In the beginning...

So, my main point from last week was that we need to let the Bible serve its own agenda rather than us pushing our agenda onto it. We need to come to the scriptures and let them shape us; let them tell us what they are designed to say.

One of my biggest beefs with "creationists" is that in many (...but not all...) cases I don't think they use the Scriptures properly. Week hermeneutics = poor theology.

Maybe I'm a heretic but I honestly don't think that the point God is trying to make through Genesis 1 is an historical (by modern standards...), chronological account of how He created.

If He thought it was important to let us know the exact "how", He would have given us more specifics. As it is, Genesis 1 is VERY unspecific (scientifically/historically speaking). Genesis 1 is moving; it is beautiful; it is powerful... it is theological... but it is not scientifically or historically precise.

If God wanted it to be, He would have made it that way.

If God wanted Gen. 1 to be scientifically/historically accurate He would have explained how there was "light" & "dark" (Day 1) before there was sun, moon, stars (day 4).

If God wanted Gen. 1 to be scientifically/historically accurate He would have explained how there was "evening" & "morning" (every day) before He had created the sun and moon (day 4).

In fact, how were there "day"s before day 4? How were they measured? Were these metaphorical days (day/age theory... Heb. "yom")? Were they 24 hr. periods (the Hebrew is rather ambiguous)?

There is just as much theory and speculation in creationism as there is in evolution.

Please do not read anything into the picture below: it's a joke! :)

As I mentioned last week, Genesis 1 is a Hebraic poem.

The 6 "days" of creation in Genesis 1 follow an ABC - ABC formula (with "day" 7 providing the "D" conclusion):

Day 1. A

Day 2. B

Day 3. C

Day 4. A

Day 5. B

Day 6. C

Day 7. D

Each of the "days" has a parallel.

A breakdown of the structure of Genesis 1 is as follows:

A. Day 1: Light and Dark || Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars

B. Day 2: Sea & Sky || Day 5: Fish & Birds

C. Day 3: Fertile Earth || Day 6: Land Animals (including Mankind)

D. Day 7: Rest

In the first half of the parallel God creates something and then in the second half He populates it: ie. Day 2 - God creates the sea; Day 5 God creates Fish.

Remember, most scholars agree that it was Moses who wrote Genesis. This was written so that it could be read to (not by) the people of God: it was an oral culture. Things were written so that when they were read they could be remembered (hence the Hebrew emphasis on REPETITION).

This was written to a people who did not know or value science. It was written to a people who needed to know who God was, what He had done, and how they were called to live in response to that.

These words still speak powerfully to us today but we cannot impose our western/modern cultural expectations onto an ancient religious text. When we do that we come up with some wacky stuff!

In the end I believe that what we are intended to know is simply this: GOD CREATED.

God created all that is.

God created us:

A. in His image

B. as the climax of His "good" creation

C. to live in unity with Him & the rest of His creation.

I am not trying to say that really getting into creation-science is wrong or bad, 'cause it's not. I think it is important to have "specialists" in all areas of Biblical scholarship... but it should be just that: people who are passionate about the theology of Genesis, not people who are passionate about reading science into the text.

Exegesis not eisegesis.

That's all for now. Let me know what you think!

Asking the right questions?

"Asking the [Bible] the right sort of questions, and avoiding asking the wrong ones, is a key not only to understanding the Bible as a written expression of God's Word, but it also prevents us from creating more troubles in interpretation than are necessary" (Ben Witherington III; The Living Word of God, 25).

** ** ** **

I have provided, as bookends for this post, two quotes that I hope can emphasize the point I am trying to make:

I hope that in post-modernism we as Christians may be able to regain a view of the Bible that was damaged during the modern era. Following the Enlightenment much of Western Christianity bought into the worldview of modernity. One of the results of this was an emphasis on "Systematic Theology." Systematic Theology was a way of approaching theology that followed the scientific method. Observe the following quotes from two prominent Christian Systematic Theologians:

“…the theologian must be guided by the same rules in the collection of facts, as govern the man of science.” - Charles Hodge

“the laws of methodology are as essential in the science of systematic theology as in any other science” - L.S. Chafer

“... the Bible contains the truths which the theologian has to collect, authenticate, arrange, and exhibit in their internal relation to each other” - Hodge

I won't take the time and space right now to argue with these quotes other than simply saying that I think this approach to theology has had some very destructive results (if you want some of these ideas just ask and I can comment on them). One of these results is, in my opinion, the largely pointless debate of creationism/evolutionism.

One of the biggest follies Christians have committed is attempting to claim scientific truth in the scriptures. Just ask Copernicus, Galileo, etc...

Obviously this is a hugely dense topic with a tonne of baggage so there's no way I can deal with this with any justice in a blog post but for now I will just highlight one or two points.

Genre, people... genre. In most cases it is not very difficult to identify the genre of any given passage of scripture. For example, to argue that the earth is flat because Ps. 135:7 talks about the "ends of the earth"; or to say that the sun goes around the earth because Ps. 104:22 says that "the sun rises"... to argue these points is just plain silly. Why? (aside from the fact that science has clearly proven otherwise) Because it is poetry! Why on earth would one attempt to derive scientific fact from a sacred poem? Maybe it's just me, but you'd think that a religious poem would be trying to address something other than the natural sciences.

Here's the thing: the Bible has it's own agenda. In a sense it is providing us answers to questions that we may not be asking. So part of the interpretive task for any and every Christian is to find out what questions we need to be asking it (see top & bottom quotes). When we come to the scriptures with our own questions/hypothesis we are almost guaranteed to be misinterpreting it.

It is coming out of this that "Biblical Theology" has risen. The emphasis in Biblical Theology is to read the Bible as a whole and to discern what God's agenda is in the written Word and then yield our agenda's to His.

In short: Systematic Theology starts with our questions and looks to the Bible to answer them while Biblical Theology starts with the Bible's answers and asks us to change our questions.

[This is not to say that all Systematic Theology is bad or that all Biblical Theology is good; nor is it saying that Systematic Theology isn't Biblical or that Biblical Theology isn't in some sense systematic. They are just two different approaches]

So, if we are to even begin to address the creation/evolution debate we need to come to the creation account with no agenda (as much as is possible) on our own part. Or maybe I should say, our only agenda needs to be to hear the answers that God provides us with and then ask if we've been asking the right questions.

I'd like to keep going but I'm not sure how much more you poor readers will keep reading... maybe more next week.

Please provide me with your thoughts and comments :)

** ** ** **

"Even when only partly understood, the Bible remain(s) bigger than the niches to which it (has been) relegated. For it requires that we be hearers of the Word,

listening for what it asks us, not bringing our questions to find the Bible's answers, but prepared to have our current questions revised or even discredited by its own" (James McClendon; Ethics, 37).

A little fun...

So I'm going to be having a really busy week and won't have time to do a proper post. This will have to suffice.

For those of you who don't know, Michael Bird is an Australian NT scholar (and regularly posts on the Euangelion Blog) who teaches at a theological college in Scotland. He's a brilliant scholar and all-around good guy.

Anyway, Zondervan has been going around interviewing various prominent authors/scholars and asking them which authors/books have been influential in their lives. For example, here is the video of my favorite Greek scholar, Bill Mounce.

Mr. Bird decided to have some fun with his interview:

This has kept me laughing for a long time... My favorite is Joel Olsteen and Joyce Meyer as "sentinals" of the faith... hehehehehe.

You can see his real interview here.

Anyway, I'm off to have a bubble bath and read some Barth!

How to be un-Christ-like

I have to confess that I am doing in these last posts something that I hate when other people do it: intentionally stating things controversially just to get a reaction.

Please forgive me.

But there is a point behind all of this. What I desire is that we all understand who Jesus, the son of Mary & Joseph, really was: He was a first century Jew, living in first century Jewish culture.

As he heard the voice of the Father in His life He was obedient. This obedience led Him to observe the OT Law in the way that the Father originally desired all humanity to observe it. It was because of this perfect obedience that Jesus could be our all sufficient

sacrifice and completely fulfill the Law.

I'm assuming that most of us won't have too many issues with what I stated above. What I take issue with is that we don't usually let all of that interact with our Christian calling.

It is precisely because of all of this that we don't need to be like Christ.

Jesus was obedient to His God-given vocation to be the Son of Man; the Messiah.

I however, have not been called to be the Messiah. I have been called to be the best darned Timothy Braun that I can be; the one that God wants me to be. Jesus' vocation was to fulfill the OT Law. I have not been called to live under that Law. To do so would be to return to slavery (Gal. 5:1). Instead I have been called to live under the "law of the Spirit of Life" (Rom. 8:2).

Jesus didn't get to live under the Law of the Spirit...

Jesus didn't get to (in His unresurrected human life) live under the New Covenant because it was by His death that it was inaugurated (Heb. 9:15-22).

To actually live the way that Jesus lived would mean returning to the Old Covenant.

Don't be like Jesus; be who Jesus wants you to be.

Was Jesus a Christian?

Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew?

Maybe it's just me but I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Jesus was a Jew.

This is one reason why I think "What Would Jesus Do?" is actually kind of a silly question.

What would Jesus do?:

Jesus would eat kosher.

Jesus would worship corporately on Saturday.

Jesus would observe the Passover, the Feast of Booths, etc... all of the Jewish religious feasts.

Jesus's scriptures would consist of only the Old Testament.

Jesus would get his male children circumcised (had He married & had He then had children).

I think you get the idea.

The point of the Messiah (at least partly) was that He was the ultimate Human (that's what the phrase the Son of Man meant: the person who epitomizes what mankind was meant to be). In the context

of Judaism this means (in part) that the Messiah was to be the ultimate Law abider; as Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17 (ESV).

I think this is part of why it is so important that we seek to truly understand the Old Testament and Judaism in general. After all, if the purpose of the Messiah was to fulfill God's purpose for the Law then shouldn't we, as followers of that Messiah, seek to understand exactly what it was that He fulfilled?

If we neglect to understand His purposes how can we truly be followers of Him?

Galatians 5:1 (ESV) says: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." Paul says that we no longer need to observe the Law because Christ fulfilled the Law; to return to the Law would be slavery.

However, if we don't understand what we have been freed from are we really free?

Ignorance is not freedom...

... nor is it bliss.

What do you think?

What do you think it means that Jesus was the ultimate human?

What do you think it means that Jesus was the ultimate Law abider?

How important do you think understanding the OT is?

** ** ** **

Any other ideas about what I should blog on?

Yup, I'm taking requests :)

Gathering & Committing

Today I am going to conclude our discussion on "church." It's been a long, much interrupted, series of posts but I hope you have benefited from them. I know I have.

When it comes right down to it, church is all about getting together and committing to something. We've talked about the meaning of the word church. The basic meaning of church is an assembly or a gathering. In its secular context a church (secular def'n of ekklesia) is a decision making assembly. When we look at the OT church (see LXX) we see a similar pattern. Whenever the people of Israel gather together in corporate worship and it is described as an ekklesia there is also a call to respond: they are covenant gatherings (ie. a call to renew the covenant). When the people leave the church (assembly) they have committed themselves to fulfilling their part of the covenant with God.

I think this is what church needs to be. When we assemble for corporate worship it is church. However, for it to truly be church there needs to be a response; we cannot leave church without having in some way committed ourselves anew to the cause of Christ & the Kingdom.

Now, some of you might balk when I use the phrase "leave church" but I use that phrase intentionally. I think there has been a fair bit of confusion over the years over what is the church and what is the body. [I acknowledge that what follows is probably an overly simplistic explanation but I think it holds true. If you take exception to it we can discuss it in the comments.]

The church is an assembly. Hence, once the assembly disperses you are no longer part of the assembly. The assembly is only an assembly when it has assembled... duh. So, when we are talking about the church as the local gathering of the Body of Christ then it is very simply what we have already described: a decision making gathering of the people of Christ.

However, regardless of whether we are assembling or not, we are all members of the Body of Christ; the Universal Church. I think the term universal church is a bit of a misnomer because it really isn't a church... or at least not yet. The entire Body of Christ has never assembled, nor will it until Recreation. That's something to look forward to!

So anyway, this conclusion is hardly revolutionary but I always think the journey's worth the work. Maybe we already knew when we started what the destination was but the hike is worth the work-out.

We may all be a part of the Body of Christ, but God has called us all to be a part of the local expression of the Body: the church.

I think as we gather for church, whatever that might look like, we need to keep in mind the OT Worship/Covenant gatherings. If we walk away from a gathering not having committed ourselves again to the grand purposes of God then we have missed the point.

Also, I find it compelling that Jesus said that "... the gates of hades will not prevail against..." the church (Mt. 16:18). When we assemble and these assemblies are times of worship and commitment the very gates of hades tremble.

That says something about church.

So, what do you think?

What else would you add to the discussion?

Is this the same or different than you've thought of church?

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

And if you only visit my blog for amazing YouTube clips, here's another DC*B video from last year's Dove Awards. The sound might bite, but it's a great song and I like the idea of what they did with the set. Enjoy.