didnt the whole discussion makes NO SENSE at all). Paul even says in vv 4-6 that he knows there is only one God (he paraphrases the Shema, Dt 6.4 here) then he says ...

"But not everyone knows this" (NIV)
"Howbeit there is not in all men that knowledge" (ASV, KJV)
"However, not all posses this knowledge" (ESV)
"However, everyone does not know this" (Hugo McCord's version)
"But not everyone knows this truth" (Good News Translation)

Eugene Peterson's paraphrase The Message renders the verse thus

"We need to be sensitive to the fact that we're not all at the same level of understanding in this"

Now my question is why didnt Paul side with those who are correct but rather called for agape rather than gnosis?? Why didnt Paul suddenly give a lecture on monotheism rather than love? I dont need to speculate or infer on this matter because the apostle says quite clearly why ...

"So this weak brother [i.e. doctrinally wrong/incorrect brother], FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED, is destroyed by your knowledge" (i.e. CORRECT doctrine, correct knowledge, etc) ... 8.11.

Salvation is not by correct knowledge or doctrine. Fellowship is not based on correct knowledge or 1 Cor 8 makes no sense at all. What we see is that even the incorrect brother was a brother, he was in Christ and it was that and the love that flows from our hearts by the power of Christ keeps fellowship. The incorrect brother is among those we read about in 1 Cor 1.8-9.

Paul is not accusing these brethren of SERVING idols but that for some in fact idols are real. Their incorrect belief even impacts their behavior ...

If I am misreading 1 Corinthians 8 let me know. But there are good discussions of this text in its historical setting in standard scholarly commentaries like C. K. Barrett's and Richard Oster and in the article on "Idolatry" in the Dictionary of Paul and His Letters.

It seems to me that 1 Cor 8 is a sort of lab experiment for the rest of the Corinthian correspondence and experience over that 6 or 7 year period. Paul does for these doctrinally incorrect brothers what he does for the entire congregation. He loves them. He fellowships them. All I ask is that we do what Paul did. Not one of us has had the benefit that the Corinthians have had (2 apostles, 2 apostolic delegates, several personal visits from Paul himself, at least 1 visit from Apollos, etc) ... should we not be patient, loving, long suffering with one another when we do not see eye to eye. And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong. But I believe you love the Lord, you love his word, you love his people ... if that is the case then doing for one another what Paul did for Corinth should not be an issue at all. And if it is we need to be prepared to explain to Paul why his example was not good enough for us.

Now brother ... Once again my issue is not IM and never has been. I have no use for it all. Salvation by perfect knowledge and/or doctrine is and the desire to sever fellowship is. I would love for you, and I hope you will, bless us with leading us in a study of the issue. I hope I get to know you and your lovely wife personally and intimately. I for one want to do "exactly" as the Lord wills. And I even want to be "right." That is my desire.

Blessings on you.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

His Reply

Hey Bobby,

Again, I appreciate your time in discussing these things. First, I just wanted to note something quickly. And I'm really really really not trying to be argumentative here, but Bobby... You have not answered my question brother!

You said you do not use IM, nor desire to see it. Yes, I understand that and I'm glad to know that seriously. Yet, the question is, would you fellowship a church that has been warned, exhorted, and shown the word of God about unauthorized use of IM? Could you answer this Bobby, or do you feel uncomfortable at this point to give a yes or no in your studies? I think this will be the last time I ask you whether you do or not. I appreciate the fact that your open to discussion... And, for your sake I'll ask one last time! lol...

Secondly, I want to know what you mean by this statement? "And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth (just like I wasn't trying to before). This is simply the WAY I'm understanding you. So please be patient with me. I try to judge righteously, and furthermore as I did before, I will leave it to you to correct...

Is what your saying is that the doctrine of accapella singing could possibly be wrong?

My Reply
... my beloved brother. And that is what you are, in the words of our Restoration forefather Alexander Campbell, even though we may disagree on a point here and there. I will follow the example of the Apostle Paul to the best of my ability. Beloved I have in fact answered your question. I just did not answer in the manner in which you wanted.

Brother when I read over your reply I cannot help the feeling that you continue (to put it tongue in cheek) to observe the Passover on Paul and the Corinthians. You have not so much as written a line to even acknowledge the biblical data that I have shared. I have not asked you a "yes" or "no" question but I have asked a direct one: Where in that literature that has Paul's name on it is there a severing or even the THREAT of severing of fellowship. I want book, chapter and verse. Why is 1 Corinthians 8 simply ignored? If, brother, we respect the authority of the Scripture as we all say we do then it is the Scripture that sets the agenda for what we do. So again show me how I misinterpret chapter 8 or how my overview of the entire Corinthian correspondence is wrong. I want to talk about the Bible. The Bible in context. From that material does Paul give me the authority to with hold that which he granted?? Love and fellowship?

As I stated:

"Paul SOUGHT reasons to maintain fellowship, he did not look for reasons to sever it."

... I do not SEEK reasons to argue with you. I do not SEEK reasons to be disfellowshipped or to disfellowship anyone else. First Corinthians 8 is explicit teaching by Paul, it is not inference, that Paul SOUGHT reasons to maintain love and fellowship with people were not only wrong but they were VERY wrong about something very important.

Now beloved brother the statement you quoted:

"And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

How this could cause anything but pure joy in you is hard for me to grasp. This is the heart and core of the restoration plea itself. All restorationists supposedly give supreme allegiance to Jesus the Messiah and the revelation of his Word. Everything I believe is open to correction by deeper and further understanding of the Word of God. That is the Berean spirit is it not?? Unless we claim the doctrine of Vatican I on papal infallibility for ourselves we always admit the possibility that we are in need of reform, change, growth in truth and righteousness. This attitude permeates the writings of the restoration fathers whether Barton Stone, Alexander Campbell, David Lipscomb or (pick a name) ... We continue to study. We continue to grow. We move closer to the will of God. We test to see if these things are so. We can always be mistaken through blindness or some other factor that we are not even aware of. To me that is the Grand Adventure of discipleship ... every time I open the book I tremble at the Word ... I believe I even sent you a blog about that very notion ... (see the link I have attached). It is an adventure because we are saved by God's amazing loving grace and not correctness. And grace is needed precisely because I have not ... and I submit you have not either ... "arrived."

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

His Reply
Yes I agree to lead you in a study. However, I'm not even sure about the direction to take on this. What I mean is, I think I've encountered some deeper issues than what I even began to be concerned about.

You are right, I have somewhat passed over your comments about 1 Co. 8, and all of 1 Co. for that matter. I do believe that you are misinterpreting much of whats going on in 1 Co. Yet, a larger concern for me at this point is the following comment:

"And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

I believe it violates in every way what the church stands for and what Jesus proclaimed in John 8:32. This statement Bobby reflects the new age denominational thinking of our time, does it not? The idea that we can't come to a full knowledge of the truth, and therefore, you and I will have to "agree to disagree" and go our separate ways. All the while, neither you or I can say "we are THE church." So unless I'm misunderstanding you, I have a deep concern with that comment.

I would be happy to lead a study, but like I said, I don't even know where to start ha. All I know, is that I love to study God's word together. It's not my hope to find fault with anyone, but instead fulfill Christ's prayer that we all be of one mind and come to the unity of the faith.

I'm not sure how everyone feels about the study, and the question I asked that initiated all of this. One thing I do believe strongly, is that we can know the truth, and we must know the truth. To those who have come to a knowledge of the truth, but fallen back or have stubbornly gone in the ways of instrumental music in the church, should be disfellowshipped (2 Jn. 1:9-10).

A good commentary on 1 Co. would be Rev. 2. There is a transitioning time period between sin and disfellowship. What you see in 1 Co. is simply witness to that transitioning time period. Does the Bible not plainly command disfellowship?? To stubbornly ignore Rev. 2 only reveals the bias of a Bible student. 1 Co. 8:8 is simply a good example of that which has no necessity of disfellowship. Why? It in no way leads to sin. How would you ever compare that to false worship, which is blatanly sinful? (Mrk. 7:7).

I hope you don't find my works to harsh. I speak plainly to one who is in the position of teaching and will receive a stricter judgment (Jam. 3).

My Reply
.....,

I am sorry for the delay in my reply to your email several days ago. I am very tired and practically worn out. It has been a very long weekend and very stressful. I ask your indulgence with anything I say that may not be seasoned with the aroma of Christ.

I am simply dismayed that you are in disagreement with the quoted statement ...

"And the standard is not what any one of us believes. The standard is the Word. Any one of us or even all of us may be wrong."

You amazingly claim: "This statement Bobby reflects the new age denominational thinking of our time, does it not?"

How? Where? Why? To keep this on a lighter note as best I can, I want to paraphrase Jesus with tongue in my cheek and a twinkle in my eye so you know I am not being mean: You know neither your heritage nor the New Age Movement!! Here are some initial thoughts flowing from your reply and the thoughts in the paragraph below my quotation of you:

1) the CHURCH is not the authority. this is the bedrock of Roman Catholicism. The "church" does not establish nor dictate what is truth or what is sound doctrine. The "church" SUBMITS to an authority beyond, outside, and over itself.

2) Though the truth has been fully revealed in Jesus of Nazareth there is not one single human being since the Lord Jesus returned to heaven that has fully grasped that entire truth. Did the Apostles? I ask this in sincerity?? I just read through the Gospels and how often does Jesus lament and wail at their dense understanding, their failure to SEE or HEAR or to grasp ... the answer is frequently.

Now Jesus himself was doing the teaching and I do not believe he was inadequate to the task ... but James, Peter, John, etc all are presented as men who follow Jesus but in need of great growth. Is that not how it is with you and me? Can you honestly say ....., at this moment, that you know ALL there is to now? that you {.....} have grasped ALL truth PERFECTLY? Do you claim to be infallible in your interpretation of the Word of God? Are you superior to those who slept with Jesus, walked with Jesus, witnessed the miracles of Jesus, heard his sermons and parables ... THOSE men Jesus would wail "how long must I be with with you before you understand?" I tell you the truth ...., and I mean no disrespect in fact I say this in great love, I do not believe you have arrived!! I do Not believe you have perfect understanding. I dare not make such a claim for myself.

3) The statement that causes you alarm is the heart and soul of the Restoration Movement. If Alexander Campbell was not willing to submit his beliefs to fresh examination there would be no restoration movement. If David Lipscomb was not willing to go back and reexamine things in light of the real authority, Jesus Christ and his Word, where would we be ....? How you have decided this is new age denominational doctrine is beyond my tired mind to grasp.

Moving away from the quoted statement to other matters:

1) I look forward to your study. In fact I invite you to expand the study and show me at the table just where and how I have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians as a whole and chapter 8 in particular. I am not afraid for you to examine it and present it. But beloved brother it will not do for you to simply observe the Passover and then basically offer an opinon that I have misinterpreted that text. I will not accept that. The Word does not exist to confirm our prejudice but to call us to the truth. That is what restoration is all about. So where did I misinterpret 1 Cor? Show me.

2) You say there is a "transition" period. Ok. I will grant you that for the sake of argument. Is that transition period a period of forty years? Please answer the question. You did not find a text anywhere in the Corinthian Correspondence to show that Paul himself disfellowshipped anyone in that congregation ... if you found it you would have supplied it.

I say forty years because you keep appealing to Rev 2 and 2 John 9. The Apostle Paul was beheaded, obviously dead, and buried for almost forty years before either of those two texts were even written!!! Both of those texts are part of the REMOTE context but they do not over rule the IMMEDIATE historical and literary context of Paul and his writings to the Corinthians.

And brother I have not "stubbornly" ignored Revelation 2 or 2 John. I will be happy to have a discussion about either one ... anytime. What has happened beloved brother is you have "stubbornly" ignored 1 Corinthians and Paul's rather explicit teaching and example regarding those folks. I hope I am not impolite here but you yourself stated ...

"You are right, I have somewhat passed over your comments about 1 Co. 8, and all of 1 Co. for that matter"

You have not passed over them ... you have ignored them. You have not offered even a sentence to exegetically refute what I stated about Corinthians. Not one iota. I love you enough to not let you do that. I do not believe I have misinterpreted 1 Corinthians, nor do I think I misconstrued the nature of Paul's rocky relationship with them over that 6 to 7 year period. But beloved brother I am 100% open to being taught by you on this matter. But I reserve the right to question you. ;-)

For you to say that 1 Cor 8 is not about leading someone to sin is most interesting. Paul did not agree apparently ...

"when you thus SIN against the members of the family ..."

isnt that what v. 12 says?? And dear brother WHO is Paul addressing in that verse?? Again look at the "who" in the text from v. 1 to v.13. What did the strong KNOW? What did the weak NOT know? Who was actually sinning? and how? Once again what did those folks not know??

3) Finally. As I stated before Paul SOUGHT reasons to keep and maintain unity and fellowship. I may be misreading you and I pray to God that I am but you seem awfully eager to SEEK reasons to sever it. How this is in accord with Paul's example at Corinth I have no idea. Are we not supposed to make EVERY EFFORT ... I see Paul doing that at Corinth. You want or seem like you want to draw lines over something that not one person at PV wants ... IM.

So I bring this to a close ... I am literally worn out.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read Salvation by Correct Doctrine, Pt 2 HERE
Read Worship Acts & Fellowship - which is Pt 3 HERE

The Aryan Jesus: Reflections Part 2: Give Me Jesus the Jew

2011-12-01T11:32:00.017-07:00

Read The Aryan Jesus Part 1 HERE

As I continue to reflect on Susannah Heschel's important work, The Aryan Jesus, I begin with some ...

Quotable Quotes

"Judaism and Jesus are at completely opposite poles to each other" (Wilhelm Boussett)

"Why can a lovely flower not grow on a heap of dung?" (Friedrich Anderson on why the "Old Testament count not possibly have been the heritage of Jesus")

"There is hardly any fact as certain as the fact that the religion of Jesus could not fasten to any roots within Jewish and Semitic ground. There must have been something in this religion that is related to the free Greek spirit. In a certain sense, Christianity has remained Greek until the present day" (Adolf von Harnack)

The above quotations could be multiplied by hundreds. Though these come from German Protestants the ideology is easily followed throughout the shameful history of Christian antisemitism. What is truly shocking here is that scholars of such caliber as Harnack could hold such a view. Such disparaging views on the Hebrew Scriptures and Jews are not difficult to document even among Restoration Christians.

De-Jew-ing Jesus

De-Jew-ing Jesus has been been a "Christian" pastime for almost as long as there has been Christianity. Among the first were Gentile converts who embraced Docetic Christology by denying the actual enfleshment (Incarnation) in space and time of the Son of God. John inveighs against these misguided disciples in 1-2 John. These were followed by the Gnostics who majored, it seems, in denying the Jewish heritage of Jesus. The infamous "Gospel" of Judas is but just one example. It is ironic that a Jewish scholar feels it necessary to teach Christians about their own faith. A. J. Levine writing about those who have fallen in love with Judas and other Gnostic texts writes "Those who prefer the Gospel of Judas over the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John because they see it as eliminating anti-Jewish views from Christian origins would do well, instead, to see how Jesus fits into his Jewish context, and that includes the notice that Judas does not, in the Gospels, represent 'the Jews.'" [1]

Though Jews have frequently been scapegoats for nearly every ill under the sun throughout the history of European Christianity it has only been in recent centuries that some one actually denied Jesus was a "Jew." The root of the problem, however, is the rich soil of historic antisemitism. In order to de-Jew Jesus however one must first separate him from his Semitic heritage most clearly, but not exclusively, seen in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament.

The modern assault upon the Jewishness of Jesus may be found in Friedrich Delitzsch's famous series of lectures "Babel und Bibel" begun in 1902. For Delitzsch the sabbath had its origin in Babylonian ethics, the Lord's name (YHWH) appeared first in Babylonian texts and biblical monotheism was an expression of a more noble Babylonian ideal. Later Delitzsch, a world renown "Old Testament" scholar, would recommend the first testament being excised from the Christian Bible [2] Writing in The Great Deception (Grosse Tauschung) he opines,

"The so-called "Old Testament" is entirely dispensable for the Christian Church, and thereby also for the Christian family. It would be a great deal better for us to immerse ourselves from time to time in the deep thoughts, which our German intellectual heroes have thought concerning God, eternity, and immortality."

As an aside many modern Evangelicals, and Restorationists, that have never heard of Delitzsch actually are one with him in practice. How many Restorationists carry around only a New Testament? How many go the the Gathering with only the NT? The NT is what "matters." Beloved think about the implications of caring around a "pocket" NT (and possibly the ubiquitous Psalms). This is the practical implementation of Delitzsch point of view ... I counsel against such anemic Marcionite theological practice.

The religion and ethics of the Old Testament are inherently inferior and Jesus could never have been rooted in them. It was obvious to Delitzsch that Jesus was probably of Babylonian (i.e. Aryan) descent because the Assyrians had settled the area of Northern Israel.

Susannah Heschel does not review the scholarship of Delitzsch in The Aryan Jesus but she could have. What she does do in a troubling chapter titled "Inventing the Aryan Jesus" is show how this degraded view of the nature of the Hebrew scriptures, and the Jews of Jesus day, set up the idea that Jesus was basically antisemitic himself! Jesus' theology, spirituality, nor his ethics could be rooted in the Jewish people. The Semitic race was inferior to the Indo-Aryan races in every way. Jesus did not have inferior blood flowing in his veins. Predating Delitzsch slightly, Ernest Renan declared "I am the first to recognize that the Semitic race compared to the Indo-European race represents in reality an inferior composition of human nature" (Heschel, p. 35). Jesus was truly great because he overcame Judaism! So Jesus became a Buddhist, Aryan, a German ... one could say white or American ... anything but Semitic. The German Christian catechism probably says it best

"Who is the enemy of the German essence? The enemy of the German essence is the eternal Jew ... Was Christ a Jew? It is the greatest lie that the Jews have brought into the world, that Jesus is a Jew ... Jesus's life and teaching is a great challenge against the Jewish spirit ... What do we think of the Old Testament?" (Heschel, p. 127).

As I close this section of this blog let me say I believe that much of the so called historical Jesus research is inherently antisemitic. The Criteria of Dissimilarity demands, almost a priori, that Jesus was a freak. Neither making sense in his social context and no connection with the church afterwards. N. T. Wright has commented on the troublesome relationship between the Jesus Seminar style scholarship and German portrayals of Jesus. "Have the New Questers, and the advocates of the Cynic Jesus, come to terms with the politically problematic analogy between themselves and those German scholars who, in the 1920s and 1930s, reduced almost to nil the specific Jewishness of Jesus and his message?" [3]

Jesus' message seems only valid in this line of thought if he is removed from his historical heritage and setting of Judaism, its prophets, its rabbis and its traditions. Jesus can only have a message if he is seen in opposition to the "Old Testament" and Jewish heritage. He certainly could never actually agree with the Jews! But the rejection of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewishness of Jesus leads to horrific results.

Why Does It Matter if Jesus is Jewish?

The God of the Bible has chosen to reveal himself through the history of Israel and in Jesus of Nazareth. The God Jesus reveals is the God that spoke to Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, destroyed Pharaoh, pronounced his Name in the hearing of Moses, heard David's cries, shed tears over the faithlessness of his bride Israel, and was with the people in exilic dark days. The One Jesus called Abba is that God and no other. The connection between Jesus of Nazareth and the history of Israel is inseparable and to attempt to sever them results in heresy. So why does it really matter that Jesus was born a Jew, that he was raised by Jewish parents, that he lived as a Jew, that he worshipped-prayed-studied the Bible as a Jew, that he died as a Jew ... and I submit that he was raised as a Jew.

First it matters because the Incarnation matters. Let's call it the "scandal of particularity." In the NT one of those early heresies was that Christ only seemed to be "human." All of the Gospel accounts torpedo this in their own way but it is the Epistles we call 1-2 John and Hebrews that destroy this notion. Jesus was, and is, a particular human rooted in a particular time and a particular place. To deny his concrete literal human nature is to be an anti-Christ. For the Hebrew Preacher it is not a "divine" Jesus that is the focus at all. Rather only a truly human being could be "our MAN in heaven" ... that is a Priest on our behalf. A non-Jewish Jesus is a non-human Jesus.

Second to separate Jesus from his heritage is to introduce both conflict and categories of thought that simply do not exist for him - thus we distort the message we pretend to honor. Jesus at a most fundamental level is part of a long biblical line of prophets. His teaching no more repudiates previous biblical teaching than Moses, Elijah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah or Jeremiah did. More familiarity with, not simply the words of those prophets but the patterns of thought in those prophets sheds tremendous light on the words and actions of Jesus. Like all prophets before him he engaged in more than simply preaching but in prophetic "drama" or action. When Jesus opened his mouth and spoke the thoughts he expressed were shaped by the words of Scripture, the Jewish rituals he had participated in, and other writings of his heritage like the Apocrypha. He sounded Jewish to his contemporaries. This is so critically important for when Jesus spoke on such things as kingdom or resurrection or faith ... he did not invent words that had no meaning. Without keeping Jesus rooted in his Jewish heritage Gentiles have not infrequently tended to define not only Jesus' teaching but also Paul's in pagan terms!!!

Thirdly it matters because the message of salvation that Jesus embodies is the message that was promised to and through Israel. Luke and Paul stress this repeatedly in various ways but note two examples. At the birth of Jesus Luke has Mary and Zechariah speaking in incredibly rich and very traditional Jewish language. Mary sings, regarding the promised birth of Jesus, that God has finally acted to "help his servant Israel ... according to the promise to our ancestors" (1.53f) and Zechariah uses virtually identical language (1.69-72). The coming of Jesus is not only God helping/saving Israel but of God showing that he is truly a faithful God. He has not abandoned his servant. Paul speaks in almost the same language in Romans 1. Connecting Jesus to David and the "gospel promised previously through the prophets" Paul refuses to separate the Christ from his Jewish roots. And it is that prophetic witness that infuses the Gospel with meaning. That there are new dimensions to the message is a truism but the new dimensions are shaped and rooted in the same Jewish soil.

If one would like to see a radical difference between a Jewish Jesus and a pagan Gnostic view of Jesus and the difference it makes I simply ask my blog readers to take the time to read through the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Judas. Most of our non-Jewish readings are not as blatant but they are nevertheless insidious.

Conclusion

My blog has grown but I could add many many more reasons why it matters that the Son of Man is Jewish. It is often said that Jesus is a man belongs to the world. Perhaps we should say rather that Jesus is the Man who is for the world. One of the most interesting books around is by Jaroslav Pelikan called Jesus Through the Centuries, His Place in the History of Culture. I bring this blog to a close by quoting his words on these lines.

"And the central figure does indeed belong to the people of Israel, but he belongs no less to the church and to the whole world -- precisely because he belongs to the people of Israel.

For the question is easier to ask than to answer, and it is easier to avoid than it is to ask in the first place. But ask it we must:: Would there have been such anti-Semitism, would there have been so many pogroms, would there have been an Auschwitz, if every Christian church and every Christian home had focused its devotion on icons of Mary not only as Mother of God and Queen of Heaven but as the Jewish maiden and the new Miriam, and on icons of Christ not only as Pantocrator but as Rabbi Jeshua bar-Joseph, Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of David, in the context of the history of a suffering Israel and a suffering humanity." [4]

Do not miss the point because of unfamiliar language. That Jesus is Jewish matters if Christianity is going to be ... Christian!

+++++

A note about the picture. This picture is a CGI creation for a BBC program on the "historical" Jesus in the early 2000s. It is based upon forensic and anthropological studies of Galilean Jews from the first century AD. This is far more likely what Jesus "sort of" looked like than anything present in Western art.

NOTES

[1] Amy-Jill Levine, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (HarperOne, 2006), 7-8.

[2] For an insightful overview and critique of Delitzsch's legacy from both a Christian and Jewish perspective see, Bill T. Arnold and David Weisberg, "A Centennial Review of Friedrich Delitzsch's 'Babel und Bibel' Lectures," Journal of Biblical Literature 121 (2002):441-457

[3] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Fortress, 1996), 79, note 233.

[4] Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture (Yale University Press, 1985), 20.

The Aryan Jesus: Reflections Part 1: Give Me the HEBREW Bible

2011-11-10T08:46:00.009-07:00

I recently read Susannah Heschel's The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany. In fact when I finished reading the book I read it again in its entirety and have marked it up pretty well.

Susannah, the daughter of the late Jewish rabbi Abraham J. Heschel, has written a very important volume that American Christians need to read and wrestle with. As I was reading, over and over I found myself distressed by the familiarity of the rhetoric employed by Nazi Christians. The attitudes toward the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, Judaism as a whole and the merging of nationalism/patriotism with "Christianity" are disturbingly common themes in my experience. I plan on doing at least two posts in response to Heschel's Aryan Jesus: one on the OT/Judaism and the other on nationalism.

Early on in Heschel's study of the German Christian sponsored "Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Religious Life" she made this, to me, shocking statement. "In the writings of the Institute's theologians, Nazism became a symbol for Christianity, specifically for the pure and pristine original Christianity that they claimed they were recovering from the distortions of history" (p. 16). It was a "restoration" movement!! In order to restore pure Christianity as these theologians understood it, the eradication of the influence of the Old Testament with its Jewish worldview had to be curtailed. Indeed in order to separate Jesus from the Jewish people it was necessary to to separate him first from the Hebrew Bible. Nazism is, my friends, the end result of rejecting the Old Testament.

The last statement is true. When the church looses the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible it looses its most basic teaching concerning God's relationship to the world and opens the door to the naturalistic understanding of god in Nazi pantheism and much American piety. It is not unusual to hear of people, even conservative Christians, seeking God in the world of nature and supposedly finding him in the beauty of the trees and mountains and to "feel closer to God" in that rustic setting. But it follows, my friends, that if the American countryside "reveals" deity to us in a superior way then it follows that the same is true for the ancient Canaanites or the Nazi's.

If God is accessible through the depths of such experiences to all who have such experiences then there really is no need for the work of God in Jesus Christ. There is no gulf of sin, separating humans from deity that needs to be bridged by the death and resurrection of the Jewish Messiah. The loss of the theological (i.e. doctrinal) content of the Hebrew Scriptures is deadly poison. The New Testament connects (as does the Hebrew Bible) the Redeeming God to the Creator God! Paganism and Gnosticism have gutted that truth upon which every other truth in the Bible is erected upon. The Old Testament is in fact our inoculation against paganism!

Corresponding to the Hebraic doctrine of God in the Old Testament is the doctrine of humanity ... which is essential to biblical faith. When human life is cut loose from its moorings in history and humanity is no longer understood to be a creature WHOLLY dependent on the Creator God then the inevitable temptation is to see ourselves almost as semi-divine. We have an "immortal soul" with a "divine spark" one who claims permanence and absolute rights. Practically speaking this leads to a loss of the New Testament faith itself. Many conservative Christians hold the belief that every person has an immortal soul and after death the soul lives on in communion with deity. Therefore the proclamation of the resurrection of the body is "spiritualized" (paganized) into an affirmation of the immortal nature of humanity. In short the very heart of the New Testament proclamation is simply ... unnecessary! The very nature of "salvation" is redefined.

I am convinced that we need the Hebrew Bible. It is not background to the Christian faith but the very marrow of the faith. I am not suggesting that we do more character studies on a few select people (Joseph and David the good guys and Ruth and Esther the good girls! None of these are presented in Scripture as "examples" btw!). What I mean is sustained engagement from the pulpit in Genesis, the Exodus, the Prophets. What does it mean to speak of "creation" ... and that is not simply a denial of Darwinism. How does Gen 12.1-3 function as a sort of thesis statement for the whole mission of Israel, Jesus and the church? What is the Exodus and how is it a paradigmatic moment of the Gospel of Grace? We need to see in the Story of Israel our own story with God. Thus when I say we need to embrace the OT I do not mean simply making a pious confession that it is inspired rather we need to embrace the OT to understand what it means to be the People of God!We need it to understand GOD

As I pointed out earlier the removal of the Hebrew Scriptures lead to the separating of Jesus from Judaism and seriously distorts what we mean by the word "Christianity." The Institute wanted to "dejudiaze" Christianity ... how do we unknowingly join such an unholy project? Here are some brief reasons that we can work on in our own lives and our congregations.

1) The old canard that the God of the Old Testament is a god of wrath and the god of the New Testament is a god of love. It is not only incorrect but also heretical for Christians to distinguish between the God of Israel and the God of Jesus. There is no personality shift in deity from Malachi to Matthew. Such a belief betrays a serious lack of reading ... and understanding ... of both Testaments.

2) Closely related to the first heresy is the one that is frequently asserted that the Old Testament, or Old Covenant, was a covenant of LAW and the New Testament or New Covenant is of grace. In this scenario the word "law" is basically equivalent to the word "legalism." This one is nearly as hard to grasp as the first heresy. The old covenant contained law but it is not law. Here "law" means what it does in the Hebrew Scriptures: torah. Yet how anyone can read Genesis and think Abraham's relationship with Yahweh is a matter of "law" is difficult to see. Or how Israel's relationship with Yahweh is a matter of "law keeping." The Ten Words/Commandments are not soteric in nature. The Bible calls the Old Covenant a "Covenant of Love" (Deut 7.9, 12, NIV) not law or legalism. There are no legalists in the Hebrew Bible ...

3) Again closely related to the first two heresies is the caricature of the Old Testament as "fleshy" and the New Testament as "spiritual." Of the Old Testament as a matter of externals and the New Testament a matter of the heart. The word "heart" occurs in the "heart of the torah" ... the book of Deuteronomy at least 25x. "And now O Israel what does the LORD your God ask of you ..." the answer is "love him with all your heart." To "serve him with all your heart." In fact Moses calls upon the Israelites, in view of God's incredible grace, to "circumcise your hearts" (Deut 10.16, see 30.6). May these heresies DIE never to be resurrected again.

4) Let me offer a note of observation on the origin of the above three heresies. They arise in most of our churches from a faulty hermeneutical approach. Christians tend to the read the Hebrew Scriptures in the bad manner they read the New Testament Scriptures ... piecemeal!! Reading bits and pieces does an injustice to both. "The Torah" is a nothing less than the STORY of the Creator God becoming the Redeeming God ... of that God bringing his "Adams" back into fellowship with him. Yes, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy can be spliced apart to be individual books. But only in the same sense that the Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and Return of the King are individual books. None are complete without the others because they are all part of the same story. The Torah tells a single unified STORY. A story of intimacy with God in his Temple Garden, to violation of the sanctity of that temple, to the deity in the Temple reaching out to live with his created "Adams" once again. This is the story of Genesis to Deuteronomy! Leviticus is not an end to itself. It functions in the context of the Story. Leviticus is given both chronologically and theologically AFTER the Creator God has become the Redeemer God in the Exodus event.

Jews around the world read the Torah from Genesis to Deuteronomy over and over ... I have never met a Jew that imagined Yahweh was a God of wrath and the covenant was anything but the love of God Exodus comes before Sinai ... just as Calvary comes before Pentecost.

5) My post has grown long so let me wrap this up. The loss of the Old Testament means a loss of what the New Testament actually teaches. The loss of the Old Testament results in gross anti-Semitic characterizations of Jesus own teaching, the Judaism of his day, and even of early Christian history. Elders need to demand, yes DEMAND, solid (and faithful) instruction from the pulpit and other means to protect the church from the kind of paganism, masked in the garb of Christian faith, that results, honestly, in Nazism. Susannah Heschel has published a great book. We in the church who claim to follow the Nazarene need to take the lesson of history to heart and ask just how it all happened. The answers may be a bit disturbing to those of us who were taught all our lives some of the grossest of errors in the name of restoring first century Christianity. But the Bible of the first century church was none other than what became called the Old Testament.

Jesus of Nazareth and his work have meaning, according to the New Testament documents, only in relation to Israel, and unless the modern teacher makes that relation clear, I suggest he cannot preach Jesus Christ as the New Testament writers knew him and understood him.

Shalom,
Bobby V

A Moment for Thought: A Voice from 43 Years Ago

2011-10-20T22:58:00.002-07:00

Yesterday I read a short article by David Reagan in the October 1968 issue of Mission Messenger. It is called "A Moment for Thought" and I would like to share this brief article with you.

"A Moment For Thought" by David R. Reagan

"I recently read about a poll conducted among American Catholics. The most startling revelation of this poll was the fact that more than 60% of American Catholics feel that abstinence from meat on Friday is more important than Jesus' admonition to 'love our neighbor as ourself." [sic].

Rather shocking isn't it? In fact, I would go so far as to say it is downright appalling and pitiful that so many "Christians" could have such a warped concept of what Christianity is all about.

Yet, before we get on our self-righteous high horse and start condemning the 'pagan' Catholics, let's pause for a moment and ask ourselves how members of the Church of Christ - the "New Testament church" - would respond to a similar question. Suppose, for example, that the same pollster were to ask the stalwart members of our brotherhood the question, 'Which is more important, abstention from the use of musical instruments in the worship service or the command of Jesus to 'love your neighbor as yourself"?

I have no doubt our response would be so overwhelmingly in favor of abstinence from musical instruments that we would make the Catholics look wishy washy in their preference for abstinence from meat.

Similarly, I think I know what the response of our brethren would be if the same question were worded differently - "which is more important, regular church attendance, or love of neighbor?" or, "which is of greater importance, the systematic observance of the Lord's Supper upon the first day of the week, or the love of one's fellowman?" Again, I have no doubt that the love of man would finish a poor second among our brethren.

Our explanation of the Catholic response would be the classic one, 'What can you expect from people who never study the Bible, but simply do what the Pope tells them?" How would you explain the fact that we who pride ourselves on our Bible study would agree with the Catholic response?" (Mission Messenger, October 1968, p.158 in volume 9 of the Works of Carl Ketherside).

End of Quote

I am not so sure where we might come down 43 years after this short piece was written. Will we repeat the mantra "but Jesus still told us not to neglect counting the pepper seeds and salt crystals!" But the question is an important one and it will not go away . . . and how we respond says volumes about who we are as the People of God.

One day a scholar in the torah came to Jesus and asked, "which is the greatest commandment of the Law? Jesus replied, 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your mind. And the second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

What if Jesus really meant it?

The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles

2011-10-07T11:40:00.009-07:00

Introduction to the Didache

The early Christian work known as The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles was widely recognized in the early church. It was known to Eusebius, the early historian, who felt it necessary to comment that it was not genuine (Church History 3.25). The Didache, as this work is often referred to today, was lost for centuries to Christians. It was recovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios and published in 1883 [1]. The Didache has provoked an enormous amount of scholarly interest, not only with reference to it the text but to its preservation of traditions from the first century on Christian faith and practice.

The document was not written by the apostles themselves. Rather it seems that the author(s) intention was to give a brief summary of Christian doctrine for new converts and to provide instruction in life. Quasten believes the Didache is the oldest source of ecclesiastical law which we posses [2]. The argument for the Didache being quite early is summarized well by J. B. Lightfoot. He offers four lines of evidence:

1) itinerant prophecy has not yet been totally supplanted by permanent localized ministry
2) the episcopacy is not yet on the horizon [3]
3) the Agape feast appears to be part of the Eucharist
4) the archaic simplicity of its practical suggestions is consistent with the infancy of the church [4]

Schaff believes the document can be dated as early as AD 70 but prefers 90 to 100 [5]. Mitchell has argued that the Didache reflects stages of growth or development. Stage One, chapters 1-6, are the earliest dating as early as AD 50 but no later than AD 70. Stage Two, chapters 7-15, the liturgical section dates from AD 80 to 100. Stage Three, chapter 16, does not receive a date as near as I can tell. The final form for the document, however, is no later that AD 100 [6]. The date proposed by Schaff over a hundred years ago seems to be a near consensus though some scholars, as we noted, argue for a slightly earlier date [7]. Thus apostolic in authorship or not the Didache is a witness to first century Christianity.

Along with the date, the make up of the community that produced the Didache has been of particular interest down through the years. What kind of church or congregation produced and used the Didache? What kind of theological ideas found a home in that congregation? If it is possible to answer these questions then that will help us toward establishing a context from which to understand such important texts as chapter 7 about baptism.

I tend to agree with those that see the Didache as preserving the witness of a congregation that has Jewish roots or perhaps a congregation though non-Jewish has not shunned its Jewish roots yet. To me even a casual reading of Didache 1-5 reveals a group consciousness that has strong Jewish grounding and connections with Judaism. This congregation adheres to the validity of the Torah as interpreted by Jesus - the Law has not been cast off (6.2) [8]. There is abundant evidence even in the New Testament itself of Jews embracing Jesus as the Messiah yet remained culturally Jewish.

The Structure of the Didache

Because the Didache is so ancient, and at the very least preserves first century ideas and practices, it is important to understand the document and its teaching. The document is divided into sixteen short chapters that seem to be divided between preparing a candidate for baptism (ch's 1-10) and then church order material (ch's 11-15)[9]. Chapters 1-6 are dominated by the figure of the "Two Ways." For instance we read,

"Two ways there are, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the Two Ways. Now the Way of Life is this: first, love the God who made you; secondly your neighbor as yourself" (1.1-2)

The description of the Way of Death begins the fifth chapter,

"But the Way of Death is this: first of all it is wicked and altogether accursed: murderers, adulteries, lustful desires, fornications, thefts, idolatries, magical arts, sorceries, robberies, false testimonies, hypocrisy, duplicity, fraud, pride, malice, surliness, covetousness, foul talk, jealousy, rashness, haughtiness, false pretension, the lack of the fear of God" (5.1)[10]

The Two Ways section of the Didache contains little explicit Christian teaching. By that we mean little on the person, work, mission of Jesus the Messiah. Rather it is material that is common moral teaching of both Judaism and Christianity. The Two Ways motif was common in the ancient world being used by Jews, Greeks and Jewish Christians [11]. The Epistle of Barnabas also constructs his understanding of discipleship as "the Way of Light" and the "Way of Darkness" (18.1). In the Didache the Two Ways becomes the basic way of confronting the candidate for baptism with a fundamental choice: which path will he or she follow, baptism is the Way of Life and refusing is the Way of Darkness.

In the "plot" of the Didache, after the candidate is instructed in the Two Ways he or she is presented with baptism as if to say "choose life" (cf. Deut 30.19). Within the pages of the Didache there are only two sacraments attested to, baptism and the Lord's Supper. As Schaff noted a century or so ago the document knows nothing of infant baptism. Indeed the Two Ways militates against it [12]. The "normal" mode of baptism was that of adult believers by immersion in water. However, the Didache did allow for effusion in emergency situations such as water simply not being available [13].

Christology and Baptism in the Didache

Christianity, in the Didache, is a moral and holy life rooted in the teaching of Jesus summed up in the law to love God and our neighbor. The picture is more that of Epistle of James than the book of Romans. Because of its emphasis on holiness and a lack of Christological reflection the Didache has been said to be theologically anemic. Schaff writes "compared with the New Testament, the Didache is very poor and meagre"[14]. Such a judgment seems unfair, however, when individual writings of the NT can be compared with our document itself. At any rate some feel the author does not develop or stress a doctrine of Christ like Paul's then the community did not stress faith IN Jesus. Hartman for example characterizes the community of the Didache as "believers who think of themselves first as Jews, and who perhaps did not yet believe IN Jesus" [15]. George Buchman uses the term "apostolic christology" to describe such a position,

"Jews, like Samaritans, both before and after the time of Christ, believed that Moses was an apostle who mediated between Israelites and their heavenly Father. According to the rabbis, a man's apostle or agent was like himself, not physically but legally. The apostle had the power of attorney and could act in behalf of the one who sent him just as authoritatively as the sender himself. With this understanding, the author of Hebrews called Jesus the high priest and apostle of God (Heb 3.1) ... Apostolic identity which belongs to the sphere of prophets and courts, adequately explains Jesus' identity with God in the NT, and it is quite likely that Jewish-Christians held the same belief. The belief in God as Father who had a human agent, and was manifest through the Holy Spirit, was characteristic of Jewish concepts in pre-Christian times" [16]

The christology of the Didache may be rooted in this perspective on the relationship between Jesus' activity and God's reign. These believers saw in Jesus a signal that God's reign was in fact arriving in both word and deed. In the struggle of Jesus with the evil powers, God fights them and makes the divine power known. Thus Jesus' act of preaching and healing, with the associated demand of repentance, announce the advent of the kingdom. The appropriate response is conversion or faith. That is recognition that in Jesus' ministry God exercised victory over evil. Jesus' way of bring sinners into the kingdom is to pronounce forgiveness. But this forgiveness is understood in eschatological categories: the past reign of Satan was taken away and the arrival of God's presence among his people takes its place [17]. The christology of the community of the Didache might be summarized as a community that sees itself as continuing the preaching ministry of Jesus [18].

But we must be careful of not reading too much in the lack of Christological reflection of the Didache. As Schaff noted silence neither implies opposition nor ignorance [19]. Even Buchanan's "apostolic christology" does not necessarily mean that Jesus was not believed to be more. It seems hard to imagine a mere apostle being put on equal footing with his Sender and being baptized into "the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (5.1) and "those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord" (9.5). Jesus is called the "Son" and "Lord" several times throughout our text implying that this community saw Jesus as something more than just another Moses. In reflecting on the Eucharistic prayers one scholar writes insightfully that the Didache community could have a "demonstrably Christian prayer reenacting the ministry of Jesus ... without any explicit Christological references" [20].

Whatever the actual content of the christological beliefs of the Didache community it is what is omitted about baptism that draws the attention of most scholars. The Pauline doctrine of the sinners immersion into death and burial with Christ (Romans 6.1-11) is never mentioned, just as Didache 9-10 never links the Eucharist to the proclamation of Jesus death (1 Corinthians 11.26). Nothing is said about renouncing Satan and adhering to Christ (though this is surely implied in the teaching on the Two Ways). Nor are any of baptism's theological effects mentioned: forgiveness of sins, membership into one body, bestowal of the Spirit [21]. In short none of the "classic" themes from the New Testamant are explicit in Didache 7.

The Baptismal Liturgy of Didache

"As for baptism baptise this way. Having said all this before hand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. If you do not have running water, however, baptize in another kind of water; if you cannot do so in cold water, then do so in warm water. But if you have neither, pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the person baptizing and the person being baptized -- and others who are able -- fast; tell the one being bapitized to fast one or two days before" (Didache 7).

There can be little doubt, in the opinion of most contemporary scholars, that the material in chapters 1-6 is aimed at catechumens [22]. The Two Ways invite decision: the hearer must decided whether to become a disciple or not. The choice to become a disciple is exercised through baptism in the "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" and seems to mean to an eschatological way of life. The Way of Life means to live as Jesus lived and the Way of Death means judgment and ultimate destruction [23].

In the liturgy of baptism the candidate is required to fast prior to immersion (7.4). It is stated that the baptizer must fast and suggested that the community join the fast. The catechumen seeks to be cleansed from past sins while the community gives support [24]. The "living water" which is the preferred location for baptism in the Didache 7.1 is a Hebraism for fresh, flowing water, from a spring. This seems to reflect traditional Jewish concerns for ritual purity (Lev 14.5ff; 14.50ff also envisions "living water" for ritual purification). The movement in 7.2-3 is from good water for baptism to less suitable water for baptism.

When insufficient water was available for immersion the community allowed pouring over the head three times in the name of the Triune God, apparently with little or no second thoughts. Schaff states that threefold aspersion on the head was the nearest substitute since the head is the chief part of man. "There can be no Baptism without baptizing the head; but there may be valid Baptism without baptizing the rest of the body" [25]. Here in the Didache, at the end of the first century, we have the oldest extent testimony for the validity of baptism by pouring. Schaff, always the ecumenist, states that Christians have a right to infer that at the end of the first century there was no rigid uniformity in regard to the mode of baptism though immersion was the norm. What Schaff does is infer that is this freedom (in exceptional cases) existed in the apostolic period as well. He says, "It cannot be supposed that the Twelve Apostles were less liberal than the writer of the Didache, who wrote as it were in their name" [26]. It remains true, however, that pouring was seen as less desirable than immersion.

The most critical part of the liturgy of baptism in the Didache must be the baptismal formula. Willy Rordorf has argued that the formula actually has three variants with the Didache

7.1c into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
7.3 into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit
9.5 in the name of the Lord

Rordorf believes that 9.5 preserves the most ancient of the formulas reflecting usage in such places as Acts 2.38. The formulas all point to the same reality however, and one should not makes razor sharp distinctions between them.

The formula that is given in 7.1 is is a nearly verbatim reproduction of Matthew 28.19. The wording is identical except the spelling of baptism. Schaff beleived that the author was quoting the Gospel of Matthew [28] and the evidence is, in my opinion, convincing. The question rather is does the formulae tell us anything about the Christology or trinitarian beliefs about the community of believers? Hartman has argued that "into the name (of Jesus, or of the Lord)" may have been "a definition, a phrase which mentioned the fundamental reference of Christian baptism which distinguished it from other rites," a formula which "delimited Christian baptism from that of John" [29]. The formula was not primarily negative however or lacking Christological content. Rather as soon as baptism was performed "into the name of Jesus," it must have been combined with a message, and this message not only continued Jesus own preaching ... but ... was also preached with 'reference to Jesus,' which implies some sort of Christology too" [30]. Though Mitchell rejects this reasoning arguing that such reasoning is not demanded by the Didache, however it fits quite well in my view even if it is not "demanded" [31]. With the added weight of the uses of "Son of God" (9.2-3; 10.1, 3) it seems likely that this body of believers invested baptism with Christological significance: Jesus is God's Son. This theme just did not find development in the Didache.

Baptism and Table Fellowship in the Didache

James D. G. Dunn has argued that Jewish practice regarding table fellowship with gentiles was not uniform during the first century [32]. He makes the case that there were ongoing debates between Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes with regard to the acceptable limits of table fellowship. Pharisaic influence put pressure on devout Jews to observe strict limits in the matter of who ate with whom, since the Pharisees believed that even outside the temple the laws governing ritual purity were obligatory. The Sadducees, on the other hand, held that the laws were not applicable beyond the temple precincts. The Essenes out did even the Pharisees. But for our purposes it is more important to note that the Pharisees believed in degrees of ritual purity in the practice of temple holiness. In practice one with a more strict view could not eat with one with a less strict discipline [33].

For early Jewish Christians from a Pharisaic persuasion would have been concerned about the acceptable limits of table fellowship. In large Diaspora communities like Antioch, Jews and Gentiles would have considerable social contact, especially those who were attracted to the Jewish faith as "God-fearers" [34]. As Dunn writes specifically in regard to table fellowship:

[T]here was a broad range of attachments to Judaism and Jewish ways wherever Diaspora settlements had made any impact on the surrounding community -- from occasional visits to the synagogue, to total commitment apart from circumcision, with such matters as the sabbath and dietary laws being observed in varying degrees in between. Pari passu there would be a broad range of social intercourse between faithful Jew and God-fearing Gentile, with strict Jews avoiding table fellowship as far as possible, and those less scrupulous in matters of tithing and purity willingly extending and accepting invitations to meals where such Gentiles would be present [35].

Willi Rodorf, among others, sees some significance to the fact that it is precisely these concerns about ritual purity with respect to foods (6.3) that surface immediately before the Didache's description of baptism. The significance is heightened because 6.3-7.1 are thought to be a literary unit [36]. In effect what the Didache would be outlining is the minimum conditions and limits of acceptable table fellowship between these Jewish disciples and Gentiles disciples. Mitchell argues that both 6.2 ("the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect, but if you cannot, do what you can") and 6.3 ("bear what you can, but be on guard against food offered to idols") shows the influence of the Pharisaic belief in degrees of ritual purity. The implication for community of the Didache would be that torah observant Jewish Christians should associate only with God-fearing Gentile converts who are willing to maintain at least a minimum of the ritual law. As Mitchell notes this obliterates Paul's egalitarian emphasis that all barriers have been removed by baptism [37]. Not only is the Table fenced but the baptismal pool as well.

Conclusion

Baptism int he Didache is a rite of eschatological import though not devoid of Christological meaning. The theology of being immersed with Christ in death is not explicit. Baptism brings one into the community of faith where God's holy Presence is enjoyed. The community is, seemingly, committed to minimum levels of ritual purity which focuses upon the Table and Baptism. Some scholars argue that the Didache is actually trying to take a middle road between extremes as they were perceived at the time: Refusing to follow the libertine Paul and also the hardliners who have gone back to the synagogue.

NOTES:

[1] Philip Schaff, The Oldest Church Manuel Called the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), 9-10.

[2] Johannes Quasten, Patrology, vol 1: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature (Westminster, Maryland: Newman Press, MCMLXII), 30.

[3] Clayton N. Jefford, "Presbyters in the Community of the Didache," Studia Patristica (1987), p. 126. Jefford's points out that the Didache is a "witness to a ministry in transition" from prophecy to local elders that would later develop into the monarchical bishop.

[4] J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986), 121-122.

[5] Schaff, The Oldest Church Manuel, 119-122.

[6] Nathan Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," in The Didache in Context: Essays on its Text, History, and Transmission, ed. Clayton N. Jefford (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 227-230.

[7] Robert A. Kraft, "Didache," in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2: 197.

[8] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," p. 232.

[9] Quasten, Patrology, 30

[10] Aelred Cody, "The Didache: An English Translation, " The Didache in Context, ed. Clayton N. Jefford, pp. 3-14.

[11] Kurt Niederwimmer, The Didache: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 59-63 for an extended discussion of the adoption of the Two Ways by our author.

[12] Schaff, Church Manual, 22. See also Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 201-206.

[13] Schaff, 31-32, Quasten, Patrology, 31, statest "This is the sole reference from the first or second centuries regarding baptism by effusion."

[14] Schaff, Church Manual, 22.

[15] L. Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus' and Early Christology," Studia theologica 28 (1974), 44.

[16] G. W. Buchanan, "Worship, Feasts and Ceremonies in the Early Jewish-Christian Church," New Testament Studies 26 (1979-80), 280-281.

[17] Hartman, "Baptism," 34.

[18] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 233.

[19] Schaff, Church Manual, 23.

[20] J. W. Riggs, "From Gracious Table to Sacramental Elements: The Tradition History of Didache 9-10," Second Century 4 (1984), 95.

[21] Willy Rodorf, "Baptism According to the Didache," in The Didache in Modern Research, ed. Jonathan A. Draper (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 212-222.

[22] Niederwimmer, Didache: A Commentary, 88.

[23] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 251.

[24] Niederwimmer, Didache: A Commentary, 127.

[25] Schaff, Church Manual, 33.

[26] ibid., 34.

[28] Schaff, Church Manual, 184. There are good reasons to believe the author and community knew the Gospel of Matthew. The Lord's Prayer in ch. 8 is virtually the same as in Matthew 6.9-13 and the logion in 9.5 is verbatim Matthew 7.6. However in each of these cases Niederwimmer consistently has an allergy to allowing the Didache to have knowledge of the canonical Gospel, Didache: A Commentary, pp. 127-127; 135-137; 153.

[29] L. Hartman, "Into the Name of Jesus," New Testament Studies 20 (1974), 440.

[30] Hartman, "Baptism 'Into the Name of Jesus and Early Christology," 36.

[31] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 253.

[32] James D. G. Dunn, "The Incident at Antioch (Gal 2.11-18)," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 18 (1983), 12-25.

[33] ibid., 17.

[34] ibid., 21f.

[35] ibid., 23.

[36] Rordorf, "Baptism according to the Didache," 215f.

[37] Mitchell, "Baptism in the Didache," 239-240.

Communion and Prayer: The Fellowship of the Saints

2011-10-06T21:21:00.007-07:00

Many people in the last decade and a half have felt their lives lacking something of a "spiritual" nature. We went to "church" on a routine basis but that did not seem to fill the void. I was one of those people. My religious background had prepared me quite well for defending some doctrinal propositions and equipped me for fairly good "bible study." Coming from my background, though, I rarely thought of my journey with God in terms of "relationship" but more in ritualistic terms such as "being a member of the Church" (as I used to put it).

One day, it was 1997, a lady in my congregation came to me and asked me to teach her how to pray. This was a most unusual question for me - isn't that a great irony! Up to this point in my journey prayer was simply something I did . . . a command to fulfill. As a result I can testify that my own prayer life was quite superficial. To be honest I was of no help to this dear sister . . . however she caused me some serious angst. I read in Scriptures of God's People having dynamic "relationships" with God. They were quite conscious of his Presence in their lives.

In my own journey I discovered that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit that I had inherited (based on a certain school of philosophy known as Lockean) made "experiencing" the divine Presence a virtual impossibility. But the more I read the scripture the more I realized that something was not right . . . God did want me to experience his gracious Presence.

Through great passages like Exodus 24.1-11 and Ephesians 1 and 3 I came to see that "communion" is one of the central organizing themes of Scripture. God created us for communion (i.e. relationship and intimacy) and God redeemed us to restore the communion (i.e. relationship and intimacy) that had been lost. The Cross was not and is not an "end" but a "means" to the goal . . . that is intimate, rich, deep, restored communion with the Almighty.

Communion though implies "community." Indeed it demands it! Again, through Bible study I have come to a much more dynamic view of God's Family, the church. In fact God's Church/Family is the greatest "thing" on planet Earth. Paul in Eph. 1.18-19 tells us of God's "riches" concentrated among the saints and in 3.14ff he tells us of a family that is in "heaven and on earth." In the past I had pretty much limited God's church (drastically) to a few "sound" Churches of Christ but this passage (others helped) rewrote my entire ecclesiology. God's family was hardly limited to my "local" fellowship but was cosmic in dimension and transcends not only cultural barriers but also the barriers of history. We have fellowship with God's Family, even those who have gone on before. Paul makes it quite clear that it is together (i.e. in communion!) with "all" the saints we experience, know, God's amazing love and Presence. Of course Hebrews 11 and Revelation reflect this deeper and more "mysterious" notion of communion.

Because of my new found respect and appreciation for God's Family, I have determined that they can be a blessing to my life. How? Through prayer. Perhaps one of the biggest changes in my theology is that I now believe in joining the saints in worship . . . especially prayer!

There is an unbelievably rich heritage of prayer among the saints. I began to pray the Psalms in the mid-1990s but now I also incorporate the prayers that many saints have written down through the ages. I join them, I appropriate their words and make them mine. I did not know how to pray on many occasions (through the dark days of my divorce is but one example) and many of these saints . . . nameless ones . . . have providentially given me a treasure of which I can never repay. Now I feel as if I have plugged into the rhythm of grace and flow with the river of the Spirit.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Voices on Female Deacons in the Stone-Campbell Movement

2011-09-29T09:05:00.012-07:00

Possibly the most surprising discovery for contemporary members of Churches of Christ is that many early "restoration" writers took the work of female deacons nearly for granted. They simply assumed that a restoration church true to the New Testament "pattern" would have deaconesses or a female deacons. What follows is simply an anthology of "voices" from the past on the matter of female deacons.

These voices largely focus on the interpretation of two texts, Romans 16.1-2 and 1 Timothy 3.11. This anthology helps raise some thorny questions: How did the current consensus come about? Is the current consensus biblical or traditional? I will provide the name of the writer, the date of the writing and a location so you can read it for yourself should you be so inclined to do so.

Strange Voices ... to Our Ears

Alexander Campbell argued that the NT church had an "office" of deaconess. His understanding is reflected in his translation of Romans 16.1 and 1 Timothy 3.11 in the Living Oracles.

"I commend to you Phebe, our sister, who is a deaconess of the congregation at Cenchrea, that you receive her in the Lord ..." (Rom 16.1, Living Oracles)

"The women [not wives! BV] in like manner, must be grave, not slanderers ..." (1 Tim 3.11 Living Oracles).

In 1835 Campbell wrote, "From Rom 16:1 as well as from 1 Tm 3:11 it appears that females were constituted deaconesses in the primitive church. Duties to females as well as to males demand this" ("Order", MH 1835, p. 507). He would write 18 years later, "The primitive church had also deacons. Such was Phoebe, of Cenchrea" ("Church Organization #2" MH 1853, p. 185). Two more morsels from Campbell,

"Amongst the Greeks who paid so much regard to differences of sex, female deacons or deaconesses, were appointed to visit the sisters" (Restoration of the Ancient Order XIX, Christian Baptist, 1826, p. 4)

"I say it [the church] is an organized body. Its organs are pastors or teachers, deacons and deaconesses; and for foreign missions and influence, evangelists or missionaries" (Organization #3, MH 1853, p. 247)

Robert Richardson, a leading scholar of the movement and biographer of Alexander Campbell, wrote in 1836, "Doubtless showers of mercy and the distributors were deacons, while the deaconesses had for her peculiar department the care of the sick and indigent females and those duties which can be better and more appropriately performed by females" ("Order - No.3," MH [1836], 519).

Walter Scott the great evangelist and inventor of the Five Finger Plan of Salvation wrote in his journal The Evangelist.

"We could name a church in which the sisterhood is in the habit of assembling once a week at the house of the deaconesses to sew and make garments for the poor and needy; but to name the church is wholly unnecessary and it might be improper, as I mention it merely to recommend the charitable custom to the sisters of other churches, that they also may be fruitful in good works and adorn their holy profession by deeds of love and benevolence" ("Letters," Evangelist [1840], 72).

W. K. Pendleton was AC's son in law and professor at Bethany College as well as an editor of the Millennial Harbinger. He was very prominent among "us" in his day. In the following quote note his comments on how the "brethren" regard this ministry of female deacons. Here are two enlightening passages.

"In the discharge of this duty [care of the poor], there would be necessarily arise cases in which men could not with propriety act, especially in a country like the East where the social intercourse between the sexes was restricted by so many forms; and therefore, we find that into this order females introduced evidently by apostolic sanction. Paul ... speaks of Phoebe as a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea; ... and in the Epistle to Timothy 3:11,12, we interpret him as describing their qualifications for office ... It is generally regarded, among our brethren, as an essential element in the restoration of the primitive order, to ordain, in every church, both deacons and deaconesses" ("Discipline, No 5," MH [1848], 292).

"Besides deacons, every church should have deaconesses, whose duty it is to perform such offices as cannot be so well performed by deacons, and especially such to females, as could not with delicacy and propriety be laid upon the deacons" ("Deacons-Should the Church Have Them?" MH [1870], 54).

Robert Milligan was ordained by Thomas Campbell in 1842. He became a professor at Bethany in 1854 and would later become President of Kentucky University. Milligan is remembered for his classic The Scheme of Redemption and his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. He was renowned as a scholar in his day. His voice on female deacons sounds like this

"The Diaconate of the primitive church was not confined to male members. Deaconesses were also appointed to attend to the wants of the sick and the needy, especially to their own sex ... The order was continued, in the Greek church, until the beginning of the thirteenth century, and it is to be regretted that it was ever discontinued in any church. The poor and the needy will always be with us, and will require the attention of both Deacons and Deaconesses just as much did the Churches of Jerusalem, Cenchrea and Ephesus" (Scheme of Redemption, p. 343. The mention of Ephesus indicates Milligan's understanding of 1 Tim 3.11f)

Tolbert Fanning was founding editor of the Gospel Advocate. His stance against the Missionary Society and the introduction of instrumental music played a key role in shaping attitudes throughout Churches of Christ in the 19th century. This giant of the Stone-Campbell Movement addressed the subject of female deacons several times.

"In the primitive churches there were also deaconesses, as Phoebe-the servant-deaconess in Cenchreae" ("Church Officers, No.3: Deacons," GA [1859], 83)

"The Sisters, beyond all question, were as legitimately deacons as the brethren. Paul said, "I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, who is a deacon/servant of the church at Cenchrea.' The Apostle, not only recommended the brethren at Rome to receive her as a deacon of her church as becomes saints, but to "assist her in whatsoever business she had need of them" ... The ministering to the Savior by these Galilean women (Mt 27:55) evinced the strongest faith and an earnestness of life seldom witnessed. They were deacons, or ministers, to Jesus Christ in the most expressive way" ("The Church of Christ in History, No. 8," Religious Historian [December 1873], 357)

Isaac Errett was the inheritor of the mantle of Alexander Campbell and editor of the Christian Standard. In 1873 he had opportunity to address texts in 1 Timothy (5:9ff) in this manner,

"The qualifications evidently point to a ministry involving the exercise of hospitatlity, the are of the afflicted, the training of children, and the instruction of younger women in the duties of life. Taking this as referring to deaconesses - and this seems to us the most reasonable interpretation - the text throws more light ont he duties of their ministry than any other in the New Testament. It does not follow that all deaconesses were necessarily widows but that among the widow supported by the church those possessing qualifications could be profitably employed in this office" ("Deaconesses," CS [7 June 1873], 188)

Moses Lard needs no introduction to those semi-familiar with our history. Lard is the one Campbell picked to defend the Movement against the attacks of Jeremiah Jeter, became editor of Lard's Quarterly, Apostolic Times and his learned Commentary on Romans as well as President of the College of the Bible. In his Commentary, published in 1875, he voices the following exegesis.

"Phoebe was a servant of the church in Cenchrea. This much is actually asserted. Was she appointed to the service by the church, or did she assume it of herself? The question is not material. For whether she assumed the service of her own accord or was appointed to it, she performed it with the Apostle's sanction. This stamps it right ... I am therefore of the opinion that Phoebe was a deaconess in the official sense of that word.

What special duties were of this order of women, it would seem not difficult to conjecture. There work consisted in serving the sisterhood ... In all churches there would be among the females, the poor, the sick, the untaught, the erring, the unfortunate. These would need attentions which no other persons could so delicately and successfully as the deaconesses ... Even in the present day, the deaconess should be re-established. They are often of as much importance to a church as the deacons, if not more." (Commentary on Romans, p. 451)

B. W. Johnson was a professor and author among latter 19th century Stone-Campbell Movement. He taught at Bethany for some time and later moved to Iowa. He was editor of the influential The Evangelist for 45 years. He authored commentaries on the Gospel of John and the Revelation. However, Johnson is best known for his popular The People's New Testament with Notes, vol 1 (1889) and vol 2 (1891). His voice on the lovely lady Phoebe carried this tune,

"I commend unto you Phoebe. Evidently the bearer of the letter [i.e Romans], a sister in Christ. In this list of persons greeted, a number are women, and the greetings show how highly Paul esteemed woman's work in the church. A servant. The word is deacon in the Greek. The world also means "servant" as rendered, but we know that there were deaconesses in the church of the first century, and Paul, in giving her a recommendation, no doubt mentions her office ... She hath been a succourer of many. This would result from her office as a deaconess. Among those ministered two was the apostle himself." (People's New Testament, Vol 2, p. 71)

J. M. Barnes writing in the Gospel Advocate in 1893 reports the findings of his study of 1 Timothy 3:8ff. Please note his comments about elders and deacons wives. In the 20th century many have suggested that Paul really is giving qualifications for both elders and deacons wives. Not so Barnes and most earlier interpreters.

"Was she not a diakonos different from the rank and file? It is obvious ... In this [the Diaconate] there were men and women. Does this surprise you? ... If this does not mean the women were among the deacons what is the apostles' doctrine on the subject? Why does the Holy Spirit give such specific instructions about the wives of deacons and not a word about the wives of elders? Why are the women put in here when wives of deacons are spoken of in the next verse?" ("Deacons," Gospel Advocate [19 January 1893], 43).

I. B. Grubbs, long time Professor at the College of the Bible, published his Commentary on Romans in 1913 (posthumously). The Commentary was noted for its grasp of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith and not by works. He has this to say on Romans 16.1-2 and Phoebe, "She was a deaconess in the church at Cenchrea. Her work seemed to have been that of ministering to the saints whenever they needed help" (Commentary on Romans, p. 174).

C. R. Nichol needs no introduction. A legendary debater, evangelist, and editor were among his many talents. He was a close associate of Foy Wallace, Jr and R. L. Whiteside (co-authoring Sound Doctrine with RLW). His name is synonymous with conservative, even legalistic, Christianity. Nichol, however, undertook the most extensive investigation of anyone, up to that time, in our brotherhood of women and their roles in the Bible. His study resulted in a remarkable and groundbreaking book for 20th century Churches of Christ published in 1938 entitled God's Woman. This book reveals Nichol as one who wrestles with the material and willingly embraces positions that are far from the norm by this time in the 20th century. Based upon his own study of God's word he came to the conclusion that women not only could but DID, pray in the presence of men, that women served as deacons, and that neither 1 Corinthians 14 or 1 Timothy 2 were "unlimited" proscriptions against women but were in context aimed at unruly wives. This book deserves to be digested.

Concluding Thoughts

This brief survey of voices shows that those very names that are so often referred to as "faithful and representative men" not only believed in female deacons but actively called for their restoration. This survey, by its very nature, is by no means exhaustive but it raises a number of questions. And it should generate questions, numerous questions, hard questions ... both about the restoration fathers and about ourselves.

Perhaps the first item we learn from this exercise is that the current "traditional" position is a relatively new comer on the block, and it is a current tradition! Perhaps the next, and most difficult, question has do with the culture issue that is so often thrown around. Why is it that these men, with no pressure from the ERA or the Women's Liberation Movement or Feminism or .. read these texts as they did? The opposite question also comes to mind, why have we so often arrived at a diametrically opposed reading of these texts ... and then we say only those who wish to sell out to culture come do a different conclusion than the now traditional interpretation. However, nearly the entire 19th century restoration tradition at least places a question mark by the now commonly assumed understanding. Perhaps we need to ask the question, "How has our own understanding of these texts been a reaction against certain emphases around us and not from exegesis itself?? Perhaps our "church culture" shifted under the wider world culture ... these questions are fair and worth reflecting upon. It is further worth reflecting upon this strange, and ironic, truth: the only deacon in the entire Bible that we know by name is a woman name Phoebe!

Seeking Asylum in the Savior: A Brief Review

2011-09-15T22:57:00.007-07:00

I recently received a book titled Seeking Asylum in the Savior: The Road to the Cross is not a Cul-De-Sac from its author Steven Clark Goad. I want to begin this brief review by thanking Steven for his kindness for the book and also thank him for helping us to reflect on our Lord in a powerful way.

Seeking Asylum is a work of devotion in more ways than one. The work is devoted to helping Christians focus on Jesus in a more concentrated way and it is also attempting to help disciples become imitators of the one they confess. Steven is a great word smith and he paints some really moving pictures through the book.

Seeking Asylum is divided up into eight chapters: Our Awesome Savior; The Savior Who Blesses; The Savior Who Understands; The Savior Who Weeps; The Savior Who Creates; The Savior Who Smiles; The Savior Who Frowns; and The Savior Who Gives & Forgives. Each of these chapters is made up of short essays that sort of touch on the main theme in that chapter. If you are familiar with Jim McGuiggan's Jesus, Hero of My Soul the pattern is similar.

Some of the images are captivating, Steven has a spiritual gift for story-telling. I love verbal portrait of "my Lord with sawdust in his hair and calluses on his hands" (p. 22). Or picture of getting over our narcissism in "The Church of Goad" (pp. 124-126). Or evangelism as "one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread" (p. 186). Another short chapter that I have already referred to my classes is "What Kind of Church Is This, Anyway?" One of my favs in the book "Is it Ok to Ask Why" (pp. 96-99) is one every parent, Sunday school teacher and preacher needs to drink deeply from ... the Bible is literally filled with the question of "why." Steven is writing healthy stuff here.

I had only one "footnote" I added to the book and it came near the beginning. In an outstanding chapter, "The Power of the Resurrection" (pp. 30-32). Steven writes, "The power of the resurrection testifies that souls are saved!" For the record I am with Steven in calling attention to the fact that the resurrection of Jesus is absolutely central and needs more and more and more emphasis. We need to talk about the resurrection on more than Easter. Yet "salvation" is so often understood in Evangelical circles in terms that flirt with either neo-gnostic or platonic understandings. The resurrection of Jesus is promise from God that my own body will be saved not simply my soul. Paul speaks of "the redemption of our bodies" not the salvation of our souls in a Platonic sense (Romans 8.9-30, esp. v.23) The resurrection of Jesus is God's promise that he has not abandoned creation. Now Steven does not deny any of that. He statement just participates in a way of talking that encourages Christians to believe all that matters to God is something we cannot see ... and of course I know Steven does not believe that.

Overall I think Seeking Asylum in the Savior is a book that can help us do just that. Its memorable pictures and humorous way of commenting on the Christian life will help us steer clear of any journey stopping cul-de-sacs. I suggest the best way to encounter this book is not to simply read it all the way through in one setting. Rather I recommend reading one chapter a day with a friend or spouse and mull over the story. I believe by the end you will indeed find yourself finding a safe place with Jesus on the grand adventure we call discipleship ...

Shalom
Bobby Valentine

When Illusion Crumbles

2011-09-11T17:30:00.002-07:00

This morning is the tenth anniversary of a day that we all recall in shock, disbelief, awe and even hope. It was the day when concrete and steel crumbled. It was the day when terror entered our lives. It was the day when a life of illusion came tumbling down. But it was also a day in which something truly divine took place. While the concrete and steel was on fire we witnessed unbelievable acts of heroism, self-sacrifice and a sense that the world is about more than getting, collecting, and “looking out for number one.”

What about you? What were you doing that morning? I recall that day vividly! I ran up to the school where my wife was teaching sixth grade and we all watched the news together. I recall trying to protect my two little girls from the ugliness of it all. I recall attending a prayer vigil that evening at Southside to pray, cry and heal. I recall the sense of anger, yes anger, that swept over me at the senselessness of it all. Yes I can even feel it still

But a lot has happened in the ten years since “9-11.” New presidents. New Congresses. New lives. People dying. People being born. The question that forces itself upon is “What has changed in our lives since the illusion crumbled?”

September 11 revealed and continues to reveal what really matters in this life. The illusion continues to claim to be real. Put your hope in stocks, bonds, money, … concrete and steel. But we all know that those things simply pale in significance to love, caring for our neighbor, recognizing our sense of togetherness, redeeming the moment we have with our loved ones. September 11 crashed the illusion that we call the shots, that we are in control, and that we determine our own destiny. On that day everyone knew it was time to pray and to lend a helping hand because it truly is not about looking out for ourselves.

On this day in which we will relive those events again lets not forget that life has moved on since then. Ask questions like: how has my life moved from the life of illusion to truly important matters? How has my life become more concerned about helping and sharing and less concerned with concrete and steel? Have we moved from the illusion that we still are in control and embraced true security by leaning on the One truly in control.

My life has changed in drastic ways since September 11, 2001. If you are like me you need constant reminders that the “Gospel of the World” is nothing but pure and even painful illusion. On this day remember the Gospel of Jesus Christ that gives hope, meaning, stability and courage in the face crumbling illusions.

The Greatest Books in Christian History

2011-09-06T21:15:00.029-07:00

I recently read a list of what purported to be the 100 Greatest Christian books ... I was, frankly, surprised by many of the titles that were on the list. Conversely I was shocked by the absence of others. Out of the entire list not a single book dedicated to the "Old Testament" - the ghost of Marcion is still a poltergeist in the Protestant psyche. So I decided to make my own list.

Of course my list will be flawed too. I am sure some will scratch their head over a few selections. Yet what follow here are my selections for the 100 greatest Christian books of all time. I have tried to pick works that have impacted Christian thought and life in important ways ... and also works that have helped shape me personally even though I do not always agree completely with a given book. I would recommend to any Christian looking to build a library that these books deserve a place on their shelf (or kindle) ... but not only the shelf they deserve to be devoured. I have attempted to avoid what C. S. Lewis termed "chronological snobbery" but there may be more modern titles. I will offer an older title and then newer as my approach. I will offer the title with no justification for it.

1) The Apocrypha

2) J. B. Phillips, Your God is too Small

3) The Apostolic Fathers (ed. Michael Holmes)

4) Jacques Ellul, The Meaning of the City

5) Origen, Hexapola - now this work I do not have and does not exist as known today but if it shows up on Google books let me know

6) Martin Luther King, Jr, Letter from a Birmingham Jail

7) Justin, First and Second Apology

8) Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest

9) Irenaeus, Against Heresies

10) Walther Rauschenbusch, Christianity and the Social Crises

11) Tertullian, Apology

12) Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus

13) Eusebius, Church History

14) William Law, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life

15) Augustine, The Confessions

16) Augustine, City of God

17) G. Ernest Wright, God Who Acts

18) Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People

19) Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis

20) Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word of God

21) Jerome, The Vulgate

22) Richard Foster, The Celebration of Discipline

23) Gregory the Great, Pastoral Care

24) Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

25) Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermons on the Song of Songs

26) Jacob Spener, Pia Desideria

27) Thomas a'Kempis, The Imitation of Christ

28) Francis of Assisi, The Writings of Francis of Assisi

29) C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

30) Anselm, Cur Deus Homo

31) Dorothy Sayers, The Mind of the Maker

32) Erasmus, In Praise of Folly

33) Erasmus, Greek New Testament

34) Martin Luther, Selections from His Writings

35) William Tyndale, English New Testament, Old Testament (Pentateuch and Jonah)

36) William Tyndale, The Obedience of a Christian Man

37) N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God

38) Brother Lawrence, The Practice of the Presence of God

39) Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East

40) Teresa of Avila, Interior Castle

41) Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms

42) Thomas Campbell, The Declaration and Address

43) John Foxe, Foxes Book of Martyrs

44) John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament

45) B. F. Westcott & F. J. A. Hort, Greek New Testament

46) Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible's Grand Narrative

47) Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (2 Vols). I know Heschel is a Jewish author but his work still ranks among the richest exposition of the biblical text.

48) Abraham J. Heschel, The Sabbath

49) John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress

50) John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus

51) Ronald M. Hals, Grace and Faith in the Old Testament (one of the finest little gems of a book I've ever read)

52) George Adam Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land

53) Frederick Buechner, Telling the Truth

54) William Wilberforce, Real Christianity

55) C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy

56) Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth

57) Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

58) The Desert Fathers

59) Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World

60) Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses

61) Gordon D. Fee, God's Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul

62) Lancelot Andrewes, Private Devotions

63) F. F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

64) Rudolf Otto, The Idea of the Holy

65) Jonathan Edwards, Religious Affections

66) John Stott, The Cross of Christ

67) Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life

68) Lewis Smedes, The Art of Forgiving

69) Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission

70) Bonaventure, The Life of St. Francis

71) Ray Bakke, The Urban Christian: Effective Ministry in Today's Urban World

72) Willard Harley, His Needs, Her Needs

73) Christopher J. H. Wright, Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament

74) Marva J. Dawn, A Royal 'Waste' of Time: The Splendor of Worshiping God and Being Church for the World

75) Terence Fretheim, The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective

76) Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor

77) F. F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English

78) T. S. Eliot, The Wasteland

79) T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets

80) Henri J. M. Nouwen, The Wounded Healer

81) John Donne, The Holy Sonnets

82) Michael Green, I Believe in the Holy Spirit

83) N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God

84) John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology: Israel's Gospel

85) Gary Chapman, The Five Love Languages

86) Stanley Grenz, Created for Community

87) Malcolm Muggeridge, Jesus Rediscovered

88) C. S. Lewis, A Grief Observed

89) Marvin Wilson, Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith

90) Mark A. Noll, America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln

91) Robert Wolgemuth, She Calls Me Daddy

92) Helmut Thielicke, The Trouble with the Church: A Call to Renewal

93) Dallas Willard, Divine Conspiracy

94) Leonard Sweet, Postmodern Pilgrims

95) R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament

96) Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament

97) Oswald Chambers, The Love of God

98) Richard Lischer, The Company of Preachers: Wisdom on Preaching, Augustine to the Present

99) Philip Yancy, Disappointment with God

100) Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger

There you have it. There are many more good books but these ones made the list today. If these are not the 100 Greatest books in Christian history they are at least one hundred books that have molded and shaped my own thinking and walking in profound ways. If you have not read these books I encourage you to get them and devour them. There is no book on this list I would not gladly read again ... in fact all (save Origen) have been frequented by me over the years. Some I like because I argue with them so much ...

Tolle lege,
Bobby Valentine

A High Touch Church: 20 Random Acts of Grace & Love

2011-08-29T12:53:00.003-07:00

A High-Touch Church in A High-Tech World: 20 Random Acts of Grace and Love

1) Give love and support to a parent of teens
2) Rake a widows rocks
3) Take a single to lunch
4) Offer to keep a young mother’s children for a few hours so she can
have some personal time
5) Write a note of appreciation to an elder, deacon, Bible class teacher, or even the
preacher
6) Make an anonymous gift of $50 to a couple for a date
7) Visit someone in the hospital
8) Invite a visitor to sit with you
9) Invite a family over for snacks and games
10) Volunteer for the Giving Tree or other helping ministries
11) Host a teen event
12) Write a letter to a missionary
13) Pray daily for people in this church by name
14) Never let a visitor go unspoken to
15) Smile instead of frowning
16) Give love to those recovering from substance abuse
17) Offer to tutor a student struggling academically
18) Pick up the phone and call to tell someone that you love and
appreciate them
19) Share a good book with someone
20) Find the good and praise it

It is so incredibly easy to be a well-meaning dragon. It is so easy to tear down but it takes loving maturity to find the good and contribute to the good of the family of God.

"Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of SHALOM will be with you." (Philippians 4.8-9, NRSV)

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

J.W. McGarvey's Evolving Relationship with Mk 16.9-20

2011-08-22T16:06:00.006-07:00

J. W. McGarvey is widely regarded as the greatest scholar produced by the Stone Campbell Movement. As we continue to think about the ancestry and history of the King James Version I thought I would tie Stone Campbell history with that of the KJV. McGarvey was indeed a great scholar and one of his strengths was the ability to let fresh light change his mind on even important subjects. Briefly in this blog I will trace the "evolution" of his views on the ending of the Gospel of Mark. His "conclusion" of the matter in his commentary on Mark dating from 1875 (really became nothing but a point on the timeline), his visitation of the subject again in 1886 and then ten years later in 1896 (2x). Its should be fairly obvious that McGarvey softens and alters his original position in light of further evidence.

1875: Commentary on Matthew and Mark

McGarvey has an extended discussion on the ending of Mark in this commentary. He says "Our final conclusion, is that the passage in question is authentic in all its details, and that there is no reason to doubt that it was written by the same hand which indited [sic] the proceeding [sic] parts of this narrative. The objections which have been raised against it are better calculated to shake our confidence in Biblical Criticism than in the genuineness of this inestimable portion of the word of God." (p. 379).

McGarvey, in his Commentary, had made great efforts to disprove the work of British scholar Henry Alford (The Greek New Testament) who had made -- at the time -- the most persuasive arguments against Mark 16.9-20. At the end of his discussion McGarvey reveals that he had received John W. Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. He cautiously recommends the book to his readers with this interesting caveat that Burgon tends to be "extravagant in many of his expressions, and often extreme in his conclusions." McGarvey’s endorsement of Burgon is hardly the wholesale or “over the top” like some of Burgon’s later fans. We will mention Burgon again below.

Also of interest is this interesting qualification that McGarvey make, especially in light of his rather confident "conclusion." He writes: "The authenticity of the passage being conceded, and the fact being apparent that it was written by some one who possessed of independent and correct sources of information, the question of its genuineness might be waived without detracting from its authority or credibility; for a true piece of history attached to Mark's book is not less valuable or authoritative because some other person than Mark may have been the author of it . . ."

Why make this qualification? Why separate authorship and authority?

1886: Evidences of Christianity

The eleven years after the publication of McGarvey's Commentary, were years filled with significant developments in the field of textual criticism. One of the most important was the publication of the 1881 Revised Version of the Bible and Westcott and Horts Greek New Testament and Introduction with the Appendix of variant readings. McGarvey briefly returned to the issue of the ending of Mark. He says, "The genuineness of these [Mk 16.9-20 & Jn 7.53-8.11] is doubted by some critics, though confidently defended, especially the former, by others. Further investigation will doubtless bring all to the same judgment concerning them" (Evidences, pp. 15-16).

In a lengthy footnote McGarvey pitted Hort's discussion against that of Frederick Scrivener (Introduction to the Critical Study of the New Testament). Scrivener, in McGarvey's view, has provided an "elaborate answer to all the arguments of Dr. Hort.” But McGarvey does not say anywhere where he comes down on the issue. Significantly, I think anyway, McGarvey makes no mention -- at all -- of Burgon's book that also tried to meet the arguments of Hort.

1896: Christian Standard

We are now twenty-one years after McGarvey's Commentary and his original conclusion. In the space of two months McGarvey visited the subject of Mark 16.9-20 two times (in his column "Biblical Criticism"). I quoted one of those in my earlier post that was questioned. By this time much more light had been shed on the subject than was available in 1875, and even in 1886. Significantly, McGarvey defers to Alford's opinion rather than his own (which recall he tried to refute in 1875):

"Yes, the statement is true; and it is true of more verses than the gentleman said; for the last twelve verses are absent from the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., the two oldest now extant, both belonging to the fourth century. They are also absent from some later MSS., and in some others they appear in various forms. The question whether this negative evidence proves that the verses are not genuine, has excited much controversy among textual critics. Some contend that they have been accidentally lost from the few MSS. which have a gap here, while others contend that the original gospel did not contain them. I think the trend of opinion in recent years is in favor of the suggestion first made by Alford -- that the fragment was not originally part of Mark's Gospel but that it is an authentic piece of history appended by a contemporary writer. This would account for its absence from some MSS. and its presence in others." ("An Oft Repeated Question," Christian Standard 32 [1896], p.1239).

Immediately one thinks of the "qualification" McGarvey made originally in 1875 in his Commentary -- the historicity and authorship do not depend on coming from Mark's hand. Why is it that McGarvey does not come out as strong as he did in his Commentary? One can see that he has moved in his position regarding the Ending of Mark.

One month later, McGarvey received a question from C.H. Thompson concerning Mark 16.9-20 and Vaticanus. I will quote his reply:

"The question of the genuineness of these verses is one of the most intricate with which textual critics of the New Testament have to deal. At the close of my commentary on Mark, I attempted to set forth the principal evidence, pro and con, as it was known at the time of publication. Since then new light has been thrown upon the question, and the most elaborate discussion of it, in the light of them recently gained information, can be found in the appendix to the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. I think that, after a candid study of the evidence as a whole, it must be conceded that the question is as yet unsettled. It would be reckless to say that the passage is spurious; and it would be hazardous to affirm that these verses are certainly genuine. At the same time, I think it safe to say, as I did before, that the statements contained in them are authentic, whether written by Mark or appended by another hand." (Ending of Mark, Christian Standard 32 [1896], p. 1367).

This is certainly an "evolved" view from his "conclusion" at the end of his Commentary in 1875. He flatly states the question is unsettled and it is hazardous to affirm them as genuine. He returns to his position -- his "out" -- in his commentary. The information in 16.9-20 is accurate whether written by Mark or not. Why? Because the information is all paralleled in the other Gospels. Please note that Burgon is not even on the radar scope of McGarvey any more. In fact McGarvey says that the best discussion to be found is in Westcott and Hort commending that source. There is clear movement, by McGarvey, away from his confident conclusion of 1875.

One should note that the question has moved considerably since 1896. I would say two thirds of the info now available was not in 1896. The status of the versions has changed drastically since then, Burgon's claims about the Church Fathers has been disproved in study after study. Perhaps we can learn from McGarvey's willingness to amend his conclusion in light of further information.

A McGarvey Appendix from a letter I wrote several years ago:

Greetings Brother ... from the land of beer and cheese. Thank you for the copy of the article by Brother Wayne Jackson in the Carolina Christian about Baptism and Mark 16.9-20. I read the article. . . agreeing with some . . . disagreeing with some. My reply will be simply to a few short footnotes to the article.

Before I give my two footnotes on Jackson's article let me say that we should be able to present a biblically based, Christ-centered theology of both the form and function of baptism without recourse to Mark 16.9-20. Now just in case Brother Jackson sees this I confess that I do believe in baptism and Acts 2.38 (all of it). Now to the footnotes.

First the textual issue regarding Mark 16.9-20. Jackson cites J.W. McGarvey as a defender of the authenticity of the "Long Ending" of Mark. McGarvey's Commentary on Matthew and Mark was published in 1875 (if my memory serves) before the publication of Westcott and Hort's Greek NT. It was before the discovery of the Syriac MSS at St. Cathrine's in the Sinai Desert. It was before the discovery of many other evidences that suggest these verses are not authentic. McGarvey's commentary is about as out of date on textual issues as a book on the Solar System from the same period. That is not a put down just a simple fact.

However, McGarvey was an astute student of textual criticism and his views on the "long ending" of Mark went through considerable evolution after 1875. By 1896, writing in his column in the Christian Standard "Biblical Criticism," he indicates that Mark probably did not write verses 9-20. Today there are few scholars of any kind (including Churches of Christ) that accept the authenticity of these verses. There are actually four endings to this Gospel that are known. I would not base any "doctrine" on this text. We have nothing to fear from this. As Jackson says in his article (when he critiques A.T. Robertson) we should let "grammar" (i.e. the TEXT) determine our theology and not theology the text.

Second, it is most fascinating that Jackson uses McGarvey in the manner he did. Why? Because McGarvey did not believe that baptism (immersion) was absolutely, necessarily, essential to salvation on that glorious day of reckoning. He declared this very clearly in the Gospel Advocate in reaction to some he believed were taking extreme views on the issue,

"Dear Bro.:
Replying to yours of the 15th, I have no doubt there are pious persons who have never been immersed. It would be absurd and ridiculous to deny it in the face of what we see and know of thousands of persons living and dead who have exhibited self-sacrificing love of God and man, which puts to shame all common disciples. I have as little doubt that many unimmersed persons will be saved in the final day. It is not necessary in order to contend for scripture teaching on the subject of baptism to take the ground that God has tied his hands and put it out of his power to grant mercy to any who have been misled in regard to that ordinance. He has bound us, but he has not bound himself; except that he is bound to do what he has promised. He has not bound himself to do no more than he has promised. Don't injure the cause of truth by taking positions which rob God of the power to be merciful.

Yours fraternally,
J.W. McGarvey"

(Gospel Advocate [vol 37 [December 12, 1895], 790).

Now I wonder if McGarvey is one of those "apostate change agents" that Jackson was talking about “brother …” But I think McGarvey has some pretty wise words here. We do not have to become folks who rob God of mercy in order to present the biblical theology of baptism. Baptism is, after all, about God's mercy and grace -- to present it as otherwise is to present an untruth.

__________

Concluding Thoughts

I want to recommend an outstanding resource by my friend Stan Helton. Stan has done a yeoman's task sifting through nearly all the articles published on the textual issue of Mark 16 in the Stone Campbell Movement. See his article "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20" in Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 33-52. I give him credit for first calling my attention to McGarvey's maturing views.

The Crucible of Worship: Reflecting on Psalm 116

2011-08-19T19:59:00.005-07:00

A New Pair of Eyes

When I was 15; something happened that changed my life, I got my first pair of glasses! It was time to go down and get my drivers permit. I was excited and ready to take an exam. I hurriedly filled out the answers to the written test and I blew it away. Then that mean lady, you know her, made me sit down and take an eye exam! I stumbled and fumbled over letters trying to read them to her. I was confident I was not blind and did not need any thing attached to my face. Much to my consternation -- I failed! I had to go down and get glasses! I was shattered. I was humiliated! Here I expected to drive home in our ugly yellow/brown Dodge Cornet Station wagon home but instead I had to go get glasses!

We went down to the eye doctor a couple of days latter and I came away with a brand new pair of glasses. I hated admitting that I couldn't see well enough to drive without them. But when I put them on -- whoa! I could see! Those were leaves on the trees. The clouds were not just huge blobs in the sky, they had shapes and sizes. That night I went out to look at the stars and the night sky looked very different indeed. I could see four times as many stars as before -- so many in fact I lost my bearings and could not find where I wanted to go. I never knew all the good things I was missing out on simply because I didn't have glasses to see. Now I thank God for my glasses.

I have had similar experience in worshiping God. I grew up going to church, every Sunday and Wednesday. But the concept of `praising' God was as nebulous to me as those clouds without my glasses on. The thought of worshiping God, I was as blind to what that meant as I was the night sky which I thought I knew so well! I thought I worshipped the Almighty but I was just mouthing words that I didn't understand, and singing and praying to a God I did not really know!

I remember when I first failed my "praise exam"! I had been going to Bible college for three years so I should have known how to worship -- or so I thought! I baptized a lady and she wanted me to teach her how to praise God. I was dumb-founded! No one had ever asked me a question like that before. Well, just pray and sing . . . "go to church," was what I told her, but I knew that sounded hallow, and realized I myself did not know how to praise my God. I have, btw, failed my praise exam many times since then ...

I thought surely the Bible would tell me how to praise God. But I could find nothing that said: "This is how you are to praise God, here are three steps..." But I started to read the Book of Psalms (Book of Praises in Hebrew) and I discovered that these people knew how to praise God. As I read the book over and over I discovered that praise is not so much a routine or technique we go through but a matter of the heart. Worship, simply put, is a heart expressing love toward God.

Then I did begin to notice a “pattern” of sorts in the Psalms, however. There was not a flag that said here is step one or step two. But over and over certain concepts kept coming to the forefront of the Psalms. I want to share with you what I discovered in the Psalms. I want to share how different my world looked, so different that like the night sky I can say before I did not have the foggiest idea of what was really in the sky. Now God has given me glasses to see and those glasses are called the Book of Psalms. I discovered three basic components of praise in Psalms: 1) it is first a simple acknowledgement of WHO God is; 2) it is acknowledging what God has done; 3) acknowledging what he can do or will do in the present. We will see these themes in Psalm 116.

LIFE'S PAST CRISIS (116: 1-4)

I love the LORD, for he heard my voice; he heard my cry for mercy. Because he turned his ear to me, I will cull on him as long as I live.

The cords of death entangled me, the anguish of the grave came upon me; I was overcome by trouble and sorrow. Then I called an the name of the LORD: `O LORD, save me''

Our unnamed psalmist confesses to what we ourselves often confront -- the harsh realities of life. He describes his situation as being entangled in "cords of death," he was in "anguish of the grave" and "overcome by trouble and sorrow." Does any of that sound familiar? It does to me. I don't know if this person was deathly ill or under severe persecution. Bu whatever it was it was enough to cause anxiety in our psalmist.

The psalmist's exact situation may not be ours but I have been under similar burdens, haven't you? The struggle we all have over a loved ones illness or our own. Maybe financial hard times have come upon you and creditors are breathing dawn your neck terrorizing your existence. Maybe the IRS has decided to do an audit on you or your boss is on your case. Maybe your job is in the balance. Perhaps your family is falling apart. We have all been here with this psalmist.

For the psalmist it was this horrible experience that pushed him to call upon the LORD to act in his behalf. God have mercy on me, you know my situation. You know those seeking my life are liars, please deliver me! Lord you know the troubles in my life so "save me!" It is here that we see principle three in action, praise grows out of the belief that God will ACT on my behalf! I must believe that God is active in the world - without that I will never call on the name of the LORD. That leads us to the second section of this psalm.

GOD'S DEEDS ON BEHALF OF THE PSALMIST (116.5-11)

The LORD is gracious and righteous; our God is full of compassion. The LORD protects the simple hearted when I was in great need, he saved me. Be at rest once more, O my soul, for the LORD has been good to you.

For you, O LORD have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling, that I may walk before the LORD an the land of the living.
I believed; therefore I said, "I am greatly afflicted." And in my dismay I said, "All men are liars.

Before I got my spiritual glasses (which hardly gives me 20-20 vision by the way!) I thought praise was just a matter of singing. Nothing could be further from the truth! Praise is dependent upon knowing God, and not just facts knowing God but knowing him accurately I praise him because I KNOW him. If I do not know him I am just mouthing words that get no higher than the ceiling.

Throughout the whole Bible, but especially in Psalms, God's people come to know him through his actions. Even in the NT when John the Baptist is sitting in prison wondering if he made a mistake about Jesus, he sent his disciples to ask Christ "are you the one?" Jesus did not respond by quoting prophecies or give a list of his divine attributes. The Savior said:

Go back and report to John what you heat, and see: the blind receive sight, the the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised., and the good news is preached to the poor (Mt. 11:4-5).

Jesus wanted John to draw his own conclusions about his messiahship on the basis of what he DID!! Actions speak louder than words we always are told, well God has given us a plethora of action to determine if he is a faithful and trustworthy God. In the Hebrew Scriptures in God says in essence: look at my record, it speaks for itself, now you draw your conclusions about me from that record.

Hebrew saints did just that. Again and again in Psalms believers refer to that marvelous experience of crossing the Reed Sea and they use it as a rallying point of experience to encourage themselves and others -- if God could do that, then surely he can do wonders now in the present!

This is absolutely fundamental to praise. Our psalmist believed God could and would act -- and he did. He KNOWS the Lord because he has experienced the Lord. Yahweh delivered him and he praises him for a concrete personal deliverance. That is the crucible of praise! Listen to the psalmist: "the LORD is gracious and righteous . . . full of compassion. The LORD protects the simple hearted..." The minstrel alludes to Exodus 34.6: Yahweh is gracious. How did the psalmist know that? He knows because he himself has experienced the grace of God first hand: "when I was in need, he saved me!” Praise grows out of that intimate personal knowledge of God. Who has God delivered? ME! Based an the accurate knowledge that God delivers, the psalmist can calm his troubled spirit; "be at rest once more, O my soul" Why, because God has been, active in his life.

Did you notice those extremely significant words in verse 10. "I believed; therefore I said, 'I cam greatly afflicted.” What did the psalmist believe? He believed that God would act. He believed in the God who had proven himself as trustworthy! His faith in God drove him to praise & prayer. This gives us a big clue to the crucible of worship. Worship are a response to the mighty deeds God has worked in the context of our own lives.

How can I put my spiritual glasses on so I can see the mighty acts of God in my life? The best way to do that is to do what the psalmist did -¬ keep a list of victories that God brings. David kept one: he knew how many lions and bears Yahweh had delivered him from so when he met Goliath he knew God would give him the victory. The Israelites praised God for the Exodus and her deliverance; we must acknowledge the Egypts, Babylons and bears that God has defeated in our lives. When you pray, keep a list and date the request, then come back and put the date of the answer. Listen to other Christians prayer requests, ask them about times when there could be no doubt God was watching faithfully over them. When you are troubled and a Scripture suddenly speaks to you -- it seems as if God put it in there just for you -- mark it down in on your list. Your Bible will be knitted together with the threads of your life, they become the fragrance of praise.

HOW CAN I REPAY THE LORD (116.12-19)

How can I repay the LORD for all his goodness to me?

I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD. ? will fulfill my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people.

Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. O LORD, truly I am your servant, the son of your maidservant; you have freed me from my chains"

I will sacrifice a thank offering to you and call on the name of the LORD. I will fulfill my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people, in the courts of the house Of the LORD -- in your midst, O Jerusalem

Praise the LORD."

Once we start seeing the world with our new glasses and we see how gracious our Lord really is toward us, we realize how inadequate any praise from our lips must be. I can never repay the Lord for what he has done in the past nor for what he is doing in the present. The psalmist realizes this. The best he can do is fulfill his vows to the Lord. He will lift up the cup of salvation, which is part of the thanksgiving offering and praise Yahweh as best he can. His true intimate knowledge of God convinces him how inadequate his attempts at praise really are; but it is from his heart and he means every word of praise offered to God. That is why it is a sweet sacrifice to the Lord. The rest of the psalmist's life will be spent in praise to God for what he has done (v.1)

Do we have any vows we need to keep before the gracious God of heaven? You made a vow when you were baptized didn't you? You vowed before heaven that you were making Jesus the Lord of your life! Does that vow need a little attention? I vowed I would give him my heart for allowing his Son to die for me, have I? Am I fulfilling my vows to God? My praise flows out of these. If I am not seeking to honor him, and to know him intimately then how can I really praise him. The words I sing out of the song book are someone else’s praise. They become mine when I can say these words represent the knowledge that God has been active in my own life. It is my praise when I say with our psalmist "how can I repay the LORD ;or his goodness to me?" Before I can say that I must know that he has been very good to me!

CONCLUSION

The daily deliverances in our become the crucible of praise. The little things that happen day in and day out -- keep track of them and praise God for them! Think of the bad times in your life -- did God see you through them? Have you thanked him for his grace in those situations, or did he rescue you and you forget to acknowledge it was He who delivered you? I must confess that I have frequently forgotten . . .

Book of First Maccabees: God's Family of Deliverance

2011-08-15T10:54:00.006-07:00

I continue in this post with our journey through the Ancestry of the King James Version with a look at another of those books in its table of contents that never appeared in a New American Standard or NIV. I hope you enjoy it.

First Maccabees recounts how those doughty defenders of God’s People, Mattathias and his five sons, delivered Israel from Antiochus IV and the “renegade Jews” resulting in political freedom for Israel first time in four centuries. The author, whose name has not been preserved, gives us with a carefully crafted history showing Judas and his brothers to be the divinely appointed agents of salvation for Israel. The ideology of 1 Maccabees would shape Jewish nationalism and messianic hopes for the next three centuries and has tremendous value in understanding the hope of Israel in the time of Jesus. The love and respect for Judas is seen when he passes in these words, “How the mighty is fallen, the savior of Israel!”

Introductory Matters

First Maccabees was written shortly after 134 BC in the Hebrew language. The book, however, survives in Greek, Syriac, Old Latin, Vulgate and Armenian translations. The early church father, Origen, seems to have known the book in its Hebrew version (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical Histories, 6.25) but was known as “The Book of the House of the Hasmoneans” or “The Book of the House of the Princes of God.”

The story of 1 Maccabees divides neatly into three main parts: The Crises and Mattathias response to it (1.1-2.70), the exploits of Judas (3.1-9.22), and the exploits of Jonathan and Simon (9.23-12.53; 13.1-16.24).

Luther on First Maccabees

We have seen that Luther, though rejecting the canonical status of Apocryphal books, held most of these books in very high regard. Likewise, 1 Maccabees was a great book in Luther’s eyes. He translated the book for his German Bible in 1533, here are a few words from his Preface to the First Book of Maccabees:

This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel. For the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy in the chapter, about the abomination and misfortune which was going to befall the people of Israel, is here described – namely, Antiochus Epiphanes – and in much the same way that Daniel [11.29-35] speaks of it . . . This [among other reasons] is why the book is good for us Christians to read and to know. (Luther’s Works, vol. 35,pp. 350-352).

The Crises of the Maccabees

The “crises” of Maccabees was that of Hellenization. God’s People had existed peacefully under other Greek rulers like Alexander and the Ptolemies of Egypt. However, there arose a “sinful root” (1.10) known in 1 Maccabees as Antiochus Epiphanes the ruler of the Seleucid Empire. As the author of 1 Maccabees makes clear the problem is not only Antiochus but renegade Jews who wish to undermine the law of God:

In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us.’ This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil (1.11-15, RSV).

Soon things went from bad to worse. Antiochus invaded Egypt defeating their armies and for good measure decided to “enter the sanctuary” and loot the temple (1.21-24). He soon stationed troops in the city and began a zealous program of converting the Jews to enlightened paganism. He demanded that “alters and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals and to leave their sons uncircumcised” (1.47-48). The Torah was confiscated and burned. In a very moving passage we read about the courageous faith of certain Jewish women,

According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks. But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die. And very great wrath came upon Israel (1.60-64).

The Maccabaean Response

The revolt against the Seleucid king began in a small town named Modein. The king’s representative set up an alter and called the people to come and sacrifice on it. Mattathias’ was encouraged to take the lead in this activity but refused.

Even if all the nations that live under the rule of the king obey him, and have chosen to obey his commandments, everyone of them abandoning the religion of their ancestors, I and my sons and my brothers will continue to live by the covenant of our ancestors (2.19b-20).

However, when a “lawless” Jew stepped forward to comply, Mattathias killed him and the king’s men. The author explicitly links the “burning” zeal of Mattathias to that of Phinehas (2.26, cf. Numbers 25.6-15). Mattathias soon dies and leadership passes to his son Judas.

One of the moving testimonies to the faith of Judas comes in chapter 3 when he has to face the massively superior force of Seron, commander of the Seleucid army. His men are faint with fear. Judas exhorts his troops with a faith building speech,

It is easy for many to be hemmed in by few, for in the sight of Heaven there is no difference between saving by many or by few. It is not on the size of the army that victory depends, but strength comes from Heaven. They come against us in great insolence and lawlessness to destroy us and our wives and our children, and to despoil us; but we fight for our lives and our laws. He himself will crush them before us; as for you, do not be afraid of them. (3.18-22).

The “Abomination of Desolation”

One of the major issues in 1 Maccabees relates to Daniel 11.31. Following the decree of Antiochus a series of provocative acts were made against the faith of Israel: the desecration of the alter of burnt offering outside the temple; the building of alters through-out Judea; the destruction of the books of Torah; and finally, the ultimate, the offering of illegal sacrifice “on the alter which was upon the alter of burnt offering (1.54-59). The dates of the 15th and 25th of Kislev in 168 B.C. are clearly remembered as the ultimate sacrilege.

First Maccabees speaks of the erection of a bdelugma eremoseos, a “desolating sacrilege” or “abomination of desolation” upon the alter of burnt offering (cf. Daniel 11.31 and a variants of the phrase in 8.13; 9.27; 12.11). This phrase is picked up in the New Testament in Mark 13.14 and Matthew 24.15. The question is what does the phrase mean to our author? Most scholars think it refers to a derogatory parody of the Syrian god, Ba’al Samen (“Lord of Heaven”). This god of heaven is then related to Zeus Olympios (cf. 2 Macc. 6.1) in whose name the temple was rededicated. Thus Antiochus wants the Jews to worship an alternative god with unclean sacrifices (for more details see John R. Bartlett, 1 Maccabees in the Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Series, pp. 64-65).

Influence of 1 Maccabees

First Maccabees is an invaluable work for understanding the social situation of Jesus and his early disciples. The Maccabees shaped the political ideology that would fuel messianic movements in Judaism for centuries. The beliefs that God would grant victories in the face of overwhelming odds would motivate all would be liberators of Israel in the Roman period.

The model of a military messiah comes shining through the pages of the NT. For example John and James are portrayed as regarding their association with Jesus as a chance to gain temporal power after a revolution (Mark 10.35-45). The messiah figure of Judas Maccabeus certainly is in their minds. In the trial of Jesus, the Jewish and Roman accusers assume a connection between messianic claims and political subversion. In Acts 1.6 the disciples are still searching for a (seemingly) political restoration of the kingdom of Israel.

First Maccabees equates “zeal for the law” with violent action against renegade or apostate Jews (as well as Gentiles). This notion permeates the Zealots and Sicarii assaults on Jewish collaborators, and it also sheds considerable light on Paul’s own zeal to destroy those whom he imagined to be apostates.

The continuing influence of 1 Maccabees is seen in the celebration of Hanukkah (See Jesus the Jew and Hanukkah). The rabbis were quite familiar with the story of Maccabees and we have seen that Josephus used 1 Maccabees 1-13 in writing his history of the Jews. The book enjoyed popularity in the early church as well. But as we will see 2 Maccabees left a larger impression because of its glorification of martyrdom. The Hebrew Preacher lauds the Maccabees in his Hall of Fame of Faith (See Jewish Traditions in Hebrews 11).

Dust in the Wind: Life in Qohelet's Postmodern World

2011-08-13T10:28:00.006-07:00

Qohelet’s Sonnet: Life in the Postmodern World
Ecc. 3.1-15

Ecclesiastes 3 is probably one of the more famous passages in the Hebrew Bible. Many folks remember either the hippy era (or Forrest Gump) and can sing along with The Byrds, 'Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There is A Season . . .)' The beauty of Qohelet's poetry, however, often obscures for us the irony and sadness he is lamenting.

Unfortunately as moving as the Byrds version is that is not the message of the poem. The poem cannot be divorced from its textual unit which ends at v. 15 not v.8. In my previous study ("A Note on Ecc. 1.13") I pointed out how Qohelet understands that God has given humanity the 'task' (or 'burden' the Hebrew term has a distinctly negative connotation) to explore 'everything.' These two passages are clearly linked because Qohelet again uses 'inyan' in the middle of this unit (3.10).

What Qohelet has now done is turn to the 'burden' or 'task' of the 'proper' or 'fixed' time. This is actually a fairly common concern in ancient wisdom literature (Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek). What follows is an outline of the section, my translation of the text (I finished translating Ecc two days ago and has been a wonderful exercise) and a few notes.

I. The Sonnet (vv. 1-8)

This section, in exquisite poetry, expresses the theme that a 'set' or a 'fixed' time exists for everything under 'heaven' (not the usual 'sun' which occurs 29x [1]). Qohelet is certainly a master poet. He ensnares the reader in the lilting rhythm with the constant use of the infinitive construct and the repetition of 'et' (time) [2]. The lines of poetry pit one 'fixed' thing against its opposite. The message of the poem is bleak for in v.9 Qohelet rather rudely snaps us out of the trance he has placed us in by suddenly bringing us back to 1.3, 'What PROFIT is there . . .?'

II. The Reflection (vv. 9-15)

Verse 9 is, as I said, a rude awakening. Yes there is a 'fixed' time to everything - but for what? What does it 'profit' us that there IS a 'fixed' time when it is beyond human ability to manipulate or control. In the final analysis, argues the Preacher, everything is 'frustrating' and out of the control of humans. Everything in poem must be read in light of the entire context of the unit. In light of his observations the speaker again advocates the simple pleasures of life. But even these not all can enjoy.

III. A Proposed Translation (I am open to suggestions)

'For everything there is a moment,
and a time for every affair under the heavens.
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to uproot what has been
planted.
A time to kill and a time to heal;
a time to tear down and a time to build.
A time to cry and a time to laugh;
a time of mourning and a time of dancing.
A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones;
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.
A time to seek and a time to give up as lost;
a time to keep and a time to throw away.
A time to tear down and a time to sew;
a time to be silent and a time to speak.
A time to love and a time to hate;
a time of war and a time of peace.
What PROFIT do people have from their toils?
I observed the task that God has given to the human race to keep them occupied. He makes everything appropriate in its time. He also places eternity in their hearts. But still, no one can discover what God is doing from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves during their lives. Also everyone who eats, drinks, and enjoys their toil -- that is a gift of God. I know that everything God does lasts forever. Nothing can be added to it or taken from it. God has acted, so that they might fear him. Whatsoever is, already has been. What will be has already been. God makes the same things happen over and over again.'

Exegetical Comments:

Qohelet intends on covering everything -- no exceptions. The second colon makes the first line more specific by stating 'every affair/activity.' There are two 'time' words in v. 1: zeman and het. The second term is repeated throughout the poem.

What follows in the poem is a list of activities that are descriptive rather than prescriptive of what happens under heaven. After all, it would be hard to say that there is a 'good' time to be born, to die, or to lose something.

Verses 2-8 contain fourteen pairs of contrasting opposites. The citing of opposites in this way is known as merism, a fairly common pattern in Hebrew poetry.

Verse 9 is critical. The poem has now ended and the Preacher reflects on these set times. The point of the poem is that God has established periods of time for a wide array of emotions and activities. Is the world then not wonderfully ordered and a varied place of joy??

Qohelet responds in the negative: 'What profit do men have from their toils?' By means of this rhetorical question (the identical question is in 1.3 showing its negative content) the Teacher states that there is no purpose to doing anything in this fallen, absurd, world. His reasoning for that evaluation follows in vv. 10-15.

Verse 10 develops the thought of v.9. God has given mankind tasks to keep him busy (and Qoheleth will share even more 'depressing' observations on that in v.11). Verse 10 repeats and sharpens 1.13-14. The 'task' or 'burden' that God has laid on Qohelet is 'evil.'

Verse 11 must be understood in the context of Ecclesiastes or we are sure to import meanings that are not in the book. Taken apart from its context this is one of the most inspiring sentences in the Bible (Don Richardson has built an entire book on this one verse!!). Flowing from the poem in vv. 1-8 this verse says that God has made everything appropriate in its time. Indeed, if this statement had occurred IMMEDIATELY after the poem, it would give us a positive perspective on the first eight verses.

The following line notes that God has place 'eternity' in the human heart. Since eternity is a divine attribute and since its counterpart, mortality, is dreaded, one would think Qohelet would be pleased with this truth.

However the context clearly shows otherwise. Qohelet is not happy as a result of his observations about God's workings in the world and in the human heart -- the verse is yet another cry of frustration on Qohelet's part. He goes on in the last part of the verse to complain that God has kept his human creatures from knowing (or understanding) what is going on in his creation. It is almost as if God is baiting with his creatures, giving them a desire for something that is beyond their reach/ability.

More reflections on 'eternity.'

In the second sentence of v.11 God has placed eternity in our hearts according to the Teacher. I have done some more research on this part of the text and found their are four main interpretations of 'olam' that are summarized by James Crenshaw [3]:

1) eternity
2) world
3) course of the world
4) knowledge or ignorance

Each of these possibilities has both ancient and modern proponents. The most likely ones are 1 and 4. Rendering 'olam' as 'ignorance' has received some scholarly blood transfusions through the discovery of the Ugaritic texts at Ras Shamra where the Hebrew root and the Ugaritic root are related. But still the preponderance of evidence suggests that 'eternity' is the best translation -- we just need not import post-NT understandings of that into Qohelet.

Thus I understand v. 11 to be saying that God has placed within man a deep seated desire to -- a compulsion -- to know the meaning of the world (the 'burden'), its purpose and destiny. But Qohelet's 'drive to know' leads him to frustration not satisfaction or rest. So if I can paraphrase it is as if he is saying: 'There may indeed be appropriate times for everything, and God does know these times, but, speaking of humans, NO ONE CAN DISCOVER WHAT GOD IS DOING.' There is nothing 'from beginning to end' that humans can truly fathom.'

Verses 12 -15 form the conclusion. Qohelet affirms that we need to get on with life. Enjoy what we have -- as best we can.

Concluding remarks

In vv. 1-15 Qohelet acknowledges the order he sees in God's universe. There are proper times and seasons -- set by God. Nonetheless, since humans cannot know these times, the result is frustration. In the light of humanity's inability to discover the larger picture or significance of God's creation, Qohelet advocates settling for the lesser pleasures of life.

However, not everyone can avail themselves of these diversions -- only those whom God so blesses. The implication is that other people, including Qohelet himself, must struggle with depressing reality.

Again I call attention to the thought parallel with Paul in Romans 8. 18-21 and Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus.

Notes:

[1] the phrase 'under the sun' is unique to Qohelet in the Hebrew Bible appearing nowhere else. It does occur in extrabiblical Hebrew (of a much later date than Solomon interestingly enough -- another clue). The places the phrase occurs in Ecc. are 1.3, 9; 2.11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22; 3.16; 4.1, 3, 7, 15; 5.13, 18 [English text 5.14, 19]; 6.1, 12; 7.11; 8.9, 15[2x], 17; 9.3, 6, 9[2x], 11, 13; 10.5.

[2] This repetition is known as 'Anaphora.'

[3] James Crenshaw, 'The Eternal Gospel (Ecc. 3:11),' in Essays in Old Testament Ethics (New York, 1974), pp. 40ff.

Dust In the Wind: Qohelet's Protest against "Solomon"

2011-08-12T09:20:00.005-07:00

Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books in the Bible. It is one of the strangest books in the Bible too. Its real messages tends to be neutered among Christians. This is my second short reflection on this amazingly profound piece of biblical protest literature.

I have been asked about my KJV series ... yes there is more to come!

Who wrote Ecclesiastes?

It is important to note that that this is a separate question from who is Qohelet. Qohelet is the person who speaks through most of the book - the preacher. But the book was not written by Qohelet. There is the voice of the narrator that opens in the Prologue and reappears in the Epilogue to the book - clearly not the same person as Qohelet -- even in English. This question is also not a question about inspiration.

Even the most conservative scholars have long argued against the position that
Solomon was either the author or Qohelet -- I have come to accept this position for a number of reasons to be listed below. E. J. Young, probably the most conservative OT scholar of the last century even denied Solomon was the author of this book. There is in fact nothing in the book to support the notion that Solomon was author of the book.

1) Ecclesiastes 1.12 (Qohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem).

It is striking that the past tense is used here. Its use is a claim that there was a time when Solomon was alive but was no longer king (if we were to understand Qohelet as Solomon). Indeed the ancient Targum understands it this way and creates a legend that Solomon abdicated his throne in his old age. The historical books (Kings and Chronicles) however not only do not mention such a thing, but do not allow such a period in Solomon's life. According to 1 kings 11, Solomon died WHILE STILL king of Israel.

2) Ecclesiastes 1.16a (I said to myself, 'I have surpassed in wisdom everyone who ruled Jerusalem before me . . .")

This sounds very strange on Solomon's lips. Qohelet claims more wisdom than all the rulers in Jerusalem that proceeded him, but only David was ruler in Jerusalem before him. Unless one wishes to postulate that these included the pagan rulers of Jebus before it was Jerusalem.

3) The use of the image of "king"

I have concluded is a literary device used by Qohelet. That Qohelet is not really a king, or was a king, becomes evident when careful readers notice that the association between Qohelet and "king" lasts only through the first 3 chapters of the book, after which nothing is made of it. In fact when the kingship comes up later in the book there is a large gap between the speaker and the institution. For example:

Ecclesiastes 4.1-3 "I turned and observed all the oppression that is done under the sun, and Oh, the tears of the oppressed!! There is no one to comfort them. Power is in the grasp of the oppressors. There is no one to comfort them. So I praised the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still alive. But better than both of these is the one who does not yet exist. That one has not seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."

How could Solomon write these verses? He was the mightiest ruler of the land. He could easily have done something more than bemoan the plight of the oppressed -- as king that was his sworn duty. He was sworn to protect the oppressed. Note what Psalm 72 says (it is attributed to Solomon in the heading:

"He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor . . .

For he will deliver the needy who cry out,
the afflicted who have no one to help.
He will take pity on the weak and the needy
and save the needy from death.
He will rescue them from oppression and violence
for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalm 72. 4, 12-14a).

Indeed from Kings we know that Solomon himself rather than bemoan the plight of the poor was in fact the oppressor. He created heavy burdens for his people, something that continued until the end of his reign as we know from the dialogue between the people of Israel and Rehoboam (1 Kings 12, esp. v.4).

4) Ecclesiastes 5.7-8 [English text 5.8-9] "If you see oppression of the poor and deprivation of justice and righteousness in the province, do not be surprised concerning the situation. For one official looks out for the other, and there are officials over them. The profit of the land is taken by all; even the king benefits from the field."

As before this seems like an impossible statement coming from Solomon. It is rather a PROTEST against the establishment, against the king, not by the king. Solomon, I doubt, would have so written about himself. And the comments under #3 apply here as well. The internal clues point to a person who was anything but the king.

From a stand point of the language of the text one can only comment that the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes is not like that of any other book in the Hebrew Bible. As one scholar once noted "if Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language" (Franz Delitzsch). The Hebrew of Ecc is more like what one finds in the Mishnah than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. That strongly suggests that the book originates probably in the 3rd or 4th century B.C.E. rather than the 10th. Who wrote Ecclesiastes? A man known to us simply as the "Teacher" or "Preacher" whose confessions or observations were brought together by one of his students. Only in heaven will we learn of their real names. The names are unimportant however because the teaching is truly profound.

Dust in the Wind: Ecc 1.13

2011-08-11T11:39:00.006-07:00

NOTES and TRANSLATION OF ECCLESIASTES. 1.13

"I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!" (NIV).

The above translation offered by the NIV is just adequate to leave us hanging. I propose to make a short analysis of the Hebrew text and offer a tentative translation.

After introducing himself in v.12, Qohelet (the Preacher) records his exhaustive search and his "depressing" conclusion on the matter.

Outline of Text:

I. First Reflection vv. 13-15
A. Statement of "absurdity" of pursuing wisdom vv. 13-14
B. A proverb quoted, ironically, to support the absurdity v. 15
II. Second Reflection vv. 16-18
A. Statement of the "absurdity" of pursuing wisdom vv. 16-17
B. A proverb quoted, ironically, to support the position v. 18

A Note on translating "Hebel"

The word "hebel" occurs like a dripping water faucet throughout the text of Ecc. (32x in the Hebrew text). It is not simply "vanity" or "meaningless" in its various meanings for Qohelet. Rather "hebel" like "absurd" for Camus is oppressive and tragic [1]. In other texts in the Hebrew Bible the term is parallel with such words as kazab, seqer, awen, and ma'al which are usually translated as "deceit" or "lie" (cf. Zechariah 10.2; Psalm 62.10 and Job 21.34 as examples). Because the actions of people "under the sun" and the results of those actions are often so divorced in terms of outcome -- "hebel" is itself an injustice. I think the English word "absurd" captures Qohelet's meaning far more than the NIV's "meaningless."

With that background look at 1.13. This is how I render the verse:

"I devoted myself to search and to explore wisely [2] all that is done under heaven. It is an evil task that God has given to the human race to keep them occupied."

At the beginning of the unit (vv. 13-18, see outline) the Preacher informs us of his task, as given by God -- and his negative evaluation on it. The scope of his wise explorations was extensive -- "all that is done under heaven."

What is, perhaps, missed in the English versions is Qohelet's negative evaluation here in v. 13 that anticipates his conclusion in v. 17 that "wisdom" is nothing but "re 'ut ruah" -- "chasing after the wind." The Teacher uses the noun "inyan" ("task" or "burden") which only occurs in the book of Ecclesiastes in the Hebrew Bible. The mood of this negative word is retained elsewhere in the book (cf. 3.10). "inyan" is modified by the word adjective "ra" usually has moral overtones in the Hebrew Bible and is frequently translated as "evil." God's task given to Qohelet is seen as "evil" because of what he has learned -- it is all "absurd." Including wisdom.

In his conclusion to this teaching we see the Preacher's post exploration attitude -- not the beginning. It is only after he has exhaustively and wisely explored that he decides that the task was "inyan ra" an evil task.

Here we see some of the diversity in the Biblical canon. In Proverbs Wisdom brings joy and life. Qohelet begs, kindly, to differ. Wisdom rather than solving the issue of justice simply has allowed the Preacher to see it. Wisdom has brought frustration, pain and absurdity because the world is unjust. At the end of the journey of exploration Qohelet places "wisdom" and "folly" squarely on the same foot in sharp contrast with Proverbs. (read through Ecc with an eye on the issue of fairness and justice -- the theme is frequent).

It has occured to me in the last few days while reading Ecclesiastes through a couple of times that it provides a nice commentary on the world described by Paul in Romans 8.18-21. Though there is no direct quote of Ecc in this text, it is noteworthy that Paul uses the term "mataiotes" ("frustration," 8.20) which is the exact word the LXX (Septuagint) uses to translate "hebel" in Qohelet. In all his wisdom the Preacher sees the world as it really is in the present age -- UNREDEEMED!!

I hope to explore this "insight" somewhat further -- later. Again these are my "thoughts" generated by sustained reflection and study of the book but they are not set in stone by any means.

Notes:

[1] Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, provides many interesting points of dialogue with Qohelet. There are many differences between these two but there are remarkable parallels as well.

[2] Bruce Waltke and M. O'Conner, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 196-97 describes the preposition "beth" as a "beth comitantiae-mental." That simply means the prep is to be rendered as an adverb.

Reviews of the NIV 2011 ...

2011-08-10T13:26:00.007-07:00

Here are a few links to Daniel Wallace's four part review of the NIV 2011

Daniel Wallace is an outstanding New Testament scholar and expert in textual criticism. His book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament is within easy reach all who work with the Greek text. His review of the NIV 2011 is fair and balanced (truly so). Far too often nothing short of a "hatchet job" is paraded around as a "review" ... I have no hesitation in recommending these posts.

Review of the NIV 2011 Part One

Review of NIV 2011 Part Two

Review of NIV 2011 Part Three

Review of NIV 2011 Part Four

Ben Witherington III is one of my favorite churchmen/scholars. His works have brought the modern reader to the streets of the first century in his commentaries such as Conflict & Communinty: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Corinthians. He is a believer and a scholar and his commitment to the word is great indeed. Here is his review:

The NIV 2011 and Inclusive Language

For a deeper but still succinct introduction to the "Gender-Inclusive" controversy there is no better work than Donald Carson's The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. This small book is the best book around on the matter.

Rodney Decker has given by far the most extensive review of the NIV 2011 focusing only on the New Testament. The review is about 50 pages long and I read through it this afternoon. Decker give us substance and material to reflect upon. It is worthy of our attention. This is a downloadable PDF file ...

Decker's Review of the NIV 2011

"Sound Doctrine," "Pattern," "Timothy:" Reflections on Restoration Hermeneutics #2

2011-08-07T21:51:00.007-07:00

Part one of "Sound Doctrine" & "Patternism" can be read HERE

The Problem of NOT Distinguishing Doctrine & Good News/Gospel

It should come as no surprise that Paul roots "healthy" (i.e. sound) teaching in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One proceeds out of the other. For Paul, it seems, everything that can claim to be uniquely Christian is Christocentric. Scripture itself, Paul says, is ultimately Christ-centered for its function is to makes us wise unto salvation by focusing our faith onto the Christ (2 Tim 3.15)[1]. Bernard Ramm in his semi-classic work The Pattern of Authority said it nicely,

"Christ is the supreme object of the witness of the Spirit, and Christ is the supreme content of the Scriptures. The Spirit who bears his chief witness to Christ also inspired the Scripture. The Scriptures are inspired of the Spirit and they witness supremely to Christ, the personal Word of God. Such is the pattern of authority." [2]

Yet the Stone Campbell Movement has not been Christologically focused but rather ecclesiologically focused. We use the Pauline language of "sound/healthy doctrine" to refer to dogma about baptism, the Lord's Supper, instrumental music, elders, deacons, role of women, etc, etc. However we never use "sound/healthy doctrine" to refer to having a gentle spirit, loving our enemies, commitment to the unity of the body or being joyful in the Spirt. We have turned Paul's language quite literally on its head and used post-biblical notions of dogma to make "sound doctrine" mean everything but what it actually means in the "Pastorals." Even more we have often made our notion of dogma (our redefined "sound doctrine") equivalent to Gospel itself. The Gospel is just another doctrine instead of being that which healthy teaching is built upon and in accordance with!!!

The Eclipse of Christ

When the Bible (or the New Testament) becomes the pattern, Christ's supremacy is eclipsed. When Christ is eclipsed Christianity is perverted into what some Pharisees had made the Law of Moses-a perversion, a mere caricature of the Word. It becomes a religion based upon human performance rather than the achievement of the Cross of Christ.

Many have noticed the confusion that results when the Bible replaces Christ as the pattern under the reign of God. J. D. Thomas himself argues that the controversy over hermeneutics is ultimately the outgrowth of the "Man or the Plan" controversy.[3] Thomas admits that most of our problems in Churches of Christ stem not from hermeneutics per se but from legalistic tendencies.[4] I would argue that the hermeneutic drives the legalistic confusion. Thomas singles out as "major doctrinal" weaknesses as our failure to understand the Gospel of Christ Crucified and the work of the Holy Spirit.[5] Thomas is hardly a "new hermeneutic" advocate, yet he is perceptive and open enough to see that "Back to the Bible" movements have often let their allegiance to the written word eclipse the Living Word with their own agenda. Don't misread me here ... we are committed to the written word but the written word is NOT an end or the end ... the written word is a vehicle, a sacrament if you will to come to the Living Word - Jesus the Messiah.

In our own Stone-Campbell Movement the process of moving the focus of our faith from the Living Word and Pattern life under the reign of God has been gradual but steady. It did not happen overnight. The movement has almost always come as a result of some conflict in our history. One of the earliest prophets came from the Founding Generation itself: Robert Richardson. After a series of conflicts in the late 1830s that resulted in the production of lists (for the first time!) of marks for the "one true church," Richardson believed many had fixated on upon the Bible and not the Gospel. He said it is true to say the Bible is our religion in that it contains Christianity but it also contains Judaism. He pointed out the lack of clarity in our thinking that sometimes resulted in unhealthy teaching and even sicker division ...

"men seem to have lost the obvious distinction between the Bible and the Gospel ... it should never be forgotten that the Apostles and the first preachers of the gospel had no Bibles or New Testaments to distribute."

The preaching of the gospel was around long before there were New Testaments. The Bible is our spiritual library but the "Gospel" is our "standard of orthodoxy."[6]

A couple generations later two writers called attention to our confusion in our preaching over the Gospel and "healthy" teaching. K. C. Moser and G.C. Brewer questioned if we were truly preaching gospel sermons. Brewer wrote in the publication, Gospel Advocate, he feared (along with Moser) that "we" were putting to much emphasis on a "plan" or conditions of salvation which made our preaching biblically "off key."[7] Brewer would return to this theme throughout his career. He voiced his concern that a plan/pattern replaces Christ as Savior. In response to a question about the role of confession in the "plan of salvation" he said quite pointedly,

"to put stress upon a PLAN and specific items and steps of that PLAN may lead to a wrong conclusion. We are saved by a PERSON not by a plan; we are saved by a Savior, not by a ceremony ... our faith is in Christ not FAITH IN A PLAN."

Brewer goes on to say that trusting in a plan is to build according to a "blueprint" but we don't build according to a blueprint (i.e. pattern) but faith in Christ the Savior.[8] Just before he died Brewer was even more blatant stating flatly,

"I have frequently said that we sing a much better gospel than we preach. I believe with all my heart that this is true. Too many of us do not preach Christianity; we preach "Churchanity." Too many of us instead of preaching Christ preach a creed."[9]

The institutional controversy, which tore the bonds of fellowship over matters not remotely related to Paul's use of the phrase "sound doctrine," is a sad commentary on the truth of Richardson's and Brewer's observation: Christ had been eclipsed by "Churchanity!" This sad affair was, and is, only possible when we change the biblical meaning of the phrase "sound teaching/healthy doctrine" in Timothy and Titus to mean everything but behavior among brothers and sisters in the family of God.

Our hermeneutic has been flawed precisely because it has not been Christocentric. It has been church-centric. If it had been rooted first in the Living Word we would never have been confused over Gospel and "Sound Doctrine." One of the clearest examples of the eclipse of Christ through all of this is the classic series of books by R. L. Whiteside and C. R. Nichol entitled, ironically, Sound Doctrine. Through four books co-authored and the last by Nichol alone, there is not a single chapter on Jesus!! Jesus is confined to a short paragraph under the heading of "Creation" in Sound Doctrine, vol 1, pp. 22-23! Had our hermeneutic been more Christocentric we just might have had more Spirit-filled Christians in our pews and the shalom that marks His presence.

Sound Teaching

"But do you inculcate the things which become wholesome doctrine: that aged men be vigilant, grave prudent, healthy by faith love, patience. That aged women, in like manner, be in deportment as becomes sacred persons--not slanderers, not enslaved to much wine, good teachers ... (Titus 2.1ff, Living Oracles)

The Jerusalem Bible renders: "It is for you, then to preach the BEHAVIOR which goes with healthy doctrine ... (Titus 2.1)

Paul told Timothy to keep the "pattern of healthy teaching." That teaching is moral instruction rooted in and springs from the redemption we have received through the Crucified One. True healthy/sound doctrine is not a legal code of dogmas on various contemporary issues. "Wholesome doctrine" is instruction that leads to a life conformed to the image of Jesus by the power of the Spirit as we live under the reign of God. Paul, it seems, could not be clearer in what he means!

One writer on the subject of the Bible's authority and role very insightfully

"we would understand much more about the authority of the Bible if we paid more attention to its function in ordering the moral life--forming character and guiding conduct--rather than attempting to derive abstract and intellectual theological systems from it."[10]

The Bible must be allowed to function in the capacity that God gave it. We cannot respect God or his word by artificially forcing words or phrases into some preconceived pattern. Exegesis, not current controversy, defines what Paul meant in the first century by "sound teaching/doctrine." That teaching had everything to do with the life of the community together, its peace, its harmony, it holiness and nothing to do with later dogmas formed in the heat of religious debate. Scripture reveals the ONE who is the paradigm for sound living under the reign of God: Jesus the Christ. Good, sound, healthy, biblical doctrine is teaching that is first rooted in the Gospel of Christ Crucified and second moves us to be transformed into the image (the pattern!) of Him who saves by his blood, Jesus.

Notes:

[1] Notes Jesus' own testimony in John 5.39-40.

[2] Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 37

[3] J. D. Thomas, Harmonizing Hermeneutics: Applying the Bible to Contemporary Life (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1991), 95.

[4] Thomas speaks of the "legalistic mindset" ibid., pp. 82-84. He also dedicates considerable space on legalism in We Be Brethren, all of Chapters 9, 10, and half of 20 are devoted to this theme.

[5] Thomas, Harmonizing Hermeneutics, 89

[6] Robert Richardson, "Reformation, IV" Millennial Harbinger (September 1847), 508.

[7] G. C. Brewer, "Are We Preaching the Gospel?" Gospel Advocate (26 August 1937), 798.

[8] G. C. Brewer, Autobiography (Murfreesboro, TN, Dehoff Publications, 1957), 92.

[9] ibid., 151

[10] Michael R. Weed, "The Authority of Jesus, or the Jesus of Authority?" Faculty Bulletin 2 (October 1981), 55-56.

"Sound Doctrine," "Pattern," "Timothy:" Reflections on Restoration Hermeneutics

2011-07-31T23:22:00.005-07:00

From time to time I write a blog post in response to a request, that is the origin of this post. Sometime back a friend, a brother in Christ, and fellow preacher asked me to write about "sound doctrine" and "the pattern." I have thought long and hard about this and have written various other pieces and I encourage the curious to check them out:

Quest for THE Pattern

Wal-Mart, Dresses and Patterns

So knowing full well that many will totally disagree with what I am about to write I offer these thoughts on "Sound Doctrine," "Patternism," and Timothy. I ask that you read carefully and prayerfully ... and if you disagree let me know ... after you have read it AGAIN to make sure I am really wrong.

Introductory Matters: Conundrums and Ironies

One of the great strengths of the Churches of Christ has been our commitment to be a "people of the book." It is a commitment that I am personally at peace with and give my life and heart too without reservation. We, "our people," have held tightly onto the belief in the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures as the Word of God. This quality has become a trademark of "our" identity. We have consistently called upon others to come and join us "on Bible ground" and I am happy to continue to do so. Sometimes we even use lingo that says "The Bible is our Creed" or more likely "the New Testament is our creed." While I do not like that language I understand the sentiment. Christ is our Creed ... but more on that as we reflect ...

Yet by being a "Back to the Bible" movement that focuses so intensely on the Scriptures (even if uneveningly in practice) it is possible that the Bible has displaced the true object of our faith. Although our motives have been pure, and holy, we may have forgotten the biblical truth(!!) that the Bible is NOT an end to itself. The Bible is a MEANS of grace (i.e. can I say "sacrament") to THE end ... the end being Jesus the Christ (Jn 5.39f). This does not diminish the importance of the Bible. It enhances it. We really need to think through these challenging words of N. T. Wright as he reminds us that all authority is actually quite personal and en-fleshed in Jesus ...

"The risen Jesus, at the end of Matthew's gospel, does not say 'All authority in heaven and on earth is given to the books you are all going to write,' but 'All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me." This ought to tell us, precisely if we are taking the Bible itself seriously as we should, that we need to think carefully what it might mean to think that the authority of Jesus is somehow exercised through the Bible. What would that look like in practice? In particular, what happens when we factor in Jesus own redefinition of what 'authority' itself might mean?" [1]

Most of us would deny seeing the Bible as an end to itself but our language and practice at least reveal that often we are not clear as we ought to be. The current, ever present, debate over "patternism" in our fellowship is, I believe, a case that proves the point. Roy Deaver, for instance, wrote "the divine rule-book by which he [God] seeks to govern man is the New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The New Testament is the pattern." Deaver goes on to say "There are certain (perhaps "uncertain" would be a better word) brethren among us who very definitely and vehemently REJECT the idea that the New Testament is our PATTERN" [2].

A fairly recent tome, Behold the Pattern, defends the notion of the New Testament being the perfect pattern for the church in name, belief, form and frequency of worship, organization, mission, structure, etc. Goebel Music, the author, cites as his proof the many times the NT uses the Greek word tupos.[3] This book is seriously, fundamentally, flawed by simply assuming the conclusion it seeks to prove. For example that that there appears a nail "pattern" (tupos) in the hand of Jesus hardly proves that a series of 27 books called the New Testament is the pattern.

J. D. Thomas in his Heaven's Window, though far more restrained and gracious than Music, assumes his conclusion as well. For example Thomas quotes Romans 6.17 "But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves to sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted." Our word "tupon" is rendered "form" here. From this text Thomas concludes "the Bible does present pattern requirements"[4]. Thomas, earlier in responding to an objection to "patternism" that humanity's salvation cannot rest upon human deductions and logic. He says, "correct, salvation is not a reward for cleverness." He then moves on to say, "the common man can learn from the Bible himself how to become a child of God and live a godly and acceptable life ..."[5]. This is, in my opinion, simply evasion. Few folks mean, in our contemporary setting, by the word "pattern "simply becoming a Christian and living a godly life!" It is, in fact, a far cry to say that ordinary people can read the Bible and come to faith in Jesus and that same ordinary person discern all the dotted "i's" and crossed "t's" of the "pattern of ecclesiology" (which is exactly what is meant by "pattern" by these brothers) nor does it follow that because the Bible contains "pattern" requirements to saying the NT is itself the pattern.

One of the major conundrums of the "inductive" approach to Scripture is the illusion of objectivity. Many historians, not to mention biblical scholars, have noticed this great irony - it is greatly subjective while pretending to be objective. Richard Lints notes,

"the inductive Bible study approach may encourage individuals to read the Bible as they never have before, but it will also encourage them to read the text according to their own subjective interests."

He goes on to note that when readers reject (sometimes outright!) the aid of interpreters throughout Christian history, or biblical commentaries or other scholarly sources "we have not succeeded in returning to the primitive gospel; we have simply managed to plunge ourselves back to the biases of our own individual situations." [6] This can be seen in the controversy over patternism.

I hope to examine one widely quoted text in the "sound doctrine" and "patternism" debate that the New Testament is itself the pattern. Second Timothy 1.13 reads, in part, "follow the pattern of sound/healthy teaching/doctrine" ... this is taken as proof positive of the point at issue.[7] The question is typically framed in the form of this question: "Is the New Testament the Pattern?" Perhaps we should re-frame this to What is the pattern? Does the Bible actually point to itself as the pattern or does it testify to something else??

Pattern of Sound Words

What are traditionally called the Pastoral Epistles, 1-2 Timothy & Titus, figure prominently in discussion of church order and patternsim. The fact that these short books are even called "Pastorals" reflects a higher critical Protestant tradition that these books testify to an early form of "Catholicism" (i.e. patternism) in regard to church structure. In fact many liberal Protestant scholars reject Pauline authorship because of this notion of early Catholicism they believe they see (there are other reasons but this is a big one). The church manual theory makes it too late to come from Paul.

Thankfully more recent scholarship has stressed the occasional nature of the "Pastorals." They were not written, I believe, to be a "Roberts Rules of How to Do Church" but to combat real live false teachers in Ephesus (1-2 Timothy) and get Titus on with his job (Titus) [8]. The "Robert's Rules" approach has given only lip service to two iron clad rules of reading the Bible: Context and Context (historical and literary)!. These works are occasional documents ... they address specific and concrete situations in the life of Paul, the life of Timothy and the life of the Ephesian church. Paul, if we take the letter (as a letter) seriously states exactly why he left Timothy in Ephesus, "to command certain men not to teach false doctrines" (1 Tim 1.3). Without discussing the nature of that teaching at the moment but recognizing the danger of the false teachers the so called "Catholic" (especially in the pejorative critical use of that term) nature of these epistles is greatly diminished. Timothy is to deal with the false teachers that are tearing this congregation literally apart by upholding the "pattern of sound teaching." That is the pattern of teaching that promotes the well being and health of the disciples within it ... as we shall see.

The word translated "pattern" in this text is hypotyposis and means something like example, standard, pattern, paradigm or the like [9]. This "pattern, paradigm, example" is something Timothy possesses and Paul calls it the "model/example/paradigm of healthy/sound teaching." We can get a firmer grasp of what Paul means by this unique expression by looking at the context and the "Pastorals" themselves.

From the opening line of "First Timothy" Paul's "logic" seems to be heading to a crescendo of for intense focus on God's saving work for creation through the work of Jesus the Christ. Paul gives Timothy a "trustworthy saying."

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners-of whom I am worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an EXAMPLE for those who would believe and have eternal life" (1.15-16, NIV)

The word rendered "example" in the NIV is hypotyposis, the exact word translated "pattern" in 2 Tim 1.13 ... these, by the way, are the only two occurrences of that exact word in the New Testament. Two things emerge from the immediate context. First, Paul's former life is described in ways that are remarkably similar to the descriptions throughout 1 & 2 Timothy to the false teachers ... these descriptions are behavioral (persecutor and violent man) and his misunderstanding/misuse of Scripture (blasphemer and ignorant). The purveyors of unhealthy teaching (false doctrine!) are men that "want to be teachers" but do not understand (1.7). Or as the NIV renders "they want to be teachers of the law but they do not know what they are talking about" This is followed by a series of community destroying behaviors based on the second half of the Decalogue (1.8-11). It is here that Paul explicitly defines "sound doctrine" in terms of ethics ... NOT PROPOSITIONAL STATEMENTS (v.10, 'and for whatever else is contrary to sound/healthy teaching/doctrine") The second thing crystal clear from the context is that God has taken Paul (the proto-typical false teacher zealot who violently misused the Bible!) and made him the paradigm, indeed the pattern(!!) of the saved sinner to not only Timothy but all the saints in Ephesus.[10] Paul is not the pattern of how to "do church" per se, but of the gospel of grace resulting in one transformed into a "new creation." From this context it becomes clear that the high sounding phrase "sound doctrine" means teaching that results in spiritually healthy followers of the Messiah who live in harmony within the community of God.

An Even Closer Look

It has long been recognized the interest the "Pastorals" have in "sound teaching." Indeed this interest is one reason some scholars deny Pauline authorship as pointed out above. This denial is rooted in the unproved assumption that "sound doctrine" refers to church order and the like! The word translated in our English Bibles as "sound" ... which by the way means something like "sound mind" "sound heart" or "healthy mind" or "healthy mind," this is the meaning of the term. hygiano (from where we get our English word hygiene!) along with related terms in these epistles confirms (IMHO) their occasional nature. hygiano occurs eight times in the "Pastorals" (1 Tim 1.10; 6.3; 2 Tim 1.13; 4.3; Titus 1.9; 1.13; 2.1-2) and does not occur outside of these letters anywhere in the NT. The word refers to health.[11] The false teachers are unfit because they are "unsound" in mind, in conscience and in heart. It is a term we import other meanings for so it is better to say they are unfit because they are UNHEALTHY. Their minds and their behavior is unhealthy for the well being of the church. Timothy is charged with stopping the spread of gangrene.

Abraham J. Malherbe has shown, convincingly, that the medical terminology that peppers the "Pastorals" was par for the course among popular "street philosophers" in the first century. Paul knew this language as did everyone hearing First Timothy read in the assembly for the first time. Paul adopts this language to describe the troublers of peace in the Ephesian church (I believe a strong case can be made they were some of the "elders" in the congregation) and those who hold fast to healthy apostolic tradition. In using this language Paul does not so much describe the content of the unhealthy teaching rather the cause of such teaching and the deadly results of it. [12] Reading through the letter itself reveals this taxonomy of the false teacher in Ephesus:

1) Their conscience is seared (1 Tim 2.4)
2) They lust lust/crave money and influence (1 Tim 6.9)
3) They are embroiled in "stupid and senseless" controversy (2 Tim 2.23; Titus 3.9f)
4) They wrangle "about words" (2 Tim 2.14 & 1 Tim 6.4-5)
5) They are harsh and anti-social (2 Tim 3.2-4)
6) They are arrogant (Titus 1.16)

These descriptions surely bring to mind not only Paul's own self-description as one who was an enemy of Christ but of that summary of items "contrary to healthy teaching" to which I have already referred (1 Tim 1. 6-10). These false teachers mishandle the Word of Truth as they use it as occasion for strife ...

Is it any surprise that the command to "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim 2.15, KJV) occurs in a context that separating the so called Old Testament from the New Testament is not even on the radar screen! Rather the statement occurs in the middle of relating to people in in the community in healthy ways. Some so abuse the "word of truth" that they bring ruin (lack of health) to those who listen because they are doing nothing but arguing (v.14). The words immediately following the statement refers to empty talk, godless chatter and a verse or so down to "stupid arguments." Rightly dividing ... done by a spiritually healthy teacher ... leads to a healthy environment with the local body of believers. False teachers use the Bible as justification for their extreme harshness, judgmental attitudes, and they kill and divide the local church. Paul is calling Timothy on the carpet because he did not have the courage, it seems, to kill the disease.

Paul also draws on the terminology of these street philosophers to talk about those who are the opposite of the unhealthy, unsound, ignorant, and arrogant dogmatists. Those who are given to "healthy" teaching prove so by their behavior in the body. They are healthy because ...

1) They apply their minds to receive understanding from the Lord (2 Tim 2.7)
2) They let the grace of God instruct them in gentleness (2 Tim 2.25)
3) Their teaching results in peaceful godly ways (1 Tim 2.2)

It would seem that whatever this "sound" or "healthy" teaching is it is not primarily church order nor creedal orthodoxy. If we let Paul define the meaning of the terms he uses we have a hard time agreeing with the notion that phrase "sound doctrine" as used by Paul refers to an itemized list in the fashion of Why I'm a Member of the Church of Christ! Unbelievably some have acted, and even said outright to me, that this contextual information is "irrelevant." Our contemporary interests and biases have been allowed to dictate what the text actually "teaches." This is not, I submit to my readers, respect for biblical authority but is exactly what Richard Lints warned about ... what we have is the authority of the individual! This phrase does not refer to propositional creedal statements but to teaching that results in a healthy (loving!) Spirit filled community - the beachhead of the New Creation. Francis Young writes of Paul's usage "the predominant concern is about correct relationships, duties and obligations in a community which regards itself as a teaching environment with a pattern of virtuous behavior" [13] God has revealed "healthy" teaching that results in a proper God honoring, community building, way of life.

Concluding Reflections

It seems clear that the word "doctrine" as in "sound doctrine" cannot be simplistically reduced to items regarding church structure or organization. That notion is untenable in the historical situation of Timothy and the Ephesian church. "Doctrine" does not mean what what it would later develop into ... a way of saying "dogma." Rather in the context of 1-2 Timothy it refers to teaching that results in a certain kind of healthy (sound!) behavior among the family of God. This spiritually healthy, this sound in health doctrine, has to do with a new creation lifestyle under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. It is life in, and for, the Body. One scholar put it like this, "the concern of the metaphor [i.e. sound doctrine] is not with the content of doctrine. Rather it is with behavior." [14]

When 2 Timothy 1.13 is read in light of its situation (historical context) and its literary context it takes on a different character than the one it has had on the polemical platform. We notice that the statement comes at the end of a "gospel summary" just as did our other occurrence of our word "pattern" in 1 Timothy 1.16.

Paul just announced in 1.8 that he is not ashamed of the gospel and exhorts Timothy to join him in "suffering" for it. Timothy is to model himself after Paul ... his behavior is in question! In verses 9-10 just prior to our contentious text Paul writes

"God has saved us and called us to a HOLY LIFE -- not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

Paul was appointed a "herald" of this gospel for which he suffers. In language reminiscent of 1 Cor 15.1, "I remind you of the gospel ... which you have received," Paul reminds Timothy what he heard from the apostle. That glorious gospel provides the grist for healthy teaching (Paul says explicitly that spiritually healthy congregations result from emphasis on the glorious gospel of grace, Titus 3.3-8, note v.8). Healthy teaching "conforms" to the gospel, it is rooted in the gospel ... the gospel Paul said he was in chains for in v.8. But sound teaching and the gospel are not one and the same thing. Rather sound doctrine is teaching that applies that astounding message of grace - applying it to God's people in order to transform them into models ... patterns ... of the New Creation! Healthy teaching promotes the unity, harmony, and love of the disciples for one another. Sound Doctrine is teaching that "conforms" us to the likeness of Jesus Christ. That is healthy teaching.

In Part 2 we will look at distinguishing "doctrine" and "gospel." A perennial problem. Blessings ...

NOTES:

[1] N. T. Wright, The Last Word (HarperSanFrancisco, 2005), xi-xii.

[2] Roy Deaver, "We Must Recognize that the New Testament Does Set Out the Divine Pattern," Firm Foundation 102 (22 October 1985), 626

[3] Goebel Music, Behold the Pattern (Colleyville, TX: Music Publications, 1991), 19-22.

[4] J. D. Thomas, Heavens Window (Abilene, TX: Biblical Research Press, 1974), 73.

[5] ibid., 46.

[6] Richard Lints, The Fabric of Theology: A Prolegomenon to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmens, 1993), 93.

[7] J. D. Thomas, Heavens Window, p. 73.

[8] Gordon D. Fee, "Reflections on Church Order in the Pastoral Epistles, with Further Reflections on the Hermeneutics of Ad Hoc Documents," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28 (June 1985): 141-151.

[9] H. Muller, "tupos" in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 3: 903-907.

[10] Francis Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Epistles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 54.

[11] D. Muller, "hygies," in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 2: 169-172.

[12] Abraham J. Malherbe, Paul and the Popular Philosophers (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989), 122.

[13] Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Epistles, p. 83.

[14] Gordon D. Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1984), 46.

Prayer of Manasseh: The Heartbeat of Jewish Spirituality

2011-07-26T20:18:00.013-07:00

Light of Grace Bursts Forth

The Prayer of Manasseh is one of the most beautiful prayers ever written - even if it is in the Apocrypha. (See also my: Apocrypha: Reading Between the Testaments; Praying with Romans & Manasseh; Apocryphal Myths: Great is the Truth and Mighty above All Things.

Prayer. The word itself ushers us into the realms of something deeper and richer than ourselves. Prayer. Prayer is the witness to dynamic faith in a personal deity though transcendentally on high is deeply involved with creation. Prayer. Prayer is to humanity's walk with God what hugs, kisses and sex are to a healthy, God honoring marriage. Prayer. Prayer is, in a way, God's own Spirit crying out from within us in order to connect us once again with the Lover of our Souls: the Triune God. Prayer. Prayer connects us to the rhythm of grace and immerses us in the river of the Spirit. Is it any wonder that prayer seasons the biblical story from Genesis to Revelation?

Prayer remained an intimate part of the life of Jews in the centuries before Jesus and the early church. The Apocrypha is literally peppered with prayers. Years ago Norman B. Johnson wrote in his Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha that nothing reveals a peoples true heart as the prayers they pray. Prayer reveals, ironically, what they believe about God ... it is the unveiling of their "doctrine" of God. If this is true then the Prayer of Manasseh is the heartbeat of Jewish spirituality ... a light of grace bursting forth against the darkness of evil!

Evil Incarnate - Manasseh

To understand Psalm 51 the editors of the Psalter wrote a heading for it: "A Psalm of David, when the prophet Nathan came to him, after he had gone into Bathsheba." This great penitential psalm is gripping against the backdrop of the the whole sordid sad affair in 2 Samuel 11-2 Kings 2.

Likewise to understand the Prayer of Manasseh, and its radical claim, we must know who Manasseh was. The story of the king is told two times in very different ways in the Hebrew Bible (2 Kings 21.1-18 & 2 Chron 33.1-20). Kings, written to explain "why" Israel was "here" (exile) rather than "there" (promised land) describes Manasseh as the incarnation of evil. He even led pagan worship in human sacrifice of his own son. Manasseh's sin almost makes David's look, by comparison, small. He was the straw that broke the camels back. Yahweh's long suffering patience had run out. Chronicles, written a century or more later than Kings is written to answer the question "will God take us back? Have we sinned beyond hope?" In this narrative Manasseh is the same incarnation of evil. Yet the Chronicler does not end the story in darkness but in shocking grace. When the Evil King is blinded and taken into exile himself, Manasseh repented and prayed to the Lord. Unbelievably, Yahweh seems to have forgiven Manasseh "at the drop of a hat!" Manasseh, the greatest of all sinners, learned the truth by experience that Yahweh is "merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in hesed and faithfulness ... forgiving iniquity, rebellion and sin" (See my post on the Old Testament Gospel: The Gracious and Compassionate God, Exodus 34).

The Chronicler does not preserve the prayer. The Prayer of Manasseh was written not only to give voice of the king's penitent heart but to give voice to the faith of the Jewish people have in their God. The prayer reveals the God they worshiped. And what a prayer ... it is one of the greatest penitential prayers ever written. It's the heartbeat of Jewish spirituality.

Preparing to Hear Manasseh

The Prayer of Manasseh is one of the best places to camp to expose the often anti-Semitic stereotypes that followers of the Nazarene so often have of his race. This anti-Jewish bias (prejudice??) has affected not only Western Christian thought on a popular level but since the Enlightenment period has been part and parcel of Protestant biblical scholarship. Judaism was, it claimed, obsessed with ceremony and rife with legalism. Second Temple Judaism was in this worldview reduced to a mechanical priestly cult or rabbinic sophistry. Anything Jewish was (and often still is) dismissed outright as spiritually sterile legalism! Anti-Semiticism perverted many otherwise brilliant scholars and colored their views on "Old Testament" studies and Judaism of the time of Jesus too. Friedrich Delitzsch even argued Jesus himself was not Jewish.[1]

So ingrained had this stereotype become that a hundred years ago it was fashionable among among biblical critics to deny the author of the Prayer of Manasseh was a Jew but rather was a "Christian." Though there is not a shred of evidence to sustain such a position and no one in the ancient church thought so. But as James Charlesworth has noted "the author is obviously a Jew." Charlesworth argues that the Prayer was written sometime between 200 B.C. and 50 B.C. by a Jew that flourished in Jerusalem.[2] The light of grace shining in the Prayer exposed the bias of scholars ... we need to hear it afresh even today.

There is an interesting "prehistory" of sorts to the Prayer of Manasseh. Just as Psalm 151 is preserved in the Septuagint and was discovered in the last century in its Hebrew original among the Dead Sea Scrolls so there seems to be a similar phenomena with the Prayer. The Greek version of Psalm 151 and the Hebrew are different and yet the same psalm. In Cave Four of Qumran a damaged scroll was found that contained various prayers used apparently for worship. Among those prayers was 4Q381 which reads

The prayer of Manasseh, king of Judah, when the king of Assyria imprisoned him
.... my God .... is near,
My deliverance is before your eyes ....
For the deliverance your presence brings I wait, and I shrink before you
Because of [my sins,] for You have been very [merciful]
while I have increased my guilt, and so .... from enduring joy,
but my spirit will not experience goodness for ....
You lift me up, high over the Gentile ....
though I did not remember You ....
.... I am in awe of You, and I have been cleansed of the abominations I destroyed.
I made my soul to submit to You ... they increased its sin,
and plot against me to lock me up; but I have trusted in You ....
do not give me over to be tried, with You, O my God ....
they are conspiring against me, they tell lies .... to me deeds of ....[3]

The text preserved by the church has clear connections with this tradition of Manasseh's prayer.

The Prayer of Manasseh

The Prayer as it has come down to us is a mere fifteen verses long. Read against the backdrop of the darkness of incarnate evil the Prayer is nothing short of breathtaking. This is the the New Revised Standard Version's translation

1 O Lord Almighty,
God of our ancestors,
of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob
and of their righteous offspring;

2 you who made heaven and earth
with all their order;

3 who shackled the sea by your word of command,
who confined the deep
and sealed it with your terrible and glorious name;

4 at whom all things shudder,
and tremble before your power,

5 for your glorious splendor cannot be borne,
and the wrath of your threat to sinners is unendurable;

6 yet immeasurable and unsearchable
is your promised mercy,

7 for you are the Lord Most High,
of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful,
and you relent at human suffering.
O Lord, according to your great goodness
you have promised repentance and forgiveness
to those who have sinned against you,
and in the multitude of your mercies
you have appointed repentance for sinners,
so that they may be saved.

8 Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous,
have not appointed repentance for the righteous,
for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you,
but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner.

9 For the sins I have committed are more in number
than the sand of the sea;
my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied!
I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven
because of the multitude of my iniquities.

10 I am weighted down with many an iron fetter,
so that I am rejected because of my sins,
and I have no relief;
for I have provoked your wrath
and have done what is evil in your sight,
setting up abominations and multiplying offenses.

11 And now I bend the knee of my heart,
imploring you for your kindness.

12 I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned,
and I acknowledge my transgressions.

13 I earnestly implore you,
forgive me, O Lord, forgive me!
Do not destroy me with my transgressions!
Do not be angry with me forever or store up evil for me;
do not condemn me to the depths of the earth.
For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent,

14 and in me you will manifest your goodness;
for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy,

15 and I will praise you continually all the days of my life.
For all the host of heaven sings your praise,
and yours is the glory forever. Amen.

Listening to the Heartbeat of Second Temple Jewish Spirituality

Ben Sira surely is not far from the mark when he exhorts sinners to "Return unto the Lord, and forsake sins: Make thy prayer before his face, and lessen the offense. Turn again to the Most High, and turn away from iniquity; And greatly hate the abominable thing" (Sirach 17.25-26, Revised Version). Clearly in the Prayer the king has turned to God and despises "the abominable thing" (I love that turn of phrase in the Revised Version).

Verses 1-4 extol the power and majesty of God in creation (God's hesed is frequently seen in and through creation in the biblical psalms cf. Ps 104, Ps 136). The majesty of God is unendurable for sinners (v.5) Though God's holiness is potentially dangerous Manasseh swiftly moves to a meditation on the "heartbeat of the Hebrew Bible" ... Exodus 34.6-7 (the text thunders through the Story of Israel, See Num 14.17-18; Neh 9.16-17; Ps 86.15; Ps 148.8; Jonah 4.2; Joel 2.13; etc). In that Mt. Everest of biblical texts Yahweh reveals his true nature, his true glory in the face of Israel's "abominable" betrayal of the Covenant of Love by declaring a Golden Calf to be their God (this is adultery on the honeymoon!). Manasseh, like Israel of old, deserves certain death but discovers (like Job who had "heard" but now "sees") the true nature of his God. Here is the core of what follows in the prayer:

"immeasurable and unsearchable is your promised mercy,
for you are the Lord Most High,
of great compassion, long suffering, and very merciful,
and you relent at human suffering."

As David poured out his heart to the Lord "I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. Against you, you alone have I sinned ..." (Ps 51.3-4a) so Manasseh, incarnate evil, cries "for the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied!" Like the poor tax collector (who more than slightly "echoes" the language of Manasseh!) that would not even "look up to heaven" but implored "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" (Luke 18.13), Manasseh confesses he is unfit to even "look up and see" the height of heaven.

Here is, again in my opinion, one of the most beautiful and memorable phrases in all spiritual literature. The need for divine forgiveness and acceptance is expressed in unforgettable poetry. The Prayer says

"And now I bend the knee of my heart imploring you for your kindness.
I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned,
and I acknowledge my transgressions."

The penitent prayer warrior places emphasis (in the preserved Greek text anyway) upon his unworthiness. Yet the petition is simultaneously bold for the verb aniemi (aorist imperative) rendered "forgive" in v.13 means to "let go unpunished."[4] Evil Incarnate dares to pray to go unpunished! He has no doubt of his unworthiness but he dares ... dares ... to pray to go unpunished! What a radical, shocking unveiling in this Jewish prayer ...

Verse 14 is perhaps the climax of the prayer. It is here that the sinner, that is as dark as the blackest night, exudes a confidence in his God that is truly astonishing. So astounding those clouded by their anti-semitic glasses could not imagine a Jew praying with such confidence in God. But here it is ...

"for unworthy as I am, you WILL save me
according to your great mercy."

The TEV captures something of the "mood" here: "Show me all your mercy and kindness and save me, EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT DESERVE IT."

This confident assurance though is in complete harmony with the Story told, sang and prayed throughout the "Old Testament." In fact this confident assurance in the character of God is rooted in the confession, the Creed of Israel, in vv. 6-7 (Ex 34.6-7). God's mercy, by his own testimony, is infinite. The Prayer of Manasseh is a light of grace bursting upon the darkness. The confidence, the assurance, of the believer in the God who forgives (lets go unpunished) is the result of the light of grace.

The only response Manasseh can have to such unbelievable grace and mercy is to worship the King of Grace. "I will praise you continually all the days of my life." So should we.

Concluding Reflections

The great Jewish scholar, Samuel Sandmel, is quoted in the Forward of David deSilva's Introducing the Apocrypha as saying the Prayer of Manasseh "should have been 'canonized' within the liturgy of the Day of Atonement" (p.9). Charlesworth in fact speculates that the Prayer was indeed used in the Temple prior to its destruction in AD 70. We cannot, with the extant materials, prove Charlesworth's speculation but we do know that the message of Prayer was treasured by ancient Christians and used during worship. The Prayer was part of congregational worship by Christians early on. It survives Syriac, Coptic, Greek, Latin and was frequently gathered with other "prayer texts" for congregational use.

The Prayer has been included in the long line of English Bibles. The Geneva Bible of 1560 separates the Prayer from the rest of the Apocrypha (which is placed between the Testaments) and includes it as either an appendix or last chapter to 2 Chronicles. There is a marginal note that reads simply "This prayer is not in the Ebrewe, but is translated out of the Greeke." The King James Version removed the Prayer from the end of Chronicles and placed it with the rest of the Apocrypha between the Testaments.

The Prayer of Manasseh is indeed the heartbeat of Second Temple Jewish spirituality. If this prayer reveals the author's "doctrine of God" then that doctrine is wholesome. God is not merely a computer of justice. God is also the gracious Father. Anyone familiar with Greek gods in the myths appreciates the gulf between the two conceptions of deity. From Manasseh (and many other prayers of the time) a holy but gentle even intimate quality is revealed. One never wants to get to near the gods in Greek religion. This prayer proclaims that even the worst of sinners, incarnate evil, can find mercy, compassion and forgiveness from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. No wonder the church got on her knees with Manasseh and prayed ... and was ushered into the heart of God.

Notes:

The artwork, The Prayer of Manasseh, is by C. P. Marillier the 18th century French artist.

[1] See on a friendly and engaging level Bill T. Arnold and David B. Weisberg, "Babel und Bibel und Bias: How Anti-Semitism Distorted Friederich Delitsch's Scholarship," Bible Review 28 (February 2002): 32-40, 47.

[2] James H. Charlesworth, "Prayer of Manasseh" in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol 2. pp. 625-633.

[3] Translation taken from The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation, by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg Jr & Edward Cook. The translation of 4Q381 in Geza Vermes The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls reads slightly different. See also "An Qumran Fragment of the Ancient 'Prayer of Manasseh,' Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 108 # 1 1996, p 105-107

[4] See the Greek text of Manasseh in John R. Kohlenberger III, ed. The Parallel Apocrypha: Greek, King James Version, Douay, Knox, Today's English Version, Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible (Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 1070.