Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bible tweets?
David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
- If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
It's certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not... - Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster's going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God's prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don't know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, bible study, Christianity, David Schuster, homosexuality, MSNBC
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
On salt and light
Our small group spent two weeks studying the passages in all three of the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus refers to His followers as the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" (see Matthew 5:1-16, Mark 9:33-50, and Luke 14:25-35).
We found that our working definition of what it is to be salt and light tends to be woefully shallow and one-dimensional.
I attempted to synthesize the issues raised by all three passages into a summary statement. While this is definitely more expansive than the typical definition you'll get from your average Joe Christian, it isn't by any means exhaustive.
Give it a read -- and let me know what you think:
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Our small group spent two weeks studying the passages in all three of the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus refers to His followers as the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world" (see Matthew 5:1-16, Mark 9:33-50, and Luke 14:25-35).
We found that our working definition of what it is to be salt and light tends to be woefully shallow and one-dimensional.
I attempted to synthesize the issues raised by all three passages into a summary statement. While this is definitely more expansive than the typical definition you'll get from your average Joe Christian, it isn't by any means exhaustive.
Give it a read -- and let me know what you think:
Being salt and light in the world is an all-encompassing way of life that is divinely sanctioned, from top to bottom. It recognizes the unvarnished truth of our station before God, as well as our relationship to one another (within the community of faith) and to the wider world.
Before God, we are spiritually impoverished and in desperate need of His cleansing touch. In response, we pursue God and His righteousness by mourning our sins and dealing ruthlessly with our sinful tendencies -- for God will not brook split allegiances.
Before one another, we adopt a posture of openheartedness -- an eagerness to freely and peaceably receive, serve, and minister to one another in Christ's name, and a recognition that worldly hierarchicalism in all its forms is a prideful and bitter poison that has no place amongst Jesus' followers.
Before the world, we walk not in the brash, self-righteous flamboyance of the pointed finger or the upturned nose, but with mercy, with the kind of winsome, gentle, fervent devotion to God that speaks far better than mere words can. And when the world rejects or seeks to hurt us for this, we humbly entrust ourselves to God, being counted among those of whom the world was not worthy.
Blessings,Before God, we are spiritually impoverished and in desperate need of His cleansing touch. In response, we pursue God and His righteousness by mourning our sins and dealing ruthlessly with our sinful tendencies -- for God will not brook split allegiances.
Before one another, we adopt a posture of openheartedness -- an eagerness to freely and peaceably receive, serve, and minister to one another in Christ's name, and a recognition that worldly hierarchicalism in all its forms is a prideful and bitter poison that has no place amongst Jesus' followers.
Before the world, we walk not in the brash, self-righteous flamboyance of the pointed finger or the upturned nose, but with mercy, with the kind of winsome, gentle, fervent devotion to God that speaks far better than mere words can. And when the world rejects or seeks to hurt us for this, we humbly entrust ourselves to God, being counted among those of whom the world was not worthy.
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Christianity
Monday, July 23, 2007
Living Stones
Here's the 2nd sermon I've preached at New Life Virginia Beach, this time as a recently installed, volunteer associate pastor. :)
I had a wickedly crazy week leading up to Sunday, so sermon prep was a challenge. I felt that this message was substandard -- I didn't really have a cohesive theme other than explaining what Peter meant when he expressed Christian living in terms of being "living stones" who are to come to Jesus as "a living stone." So I felt that I meandered a bit, my sermon wasn't truly expository in nature, and that my close was abrupt and unpolished.
In spite of all that, some members of the congregation gave me very encouraging feedback. I welcome input from anybody who visits tMR as well. And I hope at least some of the content of my message is a blessing to you!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Here's the 2nd sermon I've preached at New Life Virginia Beach, this time as a recently installed, volunteer associate pastor. :)
I had a wickedly crazy week leading up to Sunday, so sermon prep was a challenge. I felt that this message was substandard -- I didn't really have a cohesive theme other than explaining what Peter meant when he expressed Christian living in terms of being "living stones" who are to come to Jesus as "a living stone." So I felt that I meandered a bit, my sermon wasn't truly expository in nature, and that my close was abrupt and unpolished.
In spite of all that, some members of the congregation gave me very encouraging feedback. I welcome input from anybody who visits tMR as well. And I hope at least some of the content of my message is a blessing to you!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, preaching, sermon
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Mystical and practical
A few weeks ago, when I was preparing to preach a sermon on Ephesians 4 at my church, I was amazed at Paul's letter as a work of theology. Some commentators have called Ephesians the crowning theological achievement of the entire Pauline corpus. If you listened to my sermon, you heard me confess that I had a difficult time dealing practically with the panoply of issues Paul raises in the first three chapters -- even though they are all part of a panoramic, cohesive arc that Paul uses to describe the staggeringly multifarious (and eminently practical) nature of God's grace.
At a certain point during my study, there was so much bouncing around in my mind and heart that I had to sit down and commit my tenuous grasp of all the various threads Paul weaves together to writing. I often find that God uses this exercise to clear my thinking.
The following few paragraphs are part of the result. As it turned out, God really did sort out my thinking, and this ended up serving as the core idea behind my whole message.
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
A few weeks ago, when I was preparing to preach a sermon on Ephesians 4 at my church, I was amazed at Paul's letter as a work of theology. Some commentators have called Ephesians the crowning theological achievement of the entire Pauline corpus. If you listened to my sermon, you heard me confess that I had a difficult time dealing practically with the panoply of issues Paul raises in the first three chapters -- even though they are all part of a panoramic, cohesive arc that Paul uses to describe the staggeringly multifarious (and eminently practical) nature of God's grace.
At a certain point during my study, there was so much bouncing around in my mind and heart that I had to sit down and commit my tenuous grasp of all the various threads Paul weaves together to writing. I often find that God uses this exercise to clear my thinking.
The following few paragraphs are part of the result. As it turned out, God really did sort out my thinking, and this ended up serving as the core idea behind my whole message.
Thoughts on Eph. 4Blessings,
This chapter marks something of a departure from the material that has preceded it in that Paul's expansive, cosmic thought now turns to its practical outworking in the church.
In the first three chapters, we have heard Paul describe the cosmic significance of Christ's victory over death and spiritual adversaries. The finished work of Christ paves the way for a universe that is out of sync with itself and with divine intent to be made whole, and the Church -- Christ's own body -- stands not only at the forefront of this movement, but acts as evidence of God's superintending hand at work, rectifying the brokenness of Creation through Christ.
Salvation history and space-time are interwoven, and they are most indissolubly linked in the existence of a people who are not only adopted as God's sons and daughters, who are not only His inheritance, not only to the praise and glory of God and His grace, but united with the Risen Lord. In Paul's mind, these fundamental truths of the Church's existence are a clear precursor to the "administration" or economy he speaks of in chapter 1, where all things in heaven and earth will one day be "summed up in Christ."
Paul's sweeping, panoramic theology makes clear the cosmic significance of the Church. By virtue of its union with the resurrected Christ, the Church is already summed up in Christ. As such, we experience (in measure) an all encompassing, divinely conceived, divinely instituted economy that, for the rest of creation, is yet to come.
From this assertion, Paul moves on in chapter 4 to deal with the tension between the indicative and the imperative. The handiwork of God expressed in the Church gives way to ethical ramifications; the "is" of the Church's cosmic significance translates into "oughts" of Christian ethics and behavior. Thus, the expansive mysticism of the first three chapters begins to take on practical focus in chapter 4.
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Ephesians
Sunday, December 03, 2006
Gribble watch
Friends, The MonT-SteR loves the Scriptures. For Christians, they are the chief and final authority for all matters of faith and praxis. Since we are to take them as the inspired Word of God, they must be handled with the utmost care. Properly apprehending and applying their meaning is the first step to a successful, joyful life of obedience to the heart and ways of God.
When the Scriptures are misapprehended, it is a serious matter. Ideas have consequences; thus, failure to accurately understand the truth the Bible communicates will lead to false and damaging ideas about fundamental life issues. We cannot properly understand God, His activity, or ourselves apart from an accurate grasp of the teachings of Scripture. John Piper says it well: bad theology dishonors God and hurts people.
This is why The MonT-SteR gets upset when people who have a public ministry platform teach egregiously false doctrine. And there is a local gentleman who does just that every Sunday morning on WNIS, our local talk radio station. For an hour each week, Jimmie Gribble pontificates unopposed, sourly peddling bad theology and deriding those who disagree with the Church of Christ's ill-formed doctrines on baptism and worship practices.
No more, friends. I've been itching to respond to Mr. Gribble for awhile now, and the time has come. Hence, I am inaugurating a new recurring feature here on tMR that I am calling Gribble Watch. I'm going to monitor his program (I have to record it, as I am usually attending Sunday services myself when his program airs), and respond to the uglier exhibits of bad theology that crop up in the course of his program.
For this week, I am going to make a brief retort to his repeated assertion that the use of mechanical instruments in a church setting is strictly forbidden. There is a significant backdrop of tradition from the Church fathers (i.e., the generation of church leadership following the time of Paul and the direct associates of Jesus) that plays into this debate, but I am not going to deal with that in detail here. While it is true that mechanical instruments were shunned or even forbidden by some of the Church fathers because of their association with pagan worship practices, a scriptural polemic for or against the practice will trump any polemic that appears in the writings of the Church fathers. So I will deal with what I understand to be the substance of Gribble's biblical argument against the practice.
Gribble goes so far as to state that the use of mechanical instruments in worship is characteristic of those who are "outside the Lord's church," i.e., those who are not true followers of Jesus. He takes issue with those who point to the Psalms (particularly Ps. 150) as evidence that the use of instruments should accepted and encouraged in the community of faith. Gribble's argument, as stated on his radio show a couple of weeks ago, is essentially this:
Mr. Gribble, I urge you to stop troubling other Christians with this hurtful, unbiblical, nonsensical teaching. The Bible can never be interpreted to countenance the notion that those who use mechanical instruments in a worship setting are automatically outside the Body of Christ. That is not the test or measure of saving faith, and you know it. Rather, it is a pet doctrine of the denomination you have associated yourself with. You have preferred the teachings of men over the Word of God, and are therefore in error.
And that, beloved readers, is the first installment of Gribble Watch. Look for more to come on both the written and the audio side of The MonT-SteR REPORT
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Friends, The MonT-SteR loves the Scriptures. For Christians, they are the chief and final authority for all matters of faith and praxis. Since we are to take them as the inspired Word of God, they must be handled with the utmost care. Properly apprehending and applying their meaning is the first step to a successful, joyful life of obedience to the heart and ways of God.
When the Scriptures are misapprehended, it is a serious matter. Ideas have consequences; thus, failure to accurately understand the truth the Bible communicates will lead to false and damaging ideas about fundamental life issues. We cannot properly understand God, His activity, or ourselves apart from an accurate grasp of the teachings of Scripture. John Piper says it well: bad theology dishonors God and hurts people.
This is why The MonT-SteR gets upset when people who have a public ministry platform teach egregiously false doctrine. And there is a local gentleman who does just that every Sunday morning on WNIS, our local talk radio station. For an hour each week, Jimmie Gribble pontificates unopposed, sourly peddling bad theology and deriding those who disagree with the Church of Christ's ill-formed doctrines on baptism and worship practices.
No more, friends. I've been itching to respond to Mr. Gribble for awhile now, and the time has come. Hence, I am inaugurating a new recurring feature here on tMR that I am calling Gribble Watch. I'm going to monitor his program (I have to record it, as I am usually attending Sunday services myself when his program airs), and respond to the uglier exhibits of bad theology that crop up in the course of his program.
For this week, I am going to make a brief retort to his repeated assertion that the use of mechanical instruments in a church setting is strictly forbidden. There is a significant backdrop of tradition from the Church fathers (i.e., the generation of church leadership following the time of Paul and the direct associates of Jesus) that plays into this debate, but I am not going to deal with that in detail here. While it is true that mechanical instruments were shunned or even forbidden by some of the Church fathers because of their association with pagan worship practices, a scriptural polemic for or against the practice will trump any polemic that appears in the writings of the Church fathers. So I will deal with what I understand to be the substance of Gribble's biblical argument against the practice.
Gribble goes so far as to state that the use of mechanical instruments in worship is characteristic of those who are "outside the Lord's church," i.e., those who are not true followers of Jesus. He takes issue with those who point to the Psalms (particularly Ps. 150) as evidence that the use of instruments should accepted and encouraged in the community of faith. Gribble's argument, as stated on his radio show a couple of weeks ago, is essentially this:
- 1 Cor 10:31 states that everything should be done to the glory of God.
- Commandments given to the church are through the authority of the Lord Jesus alone (1 Thess 4:2).
- Appealing to the Psalms to justify the use of mechanical instruments in church is substituting the authority of David for the authority of Jesus, which is unacceptable.
- There is no authoritative command from Jesus to use mechanical instruments in a worship setting; on that basis, the use of mechanical instruments can never be to the glory of God.
- Therefore, mechanical instruments are forbidden in a worship setting.
- I readily grant that everything we do, whether privately or in a corporate worship setting, ought to glorify God. I also agree that the commands of Scripture, particularly in the New Testament (NT), are given by the authority of Jesus. But Gribble's argument essentially undercuts the divine inspiration of the totality of the Scriptures. Paul states that ALL scripture is "God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (1 Tim 3:16-17). I doubt very seriously that Gribble would find fault with appealing to the Psalms to encourage Christians to give thanks to God in a worship setting, or to praise Him for His goodness, or to present offerings to Him -- the Psalms are replete with such language. According to 1 Tim 3:16-17, it's proper to use the Psalms to that end. So why set the Psalms, which testify about Jesus, against the teachings of Jesus, who 1) is set forth in John 1 as the incarnate Word, and 2) stated that His purpose was to fulfill the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures rather than set them at nought (Matt 5:17)?
- There is no good reason to, as you will NEVER FIND one verse in the NT that forbids the use of mechanical instruments in a worship setting. Gribble's point is that since Jesus never commanded it, it shouldn't be practiced. This is essentially an argument from silence, and it makes Gribble's reasoning patently fallacious. Gribble's program consistently advertises correspondence courses in Bible study. By Gribble's logic, this shouldn't be practiced either, as Jesus never directly commanded a church to offer correspondence courses. In fact, we could use Gribble's logic to forbid almost anything churches typically use to facilitate worship and preaching -- including pulpits, microphones and sound equipment, chairs and pews, carpeted floors in the sanctuary, bulletins, orders of service, having congregants sit or stand at various points in the service, choirs, hymnals, newsletters, computers, church buildings, even (gasp!) RADIO BROADCASTS.
Mr. Gribble, I urge you to stop troubling other Christians with this hurtful, unbiblical, nonsensical teaching. The Bible can never be interpreted to countenance the notion that those who use mechanical instruments in a worship setting are automatically outside the Body of Christ. That is not the test or measure of saving faith, and you know it. Rather, it is a pet doctrine of the denomination you have associated yourself with. You have preferred the teachings of men over the Word of God, and are therefore in error.
And that, beloved readers, is the first installment of Gribble Watch. Look for more to come on both the written and the audio side of The MonT-SteR REPORT
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Christianity, false doctrine, Jimmie Gribble
Friday, December 01, 2006
Perseverance and fruitfulness
"But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop." (Luke 8:15)
No time right now to engage in interpretive or theological prolixity. Just wanted to note something specific.
This verse is taken from the parable of the seed and the sower. In the parable itself, Jesus refers to "good soil," which "yields a crop a hundred times more" than the seed that was sown. When He explains the parable to the disciples, He says that "the seed sown on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart."
The idea of someone with a noble and good heart is particularized in the latter half of Luke 8:15:
The seed is the word of God, and it contains within itself what is needed for life. Given the right environment, it takes root and grows all by itself -- it's programmed to do so. Natural Church Development would call this one of God's growth "automatisms." But the prerequisite for this all-by-itself growth is a noble and good heart, i.e., an individual predisposed to receive the word, retain the word, and persevere in practicing the word. There is a component that God alone can do through His life-giving word, but there is also a component that we are responsible for. I do not mean to suggest that God does not come alongside to aid or even enable us in these regards -- it is He who works in us to will and to do His good pleasure. I think God grants us the grace, mercy, and power we need to persevere. But persevering also appears to be within the human sphere, a consistent posture of ours that must be present if we want to bear fruit for God.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
"But the seed on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart, who hear the word, retain it, and by persevering produce a crop." (Luke 8:15)
No time right now to engage in interpretive or theological prolixity. Just wanted to note something specific.
This verse is taken from the parable of the seed and the sower. In the parable itself, Jesus refers to "good soil," which "yields a crop a hundred times more" than the seed that was sown. When He explains the parable to the disciples, He says that "the seed sown on good soil stands for those with a noble and good heart."
The idea of someone with a noble and good heart is particularized in the latter half of Luke 8:15:
- They hear the word
- They retain it
- They produce a crop by means of persevering
Perseverance, added to reception and retention of the Word, is the means by which we yield harvest for God.Today, I note especially that perseverance is a necessary ingredient for fruitfulness. I see here an expression of divine-human partnership in the life of a believer -- or, as one of my seminary professors used to put it, "It's God all the way through man all the way."
The seed is the word of God, and it contains within itself what is needed for life. Given the right environment, it takes root and grows all by itself -- it's programmed to do so. Natural Church Development would call this one of God's growth "automatisms." But the prerequisite for this all-by-itself growth is a noble and good heart, i.e., an individual predisposed to receive the word, retain the word, and persevere in practicing the word. There is a component that God alone can do through His life-giving word, but there is also a component that we are responsible for. I do not mean to suggest that God does not come alongside to aid or even enable us in these regards -- it is He who works in us to will and to do His good pleasure. I think God grants us the grace, mercy, and power we need to persevere. But persevering also appears to be within the human sphere, a consistent posture of ours that must be present if we want to bear fruit for God.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Christianity
Friday, May 05, 2006
Seclusion of the fool
"The lips of the righteous nourish many, but fools die for lack of judgment." (Proverbs 10:21)
Observations
Interpretive questions and comments
It would be reasonable, based upon these observations, to conclude that righteous words are diametrically opposed to a lack of judgment -- one spreads life, the other brings self-destruction. I note specifically the outward focus of the righteous: many are nourished by their words. If this modus operandi is the opposite of the fool's, then the unscrupulousness of the fool may be the root or the result of a disordered self-orientation. If this is true, nota bene the correspondence between self-orientation and self-destruction. In any case, one cannot help but notice the difference between the life-replicating nature of the righteous and the life-choking nature of the fool. By extension, a lack of judgment (the KJV renders it "want of wisdom," whereas Holladay's Hebrew lexicon suggests "lack of scruples") is the means by which the life is choked out of a fool.
It would seem that possessing judgment (or wisdom or scruples) is not only a hallmark of the righteous, but a prerequisite for speaking life-giving words. Thus, it is also a prerequisite for nourishing many.
Points of application
For my own part, I've occasionally wrestled with expending my time in ministerial endeavors when I'd rather do something else. If the lips of the righteous nourish many, then I ought to welcome the opportunity to spread life to those who need it (do I spread life as the righteous, or do I behave righteously by spreading life? Probably a combination thereof -- my righteous estate in Christ ought to find expression in characteristically righteous behavior). Choosing not to do so might be unscrupulous insofar as it's disobedient to God or unwise given the needs of others.
I think what I'm sensing from God is that the needy are there for me as much as I'm there for them. As I seek to serve them, a life-giving flow from Heaven courses through me to them. As I shun this task, the self-orientation and the seclusion of the fool become my life; and perhaps thereby the unscrupulousness that brings death.
He who loses his life for Christ's sake shall find it...
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
"The lips of the righteous nourish many, but fools die for lack of judgment." (Proverbs 10:21)
Observations
- The most obvious feature is the ideological contrast between the righteous and the fool, signified by the word "but." The contrast is manifold:
- It is seen in the actions of each. The righteous "nourish many," whereas fools apparently languish alone.
- We can also see a contrast of identification in this verse. There is something uniquely life-giving about the righteous, whereby they bring sustenance to others. By contrast, death is associated with the fool.
- The reason for the life-giving estate of the righteous (their lips -- a poetic euphemism for their speech) is contrasted with the reason behind the fool's death: lack of judgment.
- It is seen in the actions of each. The righteous "nourish many," whereas fools apparently languish alone.
- The word "die" in the second half of the verse is translated from the verb muwth, which seems to refer to actual mortal death (not a figurative or spiritual kind of death).
Interpretive questions and comments
It would be reasonable, based upon these observations, to conclude that righteous words are diametrically opposed to a lack of judgment -- one spreads life, the other brings self-destruction. I note specifically the outward focus of the righteous: many are nourished by their words. If this modus operandi is the opposite of the fool's, then the unscrupulousness of the fool may be the root or the result of a disordered self-orientation. If this is true, nota bene the correspondence between self-orientation and self-destruction. In any case, one cannot help but notice the difference between the life-replicating nature of the righteous and the life-choking nature of the fool. By extension, a lack of judgment (the KJV renders it "want of wisdom," whereas Holladay's Hebrew lexicon suggests "lack of scruples") is the means by which the life is choked out of a fool.
It would seem that possessing judgment (or wisdom or scruples) is not only a hallmark of the righteous, but a prerequisite for speaking life-giving words. Thus, it is also a prerequisite for nourishing many.
Points of application
For my own part, I've occasionally wrestled with expending my time in ministerial endeavors when I'd rather do something else. If the lips of the righteous nourish many, then I ought to welcome the opportunity to spread life to those who need it (do I spread life as the righteous, or do I behave righteously by spreading life? Probably a combination thereof -- my righteous estate in Christ ought to find expression in characteristically righteous behavior). Choosing not to do so might be unscrupulous insofar as it's disobedient to God or unwise given the needs of others.
I think what I'm sensing from God is that the needy are there for me as much as I'm there for them. As I seek to serve them, a life-giving flow from Heaven courses through me to them. As I shun this task, the self-orientation and the seclusion of the fool become my life; and perhaps thereby the unscrupulousness that brings death.
He who loses his life for Christ's sake shall find it...
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study
Friday, April 14, 2006
Wasting stuff on Jesus
I was reading awhile ago in Matthew 25-26. The sweeping apocalyptic scope of Jesus' Olivet Discourse ends in Matt. 25 with the parable of the sheep and the goats; warnings about wars, the decimation of Jerusalem, and personal preparedness for the hour of Christ's return give way at last to a simple tale of eternal reward and judgment.
The sheep, who represent the righteous, are received into eternal bliss because of their faithful service to Christ -- it was He they ministered to when they loved and embraced the indigent and needy. The goats, representing the unrighteous, are thrust out of heaven to share the awful fate of Satan and his minions. Why? They refused to serve Christ by turning a deaf ear and a cold heart to the pleas of the indigent and needy.
Every time I read this parable, I come away shaken and eager to take spiritual inventory. Am I behaving like a sheep or a goat? I can't imagine that the reaction of Jesus' disciples was much different. That's why it doesn't surprise me that they were indignant a few days later when a woman "wasted" an entire jar of the costliest perfume by anointing Jesus with it.
"Why this waste?" they protested. "The cost of this perfume is exorbitant. We could have sold it for a high price and then given the money to the poor!"
Translation: "Hey, lady -- weren't you listening to that story about the sheep and the goats the other day? HELLO?!? We could have behaved like sheep if you hadn't blown all that dough at one time on the Master. What's the matter with you?!?"
Can you hear Jesus' words about the sheep and the goats ringing unmercifully in their heads? Who can blame them, right? I mean, who in their right mind wants to go the way of a goat? Ah, but their Master corrected them.
"Leave her alone," He said. "What she's done is beautiful. What's more, wherever My Message is preached, her kind deed will be memorialized."
Jesus makes two things plain here. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and loving the imprisoned are all essential pastimes, but they are secondary. Nothing can overshadow the importance of the relationship that feeds and energizes all that we do in God's service. Lavishing our love, devotion, and treasure on Jesus comes before anything else. By personally beholding His countenance in prayer and worship, we gain the visual acuity to perceive His gaze in the eyes of the needy.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
I was reading awhile ago in Matthew 25-26. The sweeping apocalyptic scope of Jesus' Olivet Discourse ends in Matt. 25 with the parable of the sheep and the goats; warnings about wars, the decimation of Jerusalem, and personal preparedness for the hour of Christ's return give way at last to a simple tale of eternal reward and judgment.
The sheep, who represent the righteous, are received into eternal bliss because of their faithful service to Christ -- it was He they ministered to when they loved and embraced the indigent and needy. The goats, representing the unrighteous, are thrust out of heaven to share the awful fate of Satan and his minions. Why? They refused to serve Christ by turning a deaf ear and a cold heart to the pleas of the indigent and needy.
Every time I read this parable, I come away shaken and eager to take spiritual inventory. Am I behaving like a sheep or a goat? I can't imagine that the reaction of Jesus' disciples was much different. That's why it doesn't surprise me that they were indignant a few days later when a woman "wasted" an entire jar of the costliest perfume by anointing Jesus with it.
"Why this waste?" they protested. "The cost of this perfume is exorbitant. We could have sold it for a high price and then given the money to the poor!"
Translation: "Hey, lady -- weren't you listening to that story about the sheep and the goats the other day? HELLO?!? We could have behaved like sheep if you hadn't blown all that dough at one time on the Master. What's the matter with you?!?"
Can you hear Jesus' words about the sheep and the goats ringing unmercifully in their heads? Who can blame them, right? I mean, who in their right mind wants to go the way of a goat? Ah, but their Master corrected them.
"Leave her alone," He said. "What she's done is beautiful. What's more, wherever My Message is preached, her kind deed will be memorialized."
Jesus makes two things plain here. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and loving the imprisoned are all essential pastimes, but they are secondary. Nothing can overshadow the importance of the relationship that feeds and energizes all that we do in God's service. Lavishing our love, devotion, and treasure on Jesus comes before anything else. By personally beholding His countenance in prayer and worship, we gain the visual acuity to perceive His gaze in the eyes of the needy.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Jesus
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
From The MonT-SteR's Devotional
The Lord said to me, "Faithless Israel is more righteous than unfaithful Judah." (Jer 3:11, NIV)
By the time in salvation history when Jeremiah spoke these words, Israel had gone into exile in Assyria. God had already stated to the writing prophets that He gave Israel a certificate of divorce and sent her away. It must have jarred Judah's sensibilities to hear Jeremiah elevate Israel's righteousness above that of his own people.
Israel is described here as "faithless," which is translated from the word meshubah -- an adjective whose root is the Hebrew verb "to repent" (shuwb). Whereas shuwb is frequently used to connote a 180-degree turn from doing evil to following God, meshubah is the opposite. It is to turn from faith to apostasy. Judah, on the other hand, is described as "unfaithful." The key to understanding the difference between "faithless" and "unfaithful" is Jer 3:10, which states that Judah returned to God in pretense, and not with her whole heart. Thus the Hebrew word for "unfaithful," bagowd, carries with it the sense of being false, duplicitous, playing both sides against the middle.
From God's perspective, Judah was having an affair. She was courting false gods and idols while at the same time maintaining Yahweh worship. To Him, this was even more detestable than Israel's willful and outright rebellion. Would that you were hot or cold, says God, but since you are lukewarm I will vomit you out of my mouth. Could it be that when a Christian plays footsie with the world under the table, it is more reprehensible in God's sight than the blasphemies of a committed atheist?
Friendship with the world is enmity with God. When people of faith attempt to cuddle up to both God and the world, in reality we're only betraying the One who loved and died for us.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
The Lord said to me, "Faithless Israel is more righteous than unfaithful Judah." (Jer 3:11, NIV)
By the time in salvation history when Jeremiah spoke these words, Israel had gone into exile in Assyria. God had already stated to the writing prophets that He gave Israel a certificate of divorce and sent her away. It must have jarred Judah's sensibilities to hear Jeremiah elevate Israel's righteousness above that of his own people.
Israel is described here as "faithless," which is translated from the word meshubah -- an adjective whose root is the Hebrew verb "to repent" (shuwb). Whereas shuwb is frequently used to connote a 180-degree turn from doing evil to following God, meshubah is the opposite. It is to turn from faith to apostasy. Judah, on the other hand, is described as "unfaithful." The key to understanding the difference between "faithless" and "unfaithful" is Jer 3:10, which states that Judah returned to God in pretense, and not with her whole heart. Thus the Hebrew word for "unfaithful," bagowd, carries with it the sense of being false, duplicitous, playing both sides against the middle.
From God's perspective, Judah was having an affair. She was courting false gods and idols while at the same time maintaining Yahweh worship. To Him, this was even more detestable than Israel's willful and outright rebellion. Would that you were hot or cold, says God, but since you are lukewarm I will vomit you out of my mouth. Could it be that when a Christian plays footsie with the world under the table, it is more reprehensible in God's sight than the blasphemies of a committed atheist?
Friendship with the world is enmity with God. When people of faith attempt to cuddle up to both God and the world, in reality we're only betraying the One who loved and died for us.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study
Monday, April 19, 2004
Leaders are followers
My church launched a School of Leadership this year, and I was asked to teach the second module, entitled The Leader's Example. The curriculum we use for these classes is produced by Leadership Training, International, and it is excellent material.
I made some introductory comments about Christian discipleship at the class, which I have recorded and posted here for those who might be interested:
Feedback from all comers is more than welcome!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
My church launched a School of Leadership this year, and I was asked to teach the second module, entitled The Leader's Example. The curriculum we use for these classes is produced by Leadership Training, International, and it is excellent material.
I made some introductory comments about Christian discipleship at the class, which I have recorded and posted here for those who might be interested:
The MonT-SteR on Discipleship (6.3 MB, 15 min.)Of course, these comments do not exhaust all my thoughts or concerns vis-a-vis a biblical paradigm/theology of discipleship, but they serve to illustrate why it is one of the issues I tend to pound the table about.
Feedback from all comers is more than welcome!
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: bible study, Christianity, discipleship
Friday, January 23, 2004
Point of clarification
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:33:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "Robert Monti"
Subject: RE: Lead us not into temptation....
To: Monti Cell Group
Howdy all.
I took a moment to put my rusty Greek skills to use in
order to verify my suspicion about Matthew 6:13.
It turns out that the verb that is translated "to
lead" can also be rendered "to bring into." I don't
want to bore everybody with Greek grammar, but here
are a couple points of interest:
So the issue is not that God will push us into
temptations if we don't pray for Him not to. Instead,
we are to ask God to help us stay out of situations
where we are weak and vulnerable to temptation, or
where the enemy might have an "in" to attack us or cause
us to stumble. It's a beautiful prayer for protection.
I'm heartened to know that my Heavenly Father
understands and acknowledges our weakness, and pledges
to us through Christ's own prayer that He will gladly
make provision for our rescue. All we need to do is
ask.
I hope you all found this information helpful. We love
and appreciate you, and will continue to pray for you.
Blessings,
Rob
P.S. I really enjoyed our discussion on Tuesday night!
=====
Robert R. Monti, M.Div.
w: www.mont-sterreport.com
e: robmonti@yahoo.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:33:21 -0800 (PST)
From: "Robert Monti"
Subject: RE: Lead us not into temptation....
To: Monti Cell Group
Howdy all.
I took a moment to put my rusty Greek skills to use in
order to verify my suspicion about Matthew 6:13.
It turns out that the verb that is translated "to
lead" can also be rendered "to bring into." I don't
want to bore everybody with Greek grammar, but here
are a couple points of interest:
- The verb in question is in the subjunctive mood,
which generally conveys probability or contingency. It
has a number of uses, however, depending on the syntax
of a sentence. It can also indicate a simple
prohibition when addressing someone. For example, in
John 3:7, Jesus says to Nicodemus, "Do not marvel that
I said to you...." So a literal English translation of
Matthew 6:13a might go, "Do not bring us into
temptation...." - Jesus and the New Testament writers commonly used a
literary device called "litotes," which is essentially
the expression of a positive idea or concept by
negating its opposite. For example, Paul says in 2
Cor. 2:11 that he and the Corinthians are "not
ignorant" of Satan's devices. The negation of the
negative term "ignorant" is used to convey a positive
fact: they are aware of Satan's devices. - In the same way, Jesus employs litotes in the Lord's
Prayer when He teaches us to pray against temptation
in our lives. The prayer negates the very negative
idea of being "brought" or "led" into temptation. What
Jesus intends is for us to petition God to do the
opposite, to "bring us away or out of" temptations. A
very positive idea!
So the issue is not that God will push us into
temptations if we don't pray for Him not to. Instead,
we are to ask God to help us stay out of situations
where we are weak and vulnerable to temptation, or
where the enemy might have an "in" to attack us or cause
us to stumble. It's a beautiful prayer for protection.
I'm heartened to know that my Heavenly Father
understands and acknowledges our weakness, and pledges
to us through Christ's own prayer that He will gladly
make provision for our rescue. All we need to do is
ask.
I hope you all found this information helpful. We love
and appreciate you, and will continue to pray for you.
Blessings,
Rob
P.S. I really enjoyed our discussion on Tuesday night!
=====
Robert R. Monti, M.Div.
w: www.mont-sterreport.com
e: robmonti@yahoo.com
Labels: bible study, Christianity, exegesis
