Posts tagged bible study
Daniel as a model for Christian political involvement
0I’m sure you all are aware that political discourse in our country has become increasingly acrimonious and vapid. Both sides of the political spectrum hurl invective at one another. Demagoguery abounds. Politicians deal in platitudes, and the citizenry is both polarized and distrustful of the authorities like never before.
As a Christian man, I may disagree vehemently with a given political party or an individual candidate. But, biblically, that does not give me license to behave hatefully toward them, or to default to believing the worst about them. Rather, I’m called to honor them, to pray for them, to regard them as stewards who are ultimately chosen by God to faithfully discharge the office they hold. And I believe I’m called to do what I can to help them steward that position faithfully. Sometimes that involves the prophetic responsibility of calling them to account, as the OT prophets often did with the kings, but I won’t get into that here.
I think Daniel’s example is particularly instructive. Think about his situation:
- He was forcibly taken into exile. He had suffered injustice at the hands of Babylon.
- Babylon was a pagan culture that did not recognize the Living God or follow His ways.
- Nebuchadnezzar was a pompous man with a bad temper and a lust for power, and yet Daniel, a man of God, had been involuntarily pressed into his service.
Daniel was betwixt and between, to be sure. And he had every reason to disparage the Babylonians and their king, to wish for their downfall. But I see in Daniel a man who never compromised his faith in God while distinguishing himself in faithful, loyal service to an unholy culture. Even though the king didn’t govern rightly, you never see one ounce of disdain or disrespect coming from Daniel. Rather, you hear phrases like, “O King, may you live forever.” Daniel lived a no compromise life, but he had the honor and respect of those who didn’t know God. And God used his righteous tenacity to reveal Himself to Nebuchadnezzar, who transitioned from glorifying himself to recognizing that God is sovereign over the nations.
I wonder if that might not be a desirable paradigm for our present political culture. You may be happy about who’s in power right now. It may drive you crazy at the moment. But how would Daniel handle it?
Daniel 11:32 states that those who know their God shall be strong and do great exploits in His name. Perhaps that captures the secret of the remarkable life Daniel lived. For my own part, I’m both convicted and inspired by his example. And I pray that our culture is flooded with Daniels in this crucial, desperate hour.
I intend to be one of them.
Thoughts on idolatry
1I just read the account of Jehu’s purging of Ahab’s dynasty and every last trace of Baal worship in 2 Kings. It’s interesting to me that Jehu touts his zeal for the Lord, and at one point God Himself commends Jehu for faithfully carrying out His instructions vis-a-vis Ahab’s descendents. And yet, in 2 Kings 10:31, we find the following words:
Jehu did not obey the Law of the Lord, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He refused to turn from the sins that Jeroboam had led Israel to commit.
Apparently, Jehu chose not to destroy the golden calves that Jeroboam had originally erected for the purpose of securing his own kingship and keeping the people from making pilgrimage to the temple in Jerusalem.
Jeroboam’s idolatry was a stumbling block to the northern kingdom of Israel from the moment he rebelled against the Davidic line and first rose to power. I wonder at Jehu’s failure to completely reverse idolatry in the land. Was it because he shared Jeroboam’s fear that the people would lose their allegiance to his crown in favor of Judah’s king? Or was it because (as Tolkien might put it) “lore waned” in Israel, and the very notion of what it truly meant to follow God’s Law had been lost? If the former, was Jehu aware of Jeroboam’s reasoning? If he was, it suggests to me that sufficient archival work had been done in Israel to (at minimum) ensure that a copy of the Law of God was available to the king, for heaven’s sake—making Jehu’s failure all the more damnable. Or, perhaps Jeroboam’s sin had set Israel on a trajectory that so diverged from God’s blueprint by Jehu’s time that it caused Israel to lose touch with the very oracles of God, royal archives notwithstanding.
In any case, it’s amazing how Jeroboam’s sin remains a bloodstain on the fabric of Israel’s existence from his time forward, and manages to survive even of the likes of Jehu. It seems that part of the insidious nature of idolatry, whatever its genesis, is a stubborn ability to self-propagate across generations.
Bible tweets?
0David 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.”
Schuster had more to say, which I will address in another post (it’s getting late). But the overarching point here is that the cherry picking Schuster is declaiming against actually isn’t cherry picking at all. It’s a very reasonable bow to the difference between 21st century America and ancient Israel. Even so, a little detective work reveals that these prohibitions Schuster et al find so silly and superfluous actually have both warrant and wisdom behind them. In any case, the occasional nature of these Levitical proscriptions does not give us license to dismiss or ignore the God-given, trans-cultural absolutes they depend on.
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
On salt and light
0Our 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:
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,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Living Stones
0Here’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
Mystical and practical
2A 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. 4This 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.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Gribble watch
0Friends, 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.
There are two major problems with this line of reasoning from the Scriptures:
- 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.
The truth, friends, is that it’s impossible (and downright SILLY) to base our understanding of biblical worship practices on what ISN’T in the Scriptures. There is nothing in the Bible that indicates musical instruments can’t be used to the glory of God. As long as that is the case, churches are free to employ them as a worship aid. And, if a church prefers not to, that’s fine as well. The key is to worship in both spirit and truth.
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
Perseverance and fruitfulness
0“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
I wrote the following in the margin of my Bible:
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
Seclusion of the fool
0“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.
- 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
Wasting stuff on Jesus
0I 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