Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Narrative from the Pentateuch

    I frequently recommend reading the story of the exodus through conquest as a kind of connected narrative, trying to learn from the stories. The problem I’ve discovered is that many people skip over the ceremonial and legal parts of the Bible and thus often miss important narrative points that are interleaved with those elements.

    Ultimately, I recommend that you read the whole thing, but for those who may prefer to try something a bit lighter, here’s a connected path, with chapters to be skipped in [brackets] along with a summary of what you’re missing there. There will be occasional short genealogies or legal items of just a few verses that I include with the reading.

    Genesis

    1-4:16 [4:17-22 – Kenite genealogy]
    [5 – Patriarchal genealogies]
    6-9
    [10 – Table of Nations]
    11:1-9
    [11:10-26 – Second patriarchal genealogy]
    11:27-32
    12-24
    [25:1-18 – Abraham and Keturah + genealogy]
    25:19-35:29
    [36 – Esau’s genealogy]
    37-50

    Exodus

    1-20 (note that I include the giving of the 10 commandments in the narrative)
    [21-24:8 – Law and covenant]
    24:9-18
    [25-31 – Instructions for the Tabernacle]
    32-34
    [35-40:33 – Regulations and building the tabernacle]
    40:34-38

    Leviticus

    [1-8 – Instructions for various offerings]
    9-10
    [11-27 – Various laws, feasts, sacrifices and other regulations]

    Numbers

    [1-8 – Census, along with various duties and laws]
    9-14
    [15 – More laws and ceremonial regulations]
    16-17
    [18-19 – Priestly Responsibilities and the ceremony of the red heifer]
    20-25
    [26 – New census]
    27
    [28-30 – Various laws]
    31-33
    [34-36 – various laws, list of tribal leaders]

    Deuteronomy

    1-3
    [4-30 – repetition of the law]
    31-34

    I do not mean to imply that the legal and ceremonial sections are less important; far from it. I believe they have great spiritual insights. But those who are just starting to read the Pentateuch might do well to start just a bit lighter.

    Let me also recommend my essay Interpreting Stories for use in connection with these narratives.

  • Healing and Restoration from Jeremiah 32

    Thomas Durst has a nice, short, devotional post drawn from Jeremiah 32:36-44, which he quotes from The Message. It’s titled Healing and Restoration.

  • Church Politics Good and Bad

    Not too long ago I posted about the necessity for church politics. Today I was reading Frederick W. Danker’s commentary on 2 Corinthians, and I ran across a similar argument, based on 2 Corinthians.

    Let me quote it:

    Much of Paul’s success lay in his political acumen, with a flair for recognition of the potential of others for service. If politics is the art of mobilizing power and resources, material and human–with whatever bureaucratic structures are necessary–to satisfy the optimum requirements for justice and to ensure the safety of the powerless, St. Paul qualifies as one of its masters. There are those who shy away from the use of the terms politics and bureaucracy in connection with ecclesiastical matters. But if politics is presumed to be so intrinsically tainted that the institutional church is embarrassed by the term, there is no reason to expect “politicians” to think better of themselves. There is no escape from reality–politics and bureaucracy are facts of life, and it is primarily a question of whether there will be good or bad politics and good or bad bureaucrats. It is also true that groups of people ultimately determine which kind will prevail. In this letter to Corinth, Paul exposes practitioners of bad politics and invites his addressees to insist on good politics. He himself claims to be a politician dedicated to the interests of God and Jesus Christ, and therefore of the Corinthians’ interests. It is not surprising therefore that many of Paul’s statements in this letter relate to matters of morale, authority, teamwork, and obedience.

    I think this paragraph presents a very important truth, and it is well supported by the epistles of Paul, and particularly 1 & 2 Corinthians. Whether in politics or in the church, when we dismiss all politics as dirty or unnecessary we simply guarantee that we will have bad politics.

    Cynics around the country will fail to vote or fail to express their opinions and then will complain. But they themselves are complicit in the fact that politics is dirty, because they do not participate and place their votes against the bad politicians.

    In many churches there are people who complain about the way the church functions. In my own United Methodist denomination many like to complain about the larger church organization, but very few people want to get involved and do the hard work of making church politics function well.

    We have to get involved and expect–no, insist on–more. Otherwise we’ll continue to get less.

    (I wrote a short review of Danker’s commentary on 2 Corinthians here.)

  • Ralph Nader Running for President

    . . . according to this MSNBC.com story. He had an exploratory campaign for about a month. Normally an exploratory campaign is designed to see if you ought to run. Now here’s what I want to know. What would he have had to discover to persuade him not to run?

  • From YEC to Theistic Evolutionist

    Since I’ve made this journey myself, I’m always on the alert for other stories of similar journeys. It’s interesting that I’ve found many more such stories amongst those studying science. On the religion side, it’s generally those who studies nuts and bolts material (textual criticism, history, archeology, and so forth) who start to see holes in the fabric of a literalist view of the Bible.

    Dr. Steve Matheson has an interesting post at Quintessence of Dust on this very topic, discussing the story of paleontologist Stephen Godfrey, as told in an article in Science. It’s worth reading Dr. Matheson’s summary even though the article is available only to subscribers.

    In these discussions by scientists I frequently see discussions of the need to prepare a theological framework to help people migrate their faith along with their science. I personally found this very difficult coming up as a Seventh-day Adventist. I ended up leaving the church entirely for a period of 12 years, before finding my own balance. There are a couple of problems. For many conservative Christians, any alteration in one’s view of the Bible is apostasy, and thus there is little room for adjustment. The view has to be shattered and then rebuilt. There are some careful theologians and specialists in Biblical studies who also have an interest in the people they teach who can help with this, but they are few and far between. On the other hand, there is too much of a tendency in those who make the journey to laugh at those who have not and expect them to jump. This is combined with a tendency to minimize the gap involved. I personally often have trouble expressing the differences in interpretation without sounding impatient and condescending, so I understand the difficulty. At the same time I know I’m speaking against positions I once held myself with some fervor!

    “Just don’t take it so literally” becomes the mantra. But “not taking it so literally” is not an adequate foundation. Just how do you take it? What does the Bible mean in a new context? Besides the problem of oversimplification there is a difference in terms of theology. There is not a single Christian theology to which one can appeal in this case. In particular dealing with issues like randomness and teleology, Arminians and Calvinists tend to see things very differently.

    I’d add one more thing. Because of my writing (on religion, not science), in which I state my positions, I was never able to conceal the change from my family, most of whom are still young earth creationists. That is probably the hardest single thing for them to accept about my faith as it now stands. It’s a good idea to understand that this is a significant issue. At the same time, I’m not going to keep quiet, simply because I know many are afraid to speak up because they feel that there are so few who will understand. It’s important to be present and accounted for!

    In any case, I’m glad to see the discussion going on.

  • Augsburg NT Commentary on 2 Corinthians

    I took a detour from working through 2 Corinthians with the Anchor Bible commentary and read Frederick W. Danker’s volume II Corinthians in the Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament series.

    This is a 214 page commentary, but has more content than you might expect because it doesn’t include the Biblical text along with the commentary. That can be slightly inconvenient, but on the other hand it does mean more content in a smaller book.

    I really enjoyed reading through this commentary. Danker is an extremely good writer. Commentators don’t have many opportunities to be eloquent, but he manages it from time to time when discussing the theology and application.

    Danker covers critical issues, discussing the question of the unity of the letter. He presents the reasons for the various divisions, but he also presents reasons mostly from rhetorical criticism as to why the book might be more unified than is often thought.

    The highlights of this commentary include:

    • Extensive discussion of rhetorical issues
    • Outstanding discussion of Greek culture
    • Extensive quotation of parallels, primarily from Greek culture, but also from Hebrew backgrounds
    • Frequent helpful comments on theology and application useful for preachers.

    It’s out of print, as I believe most good books are, but there are still used copies available, or you can do what I did and get it from a library.

  • Regeneration and Baptism of the Holy Spirit

    OK, readers, this is a strictly Christian type of argument. Is regeneration and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit the same thing?

    Since I haven’t link to him in so long, some may think I no longer read Adrian Warnock’s blog, but that is quite incorrect. I still subscribe to his RSS feed, but he’s been reposting his most popular articles from last year, and I had already commented on the ones I wanted to. Today, however, I read his post Lloyd-Jones on How to Grieve the Holy Spirit. To quote briefly:

    “There is nothing, I am convinced, that so ‘quenches’ the Spirit as the teaching which identifies the baptism of the Holy Ghost with regeneration. But it is a very commonly held teaching today, indeed it has been the popular view for many years. It is said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is ‘nonexperimental’, that it happens to every one at regeneration.Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones So we say, ‘Ah well, I am already baptized with the Spirit; it happened when I was born again, at my conversion; there is nothing for me to seek, I have got it all’.” [Please read the larger quote from Adrian’s blog.]

    Since I have published previously on this topic, let me start my response with a quote:

    I believe that the baptism is an experience God intends for all Christians, and that ideally it should occur in connection with initial conversion and water baptism. There are ongoing opportunities for the Holy Spirit to ‘infuse’ us with more gifts and increases in gifts throughout our spiritual walk. There is ALWAYS more!”

    This is from a summary of the pamphlet I Want the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The pamphlet expands on it, but is still very brief. Essentially, I deal with two concerns. The first is the possibility that any singular experience can be used to divide Christians into classes. Thus we have “Spirit-filled” Christians and ordinary Christians. The second is that we decide that a singular experience is all there is of Christianity. There is a variant on this that would suggest that once one has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a specific, identifiable event, then that is the end of one’s experience.

    My friend Dr. Bob McKibben, in his book Holy Smoke! Unholy Fire!, holds a somewhat different view. (Note that my company publishes Dr. Bob’s book.) I begin my quote after he has referenced four texts in the gospels about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    Each of these passages refers to the same setting. John the Baptist is making reference to Jesus Christ and in each case the baptism of the Spirit is something that is yet to come. John is referring to a future event, which most scholars contend is the day of Pentecost. Let’s move from the gospel references to the Book of Acts:

    And while staying with them he [Jesus] charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4-5)

    In this passage, our Lord is speaking to the disciples sometime after His death and resurrection, but before His ascension into heaven. Like the verses found in the gospel accounts, Jesus is speaking of an event that is yet to happen. Again, like the gospel accounts, this text is looking forward to the Day of Pentecost.

    There is a reference in Acts 11 that looks back rather than forward, but again you will find that it refers to the ministry of John the Baptist:

    As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, “John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 11:15-16)

    The seventh and last verse which refers to the baptism of the Spirit, without using the exact phrase, is found in I Corinthians 12:13. This verse clearly speaks of unity within the church, which is the Body of Christ. This verse also makes clear the point that there are not two different groups or categories of Christians. As you read this verse, do so prayerfully, discerning what Paul was desperately trying to impress upon his beloved in Corinth:

    For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (I Corinthians 12:12-13)

    Paul used the metaphor of the human body to explain the principle of unity within the Church. Just like the body, the Church is an organic whole made up of many different members. But Paul is making it painfully clear that even with the plurality of members, there is only one kind of Christian. The church – body of Christ does not possess two different kinds of Christians, some with the Holy Spirit and some without, or some with more of the Holy Spirit and some with less.

    Using these seven Biblical references to Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I believe that there is only one Baptism of the Holy Spirit and it occurred on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts, chapter two.

    I fully understand Bob’s concern here with only one class of Christians, but I also share the serious concern expressed in the quotation that Adrian has provided. In the end I’m probably more concerned about the latter. Too many Christians see only a singular experience, and see no possibility for growth or change. I see sufficient scriptural evidence to suggest that we are talking about two things in the life of the believer, yet that the two elements should ideally happen simultaneously. Unfortunately, we tend to believe that if both happen together, we have no need to stoke the fire after that, and on the other hand if the two occur separately, we have an excuse to divide Christians into classes.

    I’d suggest one class–Christians who have entered the gate (regeneration) and are following the path. But if you are on that path and have not experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life, seek it out. It doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit hasn’t worked in you–you would hardly have entered the gate without the Holy Spirit’s work. It does mean that there is more to experience in your life with God.

  • Fordham Institute Criticizes Science Standards Compromise

    According to the Bradenton Herald, Paul Gross used the word “dishonest” in reference to the compromise language. Personally I prefer “silly” or “inane.” The changes didn’t change the meaning.

  • Life of a Rumor

    One of the nastiest sins you can have break out in your church is gossip. Unfortunately, it’s also one of the most common–more common than the common cold. I have seen church congregations broken apart by gossip, and nobody involved thought they were doing anyone any harm.

    Excuses for spreading rumor and innuendo vary. Sometimes people just don’t see the harm. Sometimes they believe the rumor is true. Other folks just can’t help it; the rumor is too juicy and they just have to tell someone.

    If another person draws their attention to it, there are plenty of excuses. Here are some samples:

    “I’m just doing my duty as a church leader to find out the truth.” This one works even if you’re on the hospitality team, or you help park cars. You’re still a leader, right?

    “I’m not spreading the rumor. I’m trying to control it and let people know how unreliable it is.” OK!

    “I’m not talking about _____ (the subject of the rumor). I’m dealing with the people who spread it.” Well, no problem then!

    But my favorite is: “I’m just telling you so you can pray for _____ more specifically.” I’ll make sure to pass on your inside information to God in my next prayer in case he missed it.

    There are a few malicious tale bearers, but most people simply talk, and they never realize what they are doing. But the spread of a rumor can do a great deal of damage. Generally also the rumor becomes more believable the more people who repeat it. It’s not evidence. It’s how many times you heard it. By the time you get to the people talking about the people talking about the rumor, nobody knows where it started, and it has a life of its own.

    Similar things happen in the media, I think, and with similar effect. A newspaper publishes a story that may (or may not) have inadequate support. Then we get the media outlets who spend their time talking about how nasty it was for the first outlet to release the story, but the general public simply hears the rumor again and again. Multiple experts get on the various talk shows to comment on whether the original story should have been published. Then more experts talk about whether we should be talking about the story. Before long viewers, readers, and listeners are no longer sure just what the story was.

    Finally, of course, bloggers like me start talking about the media that talked about the media that talked about the media that originated the story . . .

    It’s driven by the fact that we, the public, will watch this kind of thing. It’s a human thing, just like gossip in a church community. If we don’t want it, we’re going to have to learn to change the channel, read a different web page, listen to a different radio station, or perhaps simply go and research the facts as best we can.

    Let me recommend two sites I’ve been using more and more: PolitiFact and FactCheck.org. We need to be aware that even they can be wrong, but looking for the facts is a number of steps above simply chewing on the rumors.

  • Search for the Historical Simon Peter II

    This post continues from this one and is part of my series blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus?

    This chapter continues the theme of the previous chapter. Witherington is creating profiles of the various claimed eyewitnesses in the New Testament and then using them to tell us about Jesus. With certain assumptions, this isn’t a bad plan. It makes for engaging reading. The problem for me is that I don’t accept all of the assumptions he uses, and without those, the procedure can look fairly silly.

    If I’m not convinced on the face of it that the book of Matthew, for example, is a totally reliable witness to the life of Jesus, then how will I be convinced that I know Peter based on that book, and that I can rely on the testimony of this “Peter reconstruction” to establish facts about Jesus.

    I should make one proviso here. Witherington has a number of chapters, most of the book, to go, and may do a better job of establishing the historical basis for accepting the source documents as reliable. I simply don’t see that he has done so yet.

    To illustrate my point, let me refer to pages 82-87 which discusses the incident with Cornelius. Early in this process Witherington makes this statement:

    … We can pretty much rule out the possibility that he made it up: it is hard to imagine Luke, who idolized and was a one-time companion of Paul, making up a story about Peter being the first missionary to the gentiles. … (p. 83)

    Now I see several problems here. Witherington makes the assumption that Luke-Acts was written by the companion of Paul, which implies a certain interpretation of the “we” passages in Acts. That’s a good possibility, and I’m inclined toward it myself, but it is not a consensus position. But then he makes the assumption that Luke would want to make Paul the initial apostle to the gentiles. I think even if the first assumption is good, Luke (whoever he was) shows that he wants to connect Paul more closely with the Jerusalem church than Paul does himself. What better way to legitimize Paul’s mission than to claim that Peter actually opened the door?

    I see a much more favorable view of Jerusalem in Acts than there is in Paul’s epistles, and this would suggest that whether or not Luke idolized Paul (an uncertain statement), he apparently also wanted to present Paul as being on good terms with the Jerusalem church.

    There is a subtheme of these chapters that I do appreciate a great deal, and that is the place of women in the early church. Luke-Acts is a good place to find this theme presented. One shouldn’t be surprised that we occasionally have to read between the lines. For those who pay attention it is clear that Luke is giving a greater place to women and to non-Jews. Witherington tracks this theme very carefully.

    My negative comments should not be taken as meaning I’m not enjoying the book. Witherington writes quite well and it’s very interesting following his logic. As a presentation of one way of providing a profile of Jesus, it’s quite good and thorough. Thus far it has been instructive and interesting.