Cross posting on Substack

I have begun cross-posting all of my content on Substack. This is to allow email subscriptions and to protect against any future censoring of content. I will continue to post here for at least the foreseeable future. The Substack site is free to subscribe and I have no intention of going to a paid version for now. If I do, it will be for content that is much more technical, but that is a ways away. Feel free to visit and subscribe for free via email at https://quietpastures.substack.com/

Reading Wright, NTPG, Chapter 6

This week I continue in The New Testament and the People of God with chapter 6 (pp 147-66) as Wright begins part 3 of his book on first century Judaism with the setting of the story. Chapters 6-10 attempt to orient the reader to the first century by describing how the Jews got here (and what ‘here’ is; ch 6), what is their response (ch 7), what is their worldview and beliefs (ch 8-9), and what do they hope for (ch 10)?

Israel is under Roman rule, in the Second Temple period, in a long-considered ‘exile’ that began (for Judea) in 587 BC, when the first temple (built by Solomon) was destroyed. Though the Jews have returned to the land and rebuilt the temple, the presence of Gentile rulers was still indicative of ongoing exile.

Alexander the Great conquered much of the known world in the fourth century BC and Hellenism spread throughout the region, with Greek language, thought, and culture becoming dominant. Suffering under multiple tyrants, Israel was briefly able to free themselves under the Hasmoneans in the second century BC, only to be reconquered by Pompey (Rome) in the first century BC, barely 100 years later.

Wright emphasizes the multiplicity of cults and the numerous gods and pagan practices throughout the Roman empire (p 154-56). Like some American cities with ‘a church on every corner,’ first century space was “full of reminders of the pagan way of life.” (p 155) To a Jew, this would be highly offensive.

The Jews were distinct among all of the various cultures for worshiping one god; the surrounding cultures considered the Jews atheists because of this odd form (they did not worship ‘the gods’). However, the Jews were given an exception to the Roman law that required sacrifice to the gods. The Romans, like those before them, found the Jews to be quite stubborn in their insistence of worshiping only one god!

Post Jesus, in the latter half of the first century AD and early second century, the Jews revolted twice; the first resulted in the temple’s destruction a second time (70 AD) and the second resulted in a complete loss and dispersal (135 AD).

I think one of the most significant takeaways from this chapter (and it will be reinforced in subsequent chapters) is the perspective of the Jewish people at the time of Jesus: we are in exile, under foreign rule, because of our lack of faithfulness to God. The solution, as we will see in the next chapter, will vary.

Reading Wright, NTPG, Parts 1-2 Summary

Before continuing to the next chapter in The New Testament and the People of God, I want to summarize my thoughts on the first two parts of this book (Chapters 1-5, pp 1-144). These chapters represent Wright's epistemology; reading with a critical realist eye, taking a both/and approach to many of the typically either/or debates. In my comments on the first chapter, I briefly mentioned the pre-modern, modern, and post-modern periods. Painting with very broad brush strokes, I want to illustrate the foundational epistemology of each (specifically in reference to areas of the New Testament: history, literature, theology).

In the pre-modern period, especially after the first century and those who received the New Testament, the Bible was knowable because of authority; that is, God had spoken it, He speaks truth, therefore, it is known. Some might call this knowledge through revelation. In classic Christianity, it was faith seeking understanding.

The modern period moved the basis of authority and knowledge from revelation (God has spoken) to rationality; Descartes "I think, therefore I am." The rise of the critical disciplines came and much of the Bible was questioned, some of the traditional interpretations were thrown out because the interpretation did not pass rational muster. In a way, the classic Christian model was reversed: now understanding was seeking faith. Yet some of this was good and necessary. To quote Wright, "Christians have often imagined that they were defending Christianity when resisting the Enlightenment's [Modern] attacks; but it is equally plausible to suggest that what would-be orthodox Christianity was defending was often the pre-Enlightenment worldview, which was itself no more specifically 'Christian' than any other." (p 9) 

We arrive at post-modernism and rationality is thrown out! What's left? The Self. Knowledge is now limited by one's experience and (in the radical view) cannot be shared among others. It is a hyper-empirical model. Authority and knowledge now rest in the self. "My truth, your truth, no absolute truth." Reading becomes reduced entirely to how it impacts me. It seems to me that the post-modern epistemology is self-defeating. Taken to its 'logical' conclusion (you can see how even the idea of logic in a post-modern view can't even make sense), nothing can be known or communicated. History is unknowable.

What Wright does with his both/and approach is attempt to take the wheat from each of these models, while discarding the chaff. One of the reactions of Christianity to the modern period was to double down on traditional interpretations, some of which needed to be abandoned. Unfortunately, Christianity has tended to get its interpretations mixed into its view of the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. Not to mention a lack of nuance of exactly what it means by those terms. The interpretation is not inspired or inerrant! Nor does inerrancy equal literal interpretation.

The following is my reading of the wheat/chaff in these early chapters by era (quite likely I have some categories mixed):

	Wheat	Chaff
Pre-Modern	Scripture speaks truthfully of God (p 128)	Interpretation by authority (p 7) History cannot question faith (p 9)
Modern	Reading the Bible historically (critically; p 60)	Separation of supernatural and rational/natural (p 10, 97)
Post-Modern	Rejection of positivism (hardline objective/subjective distinctions, p 97) Emphasis on narrative (p 38)	History is unknowable (p 54) Reading as only phenomenon (self-centered; p 59) Rejection of revelation (p 128)

An author, even a post-modern one, intends to communicate something to the reader, with the intent of changing or informing the reader. The best way to understand what is being communicated (especially in the area of the NT) is to become more aware of the author's worldview and that of the intended audience and see where it differs. What the New Testament authors are ultimately communicating is either a new or modified worldview to the reader--what God started with Abraham He has completed in Jesus. To the Jew, this is a modification. To the Greek, this is new. The goal is to change the reader's worldview, to begin to see the world through Jesus as Messiah. And so we must enter the world of the first century, which is where the next chapters will take us.

Reading Wright, NTPG, Chapter 5

I continue reading The New Testament and the People of God in chapter 5 (pp 121-144), on theology, authority, and the New Testament. This is the final chapter in the first part of this book, where he is laying out his epistemology for his entire multi-volume work. I think in this chapter what he is addressing is an objection (among the many) that the New Testament does theology, not objective history; he is attempting to demonstrate why all of these things (literature, history, theology) come together in the New Testament. He does this by taking the reader on a deeper dive into what constitutes a worldview.

Wright opens the chapter by hoping he has made the reader aware there is no such thing as 'objective history.' All history is written in a time, place, culture, and within its author's worldview. History is always selected and interpreted. This does not make it right or wrong; but it does communicate something to us (ie, why this and not that). And the more we are aware of the worldview of the author (and our own), the more we will be able to better understand what is being communicated.

Wright argues that worldview can be seen in the four elements of what it does (pp 123-4): it provides stories through which human beings view reality which provide answers to the basic questions of human existence expressed through cultural symbols and which is visible in the way people act (praxis). I didn't discuss his four basic questions of human existence when first introduced, but he goes through them again in this chapter (pp 132-3): who are we; where are we; what is wrong; what is the solution? We are story-telling beings, so it is natural that we would express answers to our basic questions in the form of stories. We are embodied beings, so it is to be expected that our answers will be expressed in physical, symbolic forms and acted out/upon. As an example, in first century Israel Passover was a powerful symbol that was acted out in the Passover meal as the story was retold of God's salvation from Egypt because He had chosen them as His people.

Worldviews, through which we view the world, are seen in basic beliefs and aims which then give rise to consequent beliefs and intentions (p 125-26). Wrights suggests that most conversation occurs at the level of consequent beliefs while the basic beliefs and worldview assumptions remain unspoken. Thus, one of the tasks of Wright is to peel back and expose the basic beliefs and worldview elements of the first century in order to better understand some of the 'surface' of the New Testament.

What then is the function of theology? Wright argues that "theology highlights what we might call the god-dimension of a worldview" (p 130). Unfortunately, and I am guilty of this, we should not separate Christian theology from its underlying worldview and stories to make it serve a truncated purpose of answering dogmatic or abstract questions.

Wright sums up, "The Christian reader of the New Testament is committed to a task which includes within itself 'early Christian history' and 'New Testament theology', while showing that neither of these tasks... can be self-sufficient. And this fuller reading... includes as one vital part of itself the task of telling the story of Jesus, with the assumption that this story took place within public history." (p 139) In short, combining literature, history, and theology.

Previous

Reading Wright, NTPG, Chapter 4

I continue reading The New Testament and the People of God in chapter 4 (pp 81-120), on history and the first century. Yet again, I find myself having made simplistic assumptions about the nature of history and access to the historical record that need refinement and Wright provides assistance in revisiting (and revising) these assumptions.

History is not, as I had thought, simply an objective report of the facts. All history involves selection and interpretation into narration (83). This is, upon reflection, rather obvious, even in how one reports events in one's own life. I do not (and can not) report every detail--colors, objects, and most events are selectively eliminated. If I tell a story about going to the grocery store, I will avoid describing every car in the lot, every stop sign, tree, and basket I come across (lest I drive away the listener). Thus, Wright defines history as "the meaningful narrative of events and intentions." (82) The selection and interpretation embedded and communicated in the story is exactly what history is, not a reason to reject it. The author's bias is no reason to reject the story as it is reported (89).

One of the big issues in New Testament studies is that the stories contain reports of events that to the modern mind are impossible (miracles). Wrights counters that "one cannot rule out a priori the possibility of things occurring in ways not normally expected, since to do so would be to begin from the fixed point that a particular worldview, namely the eighteenth-century rationalist one, or its twentieth-century positivist successor, is correct in postulating that the universe is simply a 'closed continuum' of cause and effect." (92) I'll put it a different way. The writers of the New Testament intended to change the reader's worldview! Trying to fit Jesus into the "good teacher" straight-jacket fails to account for the majority of the New Testament data. This brings us to Wright's three-point suggestion for a good hypothesis.

A good hypothesis is one that includes the data, constructs a simple and coherent picture, and assists in explaining other problems (99-100). Wright traces examples of theories which satisfy the second while failing badly at the first (like the 'good teacher' hypothesis). We must be careful in our reading of history and the criteria that we use as we read. Wright argues, "If the controlling criterion for a particular story is its ability to legitimate a particular stance, whether Christian or not, we have collapsed the epistemology once more in the opposite direction, that of phenomenalism. The historical evidence is only to be used provided it functions as a mirror in which we can see ourselves as we wanted to see ourselves." (103, emphasis original) Wright argues that both the fundamentalist and the secular scholar have read parts of Jesus the way they wanted him to be (or not to be), failing to either account for all the data, or failing to provide a coherent picture. This is a danger in any historical reading. Part of the critical realist approach is a spiral of hypothesis and verification with the text and other historical sources. A great example of this, to be discussed in the future, is the whole debate around the New Perspective on Paul. Much of the debate surrounds reading the sixteenth century Luther-Catholic debate of faith-works back into the first century of Paul's writings. To provide a very silly analogy, we would never think that had Lincoln encouraged Grant to beat the South by any means necessary, it would have been an authorization to use nuclear weapons--those didn't exist in the nineteenth century!

Wright then discusses the relationship between history and meaning, and in particular, that it is possible to get to a certain set of meanings even with the historical method (ie, the 'why')! Some might argue that historical knowledge is limited only to the event itself and any other discussion moves into the area of psychology. On the contrary, Wright says, "History, then, includes the study of aims, intentions, and motivations. This does not mean that history is covert psychology." (111) In other words, we don't need to ask Jesus to lay down on the therapist's couch to determine his intention in telling the story of the Good Samaritan to a Jewish audience (modifying Wright's imagery on 116). At a minimum, we can certainly say what his intentions were not (winning more Jewish friends, for example). Ultimately, the meaning of an event may impact and change the hearer's worldview (117). As suggested earlier, this is precisely what the authors of the New Testament authors intend.

Previous | Next

Reading Wright, NTPG, Chapter 3

This week continues The New Testament and the People of God in chapter 3 (pp 47-80), on literature, story, and worldview. There is quite a bit covered in this chapter and is setting up more of the 'ground rules' by which Wright will do his reading of the New Testament.

Since most history comes via literature, Wright begins by describing some of the ways of reading literature and how history is reported. I found this discussion helpful and it builds on his discussion of objective/subjective in the previous chapter. A naïve view of history is that the author is simply reporting the events of the past and you as the reader have direct access through this 'report' to the events (p 82). But, applying a critical lens should allow us to see that direct objective history ("just the facts, Ma'am") is not possible--an author will select and describe scenes, activity, and stories. To use an analogy of Dr. Bock's, there are multiple cameras at sporting events, each providing a different angle of the event. The angle itself determines what is visible ('selected') and what is not. Reading critically is understanding that the historical reporting is a selected (sometimes biased, inaccurate, false) report.

However, a post-modern, to my surprise, takes this to an extreme with a 'phenomenalist reading' of a text--the only thing that matters (and is knowable) is what the text means to me; everything else is unreachable. Yet I hear (and have said) this very thing frequently stated in Bible studies, "What this passage says/means to me..." The church has swallowed the culture. The intention of the author, the original culture, the meaning of the words in their context don't matter (or are unknowable); only the present 'phenomenon' of the text and me is meaningful at the moment. This, of course, means that everyone will construct their own meaning, no meaning is "right or wrong," allows the reader to throw away anything that offends, and ultimately, it prevents any possibility of accessing the past.

Wright advocates instead for a critical realistic reading (pp 61-4), where both the impact on the reader is acknowledged and the text as its own thing is recognized. The author wrote with the intent of communicating something; it is possible to access that (usually), but with caution, recognizing that the author may have lied, misreported, misunderstood, etc. In other words, we read critically but realistically. We also read understanding that such activity impacts us as readers--we might have our minds, or better yet, our worldviews changed! "I suggest that human writing is best conceived as the articulation of worldviews, or, better still, the telling of stories which bring worldviews into articulation." (p 65, emphasis original) You might begin to wonder if Wright is going to suggest that the purpose of the New Testament authors was to alter the reader's worldview(s). Absolutely!

Wright then moves on to a narrative analysis that I have found both delightful and very helpful, worked out by an A.J. Griemas (pp 69-77). It divides stories into three sequences and there is a careful format that is followed to expose the story form. One has to wonder what kind of tedious new diagramming technique these scholars are inventing, but there is a point! Often stories become so familiar we lose the essential emphasis of the story itself and this level of analysis allows us to identify it again. He takes the reader through the story of Little Red Riding-Hood and then turns to the parable of the vineyard (Mk. 12:1-12; pp 74-5). The jaw-dropping story point is that God will use Rome to judge the Jewish people for their failure to be the people God intended them to be! Talk about shaking up a first-century Jewish worldview. Jesus takes the story of Israel and redraws it (with himself at the center); Paul will redraw the Jewish story around Jesus (p 79). Wright finds the narrative analysis helpful in bringing this out more clearly and I found it very helpful throughout his work. 

Previous | Next

Reading Wright, NTPG Chapter 2

This week continues The New Testament and the People of God in chapter 2 (pp 31-46), on knowledge, specifically, the basis for knowledge and how one knows, or, my dad's favorite word, epistemology. Wright attempts to navigate the reader through the quagmire of objective v. subjective, positivist v. phenomenalist, to arrive at his position of critical realism.

My first time through this chapter was a real eye-opener, as I had been classically trained to assume an objective (positivist) view of knowledge--that such knowledge was possible. To put it differently, there are certain kinds of knowledge that can be known for certain, without question, an 'objective' knowledge in which there is no doubt. Apparently this has been rejected by most philosophers for quite some time (p 33). On the opposite side is the denial of any certainty and one is left with only the phenomenon, the subjective experience and interpretation that is unique to the person. This latter one certainly describes some of the current cultural moment. And I don't think Wright would deny 'objective' knowledge when it comes to mathematical proofs. He does start off the chapter emphasizing his discussion of knowledge will narrow into the areas of literature, history, and theology (areas essential to the study of the New Testament). In this area, you have wide polarity: from one can know with absolute certainty to one cannot know anything with any level of confidence. To use his illustration, how confident can I be that Caesar crossed the Rubicon (p 34)?

Critical realism is Wright's attempt at navigating these extremes while not trying to rescue either position. Rather, he proposes that critical realism "sees knowledge of particulars as taking place within the larger framework of the story or worldview which forms the basis of the observer's way of being in relation to the world... knowledge takes place, within this model, when people find things that fit with the particular story or (more likely) stories to which they are accustomed to give allegiance." (p 37, emphasis original) In other words, stories are how we make sense of the world, and stories are one of the essential components that make up one's worldview. I actually think this is a contribution that post-modernism has given us, a helpful emphasis on narrative. Human beings live far more as story-telling-beings versus data-driven-logicians.

Wright then wraps the chapter up by suggesting that questions arise when one's stories are insufficient to answer questions that arise from current events (p 40ff). But we do so from within the context of these stories! In other words, worldview and story are preconditions to hypothesis and interpretation. The stories I believe may conflict with yours. And importantly, if your story fits better with the event (more explanatory), I may come to believe that is the better story--and perhaps change parts of my worldview in the process. Not all stories go down to the level of worldview. But we are dealing with the New Testament and the claim that God has come in the flesh in Jesus the Messiah. This story is covered with all kinds of worldview questions!

I found his discussion helpful in the area of New Testament study because I have (regretfully) used the phrase "it is true because the Bible says it" as a primary argument. I considered the Bible to be a source of objective truth and my interpretation of it to be objective and therefore my statement was objective. I no longer think this. It is not helpful in discussing Biblical interpretation. Wright, and the position I now hold, suggests using far greater nuance in discussions of history and theology. What is my worldview? What are the stories I tell myself (or that I have received from others) and believe to be true? How might these stories influence my reading of the text? And--this is one of the reasons why I think Wright is focused on this so early--thinking through these things helps us view first century Judaism and the stories it told itself--and therefore what the New Testament is doing with the stories it tells! I think you will see as the discussion continues what a powerful lens this view provides.

Previous | Next

Reading Wright, NTPG Chapter 1

Since my introduction to N.T. Wright's magnificent series of books on Christian Origins, I have wanted to blog my way through them. At the present, there are four volumes in five books. The series begins with The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1992) [Hereafter NTPG]. I was first exposed to this series taking a class from Dr. Darrell Bock on the subject of Historical Jesus. I can genuinely say that class changed me in a significant way, in large part because of reading Dr. Wright. It is my hope you will find my observations and comments as I reread this series helpful in your Christian walk.

Chapter 1, pp 3-28, introduces the reader to the task that Wright has set out: writing about Jesus in his historical context and on Paul in his. Much ink has been spilled over the last couple of centuries on the question of Historical Jesus--is the presentation of Jesus in the Gospels historical? Theological? Myth? Did Paul invent Christianity? The answers vary widely. Unfortunately, within the variety of answers have come quite opposite reactions to the answers, such as fundamentalism in response to the very liberal versions of Christianity in the late 19th and early 20th century. One was allowed a narrow range of interpretation before an accusation of liberal was cast one's way and one was 'driven out of the temple'. Sadly, there are wonderful contributions on all sides of New Testament study, whether form criticism, rhetorical, source, literary, or others. Much can be gleaned. And much is lost with a narrow focus on just one. Wright wants the New Testament to be read so that it can be heard in all its glory. This means understanding first century Jewish, Roman, and Greek culture. It means realizing that Jesus is doing his ministry in the latter part of Second Temple Judaism (roughly 4th century BC to 1st century AD). Jesus is speaking to a thoroughly first century Jewish people. Paul writes to a first century Roman-Greek people, primarily Gentile. It means we are in for a bit of culture shock. It also means we might just have to ask some tough questions. And we may not like some of the answers! But we must ask. We must seek. We must knock.

We must also recognize the time in which we live. Christianity was birthed in what we might call the pre-modern era; we find ourselves in the post-modern era. Thus, we must also learn from what each era brought to New Testament study: reading it as authoritative (pre-modern), reading it critically (modern), and reading phenomenologically (post-modern; p 27). Each has its contributions; each has its limitations. Wright will take us on a journey that navigates us through each, attempting to sift the wheat from the chaff. One that this reader has found to be very fruitful, and I hope you will too.

Next

Genesis, Faith, and Blessing

I have been reading Creation and Blessing by Allen Ross, which is his commentary on the book of Genesis. I am about halfway through the book and what has been noteworthy to me is the emphasis on blessing and faith through the book (and I am roughly at Gen 25). I wrote a paper several years ago for a seminary class on faith in Genesis and recall that being a major theme. God is a "blessing" God--He wants to bless and He does so in abundance and without us deserving His blessing.

One of the mantras coming out of seminary is "context, context, context" for understanding a passage or book. Genesis is written by Moses (no JEDP) to the generation that is about to enter the promised land under Joshua. Genesis is giving the people of Israel their founding stories, what God has promised that He is in the process of fulfilling through them, repeated pictures of what imperfect faith looks like, and how God faithfully took care of those He has promised to bless. "Is God with us?" asks this generation. Look at Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph--yes! "What kind of difficulty can I expect?" Opposition, war, famine, barrenness, delay--but this does not stop God from fulfilling His promises! "What does faith look like?" Walking into the unknown trusting that God will provide, especially when you know that where you are walking is directly part of His fulfillment of promise! "Is perfect faith required of me?" No, these Genesis stories recount men and women of imperfect faith, but also a God who is a perfectly faithful God. The blessing is based on God's covenant promise, not their (or our) faithfulness.

This is good news for us. We must learn to walk by faith and Scripture provides us imperfect examples to encourage our walk. God is perfectly faithful and stands by His covenant, provided to us in Jesus.

Professing to be wise, they became fools

The title comes from Romans 1:22, where Paul is discussing idolatry and the downward spiral that comes as a result of the choice to reject the true God for any and every substitute. One result is a loss of rationality ('futile in their speculations' in 1:21)--the basic ability to think clearly. This was on full display last night as I watched the new documentary What is a Woman from Matt Walsh at The Daily Wire. In this documentary, Matt goes around asking for people to define what a woman is, from the academy, to the random person on the street, to the politician, and even to a tribe in Africa! The documentary is more than just trying to define a woman, but is investigating the gender ideology space, including transitioning. One of the most poignant moments in the film was the complete inability of the people--with multiple degrees--to define a woman. Professing to be wise, they truly have become fools. Meanwhile the tribe in Africa laughed, gave a very simple answer--a woman bears the children. 

The most horrifying reality of the twisted gender ideology is how it encouraging hatred for and destruction of the human body, especially for teenage girls. Being a teen is already a tough period of life with physiological changes and the last thing needed is for adults to encourage making major medical decisions that have lifelong destructive consequences. In the Walsh video, one of the doctors admits that the drug used for puberty blockers has been used for chemical castration. And worse, much of this is irreversible--especially once you go down the surgical route.

It is the responsibility of the church to develop a healthy view towards the human body and sexuality and to encourage people to embrace their biological gender. What God has created is good and we must learn to rejoice, even in the fallenness, of being fearfully and wonderfully made (Ps 139:14). And parents--protect your children from this gender nonsense. Read Abigail Shrier's book Irreversible Damage. Look at some of the resources that Scott Newgent provides.

Jesus is not Meta

The Metaverse. The Tower of Babel. What do these two things have in common? I suggest the former is a present attempt at the latter.

The Genesis 11 story of the tower of Babel is a story of people who try to build a tower to the heavens to make a name for themselves instead of a) believing that God would not flood the earth again (they make it waterproof, 11:3); and b) spreading out across the earth, as God commanded in chapter 9. This story is likely true and an archetypal story, illustrating what humans attempt to do at every opportunity. We want to live in and create the world our way. 

I think the Metaverse is a digital attempt to do this very thing. Listening to the podcast episode with Lex Friedman and Mark Zuckerberg discussing the Metaverse, it seems to be an attempt to create an alternate, fantasy world, ruled by the 'meta-gods,' in which you will be able to experience a substitute reality. You can be anything you want to be, as long as it is approved by the gods. Buying, selling, owning 'property,' all available. I was slightly horrified to hear them developing clothing for a virtual world. Modern day bricks and tar (Gen 11:3).

I spent the early couple of months of this year researching and writing a graduate paper on the resurrection of Jesus, specifically countering the arguments of some scholars that it was simply a hallucination. Each time I am deeply embedded in studying a Biblical topic, I am reminded of just how important physicality is to humanity. We are embodied people, living in a very physical world, surrounded by matter, all of which God made. We are meant to be in the physical presence of one another--it's why absence can be difficult, and unsurprising the lockdowns of the last couple of years have had such a devastating impact on people. There is no substitute. If there is any question on this point, the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus should end the debate. For if Jesus could have come via Zoom, or as a mirage, or in 3D, or on a Metaverse-like platform, don't you think that would have been a lot easier for him? Quite the contrary, it was absolutely necessary for Jesus to come in the flesh. Not only to redeem what we are now, but to embody what we will be like!

Of course this physical world is a tough place, full of pain, suffering, and an existence that would perhaps be easier to fantasize away in a virtual world. But that isn't how we are made. We are made for this world, though fully restored one day. Jesus will not return to "take us away" from the world, but to restore all things--heavens and earth. The final chapter of the Bible (Rev 22) shows God coming down to dwell with His people, just as He did in the early chapters of Genesis, when it all started. One of the incredible gifts that God has given us is our physicality. The union of spirit and body will continue forever--Jesus, after all, exists now and in eternity as our embodied Savior.

We are not designed to escape, but rather to be in the world. Jesus is not Meta. And neither should we.

A righteousness not of my own

One of my favorite passages of Scripture is in Philippians 3:1-16, especially verses 7-14, which I have written about before. It was on my mind because last night a friend seemed to suggest that lately his sinfulness has been weighing on him. For me, Romans 8:1 (no condemnation) and this passage have been helpful to meditate on and go over frequently.

Paul begins the passage (4-6) recounting some of the things that are to his credit, that is, the best that he has to offer--and it is impressive. Paul was a 'super-hero' of Judaism. A brilliant mind. Non-stop energy and focus.

But the very best that Paul has to offer are counted as loss for the sake of the Messiah (7). Paul counts his very best as loss, and all things, his best and worst, as rubbish, in view of the surpassing value of knowing Jesus the Messiah as His Lord (8). The rays from a simple light bulb are nothing when exposed to the light of the sun.

My favorite part of this passage is found in verse 9: that I may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own. What righteousness, then, would I be found with? A righteousness which comes from God on the basis of the faithfulness [of the Messiah]. This is an oft-repeated verse for me. I do not have a righteousness of my own, but that which is through the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah.

Recall that Paul, in Ephesians, makes righteousness our breastplate in the armor of God (Eph. 6:14). In the Jewish thought, the seat of your emotions is your "gut"--and it is the breastplate that protects that area. This righteousness that is on the basis of the Messiah's faithfulness is that which protects my heart and my emotions from the darts of the enemy.

When a flaming dart comes flying in with a sharp accusation that "you are a no-good, dirty-rotten, wicked filthy awful human being," I can reply, "Yep, and I am in Jesus, not having a righteousness of my own, but that which is given to me because of His faithfulness." In other words, the magnitude of my wickedness is no barrier to receiving His righteousness--because it is given on the basis of His faithfulness. HIS faithfulness. Not mine. The flaming darts that attempt to wound or destroy me are met with, and blocked by, His righteousness.

There is one qualification to be saved: God only saves sinners. And you're in luck--you qualify! And only one way of salvation--through the faithfulness of Jesus. And it is because of His faithfulness that you are made righteous. That makes all the difference, not only on that day, but today. Embrace this righteousness that is not your own. And thank Him for it.

Submission to Government

 A comment was made today by the speaker at church that while Romans 13:1 says we must submit to the government, that only applies to righteous government. He then referenced two stories in Daniel (chapters 3 and 6) as an argument for his statement. Taken simply on its surface, this statement opens the door to a significant misunderstanding. It is critical that we distinguish between submission and obedience.

All authority is established by God, which is Paul's point in Romans 13. Thus, submission to authority is part of God's design and command. So regardless of the "rightness" of the authority, one must submit in the sense that one is to be under it and as much as is possible, obey its decrees. This is true regardless of the righteousness of the government -- remember that Paul is writing Romans 13 not only under the Roman system, but under Nero! Hardly a righteous ruler!

However, there are times when the government's decrees come in conflict with God's law -- the story of the large image of gold which all were commanded to bow down and worship and Daniel's three friends who refused to do so (Daniel 3) and Daniel's refusal to obey a command not to pray (Daniel 6) are examples. But I must point out that in both of these instances, their disobedience included a humble submission to the consequences. Daniel and his friends all submitted to the punishments that came as a result of their disobedience, and they did so with truth and yet humility (and miraculously, were saved in both occasions). I will add that both Paul and Peter were murdered under Nero's rule, submitting to the consequences of disobeying a ruler that was evil (they were not 'saved').

Thus, the statement must be carefully nuanced if it is to avoid misunderstanding. We must always submit the government, because it is an institution of God. But at time, our submission is a submission to the consequences of disobedience, because the government has commanded what conflicts with what God has commanded, and God is the higher authority. Yet, the respect for authority means we must humbly accept such consequences. God may deliver us. He may not. He did not spare His own son! 

Perhaps a bit of American rebellious culture has crept into the church and its view of our relation to the government. We would do well to reevaluate such attitudes in light of Scripture and the examples of the early church. Most were martyred for the faith because of their refusal to worship Caesar, and yet they went to their deaths, not with vindictiveness or even exulting in their rebellion, but in submission to authority -- it is the submission to the highest authority that gives one the humble confidence to accept such consequences, even death. 

Hebrews 10 Warning

Hebrews is the most tightly argued book in the New Testament and its warning passages (2:1-4; 4:1-2; 6:4-6; 10:26-31; 12:25-29) are terrifying to read, even when the context is understood. How much more terrifying are they when the context is removed and they are applied to other contexts! One of the harshest warnings is found in 10:26-31 and it cannot be understood without carefully understanding the context.

Hebrews has just finished his magnificent exposition on the greater priesthood of Jesus Christ, begun back in 5:1 and concluded in 10:18, with the expected actions one must take as a result of these truths in 10:19-25. He "breaks" into his exposition in 5:11-6:20 in order to grab his listener's attention in preparation for the long and difficult word (5:11). This word, found in 7:1-10:18, is bracketed by the warnings of 6:4-6 and 10:26-32. It is the latter warning that I want to focus, and in particular, the "willful sin" that is referenced in 10:26:

"For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin, but a terrifying expectation of judgment..." (10:26-27a NASB 1995)

On the surface, this has been taken to mean continuing, willful sin as a Christian means loss of salvation. Isn't that what it says? This is where context is so critical. What is the willful sin that Hebrews is referring to? Is it any continuing sin that a believer commits? We must understand the "no sacrifice" statement first.

The phrase "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin" in 10:26 is the same phrase that occurs in 10:18, which is the final statement of his long exposition. In short, Hebrews concludes that because the sacrifice of Christ has once and for all taken away sin, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. This is because Christ's sacrifice is the only sacrifice and it is completed! There isn't and can never be another one. This is key to understanding this passage. The only acceptable sacrifice for my sin is Christ and it has already been accomplished.

In light of this, what does Hebrews exhort his listeners to do in 10:19-25? Draw near, hold fast, and encourage one another (10:22-24). Now for the sin. What is the concern in his book? Is it sin in general or is the entire tone of the book a concern that his listeners are considering abandoning their Christian faith due to persecution (see 10:32-36)? I think it is a fair statement to make that almost all scholars agree that Hebrews is focused on apostasy as the sin he is concerned with in his listeners. Again, context is critical. The sin in Hebrews is that of abandoning Christ, rejecting his sacrifice, and (for the listeners), returning to Judaism for salvation.

Here is the problem. If the sacrifice of Christ is the only one and therefore there is no longer any sacrifice for sin, then to leave Christ is to leave the only sacrifice! To abandon Christ means to abandon salvation. To refuse to draw near, to refuse to hold fast, to refuse to participate in community (encourage one another) is to refuse the only available means of salvation that God offers. Christ's death has forever changed how we come to God, because the veil, His flesh, has been torn so that we might have direct access to God through Him! There is no access to God except through Him. If you abandon Christ, you can't get to God!

One final observation from earlier in Hebrews: the wilderness generation of Exodus-Numbers is used as the negative example of what not to emulate in 3:7-4:13 and possibly implied in the 6:4-6 warning. The wilderness generation witnessed the ten plagues in Egypt (Ex. 7-12), crossed the Red Sea on dry land, saw God kill the entire Egyptian army (Ex. 14), ate manna from heaven every day in the wilderness and received water from multiple rocks (Ex. 16-17)), along with numerous other miracles. Yet, with their mouths full of food from heaven, they rejected the command of God to take the promised land, and as a result, were judged and died in the wilderness (Num. 13-14). For the Christian, the 'promised land' is the salvation found in Christ, and we are urged to hold fast and draw near--not to abandon or become weak in faith. Is it any surprise the very next passage in Hebrews following his long exposition and harsh warning in chapter 10 is his famous hall of faith in chapter 11? This is what he wants to inspire in his listeners! Be like these great examples of faith and draw near to Jesus! Don't abandon Christ, because He is the only all-sufficient once-for-all sacrifice for sin.

Flurry of Jingles

My beloved Coco used to run down stairs when the sound or smell of food emerged from the kitchen, and with her collar, she would jingle her way down the stairs and into the kitchen. It was a flurry of jingles as she would bound her way down with all enthusiasm. This is a little poem of this memory.

Flurry of jingles, it was time to go,

Running down stairs, how I miss you so.

Flurry of jingles, as I start to eat,

Miss sweet little face, pressed up on my knee.

Flurry of jingles, the years went by fast,

I'd hoped you stay longer, I'd hope you would last.

Flurry of jingles, I thank God for you,

The years were so many, yet now they seem few.

Flurry of jingles, so much did you give,

God taught me so much, of Him as you lived.

Flurry of jingles, it is a goodbye,

I'll miss you, my pup, and now I'll go cry.

Flurry of jingles, no more suffering,

Run free and run fast, what you're made to be.

A Grateful Goodbye

Less than an hour ago I had my beloved dog, Coco, of almost 12 years, put to sleep. It was a normal morning until about 6:30 today when she came up to me breathing differently and acting very lethargic. I took her to the vet and then the vet ER, which diagnosed a bleed around her heart, probably due to tumor. The odds of repair were low and with her age, it was time to say goodbye. I got to hold her as she took her final breath.

About a year ago, she had some issues with her back legs which ended up being age-related, but it was a good scare and one that made me realize that time was short and I needed to maximize whatever time I had left with her. One of my (mostly) daily disciplines is a gratitude list and frequently one of the items has been her. How grateful I have been to have a dog and to enjoy and learn about God through the experience. One of my prayers has been to know when it was time and to let go with gratitude. And I did. I had the time before the injection to pray and thank God for the time with her, for how much He has taught me about Himself through her, and to gratefully thank Him for all of His goodness to me through the life of my beloved Coco. What a great gift of God! How marvelous and gracious of Him to give me such a long time with her! And I've had even more time with her in the last two months since work has been entirely work from home and school is online only, due to the virus.

Saying goodbye is tough. I've already cried my eyes out this morning and will do for a while. But it is a grateful goodbye. While I hurt, my heart expresses thankfulness for the ability to experience the joy of having a great dog. God made the dog family to relate to humans in a special way. How good of a Creator He is to make such things. It hurts to let go, but He is the source and author of all creation--she was made by Him and was but a passing shadow of His beauty and loveliness. How creative He is! How delightful He is! How loud He is! How fun He is!

I am truly grateful.

The Bad and Good Friday

Yesterday was Good Friday. It is an ironic name for a day, given the event on this day that transpired almost two-thousand years ago for which we name it--the crucifixion and death of the Son of God for the sins of the world. It started the night before, with an arrest and unjust hearing for the purpose of condemning an innocent man. It continued on Friday with the formal trial before Pilate, a Roman flogging, and finally, the brutal crucifixion of Jesus Christ outside of Jerusalem. It ended with his death and burial in an unused tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea.

The bad. The condemnation, punishment, and death of an innocent man. The violent hatred of men against him. The bloody torture and agony as the hours passed. The emotional pain and anguish of those who loved him and watched as he suffered. The separation from God as he bore the sins of the world. Death. Darkness. Earthquake. What is good about any of this?

What we see in Jesus Christ is the ultimate example in which God is able to take what is awful and bring good from it. We call it good Friday because the perfect Son of God, in taking the punishment that each of our sins demanded, has now made a way that we might share his righteousness. Because of his faithfulness, my faithlessness is covered. Because of his obedience, my rebellion is forgiven. Because of his death, I am given life.

You can think of the cross of Christ as the "black hole" for sin's penalty. As Jesus breathed his last, he had finally and fully drank every last molecule of the penalty for all sin, for all time, once for all. Everything had been pulled into him and been borne by him. There is no more condemnation because he has taken all of the condemnation on himself. We are freed from the certainty of facing our own eternal crucifixions because of his one crucifixion.

Good Friday is good because of what awaits us tomorrow. He does not remain in the grave. How could he? Those who condemned him--the religious leaders, soldiers, Pilate, and the people--their word was "crucify him." His word was, "It is finished." Tomorrow, we get to rejoice in overwhelming celebration at the final word: the word of the Father. The resurrection is the vindication of the Son by the Father. The Father stands up from His throne, declares for all of heaven and earth to see and hear, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you!"

Honor those in authority

I live in Dallas County, Texas, where there is both county-wide 'stay-home' and state-wide essential-business-only orders. These are based on recommendations from the Federal government and the health professionals that these leaders are consulting. The orders are specific. I don't like them. I disagree with the reasoning behind them. I think they are far too strong a reaction, and more importantly, far too damaging economically. I think they are made in error and based on faulty, or more likely, fearful reasoning.

Yet, I do not find any of the above to be a sufficient Biblical reason to disobey. Indeed, Jesus preached under Tiberius, one of the most corrupt of the Caesars, Paul and Peter wrote under Nero, who later would put both of them to death. Paul tells me I am to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13), Peter tells me I am to honor the king (1 Peter 2), and Jesus tells me I am to render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar (Luke 20). Honor and obedience is not given because they are earned or deserved, but to be given because they are owed and due. Despite the (lack of) reasonableness of the authority or whether I agree/disagree with the rule. I am not free to bend it or twist it to my own liking. I do what I can to honor the king, as long as doing so does not dishonor the Great King. And if I must disobey the king because of a conflict in commands, then I must accept the discipline of the king with humility.

I do not find any Biblical conflict with the current orders of Dallas County or Texas. Churches are broadcasting services online--this is a far cry from ideal, but these orders are not permanent (to date fewer than three weeks have passed and the current expiration is April 30, which is less than seven weeks in total). I can still meet friends at a park or open area, as long as appropriate social distancing is maintained. Going to the store, doing essential errands, taking walks--all of these are allowed. I have food, shelter, clothing--in truth, more than I need. The electronic capabilities of today allow me to connect with people in far greater numbers and distances than ever before. Sure, electronic means are unsatisfying (after all, we are made to be physical beings), but this is temporary. It will pass.

I don't like these orders. Just like there are certain commands of God that I don't like and would prefer to disobey (and to my condemnation, have many times). But authority is grounded in Him and it is my responsibly to honor the authorities in my life, be they parents, police, physicians, employers, or politicians. I'll seek to promote better choices and reasoning, but when the decision is made, I must submit to it.

This will soon pass. But as the orders stand today, I must obey them.

Update: You can contact your representative/senator/governor/president and let them know you disagree. Do so respectfully, but it is worth doing so. Your voice should be heard!

Remember the Faithfulness of God

I woke at 4 am this morning with the word remember on my mind and reflected on it for a while before falling back asleep. It is frequently emphasized in Scripture, both explicitly and implicitly--indeed, much of Scripture is written to remind the readers of what God has done in the past. My memory of God's faithfulness to me in my past, your memory of His faithfulness to you in your past, and our reflection on His faithfulness to many, is essential in our present time.

I recently discussed four lessons from Habakkuk, the first suggesting that in times of trouble, I must remember the faithfulness and power of God that He has demonstrated in the past. I must remember because I am so prone to forget. The wind and the waves quickly distract me and pull my eyes off Jesus (remember Peter, Matt. 14:30?).

This year my small group is doing an in-depth study of the book of Hebrews. Hebrews is a book that ultimately points its readers to a greater life of faith as they too wait in dread for certain suffering (which has been experienced by them before; 10:32-39; 12:4-13). The great "hall of faith" chapter 11, which runs through 12:2, is one great remembrance passage. Remember what God has done in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses... Look at, and emulate, their faith. Remember their walk--sometimes with what we might define as success, but sometimes with death, yet always focused on what was promised, because God is faithful. It is impossible for Him to lie (6:18)! And Hebrews reminds the readers of the preeminent unfaithful example of all, the wilderness generation of Exodus and Numbers (Heb. 3:7-4:13; 6:4-6; 12:18-21). This was the generation that saw first-hand the ten plagues on Egypt (Ex. 7-11), crossed the Red Sea and saw the Egyptian army drowned (Ex. 14), was daily fed by manna in the morning and quail in the evening (Ex. 16), provided fresh water from rocks (Ex. 17), saw the presence of God on Mount Sinai (Ex. 19), and the repeated evidence of both His presence and judgment through miraculous signs and wonders (Deut. 4:32-40; and Hebrews will use a similar point in 2:1-4 for his readers). Yet, when it came time for that generation to enter the promised land, they rebelled and trembled in fear because the cities and people were large (Num. 13:25-29; 14:1-4). It was barely 18 months ago that you walked on dry land in the middle of the sea with a wall of water on your left and right, being chased by an entire Egyptian army, who then promptly drowned when God closed the water over them after you finished crossing--and yet you are afraid of some cities and big people?! You complain as your mouth is full of manna provided this morning from heaven, washed down by fresh water that came out of a rock!

I ought not to be too hard on them, for I am more similar to them than I care to admit. This is why remembering is so important. This is why God instituted for them regular, embodied practices and celebrations, practiced in the community, to help them remember. This is why regular, embodied practices with the people of God are so critical to life in Christ. When I take communion, eating the bread that symbolizes the body of Christ, I remember that He came in the flesh, dwelt among us, took on all that it meant to be human, yet without sin (John 1:14). When I drink the grape juice (or wine, depending on your tradition), I remember that His physical blood was shed for my sin, He became sin on my behalf so that I might receive His righteousness (2 Cor. 5:12). Indeed, even the very words instituting this practice suggest its purpose: "do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19) The daily (!) gathering is used by Hebrews in the middle of his discussion on the wilderness generation, for the express purpose of encouraging one another so they would not be like that faithless generation (4:12-13). And how does he encourage his readers? By demonstrating that Christ is superior and sufficient (Son, High Priest, Sacrifice, Example, Author, Completer), and by reminding them of His faithfulness to them and others in the past.

I will again quote my favorite professor: "What God has done in the past is a model and a promise of what he will do in the future, but He's too creative to do the same thing the same way twice."

My challenge for you today is to take a few moments and remember--what has He done for you in the past, where have you seen His faithfulness in your life, perhaps in the lives of those near you, and write it down? Thank Him (Ps. 89). Rejoice in His faithfulness to you (Lam. 3:23). Share that with someone. Be an encouragement to another (Heb. 4:12-13; 10:19-25). Our God hasn't changed. He is the same (Heb. 1:12; 13:8)! He will be faithful in our present time, in the suffering, as the lesson in Habakkuk reminds us, for He is bringing us into greater depths of sonship--likeness to Christ--through these circumstances.

Exhortation to trust (Psalm 115)

Psalm 115 is one that praises God for the reality of His power and goodness, in contrast to the deafness of idols. It exhorts its readers to trust in God three times and reminds them that God has not forgotten, but will bless those who trust in Him.

The Psalm opens by asking God to glorify His name (115:1), not because of the ones praising Him, but on the basis of His character. God always acts with the purpose of magnifying and glorifying Himself. Salvation's ultimate purpose isn't us, it is for His glory.

The Psalmist continues by responding to a question the other nations are asking (v. 2-3): Where is God? Answer: He's in the heavens, doing whatever He pleases. In other words, He's working, but you may not (and indeed many times won't) see it. He's doing "God things".

To illustrate the point further, he contrasts God with idols (v. 4-8). This is a lovely listing of the senses and actions of God versus the idols. The idols themselves are the work of human hands (v. 4). God is doing "God things" while the idols are made by humans doing "human things". Some god these idols are! These idols are speechless, sightless, deaf, can't smell, can't feel, and can't walk (v. 5-7). Indeed, the Psalmist warns that those who make or trust in the idols will become like them! I become like the thing(s) I place my trust in.

Now for the threefold exhortation to trust in the Lord. It follows the form: "Oh ___, trust in the Lord! He is their help and their shield." (v. 9-11) I must trust in the Lord--He's actually capable of being a help and a shield, in contrast to a deaf-mute-blind-immovable-senseless thing.

In light of this, there is a threefold promise of blessing (v. 12-15) although blessing has a different meaning than prosperity and lack of trouble.

In light of all this, our response is to bless the Lord (v. 16-18). This is interesting. The Lord blesses Israel/Aaron/those who fear Him, and we will bless the Lord. The human things that I can do is to trust, bless, and praise the Lord. God will do His "God things". He can be trusted. He is our help and our shield.

So trust Him. Bless Him. And praise Him today. For He is your help and your shield.