Tim Gombis' comment on Galatians is perceptive.
"He wonderfully captures Paul’s apocalyptic vision, framing the issues in
terms of competing realms and competing sovereignties. The Galatians
must decide which realm they will inhabit—the present evil age,
dominated by the cosmic powers of Sin and Death, or the realm of God’s
new creation in Christ, animated by God’s own Spirit. Their community
life of destruction and division or of unity and cruciform love says
much about who has a rightful claim to cosmic lordship."
Click here for Gombis' blog post for more.
Showing posts with label Scripture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scripture. Show all posts
Friday, May 4, 2012
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
David Lamb on Jesus and the Old Testament
In his book God Behaving Badly Professor David T. Lamb says the following about Jesus and the Old Testament.I think this is well written.People who overdichotomize the two testaments seem to forget one important fact: the Bible of Jesus was the Old Testament. His value for the Old Testament can be seen in how frequently he referred to it. At the beginning of his ministry Jesus quoted Deuteronomy three times in the wilderness to Satan (Lk 4:4, 8, 12; Deut 6:13, 16; 8:3), and he quoted the Psalms as his final words on the cross (Mt 27:46; Ps 22:1). Throughout his entire ministry Jesus constantly mentioned the Old Testament law, the Prophets and the Psalms (for example, Lk 7:27; 10:26; 18:31; 19:46; 20:178; 22:37; 24:44). Jesus loved the Old Testament.
What is particularly relevant for this discussion, however, is that Jesus used the Old Testament to describe God. His description of God as a vineyard owner (Mt 21:33) came straight out of Isaiah 5:1-2. When Jesus told a scribe that the Lord our God is one (Mk 12:29), he quoted Deuteronomy 6:4. When the high priest asked him if he is the Christ, Jesus first stated, “I am,” an allusion to God’s Old Testament name, Yahweh (Ex 3:14), and then he combined two Old Testament texts into a prophecy that they will see him as the Son of Man seated at God’s right hand (Ps 110:1), coming in the clouds of heaven (Dan 7:13). Jesus frequently used Old Testament images to describe both himself and God as a bridegroom (Is 62:5; Mk 2:19), as a shepherd (Ezek 34; Jn 10:11) and as a king (Ps 47; Mt 18:23). Jesus not only knew the Old Testament, he also identified completely with its God. (Pages 20-21)
David Lamb on racism in the Old Testament
I have to say that I really appreciate David Lamb's humility and honesty.[W]e confront racism as Jesus did in the Old testament examples he mentioned in Luke 4 or in the parable he told in Luke 10. Two colleagues of mine recently confronted me about an insensitive racial remark I had made to them. They said that even though they knew I hadn’t meant to insult them, they were still deeply offended by my comment. I initially felt very defensive – they should have known that my comments were simply meant to tease them. But then I realized that they had a legitimate point, I didn’t understand their context, and my comment had been very hurtful. I asked them questions to understand their perspective and then asked their forgiveness. While their words were hard to hear, I appreciated not only their honesty but also that they valued our relationship enough to confront me. (page 91)
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Something from Michael Bird's book on Paul
But what about the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the basis of justification? That is the notion that God imputes the obedience and merits of Jesus to believers and in turn imputes their sins to Jesus on the cross. Well, the fact of the matter is that we cannot proof-text imputation. If we think we can cite 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 4:1-5, 1 Corinthians 1:30 or Philippians 3:6-9 and find the entire package of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience and the imputation of our sin to Christ embedded in all these texts, we are sadly mistaken. These texts all come close to saying something like that, but fall short of doing so…
The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is a necessary and logical inference to make, as it allows us coherently to hold together a number of ideas and concepts in Paul’s story of salvation. Although no text explicitly says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers, nonetheless, without some kind of theology of imputation a lot of what Paul says about justification does not make sense. Imputation is a synthetic way of holding together a number of themes that clearly point in the direction of imputation, or something very much akin to it…
Taken together, the language of ‘reckoning’, the emphasis on Christ’s obedience and faithfulness, the representative nature of Adam and Christ, the references to union with Christ, the fact that righteousness is explicitly called a ‘gift’ and the forensic nature of righteousness all make sense with some kind of theology of imputation. The mistake comes when scholars, even well-intentioned ones, try to read the entire package back into certain texts of Paul’s letters – it just does not come out that way. I concur with Leon Morris, who said that imputation is a corollary of the identification of the believer with Christ. (Here Bird refers to Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 3rd edition [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2984], p. 282.)
Thursday, March 1, 2012
An article on power and powerlessness - a partial response to Dr Andrew Sloane's lecture
ETHOS has just published my latest article, entitled "Reflections on Power and Powerlessness".
This is the description the editor inserted.
This is the description the editor inserted.
[The article] follows up on Andrew Sloane's lecture 'Justifying Advocacy' with reflections on the biblical notion of power, especially in relation to the paradox of power in weakness.Click here for the article.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Reflection: Read the Bible, and don't leave it with others to do it for us
I have been thinking how important it is to read the Bible. Here is my reflection.
"If we don’t read the Bible ourselves (individually and as a faith community together), then our faith is in the hands of a few people who are engaging/charismatic speakers/writers/bloggers/intellectuals."
Friday, February 24, 2012
Culture and rhetoric of ancient warfare (by Dr Christopher Wright)
The warfare in the Book of Joshua is thought of by some Christians as unacceptable because of its brutality.
In his book The God I Don't Understand Dr Christopher Wright says the following.
"The kind of warfare described in the conquest stories should, first of all, not be called 'holy war' (a term never used in the Bible). It is called 'a war of Yahweh'. That is, it was a war in which the God of the Israelites won the victory over their enemies." (page 87)
"Within that context, the concept of herem (or 'ban') was applied. This meant the total dedication of all that was being attacked - human, animal, material - to God himself. In a battle or war in which herem was declared, there was to be no material profit for the Israelites, since no plunder was allowed. However, the rules of herem varied, as the Old Testament narratives show. Sometimes women and children were spared (Num. 31:7-12, 17-18; Deut. 20:13-14; 21:10-14); sometime cattle could be kept (Deut. 2:34-35). But in the cases of nations living within the land of Canaan itself, the general rule was total destruction." (pages 87-88)
"Now we need to know that Israel's practice of herem was not in itself unique. Texts from other nations at the time show that such total destruction in war was practised, or at any rate proudly claimed, elsewhere. But we must also recognize that the language of warfare had a conventional rhetoric that liked to make absolute and universal claims about total victory and completely wiping out the enemy. Such rhetoric often exceeded reality on the ground." (page 88)
"Admittedly this does not remove the problem since the reality was still horrible at any level. But it enables us to allow for the fact that descriptions of the destruction of 'everything that lives and breathes' were not necessarily intended literally. Even in the Old Testament itself this phenomenon is recognized and accepted. So, for example, we read in the book of Joshua that all the land was captured, all the kings ere defeated, all the people without survivors (such as Rahab) were destroyed (e.g. Josh. 10:40-42, 11:16-20). But this must have been intended as rhetorical exaggeration, for the book of Judges (whose final editor was undoubtedly aware of these accounts in Joshua) sees no contradiction in telling us that the process of subduing the inhabitants of the land was far from complete and went on for considerable time, and that many of the original nations continued to live alongside the Israelites. The key military centres - the small fortified cities of the petty Canaanite kingdoms - were wiped out. But clearly not all the people, or anything like all the people, had in actual fact been destroyed by Joshua." (page 88)
"Even in the Old Testament itself, then, rhetorical generalization is recognized for what it is. So when we are reading some of the more graphic descriptions, either of what was commanded to be done or of what was recorded as accomplished, we need to allow for this rhetorical element. This is not to accuse the biblical writers of falsehood, but to recognize the literary conventions of writing about warfare." (page 88)
In his book The God I Don't Understand Dr Christopher Wright says the following.
"The kind of warfare described in the conquest stories should, first of all, not be called 'holy war' (a term never used in the Bible). It is called 'a war of Yahweh'. That is, it was a war in which the God of the Israelites won the victory over their enemies." (page 87)
"Within that context, the concept of herem (or 'ban') was applied. This meant the total dedication of all that was being attacked - human, animal, material - to God himself. In a battle or war in which herem was declared, there was to be no material profit for the Israelites, since no plunder was allowed. However, the rules of herem varied, as the Old Testament narratives show. Sometimes women and children were spared (Num. 31:7-12, 17-18; Deut. 20:13-14; 21:10-14); sometime cattle could be kept (Deut. 2:34-35). But in the cases of nations living within the land of Canaan itself, the general rule was total destruction." (pages 87-88)
"Now we need to know that Israel's practice of herem was not in itself unique. Texts from other nations at the time show that such total destruction in war was practised, or at any rate proudly claimed, elsewhere. But we must also recognize that the language of warfare had a conventional rhetoric that liked to make absolute and universal claims about total victory and completely wiping out the enemy. Such rhetoric often exceeded reality on the ground." (page 88)
"Admittedly this does not remove the problem since the reality was still horrible at any level. But it enables us to allow for the fact that descriptions of the destruction of 'everything that lives and breathes' were not necessarily intended literally. Even in the Old Testament itself this phenomenon is recognized and accepted. So, for example, we read in the book of Joshua that all the land was captured, all the kings ere defeated, all the people without survivors (such as Rahab) were destroyed (e.g. Josh. 10:40-42, 11:16-20). But this must have been intended as rhetorical exaggeration, for the book of Judges (whose final editor was undoubtedly aware of these accounts in Joshua) sees no contradiction in telling us that the process of subduing the inhabitants of the land was far from complete and went on for considerable time, and that many of the original nations continued to live alongside the Israelites. The key military centres - the small fortified cities of the petty Canaanite kingdoms - were wiped out. But clearly not all the people, or anything like all the people, had in actual fact been destroyed by Joshua." (page 88)
"Even in the Old Testament itself, then, rhetorical generalization is recognized for what it is. So when we are reading some of the more graphic descriptions, either of what was commanded to be done or of what was recorded as accomplished, we need to allow for this rhetorical element. This is not to accuse the biblical writers of falsehood, but to recognize the literary conventions of writing about warfare." (page 88)
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
A reintegrated view of sin (N T Wright)
"Part of the problem, of course, is that traditional Christianity has frequently operated with a truncated view of sin, limiting it to personal, and particularly sexual, immorality. These things matter enormously, of course, but there are other dimensions, of which the last century has seen so many examples, which are often untouched by traditional preaching. Equally, those preachers who have focused attention on structural evil within our world, on systematic and politically enshrined injustice, have often left the home base of Pauline theology in order to do so, not realising that there were resources there from which to launch not only critique but also promise and hope. This passage [Romans 5:12-21] invites us to explore a reintegrated view of sin and death, rebellion and consequent dehumanization, as the major problem of humankind, and thereby to offer diagnoses of our world's ills that go to the roots of the problem and prepare the way for the cure." (page 532)
Friday, January 13, 2012
The eloquent speech and the so-called "gospel" preached by the super-apostles (Frank Matera)
In his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Frank Matera says some really great things about the passage in 11:1-4. Here are two quotes. (I will highlight a few things in blue.)
"What Paul means by ‘another Jesus’ is problematic, since he never explicitly explains how the teaching of the intruders differs from the gospel he preaches. Consequently, one must be careful not to read too much into this statement by suggesting, for example, that the intruders espoused a ‘heretical’ Christology. It is more likely that the real conflict between Paul and the intruders concerned issues of ministerial style and jurisdiction, which in Paul’s perspective cannot be separated from the gospel, since they reflect one’s view of Christ. As Paul will show in his foolish boasting, there is an intimate connection between the way in which one exercises apostolic ministry and the gospel message that one preaches. For example, because suffering, hardship, and weakness are such integral parts of his ministry, the gospel that he preaches necessarily focuses on the paradox of the cross and the crucified Christ who manifests God’s power through weakness. Conversely, because Paul’s gospel focuses on the cross and the crucified Christ, he understands suffering, hardship, and weakness as integral parts of his apostolic ministry. If, in contrast, the intruding apostles focused attention on their powerful deeds, eloquent speech, and ecstatic experiences, it is unlikely that the cross of the crucified Christ played as central a role in their preaching. Conversely, if their preaching was concerned first an foremost with the power of the pneumatic Lord, they would have been more inclined to boast of the outward manifestations of that power in their own ministry. Understood in this way, Paul is quite correct when he accuses the intruders of preaching ‘another Jesus.’" (pages 243-4)
"Although an outsider might view these approaches to ministry merely as different ways of preaching the same gospel, it is clear that Paul did not, since there can be no other gospel (Gal 1:7). Just as there is an inseparable relation between the minster of the gospel and the gospel that is preached, so there is an intimate relation between the 'Jesus' that is preached and the 'Spirit' and the 'gospel' that is received. In accepting the preaching of the intruders, the Corinthians have experienced a different Spirit, but in Paul's view it is not the authentic Spirit of Jesus. Likewise they have received another gospel, but since there is only one gospel, it is not the gospel that he preached." (page 244)
The suffering of the innocent - Comparing Job and Paul
Andrzej Gieniusz has done a major study on Romans 8, entitled Romans:18-30 Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). Towards the end he makes a good comparison between Job and Paul in terms of their view of the suffering of the innocent.
“For Job it was the course of a theology set forth in the example of two animals, Behemoth and Leviathan, seemingly a hippopotamus and a crocodile, the ‘most majestic’ and ‘most meaningless’ of creatures, supremely wild and terrible but without any purpose in the human economy, so that the reason of their existence is unintelligible for us. The course made Job grasp that even if in God’s manner of creating and governing the world there is much that is incomprehensible to humans, even threatening their existence, all of it is the work of a wise God who has made the world the way it is for his own inscrutable purposes. Innocent suffering is a hippopotamus or a crocodile. Even if it seems absurd to our eyes it makes sense for god who must be allowed to know what he is doing and, therefore, who can and should be trusted.” (page 283)
“The point of departure which has led Paul to trust in the face of the mystery of suffering is not a God who is incomprehensible yet wise and powerful in the order of His creation but a God who exceeds human expectations and the possibilities of comprehending in the way of His salvation. The ultimate ground for trust is actually offered in the unfathomable gesture of God’s love which cannot be expressed adequately except by the means of a paradoxical formulation ‘giving up His own Son for all of us’ (Rom 8:32). And because it is the gesture of salvific love and not only of creative power, Paul does not remain – As Job did – in an awful and humble silence (‘See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer’ Job 40:3-5). He begins, instead, to sing the hymn of trust in the love of God manifested through Jesus Christ, the love which, in spite of the sufferings and in the midst of them, makes the victory for those who love God already tangible.” (page 284)
“For Job it was the course of a theology set forth in the example of two animals, Behemoth and Leviathan, seemingly a hippopotamus and a crocodile, the ‘most majestic’ and ‘most meaningless’ of creatures, supremely wild and terrible but without any purpose in the human economy, so that the reason of their existence is unintelligible for us. The course made Job grasp that even if in God’s manner of creating and governing the world there is much that is incomprehensible to humans, even threatening their existence, all of it is the work of a wise God who has made the world the way it is for his own inscrutable purposes. Innocent suffering is a hippopotamus or a crocodile. Even if it seems absurd to our eyes it makes sense for god who must be allowed to know what he is doing and, therefore, who can and should be trusted.” (page 283)
“The point of departure which has led Paul to trust in the face of the mystery of suffering is not a God who is incomprehensible yet wise and powerful in the order of His creation but a God who exceeds human expectations and the possibilities of comprehending in the way of His salvation. The ultimate ground for trust is actually offered in the unfathomable gesture of God’s love which cannot be expressed adequately except by the means of a paradoxical formulation ‘giving up His own Son for all of us’ (Rom 8:32). And because it is the gesture of salvific love and not only of creative power, Paul does not remain – As Job did – in an awful and humble silence (‘See, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer’ Job 40:3-5). He begins, instead, to sing the hymn of trust in the love of God manifested through Jesus Christ, the love which, in spite of the sufferings and in the midst of them, makes the victory for those who love God already tangible.” (page 284)
Saturday, January 7, 2012
The suffering of the innocent and God's justice in wisdom texts (Gerald H Wilson)
I am reading Gerald Wilson's commentary on Job (2007). I really think that we need a deeper understanding of suffering in the Bible if we want to be genuine followers of Jesus. It is because the gospel itself has a lot to do with the suffering, death and resurrection of Christ. The cross, of course, involves the suffering of the innocent One. And without death, there is no resurrection.
Here is a paragraph in the introduction of Wilson's book that is worth citing. (I will highlight a few things in blue.)
"The hard-eyed observations of 'pessimistic wisdom' compare and contrast the assumption of retribution in more expansive literary forms, including the extended discourses of Ecclesiastes and the dialogue/debate at the heart of Job. These discussions expose the weaknesses of retributive thinking and explore alternative worldviews that acknowledge the prosperity of the wicked, the oppression of the poor, and the suffering of the innocent. They also raise questions regarding the sovereignty and justice of God, who permits such circumstances to exist. In the end, however, these questioning forms of wisdom do not seek to undermine faith in God. Rather, they offer their own testimony to a continuing reliance on God and acknowledge the pain and confusion that inhabit the real world of the observant sage. Both Ecclesiastes and Job, after their devastating critiques of naive retributive thinking, counsel readers that the only way forward is to remain in a deep relationship of absolute dependence on God (what Israel calls 'fear of God'), acknowledging his sovereign freedom and admitting, along with Job, that knowing this God transcends (but does not remove!) the questions and doubts that diligent sages uncover in their searching." (page 4)
Here is a paragraph in the introduction of Wilson's book that is worth citing. (I will highlight a few things in blue.)
"The hard-eyed observations of 'pessimistic wisdom' compare and contrast the assumption of retribution in more expansive literary forms, including the extended discourses of Ecclesiastes and the dialogue/debate at the heart of Job. These discussions expose the weaknesses of retributive thinking and explore alternative worldviews that acknowledge the prosperity of the wicked, the oppression of the poor, and the suffering of the innocent. They also raise questions regarding the sovereignty and justice of God, who permits such circumstances to exist. In the end, however, these questioning forms of wisdom do not seek to undermine faith in God. Rather, they offer their own testimony to a continuing reliance on God and acknowledge the pain and confusion that inhabit the real world of the observant sage. Both Ecclesiastes and Job, after their devastating critiques of naive retributive thinking, counsel readers that the only way forward is to remain in a deep relationship of absolute dependence on God (what Israel calls 'fear of God'), acknowledging his sovereign freedom and admitting, along with Job, that knowing this God transcends (but does not remove!) the questions and doubts that diligent sages uncover in their searching." (page 4)
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Revelation, suffering, God's faithfulness, attending a good play (Michael Pahl)
I am reading Michael Pahl's The Beginning and the End (2011). In the following I will quote a few things he says about Revelation. What I like about what Pahl says is that he talks about the suffering of the followers of Jesus and God's faithfulness to them. We fail to read Revelation probably if we miss these. The other great suggestion Pahl has is that we can read Revelation as if we are attending a play. (I will highlight some sentences in blue in the quotes below.)
"Revelation is not so much concerned with the precise when and how questions of the future as much as the who and what and why sorts of questions of human - and especially Christian - existence in this present age: Why do we suffer in this world, especially as God's people? Is God faithful to his people and his creation? What is our role as God's people in this oppressive world? What is wrong with the world? How will things be made right?"
"[I]n a real sense, reading Revelation is a lot like attending a good play - which brings us back to the importance of stories in shaping our collective identity and purpose and values. We have narrators (John and his angelic interpreter) guiding us through the story. We have a series of scenes (apocalyptic visions) unfolding before us, which are visually and verbally stimulating, even provocative, critiquing the world in which we live even as they present for us the world as it could be, as it will be. And, just like a good play, if we fully engage the strange world of this dramatic story we call Revelation, we will come out of the theater changed, seeing the real world - and our place in it - in a radically new way."
Monday, January 2, 2012
The paradox of weakness and power (Frank Matera)
Yesterday I discussed briefly something about the paradoxes in the gospel and cited from Frank Matera's commentary on 2 Corinthians. Today I want to continue to talk about the paradox of weakness and power.
I think it is fair to say that many (though not all) Christians in the West today are in (relatively speaking) position of economic and social power. In Melbourne, Australia, for example, there are (as far as I can tell) more churches in the more affluent eastern suburbs than in the west. The churches in the east are generally much larger than those in the west (with exceptions, of course). As I speak with pastors and theological students about power - especially socioeconomic power - the discussion is often dominated by whether power is in and of itself sinful, and hence whether it is wrong to possess economic power. The answer is of course that power is not in and of itself sinful, nor is it wrong to own property, cars, etc. But as I think of Paul's life and ministry, the issue the apostle is interested in is more about living a cross-shaped life. That is, Paul focuses not so much on whether we should have economic power but whether we embody Christ's way of life.
Here are two further quotes from Matera's commentary.
"In and through this weakness, God manifested his power, so that Paul can also write, 'but he lives by reason of the power of God' (13:4). The fundamental paradox of weakness and power then is rooted in Christ's death, which has been made possible by the incarnation. Embracing this paradox in his life, Paul boasts in his own weaknesses (11:30; 12:9), aware that Christ's 'power is made perfect in weakness' (12:9). This is not to say that power is weakness. Rather, in a manner that can be understood only in light of the paradox of the cross, power comes to its perfection in and through weakness. Because the Corinthians did not grasp this paradox, they could not appreciate Paul's apostolic ministry among them and the new covenant community that he established in their midst." (pages 14-15)
The life that Paul chooses to live is of course counter-cultural, both then (in the Roman Empire) and now.
I think it is fair to say that many (though not all) Christians in the West today are in (relatively speaking) position of economic and social power. In Melbourne, Australia, for example, there are (as far as I can tell) more churches in the more affluent eastern suburbs than in the west. The churches in the east are generally much larger than those in the west (with exceptions, of course). As I speak with pastors and theological students about power - especially socioeconomic power - the discussion is often dominated by whether power is in and of itself sinful, and hence whether it is wrong to possess economic power. The answer is of course that power is not in and of itself sinful, nor is it wrong to own property, cars, etc. But as I think of Paul's life and ministry, the issue the apostle is interested in is more about living a cross-shaped life. That is, Paul focuses not so much on whether we should have economic power but whether we embody Christ's way of life.
Here are two further quotes from Matera's commentary.
"Affliction and suffering, then, are essential components of apostolic ministry, since they are the apostle's participation in the dying and death of Jesus, without which there can be no sharing in his resurrection. They are not to be sought in and for themselves, but they will occur in the life of those who authentically preach the gospel. Rather than conceal his apostolic hardships, Paul gladly embraces them as the marks of his apostleship (4:7-12; 6:4-10; 11:21b-33; 12:10)." (page 14)
"In and through this weakness, God manifested his power, so that Paul can also write, 'but he lives by reason of the power of God' (13:4). The fundamental paradox of weakness and power then is rooted in Christ's death, which has been made possible by the incarnation. Embracing this paradox in his life, Paul boasts in his own weaknesses (11:30; 12:9), aware that Christ's 'power is made perfect in weakness' (12:9). This is not to say that power is weakness. Rather, in a manner that can be understood only in light of the paradox of the cross, power comes to its perfection in and through weakness. Because the Corinthians did not grasp this paradox, they could not appreciate Paul's apostolic ministry among them and the new covenant community that he established in their midst." (pages 14-15)
The life that Paul chooses to live is of course counter-cultural, both then (in the Roman Empire) and now.
Gospel paradoxes (Frank J Matera)
In his commentary on 2 Corinthians, Frank J Matera has the following to say about the paradoxes of the gospel.
I have been wondering whether Christians today rely on the "powerful and eloquent" preachers/teachers too much. We like to listen to them because they are such effective communicators and their lives and ministries seem to be (so-called) "incredibly amazing". I think this is problematic. The apostle Paul, on the other hand, boasts about his weakness, through which God's power manifests. It is not about his success and power, but God's resurrection power working through the apostle's suffering and death.
Something for us to ponder...
"The Corinthians did not appreciate Paul's new covenant ministry and their status as a people of the new covenant, in large measure because they did not grasp the paradoxical nature of the gospel Paul preached to them. In their view, Paul's afflictions and sufferings were signs of weakness that were unworthy of an apostle of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, when other preachers arrived at Corinth who appeared more powerful and eloquent many of the Corinthians sided with them and criticized Paul. Although the conflict between Paul and the Corinthians was undoubtedly multifaceted, it was ultimately rooted in the inability or the refusal of the Corinthians to embrace the paradoxical nature of the gospel that Paul had already discussed in 1 Cor 1-4. In 2 Corinthians Paul develops this paradox in relation to his apostolic sufferings and weaknesses." (page 14)
I have been wondering whether Christians today rely on the "powerful and eloquent" preachers/teachers too much. We like to listen to them because they are such effective communicators and their lives and ministries seem to be (so-called) "incredibly amazing". I think this is problematic. The apostle Paul, on the other hand, boasts about his weakness, through which God's power manifests. It is not about his success and power, but God's resurrection power working through the apostle's suffering and death.
Something for us to ponder...
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Daniel Kirk on his new book Jesus Had I Loved, but Paul?
Here is J R Daniel Kirk has to say about his new book, Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul?
I haven't read the book and so I cannot comment further. But I think Kirk is on to something here. And Kirk is certainly a bright New Testament scholar. For years I have been thinking that Christians today do not fully understand Paul. I think it is worth checking out this book.
I haven't read the book and so I cannot comment further. But I think Kirk is on to something here. And Kirk is certainly a bright New Testament scholar. For years I have been thinking that Christians today do not fully understand Paul. I think it is worth checking out this book.
Why "social" justice? (Scot McKnight)
For a long time I have been thinking whether I should include the word "social" when I refer to "justice" in the Bible. In terms of biblical usage, "social justice" is not strictly speaking the language used in the Scripture. But on the other hand when "justice" is mentioned in the Bible, it has much to do with social and communal living.
In his recent blog post Scot McKnight discusses this matter. Here I cite a few things McKnight says.
Click here for McKnight's blog post.
In his recent blog post Scot McKnight discusses this matter. Here I cite a few things McKnight says.
Tim King is a former student of mine, works with Jim Wallis, and is pointing out something I would affirm. The word “social” has been added to the word “justice” because “social” has been too often neglected. Having said that, though, I would plead with us to learn to use the word “justice” biblically — it refers to being right with God, with self, with others, with the world — so that we don’t have to add “social” (with others, with the world) and so we can cease with our gnostic-like spirituality where it is only “me and God.”
I am ready to concede the point that if we properly define our terms, the “social” in social justice and the “personal” in personal salvation should both be dropped. But, I’m not willing to stop using the modifier “social” when it comes to justice until Christians fully engage the biblical definition of justice.
Someday, justice will be flowing like a river and righteousness like an everflowing stream.
On that day, we won’t be fighting about whether or not it is “social” justice or just plain old justice that is rolling.I gather that the last two sentences echo Amos' words about justice. I think Scot McKnight has something for us to ponder here.
Click here for McKnight's blog post.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Reflection: The word "truth" in the Bible
I have been thinking that "truth" is one of the most misunderstood words in the Bible, for we keep thinking about the "truth" in modernistic terms. But truth, truthfulness and embodying truthfulness are all interrelated within the biblical worldview.
And if you know Greek, check out Ephesians 4:15. The Greek does not literally say, "speaking the truth in love". Instead, it's "truthing in love", which means embodying and living out the truth in love!
"Speaking the truth" may be part of it, but there is so much more. If we only speak the truth without living it out in love, then we are quite hypocritical, aren't we? On the contrary, if we live out and embody God's truth and truthfulness in love, then what we say has credibility. Imagine that we can truly care for others, give them grace, and show them genuine love, then people can truly see some measure of who God really is.
I tend to think that what Christ did on earth was to embody God's truth in his life, suffering and death, and God vindicated him by raising him from the dead. I think Paul tried to follow Jesus' life pattern, and he asked his Christian communities to do likewise.
And if you know Greek, check out Ephesians 4:15. The Greek does not literally say, "speaking the truth in love". Instead, it's "truthing in love", which means embodying and living out the truth in love!
"Speaking the truth" may be part of it, but there is so much more. If we only speak the truth without living it out in love, then we are quite hypocritical, aren't we? On the contrary, if we live out and embody God's truth and truthfulness in love, then what we say has credibility. Imagine that we can truly care for others, give them grace, and show them genuine love, then people can truly see some measure of who God really is.
I tend to think that what Christ did on earth was to embody God's truth in his life, suffering and death, and God vindicated him by raising him from the dead. I think Paul tried to follow Jesus' life pattern, and he asked his Christian communities to do likewise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
