Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Bible Passages

  • Quote of the Day – On Leviticus

    … Byu inculcating worship patterns that emphasize mind over body, word over deed, and rational thought over “merely” reflexive sacramental systems, all legacies of the Protestant Reformation, religious communities learn to be at home in the cognitive, typically abstract world of theological ideas.  Ritual invites something different:  the active participation in “embodied” theological reflection.  Both the knowing and the learning of theology come from performing the ritual act itself. …  (Samuel E. Balentine, Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), page 5)

    I have only read the introduction and the commentary on the first chapter thus far, but I am extremely impressed by this commentary.  While I would agree that protestants tend to downplay ritual and emphasize belief as mental assent, I would note that the other commentary on Leviticus that’s on my plate right now, David W. Baker in Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary), also points out the value of learning through ritual.

    I think, however, that our tendency is to look for concrete doctrine in the rituals, and thus to miss the way in which God chose to communicate those particular doctrines.  We may also learn from Leviticus both that there is a spiritual value in ritual, and also something about how that works, and how we can gain from it in our worship today.

    Liturgy is, I think, sadly neglected, and for most of my time teaching and writing, I’ve contributed to that neglect.  I started to see things differently after reading Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor Bible series.  As I study Leviticus and the rest of the Pentateuch further, I am convinced even further that this should change.

  • Rebuking in Community

    I get into more trouble with the word “rebuke” than with just about any other.  Perhaps I could find a bit less loaded of an English word to translate this concept, but it’s an important one.  I mentioned teaching about “the skills of rebuking and being rebuked.” This tends to disturb people.

    Why?  I think it is because we associate rebuking in the church with the high and might leaders getting up in their seats of judgment and telling all the lesser mortals in the pews how wrong they are.  But that concept of rebuking is neither the Biblical pattern for a church congregation, nor is it the sort of thing I’m trying to teach.  It’s expressed well in Proverbs 27:5 – “Open rebuke is better than secret love.”

    Let me illustrate this first gently based on my experience with marriage and business partnership.  My wife is also my business partner.  When we first got married, she was slow to criticize my writing.  She felt that being too negative when I gave her something to read would annoy me.  But when I give an unpublished paper to anyone to read, I like to get it back all marked up.  I may not agree with all the suggestions, but I like to have a chance to consider them and make the final product better.  It is very hard to convince me that a first draft is really good.  (Blog posts only get a couple of passes, and I usually find annoying errors in them if I read them again later.)

    So the first step was for Jody to realize that I didn’t mind having the page marked up.  The next step was for me to express properly my desire to discuss some of those points without criticizing her for making the corrections, but still discussing them in detail.  I remember one story I wrote in which she suggested a change in the name of one of the characters.  I didn’t get it at all.  Then she explained that I had painted an excellent picture via my use of names of a multi-ethnic group, and that this one name change rounded out the picture.  I changed the name, re-read the scene, and she was absolutely right.

    Now she is quite merciless on my writing, and totally unconcerned with what I accept or reject of her suggestions.  That combination is tremendously helpful.  It means she’ll make even marginal suggestions, things she isn’t sure are better, but are options I should consider.  This kind of iron sharpening iron is extremely valuable to both of us.

    Now when she’s writing and I’m checking, I have to reverse that.  I have to be willing to make suggestions while she makes the final decision on what she’s going to include in her own final work.  There’s no one sitting in the high judgment seat issuing edicts as to the right and wrong final result.  We check one another.

    We have a similar situation in science and scholarship when they are working well.  Scholars write papers and expect criticism.  They don’t expect never to have to revise a viewpoint.  Very few scholars I know will accept the word of one expert as the final answer on any particular topic.  If they disagree, they’re willing to do so.  Often this debate does get acrimonious, but at it’s best, it’s vigorous and direct, yet done without anger.  (Annoyance is natural, I think, when one finds one has been caught out on some point!)

    In my view, however, church rebuke has been formalized to the point of uselessness.  If we could go back to 1 Corinthians 14 on the conduct of the worship service, or the gathering of believers, we would see that the intention of that activity was not for the general body to gather and be instructed by the one knowledgeable person.  Rather, it was a time of exchange.  Multiple people would speak.

    Amongst the prophets, concerning whom I wrote yesterday, Paul said, “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge” (1 Cor. 14:29).  If you or your congregation can’t do that I would first suggest that you have no business having prophecy in the congregation, because you will not be able to hear and discern the word of the Lord from amongst the noise.

    But even if your congregation does not allow prophecy as such, I don’t think a congregation can function effectively without this capability.  Even the pastor needs to be able to hear rebuke in this sense.

    Often it’s the fear of being wrong that makes rebuke so difficult.  At other times it’s the “high and mighty rebuke,” either formally or informally.  Don’t assume that just because your church doesn’t formally divide the leadership that such a thing is going on.  I have observed many, many supposedly free worship services, in which the activities were supposed to follow the leadership of the Holy Spirit rather than a prescribed order of service, and in almost all cases I can very quickly identify the human leaders of the group.  The Holy Spirit may be leading, but He had better talk only to the right people, or the instruction won’t get through.

    Rebuking in community involves both learning how to give rebuke and how to receive it.  Giving it requires an attitude that allows the person receiving to make their own choice.  Receiving rebuke requires not putting down the one giving it if you believe you should not make the change suggested.  It’s a matter of community, working together to build one another up.  “Edify” or “build up” is another key word from 1 Corinthians 14.

  • Christians and Tithe

    In a comment to a previous post, Kris asks whether Christians are required to tithe.  That was one of two questions and I divided them into two posts to allow for separate discussions of the question.

    I don’t find tithing in the New Testament.  Now I’m not a purely “New Testament” believer.  I believe that principles God puts forth in the Old Testament can remain applicable, provided that they fit within the great change of the covenants.  It’s very easy, however, to misapply such commands when one doesn’t truly look through the Christological filter.

    Tithing is such a command.  I believe that with the new covenant, God’s claim is upon all that we own, and that we are to be guided by the Holy Spirit in how much of what we retain for our use.  I prefer to express it that way over how much we give, though it is very scriptural to express it as God’s guidance to give (see 2 Corinthians 8 & 9).  Paul’s second letter to the Corinthian believers is a terribly neglected book.

    There is a second point about tithing that I would like to address briefly:  Where do you give?  I don’t think we have a direct command on this, though the New Testament pattern of the church would suggest that we do all of our service, whether in labor or in finances, through our local “church of Christ” or our congregation.  I personally make it a spiritual discipline to give a certain amount through my local congregation, trusting that body to use it wisely to build the kingdom, even when I may have doubts.

    In preparing to answer this question I found an essay by David Alan Black, author of two books from my company, who makes some similar points and provides more scripture.  Though I was already convinced of essentially what Dr. Black says on the topic, I was glad to find it laid out in a compact, scripturally supported fashion.

  • Say No to Prophecy Before You Say Yes

    Advent Week 3 in The Mosaic Bible includes 1 Thessalonians 5:16-24, which is a wonderful passage to use with regard to to prophecy.  For those who may be following my use of The Mosaic Bible with the Revised Common Lectionary let me note that two passages, Zephaniah 3:14-20 and Luke 3:7-20 either are the same as those in the RCL for Advent 3C or overlap.

    I’ve just written a post on my Threads blog that explains, amongst other things, why I use the label “charismatic.”  It’s because I believe all the gifts of the Holy Spirit are available today.  This must, of course, include the gift of prophecy.  I have always had a problem in that while I believe the gift of prophecy continues in theory, or perhaps I should say I have no theological reason why it should not, I have been loathe to point to someone and say, “That person is a prophet.”

    Of course, there is little reason I should set myself up as some sort of judge of prophets, a rather arrogant thing to do, but it is certainly a question I get asked.  If I believe in prophecy, I should believe in prophets, right?  So where are they?

    I suggest that while there is no theological problem with the continuation of prophecy, there is a practical problem, and that practical problem is illuminated by 1 Thessalonians 5:19-22:

    19 Do not stifle the Holy Spirit.
    20 Do not scoff at prophecies,
    21 but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.
    22 Stay away from every kind of evil.  (NLT)

    I recall two experiences that I think help illustrate my point.  The first was when I was jointly teaching a seminar on the gift of prophecy, and the person teaching with me, who was well acquainted with the charismatic movement (as I was not at the time), told the audience that if they had been involved in the charismatic community over the previous few years, they had been awash in false prophecy.  It was interesting that the statement did not elicit any outrage from the many charismatics and Pentecostals in the room.  They were not unaware that false prophecy had been going on.

    The second was after another class I taught, in which I had discussed the skills of rebuking and being rebuked, when I was informed that informed that in their church they only allowed encouraging prophecies to be spoken.  They didn’t do rebuke.  Apart from the odd idea that one can decide just which “words from the Lord” one will receive, most of the prophetic writings of scripture involve rebuke of one sort or another.

    In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul makes several points.  I’ve heard the first part preached quite frequently.  Don’t quench the Spirit, don’t despise prophecies.  Often the point made from these texts is that people should not forbid or deny the modern gift of prophecy.  But one should read on.

    “Test everything.”  If you test, there will be success and failure conditions.  Paul doesn’t miss those.  He says to hold fast what is good.  You know, I’ve heard sermons from this passage that cut off right after that point.  But Paul goes on to tell us to keep away from every form of evil.

    There are two results from the test–good, and evil.  If we are unwilling to identify what is wrong, we will not be in a position to identify what is right.

    I would suggest, in fact, that one can just as effectively “quench the Spirit” and “despise prophecies” by accepting everything as a valid prophecy or shying away from correcting problems or abuses as one can do so by denying all forms of prophecy.

    Discernment involves the test itself along with a willingness to accept or reject what is said.  Without the ability to say “no” to prophecy in the church, we cannot say “yes” with any safety.

    (Note:  I wrote on this issue a few months ago under the title The Advantages of Stoning False Prophets.)

  • Use of the Old Testament in the New Testament – Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1

    With a recent flurry of posts regarding the way in which the Old Testament is used in the New, at least peripherally, I wanted to call attention to one written from a different perspective.

    The post is Isaiah 7, Nativity, and the Theotokos, written by Mark Olson, who speaks from an Orthodox perspective.  He discusses quite accurately the difficulties involved with interpreting Isaiah 7 either from the Masoretic text or the LXX, the first based on language, and the second (or either) based on context.  Let me extract one paragraph from his post:

    But there is a problem for the modern western (protestant?) Christian who has decided the typological/allegorical hermeneutic is to be abandoned. For it seems if you do so, you need to abandon Isaiah 7 as a prophecy which points to Christ. Yet, noting that modern translators of texts such as the ESV, which primarily use the MT documents for their basis use the less proper translation term “virgin” over “unmarried/young girl” in this case. Why? Because they are Christian and the traditional Christian interpretation of this text is that it is in fact pointing to Christ and the Nativity. Yet that does violence to a consistent hermeneutical method.

    I think Mark is right.  If we stick with the historical-critical method, or even the historical-grammatical method, we really have no way to bridge the gap here.  We can say that Matthew prophetically reapplies the passage when he quotes it, and we can give special privileges to early Christian interpreters–they get to take things out of context while we don’t–or we can ask whether the historical meaning taken in context is always the controlling factor.

    As an aside, let me note that I don’t think the LXX is a translation of a different strand.  The TDNT article on parthenos implies that the word may have overlapped the word ;almah more than is normally thought and thus it is neither a mistranslation, nor a different strand, but simply a case in which the semantic range of the two terms overlapped at the time of translation, but less so at the time of quotation (Matthew).  In any case, I don’t think the translation issue will solve the problem completely, and this becomes even more difficult when one considers the syntax of Isaiah 7:14 which could quite easily be translated as “is pregnant” as well as “shall conceive.”

    But laying all that aside we’re stuck with the likelihood that those who first heard Isaiah speak the words of Isaiah 7:14 would have understood it differently from the way in which Matthew applies it in Matthew 1:18-23.

    I see this as an excellent case requiring typological interpretation, but also inviting us to do such typological interpretation within the bounds of church tradition, i.e. as part of a community.  One of the great problems I see with allegorical or typological interpretation is that it lacks controls.  My early inclination, during graduate school and for a time after, was to require the historical/contextual meaning as an anchor point for one’s typological understanding.  To a certain extent, I think that is still good plan, but it doesn’t really cover everything.

    First, the historical meaning doesn’t necessarily make much of a suggestion as to what typology might apply.  One is stuck with a sort of subjective guess as to how far one has deviated from the historical meaning.  Second, and as a result of the first, this idea really provides very little control.  The easy answer from a western protestant perspective, is to try to drop typological and allegorical interpretation entirely.  But if we do that we cut ourselves off from both much of the interpretation of the early church, and also most of the interpretation that scripture does of itself.  Thus any allegorical interpretation we may do will be rootless.

    If I might illustrate from another text, Hosea 11:1 as quoted in Matthew 2:15, I think there is an even greater contextual problem here, based on purely historical-grammatical or critical exegesis.  Yet there is an excellent typological reason to connect the birth and mission of Jesus to the exodus.  In fact, I think it is important to see the shaping of the story of Jesus from the exodus and then the exile and restoration if one is truly to understand redemption.  I don’t think I’m terribly out of line with Christian tradition on that point, but what I want to underline here is that such a view involves a typological interpretation, not a contextual view of a text.

    It seems likely to me here that Matthew, rather than interpreting a specific text loosely or contrary to context, is using a piece of phraseology from the exodus to draw the broader body of the exodus/redemption story into our understanding of the story of Jesus.  To view it as a misappropriation of a phrase is a distinctly modern error, one of which I have been guilty in the past.  Rather, Matthew takes advantage of the fact that his readers will know the broader story, and uses the one phrase as a tie-in to connect the stories together.

  • He Died for Us – St. John Chrysostom

    From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian church via Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, commenting on Hebrews 9:15-17.

    How did he become mediator? He brought words from God and brought them to us, conveying what came from the Father and adding his own death.  We had offended; we ought to have died.  He died for us and made us worthy of the covenant.  By this is the covenant secure, in that henceforward it is not made for the unworthy. — ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 16.2

    What I particularly like about this quote is the combination of “bringing the words” with the added death on the cross.  The mission of Jesus Christ was atonement, but that involved more than his death on the cross–not less than or other than, but more than.

    In addition, he clearly states the weakness of the old covenant.  It was human beings who were unable to keep the covenant.  In a sense, we keep the new covenant in Jesus.

  • St. John Chrysostom on Law and Perfection

    From Hebrews: Ancient Christian commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, p. 116, (with translation taken from A Collection of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church), commenting on Hebrews 7:

    Was the law then of no use?  It was indeed of use and of great use, but to make humans perfect it was of no use.  For in this respect he says, “the law made nothing perfect.”  All were figures, all shadows: circumcision, sacrifice, sabbath.  Therefore they could not reach through the soul, and thus they pass away and gradually withdraw.  But “a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.”  — ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 13.4

  • Leo the Great on Melchizedek Priesthood and Anointing

    I found this in my reading of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Volume X, Hebrews, this morning.  Since the translation used there is under copyright, and this is an extended quote, I’m getting the material from sacredtexts.com:

    As often as God’s mercy deigns to bring round the day of His gifts to us, there is, dearly-beloved, just and reasonable cause for rejoicing, if only our appointment to the office be referred to the praise of Him who gave it.  For though this recognition of God may well be found in all His priests, yet I take it to be peculiarly binding on me, who, regarding my own utter insignificance and the greatness of the office undertaken, ought myself also to utter that exclamation of the Prophet, “Lord, I heard Thy speech and was afraid:  I considered Thy works and was dismayed 661 .”  For what is so unwonted and so dismaying as labour to the frail, exaltation to the humble, dignity to the undeserving?  And yet we do not despair nor lose heart, because we put our trust not in ourselves but in Him who works in us. And hence also we have sung with harmonious voice the psalm of David, dearly beloved, not in our own praise, but to the glory of Christ the Lord.  For it is He of whom it is prophetically written, “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedeck 662 ,” that is, not after the order of Aaron, whose priesthood descending along his own line of offspring was a temporal ministry, and ceased with the law of the Old Testament, but after the order of Melchizedeck, in whom was prefigured the eternal High Priest.  And no reference is made to his parentage because in him it is understood that He was portrayed, whose generation cannot be declared.  And finally, now that the mystery of this Divine priesthood has descended to human agency, it runs not by the line of birth, nor is that which flesh and blood created, chosen, but without regard to the privilege of paternity and succession by inheritance, those men are received by the Church as its rulers whom the Holy Ghost prepares:  so that in the people of God’s adoption, the whole body of which is priestly and royal, it is not the prerogative of earthly origin which obtains the unction 663 , but the condescension of Divine grace which creates the bishop. [Emphasis mine.  Footnotes lead to source notes on sacredtexts.com]

    Of course, unction = anointing.  I’m interested particularly in this comment on ordination or any selection as leaders.  We should, as a church be simply acknowledging those whom God has chosen and prepared for the office.

    I’m still meditating, however, on the idea that this leadership derives from the nature of Christ’s priesthood.  I have generally read Hebrews to say that temporal human beings in priestly office were no longer needed.  Yes, there are some intercessory activities of one person for another, but no established priesthood.  Whether a careful reading of Hebrews should change my views is something that will require time and study.

  • Hebews 6:1-6 in Selected Translations

    Polycarp is comparing God’s Word to the Nations with some other translations and has come to Hebrews 6:1-6.  I must confess I prefer the way the NLT translates this passage, but GW is not bad.

    I’ve written on the passage before:  Hebrews 6:4-6:  Can Those Who Fall Return? and then St. John Chrysostom on Hebrews 6, and then in my book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic from a more personal perspective.

    I do believe that trying to resolve the hard words through translation is misguided.  This is a difficult passage, not because of poor translation, but simply because it is a hard passage.


  • Totally Dependent

    I’m the guest blogger at Grace Through the Desert today with a post entitled You are Totally Dependent based on Ephesians 2:8-10 and a few others scriptures, especially my favorite Psalm 104.