Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Commentary

  • The Risen Christ is Know Initially by His Wounds

    From the forthcoming study guide to Philippians (from my company, Energion Publications), in commenting on Philippians 1:27-30:

    Even now in our time, we can take confidence in Paul’s assertion that God is with us and that, in life and death, and celebration and persecution, Christ sustains us. We are resurrection people. But, our lives are also cruciform or cross-shaped. The Risen Jesus is known initially by his wounds, and we too may experience suffering and loss as a result of our relationship with Christ. Still, at the end of the day, integrity, fidelity, and the promise of resurrection life  far outweigh any trials of this lifetime.

    Update: The author of the book is Bruce Epperly.

    (Excerpts from this forthcoming study guide are used by permission of the author as I edit the book. If you’re interested in reviewing this book, slated for a July 31 release, e-mail pubs@energion.com.)

  • There are Things Worth Contending For

    And some that aren’t …

    After much of what I heard about Paul in school, which was really rather a lot, I think one of the most important things to remember when reading Paul’s letters is that they are letters, and that Paul writes pastorally. He is not writing systematic theology. On the other hand, he is writing theology. He’s just doing it in a pastoral way to address particular situations in churches or with persons.

    I’m correctly working through advance copies of the forthcoming study guide to Philippians by Bruce Epperly, which will be part of the Participatory Study Series, with my Sunday School class. Now I love the book of Philippians. In fact, right now it’s one of the books I have recorded for myself in Greek on CD to listen to in my car, and it’s something I really enjoy hearing. There are so many powerful passages for daily Christian living.

    If you study just Galatians, you might get the idea that Paul was contentious with very little tolerance for any sorts of differences of opinion. You’d be wrong if you did–well, he’s a bit contentious, true–but you could do so by ignoring the situation and the nature of the issues he’s addressing in that letter.

    In Philippians we see another style, in which Paul can even celebrate (with some reservations) those who preach the gospel from bad motives. Let me quote Epperly on this point:

    Once again, Paul trusts God to be providentially working through a variety of Christian messages. While Paul would surely fault his opponents for their lack of ecumenical hospitality, he still recognizes that their message may advance the gospel message by bringing people to an experience of the Risen Christ. Now, I must admit this is a tall order. While most of us recognize that unity does not mean uniformity, there are times when we find it difficult to affirm God’s presence in those groups whose beliefs, worship style, ethics, or experiences differ from our own. Could it be that Paul is advocating a “big tent Christianity,” large enough to embrace progressives, moderates, evangelicals, Pentecostals, and conservatives? Could it be that Paul, for whom theology is very important, nevertheless, places experiencing Christ above doctrinal differences?

    Now while I might see Paul faulting these opponents for more than a lack of hospitality, I do see much of Paul in Philippians in that paragraph. The situation and the issue tends to drive the letter. Differences in Paul’s theology are generally driven by differences in the churches he’s addressing. His interest is in reaching and guiding people, rather than in expressing a systematic theology.

    “Guiding people” and “expressing theology” are not opposed. Paul expresses theology in order to guide people. The pastoral view guides what theology is expressed, where and how.

    There’s some controversy about contentious material in chapter three and how it relates to the generally positive and joyful tone of the letter. I see no more conflict here than I do with the belief that Paul could write both Galatians and Philippians, a view which is pretty much unchallenged. At least I know of no serious argument that Paul didn’t write both. The difference is the issues for which Paul is contending.

    In other words, there are things worth contending for, and others that are not.

  • Philippians Study

    I’m going to have the privilege over the next eight weeks of teaching from the book of Philippians using advance copies of a new study guide. The study guide was written by Dr. Bruce Epperly, and will be released by my company, Energion Publications, in July. This will be the next release in the Participatory Study Series, from which this blog derives its name. I’m going to blog about it as I work through it with my class and present a few extracts and comments.

    For the record, I still have a number of things to write from my ongoing blogging about James (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary) and Chronicles (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary). I have a number of notes, but haven’t had time to write any of them up.

    I must confess that Philippians is one of my three favorites from the Pauline corpus, the other two being 1 & 2 Corinthians. Yes, I prefer what I regard as the more practical and less theological letters. It’s really a close call, because I really do appreciate the others as well, but I think I have to give those three the edge, and I think that they are often neglected in favor of Pauline theologies developed largely from Galatians and Romans. But that’s another topic!

    The Letter to the Philippians is an example of practical theology, in which the church is called to live the faith it affirms. Paul has a strong sense of divine providence. While God does not control or determine every event, nevertheless, “in all things God is working for good.” (Romans 8:28) God is working in the Philippian church and will, through their fidelity, bring God’s good work to fulfillment, a harvest of righteousness. God rules the world through loving affirmation and humility rather than power and violence. Unlike Caesar, Jesus Christ does not seek to “lord it over” creation, but seeks to heal and save broken humanity. Christ’s path of humble service serves as a model for Christian living. Rather than rugged individualism and self-interest, Christians are called to serve one another, willingly sacrificing so that others might flourish.

    I think that’s a good description–“practical theology.” Indeed it is! Now “practical” doesn’t mean “shallow.” Nor do I mean that Galatians, for example, isn’t practical. But Philippians is directed to application.

    I’m going to give one more short quote from the first lesson:

    In proclaiming Jesus Christ as Lord, Paul is implicitly placing Jesus ahead of Caesar. Imperial rulers will come and go, but God’s Living Word endures forever.

    Just so!

  • So Wrong Divine Intervention is Required

    In my recent reading from the book of Job I came across the following from Zophar. I’ll quote just a bit:

    “Shouldn’t the multitude of words be answered?
    Should a man full of talk be justified?
    Should your boastings make men hold their peace?
    When you mock, shall no man make you ashamed?
    For you say, ‘My doctrine is pure.
    I am clean in your eyes.’

    But oh that God would speak,
    and open his lips against you,
    that he would show you the secrets of wisdom!
    For true wisdom has two sides.
    Know therefore that God exacts of you less than your iniquity deserves.
    (Job 11:1-6, WEB)

    I once preached a sermon in which I labeled the three friends of Job with modern denominational labels. I didn’t do this because I had tagged a particular one of them with denominational characteristics. In fact, I can’t remember what label I put on each. What I was trying to illustrate is that Job’s friends have their disciples in our modern churches.

    Have you ever had an argument, or to be kind, a ‘vigorous discussion’ with someone, only to have it conclude with your opponent saying something like “I’ll pray for you!” By the tone, you know they won’t be praying for your health. What they’ll be praying for is that God will straighten you out. Now I don’t mind having someone pray for me, and I’m sure God can handle whatever they ask, but often the underlying meaning of that phrase is something quite different. To go to the title of this post, what you’re being told is that you’re so wrong (and so stubborn) that only divine intervention will suffice to set you straight.

    Notice how Zophar first assures Job that he doesn’t understand, then wishes God would explain things to Job, but in the final line of the quote, he says “But know this …” Zophar is sure Job doesn’t understand, but he, Zophar, has it straight. If you continue reading the chapter, Zophar brings up many things that Job doesn’t understand. The implication behind the speech, however, is that Zophar does.

    When Job responds, he says:

    “No doubt, but you are the people,
    and wisdom shall die with you.
    But I have understanding as well as you;
    I am not inferior to you.
    Yes, who doesn’t know such things as these?” (Job 12:2-3, WEB)

    It’s possible for an appeal to God or an appeal to prayer to be an act of humility. You’ll probably know by the tone. But generally such calls come from someone who is so sure he or she is deep in the counsels of God and doesn’t need instruction. But you do.

    As you’re thinking about that, however, consider how many debates you’ve been in, in which you were the one with a tame god on a leash, ready to be sic’d on your opponent. Then try Job 38:2 on for size:

    Who is this who darkens counsel
    by words without knowledge?

  • February Biblical Studies Carnival Posted

    … at A Fistful of Farthings. It’s definitely a comprehensive one!

  • New Biblioblog: The Good Book

    A group of 30 professors at the Talbot School of Theology have created a new blog, The Good Book Blog. Their about page describes it this way:

    The Good Book Blog is the faculty blog of Talbot School of Theology at Biola University. Representing the diverse areas of specialty within the seminary, but bound by a common commitment to biblical authority, the blog seeks to engage with important topics in biblical studies, theology, philosophy, spiritual formation and Christian education. The Good Book Blog is a resource for anyone seeking solid biblical scholarship that engages contemporary ideas from a decidedly evangelical perspective.

    I think it will be worth following their “decidedly evangelical” perspective.

     

  • Dave Black on Philippians

    Matt Capps has collected links to Dave Black’s online writings on Philippians. As one of Dave’s publishers, I’m glad to see the list.

  • The Value (or not) of the Spiritual Warfare Metaphor

    My daily lectionary readings for the day included both Ephesians 6:10-24 and Mark 5:1-20. (I get my readings from The Voice.) It’s an interesting combination, because the Ephesians passage is the famous one about the armor of God and thus features in just about any discussion of spiritual warfare, while the passage in Mark, regarding the healing of the demoniac on the other side of the Sea of Galilee, is spiritual warfare.

    Now what interests me here is the demonstration of what is meant. In his just released study guide to Ephesians, Bob Cornwall notes:

    For Christians uncomfortable with military imagery, this passage can prove challenging. The ingenuity of it, however, needs to be recognized. The author took a picture that every one of his readers would immediately recognize, and used it to encourage them to become actively engaged in their faith, thereby helping to bring to an end the rule of the evil one. Such a calling would be difficult, which is why the word of encouragement is central to this message: Stand firm.

    There are several points here that I’d like to emphasize, because I believe spiritual warfare is often misunderstood and certainly misapplied.

    1. Spiritual warfare is a metaphor. It is not intended as an endorsement of violence. Notice how Jesus behaves in Mark. There is no violence or fighting, except on the part of the demonized man.
    2. Spiritual warfare is not a method. We’re not the ones who defeat evil by practicing some set of techniques. I know people who feel that they need to “pray on” the armor of God every morning or they might be susceptible to the attacks of the devil that day. Now as a spiritual exercise, I see no problem with praying through this passage, but this is not some magical ritual that protects you. It’s about belonging to Christ. Bob uses the excellent phrase “actively engaged in their faith.”
    3. A metaphor may be especially valuable to a particular time. I think spiritual warfare provides one way of understanding the conflict with evil. Unfortunately, when it gets into the hands of those who think violence solves everything, it just imports ungodly habits and behavior into our spiritual lives and the damage can be substantial.

    I really liked having these passages together, because the way Jesus is portrayed in the gospels is peaceful and confident. The evil spiritual realm falls, not to combat, but to a confident faith in God.

    Stand firm indeed!

  • Righteousness of God Redux

    Just over three years ago I wrote a bit about the New Perspective on Paul, and particularly the interpretation of the righteousness of God in 2 Corinthians 5:21. I would still call my understanding of this a work in progress. There are many things I should read and assimilate yet.

    At the moment, however, I’m working my way through the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament volume on James and I came across this same phrase in James 1:20. The authors comment:

    … when James talks about the “righteousness of God” … he may mean something quite different than Paul’s characteristic subjective genitive (“the righteousness produced by God”; cf. Ro 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26; 10:3; 2Co 5:21; Php 3:9). Here the genitive “of God” … seems objective, because James is insisting that human wrath does not create the righteousness that can be offered or directed to God, the righteousness that we are called to live out on earth and that he demands from his followers (86, Greek text left out).

    Now “may mean something quite different” is not an extremely strong statement, but if Wright is correct on the meaning of “righteousness of God” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 (and I have correctly understood him), “covenant faithfulness” might work quite well on both sides. God’s righteousness is his covenant faithfulness, and the righteousness to be produced in us is also faithfulness to the covenant. Thus we can “become” the righteousness of God, or become the bearers of God’s covenant faithfulness in the world, and that righteousness can be produced in us. The theology of James and Paul would not, on this point at least, be as far apart as often assumed.

    I would add the note that in either case, we should not be talking about human-produced righteousness. James 1:5, receiving God’s wisdom, should be as clear on that point as are the many statements by Paul regarding righteousness by faith. I have been impressed in my current study of James with the parallels between receiving God’s wisdom and receiving the Spirit. I might write a few notes on that later.

  • Received: James, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

    I registered in time for the blog tour for the Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, and I received my copy of the commentary on James by Craig Blomberg and Miriam J. Kamell today.  I’ll be reading it through and posting my comments here during the week of the blog tour, Dec. 15-22.

    I am already pleased to note that my pastor, Wesley Wachob (First United Methodist Church, Pensacola), is cited in the book.

    And no, I won’t be stopping by series of notes from 1 & 2 Chronicles, working from the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary volume.