Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Passages

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • Two Bible Reading Plans Compared

    How’s that for a boring headline?

    I mentioned in an earlier post that I was trying a new reading plan by Robert Murray McCheyne. I don’t usually like Bible years, and I still have some problems with this one, but I still plan to use it through the year. I’ve made this my evening Bible reading.

    I didn’t use to have an evening reading plan, but the nature of my work tends to make for interrupted mornings. I’m a publisher, which usually provides for a flexible schedule, but I’m still supplementing that income with computer support work, and that often brings calls fairly early in the morning. So to steady things out, I started to divide my reading time and do part of it at bed time.

    In the morning I read a daily lectionary. Right now I’m following the daily readings from CRI Voice. Daily lectionary readings have the advantage of being relatively short, and sometimes topically related. Since I also read the weekly lectionary passages several times during the week, I find that the two reading plans combine well.

    This morning, the scriptures from the daily lectionary were Psalms 61, 62, and 68 (I combine morning and evening readings), Isaiah 52:1-12, Galatians 4:12-20, and Mark 8:1-10. Each passage is short and they are topically coherent.

    On the other hand, my McCheyne reading plan had me reading Genesis 32, Mark 3, Esther 8, and Romans 3. It’s sort of like reading the Bible through four times at once without bothering to coordinate any of it. I felt like finishing the story when I read Genesis and Esther. The actual plan is to read the Old Testament once and the New Testament and Psalms twice during the course of one year.

    Overall, I have the same problem with the daily lectionary, except for the fact that it doesn’t even pretend that I’m reading the whole of a particular topic.

    I must confess that I’ve been happier with reading the Bible through, but I think the discipline of following these plans that don’t seem to suit me as well is worthwhile in itself. The daily lectionary is growing on me. Determination is keeping me involved in the McCheyne plan.

  • 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!

  • The Problem with 1 Corinthians 14 Worship

    In Sunday School this morning we touched on 1 Corinthians 14 and worship. I again brought up the issue I see with the way that 1 Corinthians 14 is applied to modern worship.

    On the one hand are those who use it to prevent innovation. To them the key verse is 1 Corinthians 14:40, “Let everything be done decently and in order” (KJV). And it’s generally the KJV that is quoted at this point. This means, according to many, that we don’t need deviations from the order of service. We don’t need words from people that aren’t on the plan for that morning. I’ve heard it used in complaints about excessive loud “amens” or about people raising their hands as they sing. What this has to do with the rest of the chapter, nobody is very inclined to explain. If it doesn’t look like order to you, it’s condemned by 1 Corinthians 14:40.

    On the other hand, there are those who see this chapter as a series of rules for managing certain types of activities. What do we do with people who have prophetic words? What do we do with speaking in tongues? If you don’t have these specific things in your worship service, of course, you don’t really need the guidelines. Who cares if there is an interpreter present if no tongues are spoken?

    I’m not interested right now in whether or not these activities belong in the modern church. Rather, I’m thinking about the background. In my opinion, the reason we don’t understand this chapter very well is that we really don’t have that many churches with the problems that the Corinthian church had.

    Consider:

    How then should it be, brothers and sisters? When you come together each one has a psalm, each one has something to teach, each one has a revelation, each one has a tongue [perhaps message in a tongue], each one has an interpretation. Let everything be done for building up the church (14:26).

    Now let’s be honest. When was the last time you went to a church service and found that everyone showed up with something constructive to provide to the worship service? If you go to such a church (and I’ve experienced this once or twice in half a century), then you are very blessed.

    We look to 1 Corinthians 14 to tell us how to control something that’s really pretty dead. Here are the Corinthians, with all their problems, showing up filled with excitement and ready to contribute. The problem there was to channel the enthusiasm so that everything can be done so as to build up instead of breaking up into confusion. Thus we have a call for two or three to speak, not everyone.

    Learning and Living Scripture

    I think we should be asking how we could experience the problem and then we might need to think about the remedy. The problem is a good thing. It’s like the enthusiasm and excitement of a child first experiencing an outdoor ball game. The child is enthusiastic, runs around, and does things with the ball.

    Now consider what would happen if we handled children at their first ball game the way we handle people in church. If we had on our church hats, we’d probably tell the kids to go sit on the sidelines until they had completed seminary or something of the sort. Only when they were fully responsible could a very small number of them get involved in actually playing ball.

    So how would we get this problem? I think we need to open up the service to more people. My wife Jody regularly tells whoever will listen that every church service should include testimonies. How would we get to the point where many people have something to say? Well, this goes back to making life into worship. If we’re spending our time with God during the week, we’ll want to talk about it when we gather together with other believers. It will happen naturally.

    Again, it seems to me that mission provides the driving force. If we’re involved in mission all week, we’ll be filled with the things of God, and sharing and mutual edification will come naturally.

    This is one of several points of the Sharing phase of the participatory Bible study method for which this blog is named.

    (See my other post on worship today, What is Cutting Edge? from my Threads blog.)

  • Searching for the Antichrist

    …or not. David Ker’s random chapter for the day was Ezra 1, and he has a great quote:

    Let me go out on a limb here and say that Christians spend too much time looking for the anti-Christ when they should be looking for the Messiah. We do well to remember that God is the author and architect of history….

    I wonder what might happen to our mission and discipleship if we spent less time looking for the Antichrist–and might I add “trying to construct precise end times charts to wrap around the Antichrist–and more time looking for Christ, and of course following Christ.

    Avoiding evil is good, but seeking the good is better, or so it seems to me.

  • David Ker is at It Again!

    David Ker has started an interesting series. As usual, he’s doing something very different, and the result is some interesting posts. He uses a spreadsheet to randomly choose a chapter from the King James Version and then he writes a post about it.

    He has an announcement about the series, and I’d suggest his post For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses (Ezekiel 23) as a good example of the new post genre:

    When I was a little boy in Sunday School this was one of our favorite chapters. My buddies and I, we gravitated to this chapter, verse 20 in particular, and snickered. How did we even find the verse? Maybe like dirty jokes, naughty bits of the Bible are passed down from older boys to the younger.

    Read the rest and follow the series!

  • On Continuation of the Gifts

    I was interested to find this post by Craig Adams, looking at some quotes from John Wesley on the continuation of the gifts. I find myself in general agreement with what Wesley says here. The extraordinary gifts are possible, but not commonplace, nor are they required. The primary evidence of the Spirit is the sanctification of life, not some miraculous activity.

    Of course, in discerning the evidence of the Spirit through sanctification, one must always be careful of judgment (James 4:11-12).

    I’d connect this to what I wrote earlier on Speaking in Tongues and a Prayer Language.

  • 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.