On October 30, 2015 By Steve Jeffery In Books, Politics, Theology Like

Narrative Christology

Richard Hays’ book Reading Backwards is a remarkably insightful piece of work, which prompts some thoughts about how the four evangelists (and for that matter the other NT authors, though that is not Hays’ concern here) depicted Jesus’ divinity. It is sometimes assumed that the apparent reticence of the evangelists to ascribe deity to Jesus (at least in straightforward, blunt, propositional, “Jesus is God” terms) reflects either the fact that they would have disagreed outright with the idea; or perhaps the fact that they were feeling their way towards something that they did not fully grasp, and which only later came to be understood more fully. The former possibility is problematic for obvious reasons; the latter seems to me somewhat patronising.

What is less commonly considered is the possibility that the New Testament authors may have grasped with a great deal of sophistication and nuance exactly who Jesus is (though perhaps not in the terms that became prominent in later theological and philosophical discussions of the incarnation), and that they simply chose to express this understanding in narrative form, within a complex of allusions and echoes, narrative retellings and reidentifications, metaphors, types and figures – the sort of thing Richard Hays calls “Figural Christology”. The substance is all there; our failure to see it reflects less the NT authors’ crudeness or lack of theological development, and more our somewhat shrunken idea of what counts as “theological truth”.

In any case, perhaps even to ask “What did the evangelists believe about Jesus?” is a slightly misdirected question, because it all to easily draws our attention away from the NT text to guesswork about what was believed by people long dead. This is a mistake, and one which inevitably leads to dead-end speculation, because apart from the evidence of the NT writings we have very little idea what the NT authors believed. It’s also pretty tragic, because we have no direct access to the minds of long-dead men, but the NT writings are directly in front of us. And it is these writings, not some speculative reconstruction of the thoughts of the men that wrote them, which comprise the Holy Scriptures and teach us the faith.

These writings – inspired as they are by the Spirit of God, so that the human authors may well have spoken better than they knew – certainly do speak of a man, Jesus of Nazareth, in whom Israel’s God came to be present in the world; a man whose words and works are the words and works of God; a man in whom the invisible became visible, the eternal became temporal, the immortal became mortal; a man through whose sacrificial saving grace God was and is at work to save the world. These and similar narrative formulations may lack something of the philosophical precision of later Christological formulations, but I’m not sure they lack so much of their substance. On the contrary, at its best, the road to Chalcedon and beyond is simply an attempt to draw out and express again (perhaps in response to critics, perhaps as a natural process of spiritual-intellectual development, perhaps in pursuit of further clarity, perhaps for other reasons) what the Scriptures actually say about Jesus.

I suspect that Richard Hays has a great deal to teach us about how the Scriptures speak of our Saviour.

Rev Dr Steve Jeffery is Minister at Emmanuel Evangelical Church, London, England (Blog, Facebook, Twitter)

On October 24, 2015 By Dustin Messer In Books, Family and Children, Theology Like

The Benefits of Growing up in a Tradition

In the book Philosophers Who Believe, Nicholas Wolterstorff offers a beautiful account of his spiritual journey. While I was deeply moved by his whole story, I was particularly impressed by his appreciation for the Reformed tradition in which he was reared:

“The grace that shaped my life came not in the form of episodes culminating in a private experience of conversion but, first of all, in the form of being inducted into a public tradition of the Christian church…. My induction into the tradition, through words and silences, ritual and architecture, implanted in me an interpretation of reality—a fundamental hermeneutic. Nobody offered ‘evidences’ for the truth of the Christian gospel; nobody offered ‘proofs’ for the inspiration of the Scriptures; nobody suggested that Christianity was the best explanation of one thing or another. Evidentialists were nowhere in sight! The gospel was report, not explanation. And nobody reflected on what we as ‘modern men’ can and should believe in all this. The schema of sin, salvation and gratitude was set before us, the details were explained; and we were exhorted to live this truth. The modern world was not ignored, but was interpreted in the light of this truth rather than this truth being interpreted in the light of that world.”

Wolterstorff then goes on to say that this tradition was thoroughly and completely biblical:

“The piety in which I was reared was a piety centered on the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament together. Centered not on experience, and not on the liturgy, but on the Bible; for those themselves were seen as shaped by the Bible. Christian experience was the experience of appropriating the Bible, the experience of allowing the Bible to shape one’s imagination and emotion and perception and interpretation and action. And the liturgy was grounded and focused on the Bible: in the sermon the minister spoke the Word of God to us on the basis of the Bible; in the sacraments, celebrated on the authority of the Bible, the very God revealed in the Bible united us to Christ. So this was the Holy Book. Here one learned what God had done and said, in creation and for our salvation. In meditating on it and in hearing it expounded one heard God speak to one today.”

I always enjoy reading Wolterstorff, especially his work on education. This story, however, gave me new appreciation for the man, for the tradition which shaped him, and for the grace of God which sustains such traditions in an increasingly individualistic age.

On October 20, 2015 By Dustin Messer In Books, Culture, Theology, Wisdom Like

The Redemption of Friendship

I’m always happy to read a book on friendship (just this year, I was immensely helped by Wesley Hill’s wonderful new book on the subject). However, it’s especially fun to read a book on friendship written by a really good friend (it’s like reading a book on blood draining by your favorite butcher!). In Friendship Redeemed, my comrade Adam Holland has written a fine work on a subject that desperately needs more thoughtful reflection. I think anyone who picks up the book will take away a number of very helpful insights. Particularly, the book will give you (1) a lens through which to view friendship, (2) examples of what redeemed friendship looks like, and (3) practical tips for living out redeemed friendship.

To begin with, Holland offers a lens through which to view friendship:

“Fixing our relationships with one another is not going to be resolved by a 10-step program or adding just a couple things. Living in this new humanity calls for a person to put on a new pair of glasses, through which he will look and see the world.”

The first chapter is simply an examination of friendship through the lens of the biblical story: creation, fall, redemption. We were created to have friends:

“Mankind was created in the image of the triune God. We were created to live in harmony or perfect unity with one another.”

Holland doesn’t just start in the beginning, he starts before the beginning, grounding our friendship in the triune nature of God. Of course, he quickly shows how that communal nature of man is broken:

“Man learns how to interact with one another through how they interact and relate to God. Once man sins by refusing to listen and obey the word of God, it then impacts man’s relationship with one another.” He then goes onto say, “When our vertical relationship with the Lord is not right, it has ramifications into our horizontal relationships with one another.”

As you might guess by the title, the rest of the book shows how friendship is being redeemed under Christ’s reign. Perhaps the whole book is best captured in the following sentence, “Christ’s death makes reconciliation possible not only with God, but also with one another.” For Holland, the biblical story isn’t simply head knowledge, something to be tucked away for Bible-trivia night. No, the gospel changes things, it redeems. At the end of the book, you’ll see how the biblical story invites you to participate, to pick up the script of the gospel and engage in the drama of redemption.

The second thing you’ll take away from the book are examples of what friendship actually looks like. Particularly, you’ll see what friendships looks like in the life of Paul. Holland justifies his use of examples in the following way:

“If we truly want to fix our relationships and have our relationships fulfill their intended purpose, we need an example in which to look. The famous agrarian and short story writer Wendell Berry once said, ‘It is not from ourselves that we learn to be better than we are.’ We need an example to demonstrate to us how to live. Imagine that you never saw a football game in your entire life. It would not be likely that you would ever become a football player. Imagine now that you had Peyton Manning come teach you about football and train you how to play the game. The chances of you growing in your knowledge and ability to play football would increase dramatically.”

In my mind, this is where the book really pays off! Many who grew up in evangelical circles have been burned by “exemplar” models of preaching. We were taught to identify with the hero of a given story, and left church knowing we were supposed to “try harder,” but not really knowing how. In reaction, the current emphasis is (rightly!) to see Jesus as the hero of every story. Once we understand that Christ is the “better David,” we’re then motivated to obey out of love and gratitude, not out of a folksy “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mentality.

While this is all well and good, we must not become more biblical than the Bible. Or, as my mom might say, we shouldn’t be “too smart for our own britches.” The Bible is full of fallen, yet worthy characters who we are called to emulate (just read Hebrews 11!).

It’s not easy to apply character studies in a Christocentric way, yet that’s exactly what Holland does! From Tychicus, to Onesimus, to John Mark, to Epaphras, to Luke, to Demas, Holland shows how Paul’s various friendships can serve as a model, an example of how to live out gospel-centered friendship.

Lastly, you will take away various “tips” on how to live out redeemed friendships. While I didn’t do a verse count, I suspect there were more references from Proverbs than any other book. In fact, the whole book has a “proverbial” feel to it. Said differently, it drips with wisdom. As one example, take the theme of vulnerability. Below are three passages related to vulnerability which will give you a taste for the practical flavor of the whole book:

“Forgiveness within our friendships is not about righting the wrong, but it is about lavishly pouring out the love of Christ, even when it is at our own expense.”

“In Paul’s list here of his friends, he has two friends now that have abandoned him. How can you tell whether one of your friends is going to be a John Mark (a friend that leaves and comes back) or a Demas (a friend that leaves you and never returns)? You can’t! So, should we shut the door on any friendship in fear that they may abandon us or hurt us? No! Paul models for us how living on the other side of the cross calls for believers to take risks with others. Sometimes you are going to get hurt.”

“Paul’s life and ministry are a testimony to others willing to take a risk on him. Paul went from killing Christians to being one. I imagine that Christians were not lining up to have him over for dinner shortly after his conversion. Rather than being safe, take risks for the sake of the gospel. Rather than leaving the church because you have been hurt, stay and be an agent of change. You may get hurt along the way, but the joy of seeing others transformed will far outweigh any pain that you may receive.”

In the end, Holland has written a fresh, readable, biblical, winsome book on friendship. While I’d recommend it to anyone, I especially think it’d be useful in a small group setting.

On October 20, 2015 By Steve Macias In Theology, Worship Like

How to Become a Church Planting Church

I recently attended a Church conference sponsored by the Acts 29 Network and Origin Church of Roseville called, “Simple Effective Church.”

Origin Church hosted the conference at their Roseville campus and described the event as, “uncomplicated systems for thriving disciple making.” A majority of the church leaders in attendance fell into the reformed or evangelical brand of independent churches, although I met a few from baptist and presbyterian denominations. Our collared priest outed our group as from a more liturgical background.

The event had three sessions led by Pastor Brian Howard. Pastor Brian co-founded Sojourn Network, a national church planting network, currently leads Church Multiplication for Pacific Church Network, and serves as Network Director of Acts 29 US West.

His three sessions were entitled, “How to Become a Church Planting Church,” “No One Even Knows Your Church Exists: What you can do about it,” and “Avoiding Elder Blowup: How to do leadership development from day one.”

Become a Church planting Church

Howard emphasized that we need to view missions as a three-pronged category that includes “local, domestic, and international” missionary efforts. Noting that while many churches focus on setting aside a percentage for international missions, perhaps we ought to consider adding a local church planting line to our budgets and plans for giving. It is also worth considering his suggestion to “adopt and support an existing church planter” and to, “partner with other churches in supporting a church planter.”

No One Even Knows Your Church Exists

If your church closed today, would anyone in your community notice? For those of us in liturgical churches, it is much easier to focus inwardly on the beauty of our own services. So where do we start? Howard suggests that the basic goal of church outreach is to develop a long term presence in your community. “Church is more than a crowd,” he said. “We all know that numerical growth is not the same thing as spiritual success.”

According to Howard, that long term presence begins with identifying your target area and researching the ways you can serve the community around your church. “We mapped out the neighborhood around my church and my home, and then we pulled up the census data for this region.” This “research” plan is to help church leaders navigate their own culture and what they hope to create. Age, ethnicity, language, religious preference, and income were all considered as relevant data points to help church planters understand what kinds of outreach they might explore. For example, a historically Roman Catholic demographic like latinos might be more primed for a liturgically grounded service, while outreach to an economically challenged community might take the form of a church-based medical clinic or food closet.

“Whatever you do, be seen as a community of love,” said Howard. He then challenged the group of pastors and leaders to each brainstorm twenty new ideas for outreach.

Avoiding an Elder Blow-Up

His third talk was important in a post-denomination church planting context. Many are familiar with the rise and fall of Mark Driscoll and a number of other “non-denominational” network-style planters. As I listened to the talk, I considered how much of Howard’s advice was embedded in the historical polity of both the presbyterian and episcopal models. I couldn’t imagine attempting to plant a church on my own and perhaps this is why Acts 29 Network has become so popular.

Brian Howard suggests plants create an “outside advisory team,” where pastors can, “communicate their plans from day one.” While encouraging churches to develop leaders as a priority, he also advised against installing men, “who were formerly elders in other churches.” While I disagree with this sentiment, I can understand where Howard is coming from with elders who move from church to church to gain control.

He concluding remarks suggested plants implement a more involved leadership development structure in the elder process. I’ve been working through Dr. Tony Baron’s work called, “The Cross and the Towel: Leading to a Higher Calling” (amazon) and would highly recommended anything by Dr. Baron on the subject.

On October 17, 2015 By Uri Brito In Theology Like

The Upside-Downness of the Gospel: A Look at the Beatitudes, Part IV

Martin Luther once said:

`Twas a strange thing the world should be offended at him who raised the dead, made the blind to see, and the deaf to hear, etc. They who would deem such a man a devil, what kind of a God would they have? But here it is. Christ would give to the world the kingdom of heaven, but they will have the kingdom of the earth…”^a

A short review will help as we discuss the next beatitude.

The world perceives the kingdom of heaven to be a threat to their kingdoms. As the atheists of the first century acknowledged, these Christians turned the world upside down with their message and their lives. The kingdom is God’s world coming to earth. This new world is a world that manifests itself in an entirely different fashion than the present kingdoms. It is upside down; it is foolish to those whore are perishing.

In short, the beatitudes are instructions for how we are to live in this world; but beyond that, it is also how we turn the world upside down. The beatitudes reveal how the actions of Christians will transform the world from an ethic of shame to an ethic of honor. They are value statements. When you read them do not limit the word blessed as simply happy, but look at it as honorable. In other words, to live this Beatitude/Beatific life is an honor. Jesus is saying that if you live in this way you will be honored and exalted in due time. Again, this is the paradox of the Christian message: that when you are poor in spirit you are honored in the kingdom of heaven.

The beatitudes serve as a poem divided into two sections; each section contains 36 words. In this poem, Jesus is not telling us that if we live this way we will enter the kingdom of heaven, rather Jesus is saying that this is how kingdom-disciples live; those who have been transformed by the grace of the gospel are now called to transform the world.

We established the first beatitude “poor in spirit” as a foundational beatitude to understanding the other seven. To be poor in spirit is to depend on the infinite riches of God in Christ Jesus; it is to reject the self-sufficient way that so many live in our day, and instead embrace a life of supreme dependence upon God’s word. Our look at the beatitudes continues in verse 4:

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him.

[2] And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

[3] “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

[4] “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

The beatitudes are about Jesus coming as the restorer of His people. Israel has been an outcast and now Jesus comes to restore her; but he is coming to restore a particular type of people– a people who mourn. How honorable it is for those who mourn, for they shall be comforted! This is a fulfillment of Isaiah 61, which says that Yahweh will comfort those who mourn.What is Jesus not saying in this Beatitude? Jesus is not saying that those who are constantly in a state of self-pity and shame, those who are looking inwardly for sins, and those who cry over their transgressions will be comforted. There is a sense in which we mourn over our sins, but this is not what mourning means in the context of the beatitudes. In this context, those who mourn are those who grieve over the condition of this present world. Those who mourn are those who hope that the world will be made right. Those who mourn have a biblical sense that something is not right in this world and this leads to marvelous expectation for the work of the kingdom of heaven. Those who mourn will be comforted because they know that the kingdom of heaven is the only hope for the world. They believe that the gospel will transform lives and form a new humanity. N.T. Wright says:

But the whole point of the Gospels is that the coming of God’s kingdom on earth as in heaven is precisely not the imposition of an alien and dehumanizing tyranny, but rather the confrontation of alien and dehumanizing tyrannies with the news of a God—the God recognized in Jesus—who is radically different from them all, and whose in-breaking justice aims at rescuing and restoring genuine humanness…^b

N.T. Wright summarizes well this beatitude. Those who mourn are those who seek the shalom of the city; they are the ones who desire to see the present world reconciled to Jesus Christ and who desire the kingdom of heaven to be the ultimate and true kingdom of all the world. Those who mourn wish to see that tyrants will be confronted by the good news of God’s kingdom and be humbled and bow down to King Jesus. This beatitude is a parallel to the prophetic word of the prophet Ezekiel in chapter 9. In that chapter, Yahweh is going to destroy the city, but He will protect and mark one particular group of people: those who mourn over the abominations of the city. These are the ones who will be comforted. This background shapes how we understand this beatitude. The ones mourning are the ones who grieve over the atrocities and the many sins committed against Yahweh and His anointed one. The people in the kingdom of heaven don’t live their lives expecting to escape this they live their lives hoping to see this world transformed. This is why we are called to mourn, and in our mourning we will find that Yahweh will comfort us with a vision of a transformed world.

Practically, we cannot mourn something we do not understand. We cannot understand the depths of this broken world unless we see this broken world. We are called to act in our mourning. Crying over the lost condition of the world is not enough. We mourn by participating in restoration. We lament the state of things and we know that there is destruction and doom for those who do not turn to the kingdom of heaven in repentance, but we also become active participants in restoring this broken world. The vision is global, but it begins locally. We begin by looking to our own city; to our own neighborhoods and our own families. Is there enough brokenness around us to keep us longing and mourning for God’s kingdom? How honorable are those who mourn; who understand the true significance of how the world has been wrecked by sin, but also how the world will be restored by Jesus Christ. They who mourn will be comforted.

Martin Luther, http://www.reformed.org/master/index.html?mainframe=/documents/Table_talk/table_talk.html (back)
http://godspace.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/nt-wright-the-kingdom-of-god-and-the-need-for-social-justice/ (back)

On October 16, 2015 By Dustin Messer In Books, Culture, Interviews, Politics, Theology Like

Sandlin on Christian Culture

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (19.8MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

I’ve highlighted the work of P. Andrew Sandlin, president of the Center for Cultural Leadership, before. I find Dr. Sandlin to be one of the most articulate, compelling, and capable defenders of a uniquely Christian cultural engagement. Dr. Sandlin calls the interview below “the most wide-ranging” he’s done. From revivalism, to environmentalism, to the health and wealth gospel, Dr. Sandlin sets a great example of how to apply the Christian worldview. As someone in education, I especially appreciated his comment that, historically, there’s never been a distinctly Christian culture without a serious focus on Christian education. Hopefully, after listening to the interview, you’ll want to dig deeper into his work. If that’s the case, I highly recommend his book Christian Culture: An Introduction (which John Frame calls “biblical, accurate, insightful, and concise.”).

On October 15, 2015 By Uri Brito In Theology Like

The Upside-Downness of the Gospel: A Look at the Beatitudes, Part III

How then do we apply the life of the kingdom as we begin to explore the beatitudes? We are going to consider only the first beatitude because the first beatitude establishes a foundation for how are to understand the others.

And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying:

[3] “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

There are many who believe that these are just ideals that we cannot achieve, but Christ demands that we live in this manner. These are not hypothetical commands, so that we can try and get a taste of what it looks like to be poor in spirit, no, these are commands given to us as people to achieve by the grace of God. Just as the kingdom of heaven is a real manifestation–not some ethereal and abstract idea–so our call to be poor in spirit is a present reality.

The kingdom of heaven is the coming down of God’s world to earth. The heavenly kingdom comes to earth so that throughout time earth might become like heaven, and one day heaven and earth will come together to form one holy city, the New Heavens and New Earth. The kingdom of heaven is the earthly taste of the New Heavens and New Earth.

Jesus says that the poor in spirit possess the kingdom of heaven. “It’s really the gateway to the rest of the beatitudes. You see—if you don’t get being poor in spirit right, then there is no way you can be properly meek or mournful or hungry or thirsty or pure in heart or peacemaking or persecuted for rightousness’ sake.”^a So, what does it mean to be poor in spirit? To be poor in spirit is to recognize your dependence upon God; your dependence upon His riches. Your life and your goods are nothing apart from the author of your salvation. Those poor in spirit are those who truly understand the justification of God; that apart from God’s work in us we would never be able to follow and obey Yahweh. How do I know that I am justified in Christ? Because I live in utter dependence of His grace. Being poor in spirit is not an optional character trait, it’s the basic orientation of the justified believer in Christ. The poor in spirit knows their need for God. How well do you know your need for God?

The contrast to “the poor in Spirit” is to be “rich in Spirit.” Biblically, this is not a positive trait, because the rich in spirit live independent of God. They view themselves justified apart from the grace of God and so they live in their self-sufficiency and in their pride. The rich in spirit person is always aware of people’s shortcomings and deficiencies. He is always content that he is not like the others. He is quick to find fault in others, but he never looks at his own sins (Mt. 7:3-5). He lives arrogantly and proud of his own accomplishments without ever finding joy in other people’s joy. The rich in spirit are full of themselves. They walk around looking for people to criticize and they can’t wait to tell so and so someone else’s mistakes.

The rich in spirit have a deep sense of their own self-sufficiency. They don’t need the community; they refuse to be a part of the body. They live for themselves and they go their own separate ways.

How different is the picture our Lord portrays with this little phrase “poor in spirit?” The poor in spirit considers others more significant than themselves. This is why Jesus’ message in this sermon is upside down. There’s nothing in our bones that inclines us to consider others more important than ourselves. Our natural inclination is to think more highly of ourselves than we ought, and to think that we are more important—more essential—more valuable—than others. But Jesus has baptized you and he has called you to believe something that goes against your natural inclinations, and he expects you to do it. He has given you the grace to do it. He expects you to grow in the grace that he has given you, which necessarily means becoming poorer and poorer in spirit. This is how Christ lived. He lived his life for the sake of others. He esteemed others and he was sacrificed for others, because Jesus became poor in spirit for you.

Notes from Pastor Jeremy Sexton (back)

On October 12, 2015 By Uri Brito In Theology Like

The Upside-Downness of the Gospel: A Look at the Beatitudes, Part II

Before we delve into the Beatitudes we are confronted with the first two verses of Matthew 5, which establish the background for this sermon:

Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying…

Mountain and Mouth

There are two words that need to be stressed in these verses, and they are mountain and mouth. First, the gospel of Matthew is full of mountains. In fact, the first mountain we see is in Matthew 4 where Satan takes Jesus up on the mountain and offers Him all authority if He only bows down and worships him. The last mountain is in Matthew 28 where Jesus gives forth his commission to His disciples on a mountain. Jesus begins on a mountain in Matthew 4 being offered all authority; He ends in Matthew 28 with all authority in heaven and earth. He receives this authority not because He submitted to the devil, but because He conquered the devil by giving His life through death.

And why are there so many allusions to mountains in the gospel? The simple answer is that Matthew is drawing our attention to that great mountain in the Old Covenant where Moses received the laws of Yahweh and instructed the people how to live and how to be a different people from the nations around them. Jesus is the greater/better Moses. Just as Moses gave Yahweh’s law to the people, so now Jesus, as the lawgiver, instructs his people how to live and consequently how to become a different people, a kingdom people different from all the other earthly kingdoms. The Sermon on the Mount is an extension of the laws of Moses; it was what Moses’ law always intended, but in Christ these laws are lived out in fullness, loyalty, and righteousness. The Sermon on the Mount is not a set of harsh, moralistic, legalistic rules to live by, they are life-transforming, grace-giving instructions from on high.

The second word to consider is the word mouth. It is important to see that these words are proceeding from the mouth of Jesus. In Deuteronomy 8 the people are told to live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. Jesus rebukes Satan by pointing back to Deuteronomy, and now in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is the one who speaks authoritatively. Jesus is affirming that He is Yahweh in the flesh. Just as Israel needed to live by the words of Yahweh, this new Israel—composed of Jews and Gentiles—need to live from the words that proceed out of the mouth of Jesus the Christ. These words in verses 3-12 are the words of a new world order given by a new Moses to a new people.

An Honorable People

There are eight beatitudes in this sermon. Some have translated the word “beatitude” as happy or blessed, but a more accurate way of understanding this term is by translating it as honorable. These are value statements. The Beatitudes are not characteristics of a pitiful/shameful people, but these are characteristics of an honorable people; a people who have been exalted because of their dependence on God. Saint Peter says that if we humble ourselves before the Lord He will exalt us in due time.^a The people of the kingdom are being honored and exalted when they live according to the laws of the kingdom.^b These beatitudes are set against the shameful characteristics of those outside the kingdom. Jesus is saying, “How honorable are those who live under these gracious laws!”

Another element concerning the beatitudes is their poetic nature. The first four beatitudes contain 36 words. The last four also contain 36 words,^c forming a perfect poem. We are considering a piece of poetry as we look at the Beatitudes.

One final observation, and a crucial one before we look in great detail in the next few posts: As we apply these beatitudes we must remember that these are not intended for those who want to be in the kingdom or as a way of getting in the kingdom. No, these are for those who are already in the kingdom seeking to expand and live out the ethic of the kingdom. We are not to see these as ways of getting in the kingdom, but as ways of living the kingdom out.

Part 1

I Peter 5:6. (back)
K.C. Hanson’s analysis of “Honor and Shame in the Ancient World. (back)
Leithart writes: “12 is the number of Israel and 72 is the number of the Table of Nations in Genesis 10.” (back)

On October 10, 2015 By Uri Brito In Theology Like

The Upside-Downness of the Gospel: A Look at the Beatitudes, Part I

Sometimes we hear the most insightful comments from the mouth of unbelievers. A few years ago before the death of renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens, a self-professed “liberal female pastor” interviewed the anti-Christian author. She began the interview by asking him why he chose to debate fundamentalists who believed in the literal resurrection of Jesus and His atonement for our sins. As a liberal she did not believe in a literal resurrection nor other classic Christian truths. The Bible stories were mainly myths given to illustrate how to better love one another. The atheist Christopher Hitchens answered with the forcefulness and clarity you would expect: “Then I am not speaking to a Christian at all!” He then proceeded to quote St. Paul who said that “If there is no resurrection, then we are of all people most miserable.” Hitchens, of course, was not defending Christianity, but at least he knew what a Christian believes. This is an accurate assessment from the mouth of one of the most hostile and leading atheists of the 21^st century. In Hitchens’ world, there is an antithesis: you either believe in the resurrected Christ of Scriptures or you reject him. There is no middle ground. You may put on a clerical garb, but in the end you are dressing yourself as a servant of the deceiver.

Historically, in the year AD 50 there was a group of Christ-haters–the atheists of the first century. They lived in Thessalonica and their words were recorded in Acts 17. They said the following: “These men who have turned the world upside down have come here also.”They were referring to Paul and Silas and their assessment was that the way they lived and what they proclaimed was turning the world upside down. It was revolutionizing the present world system.

It was Augustine who coined Jesus’ great sermon as the Sermon on the Mount. And what I want you to be keenly aware of as we consider these verses in these next few posts is the upside-downess of the kingdom of heaven. The atheists of the first century despised our Lord, but they understood that something strange was happening; something different than anything they had seen before. “These Christians are shaking the world with their backwards and non-sensical message,” they said.

The kingdom of heaven is like that. It comes from heaven to earth to manifest itself in a way never seen by men. The reason this kingdom is so different than the other kingdoms is because it is a heavenly kingdom; a kingdom that operates by different standards. It is no wonder that from the very beginning the kingdom of heaven has been contrary to common sense.The very idea of a woman giving birth to the Creator of the Universe—of God becoming flesh—is about as contrary to worldly wisdom as it gets.

And this foolishness, what the world perceives the kingdom to be, also applies to how Jesus’ followers are to act and think. If the kingdom receives this perception from the world, then too, will the people of the kingdom receive a similar assessment? Those who have been gripped by this scandalous good news about Jesus are to believe things and do things that seem utterly backwards to the world and this in turn will have a profound effect on the world. The subjects of the kingdom of this world glory in power and coercion and being first. But the subjects of Christ’s kingdom glory in weakness and servanthood and meekness and being last.

Is it any surprise that when the world reads the instructions found in Matthew five they think it is irrational, backwards, and strange? If this were a kingdom built by men then it would be a kingdom for the strong and the rich and the wise and the satisfied and those who do not need anything or who are truly independent, but the kingdom of heaven is not like that. The kingdom of heaven is a kingdom in which God paradoxically became poor and meek and mournful and hungry and thirsty and persecuted—a kingdom in which God submitted to death on a cross.

When the disciples of Christ listen and live out the commands of Christ, then we can expect the world to be turned upside down. We cannot be hearers of the law without doing and living the law also.

In the next few posts we will consider how the renewed community ought to live before this watching world.

On August 11, 2015 By Kuyperian In Theology Like

The Trouble with the Literal Interpretation

Guest Post By Gregg Strawbridge

See the longer article here which addresses the details of St. Luke’s Gospel:

http://allsaints-church.com/files/etstearingdownhouse.htm

Should we interpret “literally” – well, yes. But what does this mean? Let me pick on the dispensationalists. “That a single passage has one meaning and one meaning only has been a long-established principle of biblical interpretation. Among evangelicals, recent violations of that principle have multiplied,” writes Robert Thomas. Thomas cites Milton S. Terry’s classic Hermeneutics text, “A fundamental principle in grammatico-historical exposition is that the words and sentences can have but one significance in one and the same connection. The moment we neglect this principle we drift out upon a sea of uncertainty and conjecture.” In defending grammatical-historical hermeneutics, Thomas challenges Clark Pinnock’s “future” meanings, Mikel Neumann’s contextualization, Greg Beale and Grant Osborne on Revelation 11, and Kenneth Gentry’s preterism, and last but not least the whole lot of progressive dispensationalists with their “complementary” hermeneutics. He even calls Daniel Wallace’s Greek book dangerous because Wallace acknowledges that there are “… instances of double entendre, sensus plenior (conservatively defined), puns, and word-plays in the NT.” He sounds the alarm: “A mass evangelical exodus from this time-honored principle of interpreting Scripture is jeopardizing the church’s access to the truths that are taught therein.”

However, literary structure, encoded narratives, and double senses in Luke’s gospel, not to mention the Gospel of John, and indeed most Biblical literature, do not square with this simplistic hermeneutic. I call this way of reading mono-literalisticalism. It assumes the Bible is a term-paper, apart from obvious metaphors like “I am the door.”

The insistence on a monoliteralistical-meaning to Scripture surely does not reflect the NT writers’ use of the OT. Think of Paul’s allegro in Galatians 4:21–5:1 with Sarah and Hagar. Or of the ark and baptism in Peter’s antitupos in 1 Peter 3:21. Or Matthew’s “out of Egypt, I called My Son” (Matt. 2:15, Hos. 11:1). I believe that for interpreters such as Dr. Thomas, the real issue is to protect certain conclusions of the interpretive process, namely, classic dispensationalism’s schemata. The process of interpretation is not made of stainless steel rules, neutral, objective, and unbiased. No interpretive process is a mere straight-jacket of meaning; no interpretation is a mere following a objective, neutral, obvious rules. Hermeneutics is really an exercise in the justification of a point of view. Ok, I sound too deconstructionist here. Not my intention. There is objectivity and the Text is not a wax nose you can bend any way. But the old school dispensationalists really did not produce an objectively demonstrable interpretation out of linear hermeneutics. That’s why they had to reform from within; “progressive dispensationalism.”

Consider St. Luke. One can easily miss the structure of Luke without reading for structure, type, and parallels. But it is clearly no accident that the temple (beginning, middle and final verse) is so prominent. As it turns out, no Biblical writer gives us modern prose which sets out its messages flatly without any dimensionality. From the crafted genealogies to the arrangement of the Psalms, Scripture is robust literature. It is the first literature and the perfect literature. All Scripture has, what I am calling, multi-dimensionality. To some extent that is how all good literature works. Melville’s classic, Moby Dick, is just a story about a big whale. No. It is a rich and wonderful novel because it is more than the story of Ishmael and the hunting of a white whale. It is the story of Ahab “striking through the mask” at God. Such literature includes the robust and subtle development of symbol, type, foreshadowing, and imagery, almost to the point of allegory.

In Luke, Jesus walked to Jerusalem. Who denies Jesus traversed from this GPS coordinate to another GPS coordinate? That is true. But that is hardly the meaning of Luke’s refrain in chapters 9-19. Jesus “steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem” (9:51). Luke clearly has deeper structures of meaning in mind which shaped his gospel. All Scripture abounds in such rich literary structures.

Taking another example, is it scientifically possible for a man to survive inside of “fish” for three days, is it a fish or a whale, fish or mammal? The point of the book of Jonah is not biology. Jonah is a story about a man swallowed up. Jonah has more than one sense. There are literary conventions in Jonah. There are undercurrents like the chiasm in Jonah 1:3 (a structural parallelism). Jonah’s action is a fleeing from the Lord that takes him:

…to Tarshish, away from the face of the Lord

down…

…to Tarshish

down…

…to Tarshish, away from the face of the Lord.

This pattern communicates the rebellious nature of Jonah’s flight in a very vivid sense. It sets up the more subtle point of Jonah’s real repentance when he is spat “up” on the land (Jon. 2:10).

Jonah was swallowed by “a great fish” and he came out alive. This actually happened. Liberalism has long seen these dramatic literary delights, denying the power thereof. Fundamentalists know this is a fact and truth. They will stare down a liberal with the gleam of a thousand Covenanters in their eye (CSL That Hideous Strength). But the Triune God of the Bible is not outdone in creativity. He can do poetry. He can create poetic and artistic reality.

The literary purpose of Jonah has extra-dimensionality and we are told as much by Jesus. He refers to the “sign of Jonah.” “An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:39-40). Jonah is the story of the whole nation (Hos. 6:2). Israel is disobedient and will be cast into the sea of the Gentiles. But she will be saved by the unclean nations somehow (Assyria, Babylon, Persia) and finally delivered back into the Land. This will result in the increasing knowledge of God (in Assyria, Babylon, Persia). Israel will come back to life (in the spread of the knowledge of God). Finally Israel will be embodied in One who will go down, down, down and come up to Life.

An elder (Chris Schlect) once challenged me on this point in an interview for my pastoral charge. What is my view of Westminster Confession 1:9? “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” I believe my points above reinforce the main point of these wise words: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” But note the parenthetical remarks: Scripture’s sense “(which is not manifold, but one).” We are to take all of God’s Word as instructive and inductively search out our principles of interpretation from the way Scripture uses Scripture. This will not lead us to impose a “four-decker” allegorical bus (as some medievals saw) on the text. Still, reading the Bible as a xerox of Modernity leads to woeful error. Scripture is ancient literature and we must understand the differences between the way ancients “hear” the Text vs how modern writing and reading works. Moreover, it is God’s writing and we must accept His hermeneutics. In order to do that we must immerse ourselves in the ad fontes of the Word.

The greatest influence on my reading of Scripture has been James B. Jordan. Check out his teachings on interpretation:

The most valuable biblical commentary in the world (audio):

http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=13689

Some thoughts about JBJ’s contribution:

http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=18300

Select 10 items for only $1 per mp3:

http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx?id=17886

Get it all for only a few bucks per month:

http://www.wordmp3.com/product-group.aspx?id=216

Theology
Category

Narrative Christology

The Benefits of Growing up in a Tradition

The Redemption of Friendship