Saturday, November 28, 2015

Psalm 7 and Proverbs 2:6-15

Psalm 7
1. The title to this psalm (which was not original and about which we cannot at all be certain) is puzzling. What was a "shiggaion"? Who was Cush the Benjamite? Perhaps the obscurity of the title speaks to its historicity. Nothing about the content would speak against David as its author.

2. Psalm 7 might be called an imprecatory psalm in that it asks God to judge the psalmist's enemies. It asks the LORD in anger to rise against the fury of the psalmist's enemies (7:6). The sense of verse 7 is unsure, but it may ask God to take his seat in judgment over an assembly of peoples. The psalmist asks the LORD to bring the evil of the wicked to an end (7:9).

3. For the psalmist's part, he is turning to the LORD for refuge, as his enemies try to drag him away like a lion (7:1-2). The psalmist believes he is innocent. If he is truly guilty, he says, let his enemies prevail (7:3-5). He gives examples of the kind of thing that would make him guilty--repaying a friend with evil or plundering an enemy without cause (7:4).

4. We have an interesting picture of God in this psalm. God is righteous and just (7:9). He judges the hearts and the kidneys (metaphorical seat of the intention). He is angry (at evil) every day (7:11). When someone does evil, he sharpens his sword, strings an arrow, bends his bow (7:12). He has deadly weapons, flaming arrows (7:13). But for the psalmist he is a shield (7:10).

5. The evil make a pit and then fall into it (7:15). Their mischief falls on their own heads (7:16).

Proverbs 2:6-15
The LORD gives wisdom. This is exactly what James says (1:5). His wisdom is for the upright. His understanding is a shield to them. Wisdom, knowledge, prudence--they all watch over a person. They guard a person. They save from the way of evil. Wisdom saves from the crooked, from those who rejoice in doing evil, from the devious.

Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19

Friday, November 27, 2015

The Vulnerability of Young Men

1. During the night I vaguely heard a segment on cable news about how men go around recruiting for the Islamic State among young men in all sorts of places, not least among young Muslim men in Europe. I thought of gangs of young men in urban cities in the US. I thought of the Hitler youth. I thought of violent video games and the thirst of some young men for the military.

In their late teens and early twenties, a lot of young men want to fight something. If their social circumstances are bad, they have plenty of opportunities at hand. They only need presented with a cause and they are ready to go, ready to fight. It can manifest itself in ideas--ideas to fight for. Or it can manifest itself in real violence, as in gangs and terror.

We're seeing a layer of violence in Indy right now, and a little even in Marion. In Marion, some of the recent violence has been young males of high school age.

What are we to do?

2. Sports are an easy option. Sports give young men a chance to express their built-in lust for fighting in their late teens. I don't know if video games are ultimately good or not, but they're better than going out and beating someone up for real. As a nerd, comic books partially fed my thirst to fight something in my late teens. More idea-oriented young men might fight for ideas. Republican, Democrat, creationism, scientism--the underlying fervor is the same basic male dynamic. Guys tend to want to fight something.

The church is often ill-equipped to satisfy the young male thirst to punch something. The true church preaches love of one's enemies, which works against the impulses of a male in his late teens, even though it is the most noble cause to fight for of all. Churches that give a young man a cause to fight for, so to speak, scratch at the itch. Churches that just talk to youth about ideas that don't involve a fight are not likely to attract many from this segment.

3. It is a great worry. The desire to fight, if it is coupled with an anger from one's social circumstances, becomes violent. Think of the Boston bombers or the young men that shoot up movie theaters or schools. Think of inner city gang violence. Think of the recent French violence. The Islamic State is currently selling a vision to fight for a world in which the whole Middle East is Islamic as in the days of old. What's scary is that it has all the marks of a vision that will sell to an 18 year old male.

On one level these phenomena seem predictable. Young men don't tend to think straight. They are prone to anger, an anger all too easy to manipulate or degenerate on its own. Left to their own devices, a certain subset are going to do stupid things of a violent sort. Some get in over their head and suddenly they're stuck in a very bad situation, following the lead of someone else.

4. Cities have to provide other options. Incentivized sports and competitions? Venues to express frustration? Good ideas provided to fight for? Young men can't be left to their own devices. They have to be shepherded.

There are smart people out there. It seems like we could come up with something. Public schools are again crucial as all males have to pass through. Vocational training can play a role. Some churches are very effective in this area but most aren't. That's a matter for some consideration!

Thursday, November 26, 2015


... for this moment in time. My children are well. My wife is well. My wife's family and mine are well. I have a church. I have a job. I have coffee. I have purpose.

"I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances...  I can do all this through him who gives me strength." (Phil. 4:11, 13)

Happy Thanksgiving all!

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Farewell, Sweet SBL

1. In a couple hours, I'll wake up and begin the drive back to home and family, leaving behind the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), my bitter sweet old friend. SBL is a friend because it is the language I dream in. It is the field in which I have put my 10,000 hours.

Students, church friends, even colleagues might look at some of my thoughts as strange. Well, they might here too, at least at some of my ideas. But some of my strange ideas at home would get knowing looks here as a common framework. What might take some time to persuade at home is sometimes a starting assumption here.

2. Yet my friend SBL is not all sweet. So just because something is true doesn't necessarily make it helpful or useful. Some scholars here would fight over how to pronounce an omicron and might think the heavens are falling, not only if their course is not taught their way, but if it is not required of all students.

I don't think it's necessarily hard to grow or at least maintain a seminary or educational institution right now in theory. The biggest obstacle, I suspect, is the stubborn idealism of faculty and a resistance to change. You not only have brilliant minds here. You have stubborn, brilliant minds. The ones with political skills too are downright scary.

Humanity is humanity. Some just fight with different weapons than others.

3. And still there is the cynic here. Year after year of pointless paper and pointless new book weigh on the soul that remembers. Some, maybe most, never remember. Each year they buy another couple hundred dollars worth of books. They make their proposals. They start their groups.

The deconstructionist still lurks at the bar, coming mainly to scoff at the mindless crowd, like the old men in the balcony on the Muppets. Vanity of vanity, all is vanity. I saw a first presentation last night, a young scholar in a doctoral program stretching her wings for the first time. Well presented. Ignorance is bliss. The world doesn't care about the nuances of obscure passages, but it will still move you toward a job and tenure, nonetheless.

4. As long as we all continue to play the game, the game legitimates itself. As long as there are still jobs requiring biblical experts and experts on religion, SBL will live on. And some of us do actually believe there is a Reality behind all this.

I have not lost hope in meaning and truth. But perhaps I am the odd one who realizes that the "it" book or session this year isn't really that important in the vast scheme of things. God looks on the heart, not on the head. But the smallest of ideas is a sacrifice to God, a small participation in the grandeur he has created.

Farewell, my bitter sweet SBL. You've re-inspired me to read yet again. You've re-inspired me to play yet again. An hour and yet I shall awake to the real world, that cares little of thee.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Psalm 6 and Proverbs 2:1-5

Psalm 6
This is a psalm of lament. Although some take the psalmist to be extremely sick, the expression, "my bones are shaken" (6:2) probably has more to do with the terrifying situation the psalmist is in. There are hints of enemies who are ready to pounce (6:10).

But the psalmist is convinced that the LORD will spare him. The LORD has heard his prayer (6:9). The psalmist has shed tears before the LORD, pleading for deliverance (6:6, 8). "How long?" he asks, before the LORD will deliver (6:3).

There is a hint that the psalmist senses the LORD's anger and discipline as part of what is going on (6:1). The psalmist pleads--there will be no praise of the LORD in Sheol (6:5). In effect he says, "Let me stay alive, because in death I am no good to you."

This psalm reflects a lack of sense of any meaningful afterlife. "In death there is no remembrance of you" (6:5). Sheol here seems like the Greek Hades of that time--mindless shadows with no thought or memory.

God is also asked to save the psalmist because of his hesed, God's "steadfast love." God's hesed is a key concept in the Old Testament.

Proverbs 2:1-5
The father now speaks to the child. The child wishes to gain a knowledge of God. The child wishes to know the fear of the LORD. The father knows how.

The path to knowledge means treasuring up the teaching of Solomon, the father. Wisdom is like silver, like a hidden treasure. Cry out for her...

Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19

Friday, November 20, 2015

Jesus the Pharisee Fighter?

It is well known that people who like Jesus usually make him into whatever picture of him they like. So was Jesus a hippie type or a Pharisee fighter? Did Jesus keep silent when he was attacked and accused or did he stick it to the man?

Jesus' earthly mission (see also a more detailed version):

1. Jesus preached the kingdom of God.
"The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1:15)

The good news was the kingdom of God, the coming reign of God to the earth. God had let the Romans rule, but was going to restore Israel if it would repent and believe in God (and his Messiah). What did Israel need to repent of? "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness." (Matt. 23:23)

2. Jesus' exorcisms prepared the way.
"But if I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you."(Luke 11:20).

For whatever reason, God had allowed Satan to run rampant on the earth. Jesus exorcist ministry was Jesus cleaning house in preparation for the arrival of the kingdom of God.

3. Jesus wanted everyone to be a part.
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor." (Luke 4:18)

Jesus did not focus on the religious leaders in his ministry. At least initially, he referred to individuals like the Pharisees as "healthy" and indicated he did not come to minister to them (cf. Mark 2:17--"It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.") Jesus focused on tax collectors (who abused the people monetarily for their own gain) and sinners.

4. Jesus taught love of one's enemies.
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." (Matt. 5:43-44)

Although some people like to celebrate Jesus telling off religious leaders. This was not the centerpiece of his message and in some cases may reflect especially the contexts of the Gospel writers. But Jesus did not go looking for conflict. It came to him. Those who emphasize Jesus telling people off are telling more about their own psychology than about Jesus. When Jesus stood before the government, he said nothing. (Mark 15:4-5)

5. Secretly, Jesus knew he was the Messiah.
"The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 14:45)

Jesus kept his messianic identity somewhat of a secret. It's not until he's on his way to Jerusalem at the very end that he reveals this fact to his disciples (Mark 8:29-30). He did not preach himself much at all when he was on earth and only really mentioned his death at the end.
Jesus would find no welcome in most American churches. He would be labeled a liberal and a socialist, a wimp who was anti-American. He rejected the "Bible-believing" fundamentalism of his day (e.g., Mark 2:23-28).

Psalm 5 and Proverbs 1:28-33

Psalm 5
Psalm 5 is usually considered to be an "imprecatory" psalm. an imprecatory psalm is one in which the psalmist calls God to bring justice on his enemies. So the psalmist writes, "Make them bear their guilt, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; because of their many transgressions cast them out, for they have rebelled against you" (5:10).

Although the later heading calls this a "psalm of David," the mention of the holy temple in 5:7 suggests that the psalm dates to a time after David.

The psalmist appeals to the righteousness (5:8) and steadfast love of God (5:7). God is not a God who delights in wickedness (5:4). God is a God who listens: "O Lord, in the morning you hear my voice" (5:3).

Psalm 5:9 is quoted in Romans 3:13: "their throats are open graves; they flatter with their tongues." Paul of course uses the verse, along with a string of others, to point to universal sinfulness. In the psalm, however, the psalmist is not talking about everyone but about his enemies.

The good news is that God covers the righteous like a shield (5:12). God protects (5:11). God gives refuge (5:11).

Proverbs 1:28-33
Wisdom now gives a sobering word. While there was a time when wisdom called out, there is also a time when wisdom stops calling. Those who once hated knowledge, who wanted nothing of wisdom's council, they will not find her once they finally come to their senses.

"For waywardness kills the simple,
     and the complacency of fools destroys them;
but those who listen to me will be secure
     and will live at ease, without dread of disaster." (1:32-33)

Thus ends chapter 1 of Proverbs.

Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Christ-level calm--what does it look like?

This is what we have to be today, even in the secular realm.
  • "When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly." (1 Pet. 2:23)
  • "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." (1 Peter 2:22)
  • "Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also." (Matt. 5:39)
  • "He gave Pilate no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed." (Matt. 27:14)
  • "Pilate asked him again, “Have you no answer? See how many charges they bring against you.” But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed." (Mark 15:4-5)

Psalm 4 and Proverbs 1:20-27

So far we have:
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14
Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19

Psalm 4
Psalm 4 is another psalm of lament in which the psalmist calls on the LORD for help. The later heading calls it a psalm of David, and we can read it that way or not read it that way.

The psalmist asks for God to answer his prayers when he calls. The LORD alone can make the psalmist dwell in safely (4:8). He also intercedes for his people and asks for God to let his face shine on them (4:6).

The psalmist also tells his people not to sin (4:4) and not to turn the leader's honor into shame (4:2). God has set apart the godly for himself (4:3).

Proverbs 1:20-27
Now wisdom begins to speak. She calls on the simple to heed her advice. Wisdom will mock those who do not heed her advice.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Psalm 3 and Proverbs 1:15-19

So far we have:
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7
Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14

Psalm 3
1. The heading of Psalm 3 suggests we read the words of this psalm against the backdrop of David the king as its author, at the time that he was fleeing his son Absalom. That is a generative way of reading the psalm, although the headings to the psalms were obviously added later than the writing of the psalms themselves. So we might read the psalm twice, once without thinking of the heading, then again in light of the heading. We will hear truths both ways.

2. In itself, this is the psalm of someone who is under fire from his enemies. Some classify it as a psalm of lament.

The enemies of the psalmist do not believe that God will deliver him, but he has confidence that God will. The Lord is a shield to him. "I will not fear though ten thousands assail me on every side" (3:6). "From the Lord comes deliverance" (3:8). The psalmist asks the LORD to strike his enemies on the jaw and to break the teeth of the wicked (3:7).

We can pray this psalm when we call on the LORD for help, even when our enemies are metaphorical (envy, jealousy, rage, depression).

3. Nothing internal to the psalm suggests inductively that it was written when David was fleeing Absalom. Indeed, the mention of God's holy mountain seems to allude to the temple, which was not build in the time of David. It suggests that the psalm dates subsequent to David.

Nevertheless, perhaps the story of David fleeing Absalom might give a certain concreteness to the psalm. We always connect better when we can picture a specific instance of the words, in this case Absalom chasing David. Of course fleeing is not mentioned in the psalm itself, and David would scarcely have prayed for God to break Absalom's teeth.

Proverbs 1:15-19
So the son is exhorted not to go along with the gangs that steal and shed blood. Those who live lives of violence set a trap for themselves. As Jesus would later say, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). Those who go after gain that is not theirs lose their lives. Christians might say in the next life if not in this one.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 ("let wives be silent")

1. I usually process these verses by reading them against 1 Corinthians 11, where wives pray and prophesy in public worship. These verses must be about disruptive speech because Paul has already assumed that wives will speak spiritually in the public assembly. That's what the veil is for, to negotiate an awkward situation where wives are speaking around men who aren't their husbands.

But if you have read my commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians, you know that in the end I actually lean toward another position as a scholar. That is that these verses weren't even in 1 Corinthians originally. When I put on my big boy shoes, I lean toward the position that these verses are an "interpolation" into 1 Corinthians. I join other scholars like Richard Hays and Gordon Fee in this leaning.

To clarify, we do not have the original copies of any book of the Bible. We only have copies of copies. Evangelicals and Wesleyans affirm that some work needs to be done to determine how the biblical texts read originally, since we do not have any of the original manuscripts. We affirm that all the texts have been transmitted without any loss or corruption of doctrine. But the task of reconstructing the original text is necessary and should be conducted with great gravitas.

2. Here are the reasons why I think the balance of evidence points toward 14:34-35 not being original.
  • Although 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 appear in all known manuscripts, they do not appear in the same place in all known manuscripts. In several manuscripts considered part of the “Western” tradition, these two verses appear after verse 40, at the end of the chapter. This displacement might indicate that these verses were not part of the original text but something first written in the margin of some very early manuscript.
  • The passage reads more smoothly without the verses. "God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the churches of God—or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?" The instruction to wives comes out of nowhere and returns to nowhere just as quickly.
  • Similarly, the point of view changes from "you" in 14:33 to "they" in 14:34 and 35 and then back to "you" again in 14:36.
  • Paul shifts from addressing the church, singular, of Corinth (1:1) to addressing churches, plural (14:34). But Paul is not writing churches. Instruction to churches does not fit the context of 1 Corinthians because only one church is listening. 
  • It is uncharacteristic in the extreme for Paul to consider Gentiles to be under the law, yet this text says that wives must be in submission, "as the law says."
  • Finally, even though the disruptive speech approach softens the tension between 1 Corinthians 11 and these verses, it still is hard to fit women prophesying in church with, "it is disgraceful for a women to speak in church." It just doesn't sound like the same person talking, and there are no textual issues of this sort in 1 Corinthians 11.
These are the reasons I and others lean away from these verses even being original to Paul.

Psalm 2 and Proverbs 1:8-14

Yesterday, I started doing posts on the psalms:
Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7

Today, Psalm 2
1. Psalm 2 is a royal psalm, a psalm that was addressed to the king of Judah. Some think it might even have been an "enthronement psalm," a psalm read at the enthronement of a king. The royal psalms then were often taken in a "fuller sense" later as messianic psalms, psalms whose content anticipated Jesus as the Christ.

2. 2:1-3 gives the situation surrounding Judah. Judah seems to be threatened by other kings, other peoples. They are setting themselves against Judah. Perhaps Judah has prevailed against them and they are wanting to revolt, to "burst their bonds asunder" (2:3).

In 2:4-6, YHWH laughs. He is the one who has set his king on Mt. Zion (a clear indication that Judah is in view, unless this psalm specifically related to Solomon). By the end of the psalm (2:10-11), those opposing kings will be warned not to oppose YHWH or his king. They will perish quickly if they oppose YHWH.

This is the context in which 2:7-8 appear. YHWH says to the king, "You are my Son; today I have given you birth." This is the enthronement of the king, the "birth" of the son of God. Yes, the king in the Ancient Near Eastern context could be considered a son of God (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14). God says not to oppose his anointed king. Otherwise, God will dash them to pieces.

3. Taken in a fuller sense, a sensus plenior, the earliest Christians connected this verse to Jesus' resurrection and exaltation to God's right hand (Acts 4:25-26, 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5). When Jesus sat at God's right hand, it was his enthronement as king of the world.

Proverbs 1:8-14
So the proverbs begin. These proverbs are directed to, "my son," who is first told to heed the instruction of his father and mother.

The first instruction is not to join the violent, sinners who ambush the innocent. He has in mind individuals who kill and steal. They call a young man to join a gang that shares with each other what they steal. Sounds like what happens in many inner cities.

As a side note, Sheol and "the Pit" are mentioned as places that swallow the dead. These are not places of punishment in Hebrew thought but ways of referring to where the dead go when they die. Perhaps for some they were just figures, metaphors of a sort. No doubt other Jews thought of Sheol as a literal place where the shadows of the dead go, just as in Homer.

Monday, November 16, 2015


So there's Black Friday after Thanksgiving (one of my least favorite days of the year).

There's CyberMonday (during which I secretly plan to sabotage the wireless in our house).

Now The Wesleyan Church has an idea it's calling, "Giving Tuesday." It's a little more spiritual than the other two in my book.

What better way to show our thanks to God for all the blessings he has given us but to give to ministries? You can give to emergency relief, church planting, global leadership development, urban ministry, or the one I've highlighted, ministry scholarships.

Before you get lost in the yearly Bacchanalia of buying lots of stuff, set aside some "pay it forward" money for ministry. Again, here's the site: Giving Tuesday.

I'll be reminding myself on December 1, "Giving Tuesday."

Psalm 1 and Proverbs 1:1-7

Last year I blogged a 40 Day read through the New Testament. Then I blogged through Genesis. I'm thinking about doing another book. I thought I'd work through Psalms and Proverbs. So that's a chapter of Psalms a day (when I can) and six verses of Proverbs each post. Feel free to read with me!

Psalm 1
1. I suspect that Psalm 1 was added as an introduction when Psalms reached something like its final form. Psalms 1 could of course be an introduction to Book I of the Psalms. The Psalms are made up of five books. The first 41 psalms make up Book I.

Psalms is the lead off hitter to the third section of the Jewish Bible, the "Writings." At the time of Jesus, the Old Testament was grouped into three parts: The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. In the Christian Bible, Job is the first of the "poetic books" (with Psalms second). But Psalms begins the Writings in the Jewish Bible (see Luke 24:44).

2. The first psalm is a wonderful presentation of two ways. There are those who delight in the Law of the LORD (1:1-3), and there are those who are wicked, who do not follow God's Law (1:4-6).

The blessed do not follow the advice of the wicked. They do not take the path of sinners. We should not read Pauline debates in here. Sinners are people who violate the Law, and the standard is such that the Law can be kept. The psalmist believes it is fully possible not to be a sinner and, indeed, we must not be.

The Law here is likely a reference to the Law of Moses, Genesis through Deuteronomy. That suggests that this psalm is post-exilic. The fact that the Psalms as a whole are in the Writings also suggests that they reached their final form after the exile.

3. The wicked will perish. The psalmist means in this life. This is deuteronomistic theology. The wicked generally face judgment and punishment in this world. Again, the psalmist fully believes it is possible not to be wicked. Indeed, we must not be.

The judgment in Psalm 1:5 was not originally the final judgment, although we are free to read it this way as well. There is no sense of a final judgment, not in context, anywhere in the Old Testament apart from Daniel 12:2.

Proverbs 1:1-7
Verse 7 is the key to the whole book of Proverbs: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge."

We are told that as we read the Proverbs, we will learn wise dealing, righteousness, justice, and equity. We will gain wisdom and insight. Read on!

Hard to know when 1:1 was added as the heading to the book. Since it tells us about Solomon, it is not likely Solomon who wrote Proverbs 1:1. Proverbs is clearly a collection of individual proverbs, not a book that was written in one sitting. And there are proverbs from individuals other than Solomon as well (e.g., Prov. 31).

Sunday, November 15, 2015

ET4. God calls us to respect authority in honor of his authority.

This is the fourth post on Christian ethics in my ongoing series, theology in bullet points. The first unit in this series had to do with God and Creation (book here), and the second unit was on Christology and Atonement.

We are now in the third and final unit: The Holy Spirit and the Church. The first set of posts in this final unit was on the Holy Spirit. The second set was on the Church. The third set was on sacraments. This final section is on Christian ethics.
God calls us to respect authority in honor of his authority.

1. The authority of God is the universal assumption of Scripture. His will demands absolute conformity, even if he allows us to resist and disobey. We get a small taste of his holiness when Uzzah immediately dies when he tries to steady the ark (2 Sam. 6:6-7). Similarly, at Mt. Sinai, any person or animal that might touch the mountain was to be put to death while God presence was there (Exod. 19:12-13).

The ancient world was an honor/shame world. High premium was put on how highly you were regarded in relation to the values of your group. Such a world contrasts with our modern individualistic "guilt" culture, where high premium is put on being true to yourself and what you as an individual believe.

The command not to take the name of the LORD in vain was a command that had to do with taking oaths in the name of YHWH, the name of God. When one invoked YHWH's name, one put the honor of YHWH on the line in relation to a vow. To break the vow was to dishonor him. To break the vow was thus to incur the wrath of YHWH.

Jephthah gives us a picture of how important it was to keep a vow in Judges 11:30-31. He vows to YHWH that he will sacrifice the first living thing that comes out of his house if God gives him the victory in battle. It proves to be his daughter. So he gives his daughter two months to mourn her death as an unmarried virgin and then he keeps his vow (11:37-39).

Jesus undercuts this command when he says not to swear at all but to be a person who tells the truth (Matt. 5:33-37). If my "yes" really means "yes" and my "no" really means "no," then there is no need for me to take oaths. People will know that I am a person whose word is truth, a person who means what I say.

If God's people are truth-tellers, then God will get honor from us without us needing to take vows.

2. Vows of course have little meaning in the modern Western world today. People say, "I swear," all the time and it is practically meaningless. With Jesus Christ and the New Testament, we are also better aware of the compassionate forgiveness of God if someone were to make a bad vow like Jephthah's. We can now say that it would have been far more pleasing to God for Jephthah to ask God's forgiveness for a foolish vow and then to spare his daughter's life than to keep his foolish vow.

Cursing today doesn't have the same character as it did in other times and places. People say God or Jesus' name (or a derivative of them) as an exclamation rather than as a vow. The third commandment was not about cursing but about vow keeping. Nevertheless, Ephesians 5:4 and Colossians 3:8 tell us what we would have known otherwise--our speech should be honorable and uplifting. We can either honor or dishonor God with our language and, even more importantly, the attitude behind our language.

3. Almost every culture has some authority structure. Those few pockets of humanity that have not had a clear leader usually develop one or have one that is unacknowledged. Even if we were all in perfect submission to and communication with the Holy Spirit, there would still be a leader--the Holy Spirit.

So while it is ideal that, in any group, all the individuals would "honor one another above yourselves" (Rom. 12:10, NIV), it is likely that structures of authority will develop in any group of people of any size. Churches naturally have official leadership structures. Nations and people groups naturally have official leadership structures. "If the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle?" (1 Cor. 14:8).

Paul told the Romans, "The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Rom. 13:1). The way most of us apply this idea is that we should show respect to our leaders, even if they are evil, even if they are incompetent. The classic example is when David does not take an opportunity to kill king Saul, even though Saul is trying to kill him. He does not do it, even though his men are urging him, because he will not touch the LORD's anointed (1 Sam. 24:6).

To be sure, God also is said to sanction coups in Scripture (e.g., 2 Kings 9:6-7). Elisha anoints Jehu to destroy the house of Ahab. Yet even here, Hosea considers Jehu's slaughter of all Ahab's house to be a matter for which God was going to destroy the house of Jehu (Hos. 1:4).

Clearly there is a great wisdom needed here. When do we submit and conform to what we consider to be bad leadership? When do we, respectfully, work for leadership change?

In the light of Christ, our bias must be toward respect and submission, even if there may be times for exception. It is fallen human nature to justify subversion for our own selfish advancement. It is more often the evil impulse that wants to fight and overthrow. Any exception must be for the good of others rather than ourselves, and we can hardly trust ourselves to make that judgment.

4. We are thus called to respect the authority of those over us as a way of honoring God and respecting his authority. Our default should be submission and respect for those in authority over us in whatever domain. We should treat those in office as God's anointed. There is a time to work for change, but it must never be for our selfish advancement, only the good of others and to honor God.

Next week: ET5. God calls us to respect our governments.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Some "That Time" Old Testament Verses

I always enjoy time with the Indy Benjamin MDIV group on Saturdays. They're in their final course of the MDIV praxis sequence. This morning we went through key passages on marriage, polygamy, adultery, divorce, and homosexual sex.

There are some fascinating OT verses on these subjects. They remind us that the world of the OT was quite different from ours. Most of the OT Law, including its civil law, was for "that time" and the people of Israel rather than "all time" and the "new covenant." As N. T. Wright says, "We are not members of Israel" (124).

Here are some examples:
  • "If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn." (Deut. 21:15-16)
  • "Suppose a man enters into marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man’s wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house (or the second man who married her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that would be abhorrent to the Lord." (Deut. 24:1-4)
  • "When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband’s brother to her, and the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel." (Deut. 25:5-6)
  • "When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins." (Exod. 22:16-17)

Friday, November 13, 2015

The Question of Evil

1. I don't think the biggest question in relation to faith is science. Nor am I threatened by battles over the Bible. Christ has died; Christ has risen; Christ will come again. We're good. The evidence doesn't have to demand anything, but it is plausible. There is no body. Multiple people were strongly convinced they had seen Jesus alive in different places and at different times after he died. In the end, faith is not based in proof.

The biggest question in relation to faith is why a loving God allows evil and suffering to continue in the world. I find incredulous the hocus pocus of some who wave a magic wand and say, "Love is whatever God does by definition." God has already defined love just fine in Scripture numerous times. He has defined it in Christ, not least. It involves related words like "saving," "giving," "kind," "hopes."

2. By faith, we believe that God is love, defined in the normal ways. The world does not always look that way. But then again, I don't believe God directly wills every event that happens. In many cases, I believe God allows things to happen that would not be his preferred course. This is the question of how much freedom God has built into his creation and given to humanity.

Some believe God directly decides and causes every event that happens. The problem is that this view makes God into Satan, almost literally, for it would mean that God directs every action Satan takes. Then he would direct the action of every demon down to the last evil detail. God becomes the direct author of all evil. God would then direct every feeling of pleasure that the worst serial killer has.

No, that position more or less makes Christianity incoherent, a devilish religion much to be avoided.

3. Most of the time, we will not know why God allows specific events of evil and suffering. We only know that they fit in some way with God's love. We know that God is currently allowing evil to fight back against him, although its days are numbered. There are personal agents of evil in the world, ranging from Satan to lost human individuals needing to find their God.

We know that God's priorities are eternal rather than the temporary. We know that we do not always have a good sense of what is most important. We know that God can use suffering for good. There can also be times when the good weighs against the good, but we cannot discern the better because we do not know the big picture.

In the end, however, these answers are not likely to feel sufficient in the moment of pain. Ideas and head answers are always weak in the face of the heart. For our pains, God has given us each other as an answer. Brothers and sisters in Christ are God's immediate answers to the question of evil and suffering. And by faith we know that God is still in control.

4. What we know is that Christ cries with us. He remains fully human. In Christ, God embraced our suffering, and in Christ he embraces it still.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Roger Olson on Nominalism

Don't have time today to develop a deep subject, but enjoyed Roger Olson's post yesterday on the "catastrophe of nominalism." Here's a memorable quote: "Nominalism is the ultimate poison of Western civilization that corrodes and erodes it. It lies at the top of the slippery slope down which we have slid into modern and now, increasingly, postmodern oblivion."

I hear what he's saying. If you deny that there is truth "in" the world or deny that the world in some way embodies a transcendent truth, then it is a short step to concluding finally that truth is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

This is a fairly common perspective. However, IMO, this same nominalist moment also stands at the root of the rise of modern science, economics, the rise of historical consciousness and the quest for objectivity, not to mention the Protestant Reformation. I think it would be a mistake to go back more or less to a choice between some form of Platonism or some form of Aristotelianism.

I hesitate to call myself a nominalist because I do believe in universals after my own idiom and I do believe in transcendentals after my own idiom. Yet, the situation of our human finitude and locatedness I think push us toward what I might call a "pragmatist nominalism" of sorts as a method of knowing. Most of what people see "in" things, whether beauty or whatever, is at least expressed through the eye of the beholder. And I more or less define pre-modernism as seeing things that aren't there but are really constructs of your own mind, without being able to tell the difference.

Time's up.

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

What's in a philosopher?

I enjoyed the side comments at philosophers last night in the GOP Presidential debate. Not entirely sure what Rubio was trying to say, but it does make me wonder if anti-philosophy is going to be a thing. There was that movie God's not Dead last year. :-)

Of course philosophers are notorious for not believing in God. They're notorious for being snarky and smug. Philosophy courses are the ones most notorious for being anti-faith at state schools.

Then again, it would be the fallacy of composition to suggest that all philosophy professors are godless just because some are. And it would be the fallacy of diversion to say that philosophy itself is anti-faith just because many people associated with it are anti-faith.

As I've said before, philosophy is ultimately the meta-subject to end all meta-subjects when it comes to truth claims. Dave Ward gave a paper last Monday arguing that theology is the heart of all knowledge, but he carefully indicated that he was talking about a way of being when he argued this, not a way of knowing. So I also have tried to make it clear that it is as a way of knowing that philosophy stands alongside all other knowing as the ultimate meta-discipline. When Dasein gets translated into knowing, philosophy lieth at the door.

Philosophy stands alongside science and asks what science is doing.
Philosophy stands alongside art and asks what art is doing.
Philosophy stands alongside psychology, history, religion, and asks what it is doing.
Philosophy can stand alongside theology and ask what it is doing, if it is allowed.
Philosophy stands alongside what we do, what we think, and who we are.

We are all philosophers, whether we admit it or not. Now, a shameless plug. :-)

My Amazon Store