http://youtu.be/wdFP-R_LYSM
http://youtu.be/MalI80HUZ9w
"And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet"
Reintegrate interview: Dual citizens
2 days ago
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
God is testing Me?
I have a hunch that in 1 Corinthians 10:13, where Paul talks about God providing a way out of 'testing/temptation', he may be echoing the provision of the ram in Genesis 22. Anyone bumped into this before?
I've been puzzling as to why James uses Gen 22 a his example of 'justification by deeds", and wondering how his "No one should say 'God is testing me' ", fits with his use of Abraham later on.
Of course all of this came from getting a little annoyed at sermons and Bible studies that present God as determining and doing evil 'to build our character'.
I'm trying to find places in the NT where God is the agent of 'testing'. They are very slim. He is always around, strengthening, encouraging etc. Very few agencies.
None with peirazmos, though God is presented as the agent of rescue from peirazmos and has victory over peirazmos.
John 6:6 is a candidate for Jesus 'testing', but it is hardly providing calamity to produce character, it is simply Jesus seeing what Phillip will do.
1 Corinthians 10, God is the restricter of perazw, but hardly its agent.
In fact, God is never directly the agent of peirazw in the NT.
The closest is in Hebrews 11:17, which the reference to Abraham, but even there, it is not directly said that the testing is from God. (And the story of Genesis 22 is rather ambiguous in itself as to whether God would ordain evil, when the narrative is taken as a whole)
So given that is the case, it seems rather careless, when faced with James 1:13, to outright say, "God tests us". Surely, even if we wanted to translate the verse as tempt, it would be reckless to say the exact opposite of the verse. Yet this is what a lot of popular Bible Study says. God tests us in order to prove our mettle.
I think this comes from a wrong understanding of God's sovereignty, which tries to comfort us in the face of evil by saying God planned it all, instead of saying God has a plan to destroy evil in his Son Jesus. It comes from Calvin's commentary on James, but ends up with a much mushier Calvinism. It ends up with 'God has a plan for your life' which rather ignores the Messiah and the sharing of Messianic woes, but instead focuses on a quasi-psychological character building.
I know the whole issue of whether God ordains evil is vexed, but I think flatly saying his agency is the same in evil as good is wrong, and mistakes infinity for totality.
Just some thoughts
I've been puzzling as to why James uses Gen 22 a his example of 'justification by deeds", and wondering how his "No one should say 'God is testing me' ", fits with his use of Abraham later on.
Of course all of this came from getting a little annoyed at sermons and Bible studies that present God as determining and doing evil 'to build our character'.
I'm trying to find places in the NT where God is the agent of 'testing'. They are very slim. He is always around, strengthening, encouraging etc. Very few agencies.
None with peirazmos, though God is presented as the agent of rescue from peirazmos and has victory over peirazmos.
John 6:6 is a candidate for Jesus 'testing', but it is hardly providing calamity to produce character, it is simply Jesus seeing what Phillip will do.
1 Corinthians 10, God is the restricter of perazw, but hardly its agent.
In fact, God is never directly the agent of peirazw in the NT.
The closest is in Hebrews 11:17, which the reference to Abraham, but even there, it is not directly said that the testing is from God. (And the story of Genesis 22 is rather ambiguous in itself as to whether God would ordain evil, when the narrative is taken as a whole)
So given that is the case, it seems rather careless, when faced with James 1:13, to outright say, "God tests us". Surely, even if we wanted to translate the verse as tempt, it would be reckless to say the exact opposite of the verse. Yet this is what a lot of popular Bible Study says. God tests us in order to prove our mettle.
I think this comes from a wrong understanding of God's sovereignty, which tries to comfort us in the face of evil by saying God planned it all, instead of saying God has a plan to destroy evil in his Son Jesus. It comes from Calvin's commentary on James, but ends up with a much mushier Calvinism. It ends up with 'God has a plan for your life' which rather ignores the Messiah and the sharing of Messianic woes, but instead focuses on a quasi-psychological character building.
I know the whole issue of whether God ordains evil is vexed, but I think flatly saying his agency is the same in evil as good is wrong, and mistakes infinity for totality.
Just some thoughts
On writing stupid and inflammatory posts
It is something I do every now and then, usually late at night when annoyed about something.
I need to learn to use that schedule button and put them off for a week or two then come back.
Thanks Mike Doyle for the correction, though I still have concerns about T&V, the post was dumb and is removed
cf. the title of this blog
I need to learn to use that schedule button and put them off for a week or two then come back.
Thanks Mike Doyle for the correction, though I still have concerns about T&V, the post was dumb and is removed
cf. the title of this blog
W H Vanstone on the necessity of God's love and Kenosis
‘Trinitarian theology asserts that God’s love for his creation is not the love that is born of ‘emptiness’ … It is the love which overflows from fullness. Its analogue is the love of a family who, united in mutual love, take an orphan into the home. They do so not out of need but in the pure spontaneity of their own triumphant love. Nevertheless, in the weeks that follow, the family, once complete in itself, comes to need the newcomer. Without him the circle is now incomplete; his absence now causes anxiety: his waywardness brings concern; his goodness and happiness are necessary to those who have come to love him; upon his response depends the triumph or the tragedy of the family’s love … Love has surrendered its triumphant self-sufficiency and created its own need. This is the supreme illustration of love’s self-giving or self-emptying – that it should surrender its fullness and create in itself the emptiness of need. Of such a nature is the Kenosis of God – the self-emptying of Him Who is already in every way fulfilled’. – William Hubert Vanstone, Love’s Endeavour, Love’s Expense: The Response of Being to the Love of God (London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 1977)
H/T Jason
H/T Jason
Boersma on Penance
I just read a great passage from ''Violence, Hospitality and the Cross' by Hans Boersma. The book is the hottest thing since..ever. I reckon it would be a cracker to book club, since it is written by a Calvinist expert on Calvinism who is able to critique well the crazyness of some Calvinism. Anyways, in one provocative section he wonders whether there is some place for 'penance' in the church and quotes this lady
"Just for a lark, imagine going to your pastor and confessing your rampart materialism, your devotion to things instead of people, and your isolation from the poor whom Jesus loved. Then imagine being forgiven and given your penance: to select five of your favourite things- including perhaps your Bose radio..- and to match them up with five people you know would turn cartwheels to have them. Then on Saturday, put your lawn mower in your trunk, drive down to that transitional neighborhood where all the old people live and offer to mow lawns for free until dark. Discerning sinners will note that none of this is standard punishment. It is penance, which is not for the purpose of inflicting pain but for the much higher purpose of changing lives by restoring relationships" Barbara Brown Taylor Speaking of Sin: the lost language of salvation 93-94.
says Boersma
"Confession and penance are not an unjust violent imposition on the conscience of the individual. Instead, they constitute one of the ways in which the Church safeguards and protects its character as a hospitible community"
As a way of saying to people, "I would like to announce God's forgiveness of sin and help you to be more godly', i reckon this idea sounds pretty good.
"Just for a lark, imagine going to your pastor and confessing your rampart materialism, your devotion to things instead of people, and your isolation from the poor whom Jesus loved. Then imagine being forgiven and given your penance: to select five of your favourite things- including perhaps your Bose radio..- and to match them up with five people you know would turn cartwheels to have them. Then on Saturday, put your lawn mower in your trunk, drive down to that transitional neighborhood where all the old people live and offer to mow lawns for free until dark. Discerning sinners will note that none of this is standard punishment. It is penance, which is not for the purpose of inflicting pain but for the much higher purpose of changing lives by restoring relationships" Barbara Brown Taylor Speaking of Sin: the lost language of salvation 93-94.
says Boersma
"Confession and penance are not an unjust violent imposition on the conscience of the individual. Instead, they constitute one of the ways in which the Church safeguards and protects its character as a hospitible community"
As a way of saying to people, "I would like to announce God's forgiveness of sin and help you to be more godly', i reckon this idea sounds pretty good.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Why it is worth learning Hebrew
A friend who was converted in a Pentecostal church was telling me the other day about his unease with speaking in tongues in the service he went to.
He said though it felt like a real experience to him, the whole 'everybody do it at once' thing was clearly against the scripture (1 Cor 14) and he wondered whether the whole thing was a sham.
Anyways, he tells me, he only ever really said one word over and over, and didn't know what it meant. Offhand he tells me the word.
"It was like shovtah or shavtah".
"Hmm, sounds Hebrew. Could be the feminine imperative "Cease!, or the masculine perfect 'return (repent)'
HaHaHa.
we both laughed heartily
He said though it felt like a real experience to him, the whole 'everybody do it at once' thing was clearly against the scripture (1 Cor 14) and he wondered whether the whole thing was a sham.
Anyways, he tells me, he only ever really said one word over and over, and didn't know what it meant. Offhand he tells me the word.
"It was like shovtah or shavtah".
"Hmm, sounds Hebrew. Could be the feminine imperative "Cease!, or the masculine perfect 'return (repent)'
HaHaHa.
we both laughed heartily
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Scot McKinight and a truncated gospel
I started blogging a couple of years ago, gently encouraged by a friend who posted an email rant had sent him.
The subject of that rant was the atrophied, narrow gospel I was hearing in various gospel presentations, that basically focussed on the idea of Jesus death as an exchange, securing forgiveness, so you don't have to feel bad about yourself anymore.
Honestly I'd been giving those kind of gospel talks too, but was increasingly disturbed that they left out huge chunks of God's word to us, and huge chunks of the story of Jesus.
I knew there was more, yet it seemed like we hid all this good stuff from unbeleivers, under the strange idea that someone dying for their sins was easy to understand, but someone rising from the dead and reigning as Lord was not.
Well, Scot McKnight, Ne Testament scholar and blogger heavyweight has come out with a new book, which sounds like a similar rant against particular practices in American Evangelicalism.
"The King Jesus Gospel: the original good news revisited".
I hope it gets wide reading, and more than that, I hope it translates into fresh, rich, thoughtful, powerful evangelism, that takes the potency of the full story and proclaims it to the world
The subject of that rant was the atrophied, narrow gospel I was hearing in various gospel presentations, that basically focussed on the idea of Jesus death as an exchange, securing forgiveness, so you don't have to feel bad about yourself anymore.
Honestly I'd been giving those kind of gospel talks too, but was increasingly disturbed that they left out huge chunks of God's word to us, and huge chunks of the story of Jesus.
I knew there was more, yet it seemed like we hid all this good stuff from unbeleivers, under the strange idea that someone dying for their sins was easy to understand, but someone rising from the dead and reigning as Lord was not.
Well, Scot McKnight, Ne Testament scholar and blogger heavyweight has come out with a new book, which sounds like a similar rant against particular practices in American Evangelicalism.
"The King Jesus Gospel: the original good news revisited".
I hope it gets wide reading, and more than that, I hope it translates into fresh, rich, thoughtful, powerful evangelism, that takes the potency of the full story and proclaims it to the world
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Principles for preaching- don't collapse your role with your goal
Ministers have a tendency to conflate their role with the life of the church.
In my neck of the woods, this tends to focus around teaching. The chief (even sole) goal of the church is to teach. You teach so that others can be teachers who teach others to teach. The role of the teacher is inflated so that it consumes the whole church. Other activities are seen as sidelines, distractions even, from the proclamation of the gospel. I think this comes from a good love of the gospel, but also a place of deep insecurity about leaders roles as teachers, so they feel the need to defend it.
The reaction is for the minister to have a finger in every pie. He has to be the carer, the evangelist, the meeting chair, the teacher, the visionary, the one meeting the neighbours, the cleaner, the trainer, the advocate for social justice, the advocate for everything else, the social service etc.
I think this come from a good recognition that the life of the church is more than teaching and being taught, but involves an expression and living out of faith. The rather obvious downside is 1. burnout and 2. vapid teaching. (there just isn't enough time to bother writing a good sermon)
"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
Teachers, teach! That is your job! But your goal is not to reproduce yourself, but prepare the people for works of service.
If you teach that all there is is teaching, you are teaching rubbish!
You are not the whole church, but just one part of it. Relax.
In my neck of the woods, this tends to focus around teaching. The chief (even sole) goal of the church is to teach. You teach so that others can be teachers who teach others to teach. The role of the teacher is inflated so that it consumes the whole church. Other activities are seen as sidelines, distractions even, from the proclamation of the gospel. I think this comes from a good love of the gospel, but also a place of deep insecurity about leaders roles as teachers, so they feel the need to defend it.
The reaction is for the minister to have a finger in every pie. He has to be the carer, the evangelist, the meeting chair, the teacher, the visionary, the one meeting the neighbours, the cleaner, the trainer, the advocate for social justice, the advocate for everything else, the social service etc.
I think this come from a good recognition that the life of the church is more than teaching and being taught, but involves an expression and living out of faith. The rather obvious downside is 1. burnout and 2. vapid teaching. (there just isn't enough time to bother writing a good sermon)
"It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ."
Teachers, teach! That is your job! But your goal is not to reproduce yourself, but prepare the people for works of service.
If you teach that all there is is teaching, you are teaching rubbish!
You are not the whole church, but just one part of it. Relax.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Principles for preaching- Give the tip of the iceberg
A sermon should be only a small part of what the preacher knows and understands from a passage.
You should do enough work on the passage that you could do three or four different messages. Then you select the one that you think is most helpful to the people you are speaking to.
There are two ways to avoid this principle.
The first is to do loads of work on the passage, and then try to cram it all into one message, along with every connection in Biblical theology, every application, every illustration. The result is a mess, full of truths, but usually incomprehensible (and boring)
The second, more subtle, way to avoid this principle, is to not do very much work on the passage. To be attentive to it only until you think you have an idea that you can string out for 20 or so minutes. You can say everything because you simply don't have much to say.
Your sermons will be much better if you give only the tip of the iceberg. People will notice.
Of course, the downside is that the first group of preachers might mistake you for the shallow second group. And the second group will wonder why you take so long with sermon preparation.
You will also feel a bit crap after each sermon.
But your congregation wont
You should do enough work on the passage that you could do three or four different messages. Then you select the one that you think is most helpful to the people you are speaking to.
There are two ways to avoid this principle.
The first is to do loads of work on the passage, and then try to cram it all into one message, along with every connection in Biblical theology, every application, every illustration. The result is a mess, full of truths, but usually incomprehensible (and boring)
The second, more subtle, way to avoid this principle, is to not do very much work on the passage. To be attentive to it only until you think you have an idea that you can string out for 20 or so minutes. You can say everything because you simply don't have much to say.
Your sermons will be much better if you give only the tip of the iceberg. People will notice.
Of course, the downside is that the first group of preachers might mistake you for the shallow second group. And the second group will wonder why you take so long with sermon preparation.
You will also feel a bit crap after each sermon.
But your congregation wont
Thursday, September 15, 2011
A call for Subtitles to books of the Bible that encourage their use as argumentative weapons.
I'm writing a sermon on James 1.
As part of the section on James 1:19-21, I wanted to comment that having the truth implanted in us isn't about being angry with people who disagree with us, but about ridding ourselves of moral filth and evil.
I want to have a go at people who approach the Bible as (primarily) a weapon against others.
So I'm looking for some humorous subtitles for books of the Bible along that line.
So far I have
Romans: why the Catholics are wrong
Hebrews: 13 Reasons Jehovahs witnesses are stupid
and then an ironic
James: take that intellectual fundamentalists
Got any better ones?
As part of the section on James 1:19-21, I wanted to comment that having the truth implanted in us isn't about being angry with people who disagree with us, but about ridding ourselves of moral filth and evil.
I want to have a go at people who approach the Bible as (primarily) a weapon against others.
So I'm looking for some humorous subtitles for books of the Bible along that line.
So far I have
Romans: why the Catholics are wrong
Hebrews: 13 Reasons Jehovahs witnesses are stupid
and then an ironic
James: take that intellectual fundamentalists
Got any better ones?
Monday, September 12, 2011
Church without us- an idea
Jesus is pretty clear that there are no 'lone' christians.
If you follow him, you will love his people.
Yet the practice of churchgoing has declined over the last 40 years.
People have forgotten how to go to church.
And sometimes, people at church have forgotten to be a community of love.
A large chasm has opened up between those who know how to enjoy the rich feast provided at a church service, and those who still have some form of belief, but simply don't know how to enjoy church.
The church's response has often been to label those who don't attend as 'unbelievers' or 'nominal' or other derogatory terms, thus making it even harder for people to belong to a church.
In Sydney, we have an ecclessiology that in theory says "If two or more are gathered around the Word, there is a church". Some people want to tweak that to include some form of commitment to each other over time.
Yet our efforts with 'non-attending believers' has usually said 'you must join an established (our) group of two or more'. For various reasons, people have been unable or unwilling to join these established gatherings.
I have an idea.
What if we said to the community, "We are more interested in you exploring Jesus and loving each other than getting your bum sitting on our pews".
What if we offered a service that linked up believing and interested 'non attenders' with each other? What if we offered them some resources to initiate discussions about Jesus and life from the gospels, said "We are available if you have questions or want help" and then got out of the way.
Sure, some groups might go in wacky directions. Sure, it would require a leadership of influence and wisdom instead of authority and control. Sure, we wouldn't see any financial benefit (at least, not for a long time). Sure, it seems like choosing death for our churches.
But maybe, just maybe, God would work through his word and the kingdom would grow in ways we can't even imagine. Maybe, when people have grown to love Jesus and community they will be looking for more ways to deepen that, and if they respected us and wanted our help, well, then we can offer the kind of meat that we enjoy.
We would have to stop judging peoples godliness by their level of participation in our programs though.
Just a thought.
If you follow him, you will love his people.
Yet the practice of churchgoing has declined over the last 40 years.
People have forgotten how to go to church.
And sometimes, people at church have forgotten to be a community of love.
A large chasm has opened up between those who know how to enjoy the rich feast provided at a church service, and those who still have some form of belief, but simply don't know how to enjoy church.
The church's response has often been to label those who don't attend as 'unbelievers' or 'nominal' or other derogatory terms, thus making it even harder for people to belong to a church.
In Sydney, we have an ecclessiology that in theory says "If two or more are gathered around the Word, there is a church". Some people want to tweak that to include some form of commitment to each other over time.
Yet our efforts with 'non-attending believers' has usually said 'you must join an established (our) group of two or more'. For various reasons, people have been unable or unwilling to join these established gatherings.
I have an idea.
What if we said to the community, "We are more interested in you exploring Jesus and loving each other than getting your bum sitting on our pews".
What if we offered a service that linked up believing and interested 'non attenders' with each other? What if we offered them some resources to initiate discussions about Jesus and life from the gospels, said "We are available if you have questions or want help" and then got out of the way.
Sure, some groups might go in wacky directions. Sure, it would require a leadership of influence and wisdom instead of authority and control. Sure, we wouldn't see any financial benefit (at least, not for a long time). Sure, it seems like choosing death for our churches.
But maybe, just maybe, God would work through his word and the kingdom would grow in ways we can't even imagine. Maybe, when people have grown to love Jesus and community they will be looking for more ways to deepen that, and if they respected us and wanted our help, well, then we can offer the kind of meat that we enjoy.
We would have to stop judging peoples godliness by their level of participation in our programs though.
Just a thought.
Did Paul Fail?
'I am writing this not to shame you but to warn you as my dear children.' 1 Cor 4:14
Does writing a letter that contained significant failures of the Corinthian church, a letter that would become scripture for 2000 years, faults that serve as examples for us even today...
...does that shame the Corinthians?
Does writing a letter that contained significant failures of the Corinthian church, a letter that would become scripture for 2000 years, faults that serve as examples for us even today...
...does that shame the Corinthians?
Saturday, September 10, 2011
Immersion courses in Biblical Languages
Last year I bought Hans H. Orberg's "Lingua Latina: Famila Romana". It is basically a graded childrens book in Latin. The idea being that you learn the language (and grammar) as you go.
To be honest, I haven't pursued it as diligently as I should, but what I did read was surprisingly fun and easy to pick up.
I've heard rumblings of a similar approach in Biblical Languages, but never found the materials.
And then today I found the Biblical Language Centre
They provide immersion courses that are designed for High Schoolers and up, that aim to have you reading fluently and thinking in Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew.
As an extra bonus, the greek audio is in reconstructed Koine instead of ridiculous Erasmian pronunciation.
Gold. Gold. Gold.
Have a listen to the sample of 1 John and imagine knowing Greek well enough to hear and understand.
Now to save up some coin.....
Probably want to check out Daniel Streett too.
ooo, and this site, where you can converse in 'ancient greek'
or these guys, 'Polis' who are offering a Masters in Ancient Languages from 2013. It looks very good, tempted.very.much
To be honest, I haven't pursued it as diligently as I should, but what I did read was surprisingly fun and easy to pick up.
I've heard rumblings of a similar approach in Biblical Languages, but never found the materials.
And then today I found the Biblical Language Centre
They provide immersion courses that are designed for High Schoolers and up, that aim to have you reading fluently and thinking in Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew.
As an extra bonus, the greek audio is in reconstructed Koine instead of ridiculous Erasmian pronunciation.
Gold. Gold. Gold.
Have a listen to the sample of 1 John and imagine knowing Greek well enough to hear and understand.
Now to save up some coin.....
Probably want to check out Daniel Streett too.
ooo, and this site, where you can converse in 'ancient greek'
or these guys, 'Polis' who are offering a Masters in Ancient Languages from 2013. It looks very good, tempted.very.much
Friday, September 9, 2011
Divorce and Marriage
Brian Doyle on the threat of divorce as the glue of marriage
An interesting reflection on failure
An interesting reflection on failure
Thursday, September 8, 2011
There's plenty more fish in the sea
In terrible news for dumped lovers everywhere,
it seems there are not "plenty more fish in the sea".
Perhaps it could be replaced with "Don't worry about losing her, soon her whole species will collapse and dissappear"
I put the statistic of commercial fish stocks collapsing by 2050 to a bunch of year 10 kids a couple of weeks ago. Their response shocked me. "I'm going to eat all the fish I can in the next few years then"
I had orange roughie for the first time a few weeks back. I never knew that they could be 150 years old.
H/T Byron, as always, for raising our attention
it seems there are not "plenty more fish in the sea".
Perhaps it could be replaced with "Don't worry about losing her, soon her whole species will collapse and dissappear"
I put the statistic of commercial fish stocks collapsing by 2050 to a bunch of year 10 kids a couple of weeks ago. Their response shocked me. "I'm going to eat all the fish I can in the next few years then"
I had orange roughie for the first time a few weeks back. I never knew that they could be 150 years old.
H/T Byron, as always, for raising our attention
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Habukkuk, justice and barbarians
When I lament the various injustice involved in a western way of life, there is one response I often bump into. "Well, at least we aren't ruled by the Chinese/Muslims". It is seen as deeply treacherous to criticize our own evil, as it might imply it would be good to be taken over by a different culture.
Now, I don't know whether it would be better or worse, probably worse, who knows?
But it makes me think of the small book of Habakkuk.
The prophet Habbakkuk has a whinge to God about the injustice and violence he sees around him. How can God tolerate such evil? Why doesn't he do something about it?
And God answers, though his answer is bizarre.
God says, sure, I'll do something about it, I will send guilty and violent men who worship their own power who will sweep the land, the Babylonians. A nation that swallows up others, who worships the instrument by which they devours others to gain luxury. Who gets rich off complex financial schemes and debt sharking, who builds cities on bloodshed, who tries to escape ruin by ruining others, who plies other nations with pleasure, but only to pleasure themselves.
Err... what.
How is that an answer? Things are obviously worse under the Babylonians
Habakkuk makes a similar response.
Um, but. um, you are the God who can't tolerate evil. What is the deal?
Well, says God, get ready, say to that bunch of guilty people that I sent, "Now it is your turn, now you will drink from the cup of God's right hand"
God doesn't really elaborate on what he is going to do to Babylon, but needless to say, it doesn't sound good.
"You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one.
You crushed the leader of the land of wickedness,
you stripped him from head to foot"
Even when the land is completely stripped, overrun, overcome, Habakkuk rejoices in God, because God is his strength.
Why fear being taken over by the barbarians?
Why not instead fear the judgement of God?
In fact, being attacked by the barbarians might just be what averts the judgement of God onto them.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, we are the barbarians. "For you have shed man's blood, you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them"
*nb. I take Mark Seifrid's claim that Habakkuk isn't really about the Babylonians, but rather about the prophets distress about the inability of the law to produce merit with about as much seriousness as I take Seifrids claim that when Paul quotes Habukkuk 2:4, Paul uses the words 'righteous' 'faithfulness' and 'live' in ways completely different to the MT, LXX, Targum and all Jewish tradition. See pp 609-610 of the 'Commentary on NT use of OT' for all sorts of silliness. Paul, of course, couldn't mean what he said ,since that doesn't fit with Seifrids theological grid. And so I guess, neither could Habakkuk
Now, I don't know whether it would be better or worse, probably worse, who knows?
But it makes me think of the small book of Habakkuk.
The prophet Habbakkuk has a whinge to God about the injustice and violence he sees around him. How can God tolerate such evil? Why doesn't he do something about it?
And God answers, though his answer is bizarre.
God says, sure, I'll do something about it, I will send guilty and violent men who worship their own power who will sweep the land, the Babylonians. A nation that swallows up others, who worships the instrument by which they devours others to gain luxury. Who gets rich off complex financial schemes and debt sharking, who builds cities on bloodshed, who tries to escape ruin by ruining others, who plies other nations with pleasure, but only to pleasure themselves.
Err... what.
How is that an answer? Things are obviously worse under the Babylonians
Habakkuk makes a similar response.
Um, but. um, you are the God who can't tolerate evil. What is the deal?
Well, says God, get ready, say to that bunch of guilty people that I sent, "Now it is your turn, now you will drink from the cup of God's right hand"
God doesn't really elaborate on what he is going to do to Babylon, but needless to say, it doesn't sound good.
"You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one.
You crushed the leader of the land of wickedness,
you stripped him from head to foot"
Even when the land is completely stripped, overrun, overcome, Habakkuk rejoices in God, because God is his strength.
Why fear being taken over by the barbarians?
Why not instead fear the judgement of God?
In fact, being attacked by the barbarians might just be what averts the judgement of God onto them.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, we are the barbarians. "For you have shed man's blood, you have destroyed lands and cities and everyone in them"
*nb. I take Mark Seifrid's claim that Habakkuk isn't really about the Babylonians, but rather about the prophets distress about the inability of the law to produce merit with about as much seriousness as I take Seifrids claim that when Paul quotes Habukkuk 2:4, Paul uses the words 'righteous' 'faithfulness' and 'live' in ways completely different to the MT, LXX, Targum and all Jewish tradition. See pp 609-610 of the 'Commentary on NT use of OT' for all sorts of silliness. Paul, of course, couldn't mean what he said ,since that doesn't fit with Seifrids theological grid. And so I guess, neither could Habakkuk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
