What happened to the Ark?

A list of important theological topics that are rarely mentioned in Scripture:

1. The Lord's Supper
2. Ark of the Covenant in the New Testament
3. The land of Israel in the New Testament
4. The three persons of God in the Old Testament
5. Resurrection and final judgement in Old Testament
6. The future shape of resurrected world in either Testaments
7. Eden, Adam and Original Sin
8. ... have I missed any?

I think this supports the idea that the location of a theological topic in the biblical narrative is just as important as frequency or quantity of mentions. 

Legalism dos and dont's

One of the themes of Colossians is resolving the tension between living out the freedom you have in Christ and while also being obedient in your response to God's grace. Legalism is the abuse of biblical (God created) rules, patterns and behaviours for our own (often sinful) purposes. The strange thing about legalism is that the rules or contextual applications (aka Pharisaical hedges.) we create are often godly and wise. But like a battle-plan it unravels with enemy contact. People have all sorts of other reasons, some of which they're not even conscious of for following these rules.

Legalism is easy to observe in modern communities of Orthodox Jews and somewhat less easy to pin-point amoung Evangelicals.  This is partly because the rules about public worship have been expressed as sociological patterns of behaviour. For example show restraint (or be exuberant within certain boundaries), attend group activities regularly and be disciplined in your habits. However our public expression of personal piety shouldn't be bound by either Orthodox Jewish style rules about Sabbath observance or Evangelical group behaviour. "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." (Col 2:16 NIV) As we respond God's grace and grow in maturity we're no longer bound by these rules, there is an extraordinary freedom here.

"Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!" (Col 2:20-21) Some modern evangelical taboos include: don't gamble, don't look at nudity, don't swear and don't get angry or behaviour erratically. The danger here as the Apostle Paul points out is that the psychological pleasure gained from, for example, not looking at porn becomes greater than the desire to respond positively to the living God. "Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in trestraining seual indulgance." (Col 2:23)

Jesus in the Old Testament

I think Tim Keller gives the best summary of what our approach should be:

Don’t get to Christ artificially. This is a big subject of course, but I believe two of the best ways are (a) by identifying in your text one of the many inner-canonical themes that all climax in Christ (Don Carson’s language), and (b) identifying in your text some “Fallen Condition Focus,” some lack in humanity that only Christ can fill (Bryan Chapell’s language).

(Via the Resurgence blog.)

Comments and thoughts about Jesus in the Old Testament:

• Rather than Old and New Testament we should be thinking pre and post Incarnation and pre and post Pentecost
• God works contextually and progressively (eg Heb 11:13, 39-40)
• I think in preaching and pastoral care we should arrive at Jesus more quickly than in our theological thinking and discussion

From my bible reading plan this morning, it seemed appropriate

2 Kings 12 In the seventh year of Jehu, Joash became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem forty years. His mother’s name was Zibiah; she was from Beersheba. ² Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the years Jehoiada the priest instructed him. ³ The high places, however, were not removed; the people continued to offer sacrifices and burn incense there.

⁴ Joash said to the priests, “Collect all the money that is brought as sacred offerings to the temple of the Lord—the money collected in the census, the money received from personal vows and the money brought voluntarily to the temple.⁵ Let every priest receive the money from one of the treasurers, then use it to repair whatever damage is found in the temple.”

⁶ But by the twenty-third year of King Joash the priests still had not repaired the temple. ⁷ Therefore King Joash summoned Jehoiada the priest and the other priests and asked them, “Why aren’t you repairing the damage done to the temple? Take no more money from your treasurers, but hand it over for repairing the temple.” ⁸ The priests agreed that they would not collect any more money from the people and that they would not repair the temple themselves.

⁹ Jehoiada the priest took a chest and bored a hole in its lid. He placed it beside the altar, on the right side as one enters the temple of the Lord. The priests who guarded the entrance put into the chest all the money that was brought to the temple of the Lord. ¹⁰ Whenever they saw that there was a large amount of money in the chest, the royal secretary and the high priest came, counted the money that had been brought into the temple of the Lord and put it into bags. ¹¹ When the amount had been determined, they gave the money to the men appointed to supervise the work on the temple. With it they paid those who worked on the temple of the Lord—the carpenters and builders, ¹² the masons and stonecutters.They purchased timber and blocks of dressed stone for the repair of the temple of the Lord, and met all the other expenses of restoring the temple.

¹³ The money brought into the temple was not spent for making silver basins, wick trimmers, sprinkling bowls, trumpets or any other articles of gold or silver for the temple of the Lord; ¹⁴ it was paid to the workers, who used it to repair the temple. ¹⁵ They did not require an accounting from those to whom they gave the money to pay the workers, because they acted with complete honesty. ¹⁶ The money from the guilt offerings and sin offerings was not brought into the temple of the Lord; it belonged to the priests.

¹⁷ About this time Hazael king of Aram went up and attacked Gath and captured it. Then he turned to attack Jerusalem.¹⁸ But Joash king of Judah took all the sacred objects dedicated by his predecessors—Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah, the kings of Judah—and the gifts he himself had dedicated and all the gold found in the treasuries of the temple of theLord and of the royal palace, and he sent them to Hazael king of Aram, who then withdrew from Jerusalem.

¹⁹ As for the other events of the reign of Joash, and all he did, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah? ²⁰ His officials conspired against him and assassinated him at Beth Millo, on the road down to Silla. ²¹ The officials who murdered him were Jozabad son of Shimeath and Jehozabad son of Shomer. He died and was buried with his ancestors in the City of David. And Amaziah his son succeeded him as king.

Cross-references?

An important part of exegesis is checking cross-rerfences but what's the best way to do this?

• There's the following up of direct quotes or obvious allusions
• Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament
• But then there's the checking of looser connections, at the moment I use data complied by someone else.
• MacSword links
• But is there a better solution?
• Thompson Chain Reference Bible?

The difficulty associated with cross-refences is that after checking direct quotes and really obvious allusions, the task becomes more subjective and you're relying on someone else's work on making the links. Eventually as I get to know the Scriptures I'll start to make a few of my own but for the most part I'll rely on the connections made by others. How do my readers do this preparation? 

'Did Adam and Eve Really Exist' - Book Review

John Collins has produced a useful book, that while clearly achieving it's primary theological purpose, also has some interesting nuggets about how to approach Biblical texts along the way. His thesis is encapsulated in the subtitle: Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Who they were and why you should care. When it comes to Genesis 1 to 11 I'm a fan of Blocher's framework approach with sympathies for Tolkein's idea of capital M, Myth. But what tends to happen is the importance of Adam and Eve is lost in the flurry of debates about the relationship between science and religion and the debate about how to exactly interpret Genesis.  In Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? Collins focuses on Adam and Eve and finds a non-negoitable 'red-line' to borrow Middle Eastern negotiating parlance. In a short space he marshals both philosophical and exegetical evidence to show that Biblically we are to understand that Adam and Eve were real people, who one afternoon ushered sin and evil into the world. Collins argues that Genesis presents itself as history, a genre that is first and foremost concerned with truth, these things really happened. However he is open to events being described in shorthand or with a poetic structure. Although he warns that we are to be aware of our modern philosophical milieu which emphasises an undetermined beginning and chaotic development of the world. The primary theological evidence for Adam and Eve's reality is Original Sin, which seems vague and cursory if they're aren't real people. He cites Romans 5:18-19, Acts 17:26 and Hebrews 11:4-7 as important texts in this regard. Finally I enjoyed his observations about the role of the narrator in Hebrew narrative and the way in which Old Testament narrative focuses on showing rather than telling. 

The Epistle to the Romans

At SOUL church we'll be doing a massive series in 2012 working our way through the book of Romans. (Broken up by Easter and a mini-series between chapters 8 and 9 on Ecclesiastes.) It's ambitious and I'm worried about keeping the momentum up. So I thought breaking it down into five sub-series', each with their own focus would help sustain our interest:

• 1 The Gospel
• 1-5 The Bad news and then the Good news
• 6-8 Living as a Christian
• 9-11 God's big plan
• 12-16 Living with One-Another

 

This is a slightly more detailed breakup of Romans into themes and sections with proof-texts showing roughly why I think it should be broken down into those sections.

Romans Layout

Sola Scriptura Redux

Kevin deYoung, a blogger over at that American megaplex T4G wrote recently about Sola Scriptura.  I wanted to blog on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, both to aid my own thinking, remark on an important distinction and remind my readers, in a sort of sequel to the last post about the role of 'bias'.

Sadly as deYoung reminds us and as Keith Mathison has pointed out previously, Sola Scriptura does not mean Solo Scriptura as many evangelicals mistakenly think.  No-one's neutral, so the question is what shape should our bias take?  Sola Scriptura rightly suggests the history of church tradition correctly shapes our bias.  DeYoung doesn't explain this, but as Mathison observed the Reformers were not arguing against church shaped bias but giving the church equal authority with Scripture.  The Modern Roman Catholic church seems to have merged the authority of Scripture with the authority of the church, which is neither the position of the Medieval Catholic church or the early church.

Importantly the Sufficiency of Scripture is about the content of Scripture, is the Bible enough for faith and godly living? The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is about the interpretation and authority of the Bible. Of course both doctrines are related but it's important to note the distinction.  In practical terms the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a cycle, you can jump in at any point but you need to be aware it's a cycle.  We interpret the Bible based on bias --> We acknowledge the Bible has authority over church tradition --> We allow church tradition to shape our bias. 

This means that the hermeneutical debates should take place on different three fronts: 1. What does Church History say or not say about a given portion of Scripture?  2. What topics does Scripture speak to (Sufficiency of Scripture)? 3. Have we been clear about the entirety and scope of our biases?

Road testing the 'concept of inerrancy'

Let's take my new way of understanding inerrancy out for a road-test.  I'm following Keller's line that the it's the concept of truth and authority that is more important than bedding down exact definitions of inerrancy and that is also a better way than a doctrine of errancy.

(Matthew 13:31-32)

31 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. 32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”


 It [the mustard seed] is the smallest of all seeds,


I like this example alot because it's something Jesus said which heightens the stakes, and it's also very specific. The traditional interpretation has always been that the Bible is true and authoritative and even faced with this difficulty there is no reason to depart from that interpretation.  But you don't need Chicago-inerrancy to say, whatever is happening in that verse it's not an error.  It could be hyperbole or it could be that Jesus' statement is qualified by the preceding statement, seeds sown by his historical audience.  By just saying "it could be ..." we're defending the truth and authority of Scripture and I'm happy with that and I think most of my readers would be as well.

Interestingly there wouldn't be many problems with a limited-errancy position here either, they would say Matthew 13:32 belongs to category x errors found in Scripture which exist for divine reason z.  You might disagree and I think I would but this position would still exist within the broader idea of Scripture being true authoritative, these folks would just be adding a tightly defined caveat.

The final alternative is disastrous, because it says that may look like an error but the whole passage could be white-anted with errors, we just haven't discovered them yet.  As I've pointed out earlier on and off line the philosophically relatively required to hold such a position is unpalatable. I don't mean to stifle discussion by that statement, just to be clear.

I can't see an alternative to the concept of 'Inerrancy'

Jon from the Painting Fakes blog outlines in several posts his difficulties with 'Biblical Inerrancy' as articulated by the framers  of the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy.  Although Jon and I have a couple of different presuppositions, he doesn't have a liberal axe to grind, and so his difficulties are worth mulling over. Chicago-Inerrancy (if I may coin that phrase) wants to see every biblical detail regarded as individually true and therefore contributing to a larger coherent and true whole.  Jon has essentially two main difficulties, the first of which is, what if some of those details are problematic?  Secondly Chicago-Inerrancy would take Genesis 1-11 as accurate in describing the beginning of the world,  and Jon wonders what we do with contradictory scientific information.

I blogged earlier about the possible alternatives to inerrancy and wondered about the alternative argument errancy, the presence of errors in Scripture.  Some of the commenters said this is the wrong question to ask, that we should be asking about the nature of the bible and truth.  I've thought alot about that since then and and think that this is the best way forward, possibly disagreeing with both Jon and Chicago-Inerrancy in the process.  I've returned to Tim Keller's remarks (about 5 min into this video) at a symposium about the nature of Scripture.  But one bit more of context, delving deeply into this topic requires a fairly sophisticated level of philosophical understanding about defining communication, truth and genre.  This isn't to say we can't talk coherently and succinctly at the level of a blogpost, it would be reductionist to say otherwise and betray the whole of idea thinking carefully!  But back to Keller, he says: "if I say to any layperson I believe in the authority of the Bible but not the inerrancy of the Bible, they're going to say what's the difference?"

The thrust of Jon's discomfort with inerrancy is observing the difficulties in bedding down a statement about Scripture in our particular cultural context where we assume science, communication and truth have meanings peculiar to our historical milieu. But the fascinating and ultimately disastrous problem with errancy is that it suggests Scripture is a field sown with truth and error for reasons that are not clear and in such a way that the wheat and the weeds are indistinguishable!  I could possibly accept an errancy that said there are these x or y types of errors in Scripture for w or z divine reasons.  However the former alternative requires  a complete suspension of being able to know anything with any certainty, and I can't accept self-affirming relativism.  But Keller takes us out of this cul-der-sac, he says let's affirm  the truth and authority of Scripture without getting bogged down in exact definitions, in other-words lets allow the concept of biblical truth and authority transcend cultural presuppositions and historical contexts.  So that's where I want to go with inerrancy, let's defend the concept; Scripture is true and authoritative.

Errancy

Trevin Wax over at his blog got me thinking again about inerrancy.  I don't try to be enigmatic, but the only reason I believe inerrancy is correct is because I think it's true!  However (to loosely paraphrase Socrates) unexamined thoughts aren't worth holding dearly to.  So let me lay out my thinking for critique.

Non-negotiable presuppositions (we can negotiate them in another post!)
1. God exists and communicates
2. God is one of the dual authors of the Bible
3. God doesn't make mistakes

Which means the question of inerrancy/errancy is really about does (or to what extent) God allow errors in Scripture?

If God allows human error in the Bible, then we have 3 options:

1. God allows only small and easily recognizable errors
2. God also allows some really large clangers but they're still recognizable
3. God allows all sorts of errors some of which we haven't even discovered yet

for one of the following reasons:

1. God wants to show the fallenness of the Bible's human authors
2. For reasons that are entirely his own 
3. For a mixed bag of reasons not limited to: evealing human sinfulness, encouraging scholarship, as a way of commenting on complexity in the world, or some as yet unrevealed purpose

Any line of argument would need to account for the idea that Scripture is to be trusted, (inerrancy moves the fallible human thing to interpretation) and some sort of explanation of how we spot an error. 

Kevin DeYoung's Inerrancy roundup

Great round up from Kevin DeYoung's Blog on the topic of Inerrancy:

1. "Calvin never rejected the truthfulness of any Scriptural affirmation."
2. Tim Keller sees no practical or pastoral difference between saying "inerrancy" and saying "the Bible is authoritative". 
3. Contrary to the suggestion of some (that 'inerrancy is a modern invention') is the fact that the idea of inerrancy is as old as the church.
4. Not having the original manuscripts isn't a problem for the doctrine of inerrancy.

It makes me think about the place of complexity.  We shouldn't confuse it with difficulty or mystery.  Nor should we confuse complexity of expression with complexity of content.  Furthermore context is important, something can be both complex and simple, historically unclear but now very explainable.  All this is to say that in future I want when someone questions inerrancy I want to ask what for them makes it complex, unclear or difficult for them?

Form: The Sufficiency of Scripture

Content   =   Sola Scriptura
Form       =   The Sufficiency of Scripture

Content: Sola Scriptura

This is a slide taken from a slide show I posted earlier describing, visually, how Sola Scriptura works in practice.

'The Book of Eli'

David from 'David and Margaret At the Movies' describes this movie as an "ultra-right-wing The Road."  I'll let the viewers at home make up their own mind, it certainly felt like a moralistic Mad Max.  David is also right in that for post-apocalyptic film, the Road sets a new benchmark of despairing beauty and realism which cinematically The book of Eli fails to meet. (Did anyone else feel Denzel Washington was reprising his role in Man on Fire?  ) My brother and I enjoyed it because we are  aficionados of anything post-apocalyptic, fans of classics like the Postman, 12 Monkeys Mad Max and Reign of Fire.  Interestingly Eli is a sort of violent Augustine, preserving the faith amid the ruins of the Roman American Empire.  The movie reflects a sort of broad American evangelicalism, revering the Bible and inclined to moralism.  However I kept wondering what if the movie had been funded by the Sydney Anglicans.  Roving preachers along the ruined Hume Highway!

A title to look out for

Generally these are a good series, for example I'm really get a lot out of Three Views on the New Testament use of the Old Testament. However Four Views on Moving beyond the Bible to Theology, looks very exciting. Everyone does theology, in other words everyone has an explanation for what the Bible says and means today. The question is, how can we arrive at what Scripture means, today, in a way that honors God? I can't wait to get my greasy paws on a copy.

S.U.S. still good

I'm running a S.U.S. course (Scripture Under Scrutiny) with some young Christians at my local church. I'm surprised at how timeless it still is. I think that's due to the way it simply takes someone through the first few chapters of Romans, drawing out in the first two chapters the nature of our sin and then the hopelessness of our human condition. The good news appears only later in the course as it does in Romans at Chapter three. I'm finishing college and more then ever struck at the sheer importance and power of that book.

Do any of my readers know of an online edition? (Thanks for the link Mikey.)

Van Til - Scripture and Knowledge

Scripture and Knowledge comes from God
Van Til sees Scripture as reliable because it comes from God. Yesterday I showed how Van Til posits God as the primary presupposition, the first starting point. "The search for a final ultimate must end in God." (Van Til, 75) Truth and knowledge are therefore personal categories, not impersonal ones, because their starting point is in the person of God. It's important to note that Van Til doesn't regard Scripture as containing all creation but speaks to all creation. (Van Til was a big fan of all creation being an expression of God but also maintaining the distinction between natural and special revelation.) Van Til also then argues that all knowledge is built on presuppositions, starting points that either assume God or are against God. Positively this means from Scripture, we can build a philosophy of knowledge! (1 Cor 10:31, 2 Cor 10:5)

The nature of Scripture
The classical doctrine of the infallible inspiration of Scripture was involved in the doctrine of divine sovereignty. God could not be sovereign in his disposition of rational human beings if he were not also sovereign in his revelation of himself to them. If God is sovereign in the realm of being, he is surely also sovereign in the realm of knowledge. (Van Til, 124)
Van Til then goes on to argue that if God is sovereign, clear and coherent then so must Scripture be, the mode of his special revelation to us. Van also argues that the four fold nature of Scriptures (authoritative, necessary, perspicacity, sufficiency) is both a claim about its nature and a challenge to our sinful selves.

Will the real Bible please stand up!
The question then becomes if God is reliable, how do determine if the Scripture we have is part of his communication with us? Van Til argues we can trust the original inspirationa and inerracy of the original autographs as we would cross a partially flooded bridge. Our footing is sure even if water is flowing across the bridge as we wade across. In other words; "There would be no reasonably reliable method of identifying the word of God in human history unless human history itself is controlled by God." (p 128) Furthermore says Van Til our access to the pure word of God has to have a degree of certainty or out knowledge of salvation is compromised.

Interesting Aside
The need for special revelation given man's finitude and sinfulness and so an organic relationship between:
theophany = saving presence
prophecy = saving words
miracles = saving deeds

[Free Stock Photos for websites - FreeDigitalPhotos.net]

How historical is the Old Testament?

This year I'll be taking the Pentateuch (in English) with Lindsay Wilson (OT professor at Ridley) as an evening class. I'm really excited about focusing on the Pentateuch but I'm going to be alert for several themes and observe what Lindsay does with them.

Historicity: Chapters 1 to 11, Abraham and co, the Exodus and following.
Primogeniture: This is the idea that priority is given to the older stuff in Judaic theology. Some say that this is a rabbinic invention, I'm not so sure, I think the opening chapters of Genesis establish certain key themes and begin several story lines that are continued throughout Scripture.
Interpreting Old Testament Law: Do we look for the principle or follow some hermeneutical redemptive movement?

I'll keep you all posted!

[picture= Rembrandt's Moses mit den Gesetzestafeln]

Too many bibles!

Amy and I have too many Bibles! (While we have several for specific purposes, I'm bothered by what to do with those that just sit there gathering dust.) Although we use some of them and have others set aside to give away, there are some that are either too worn out, too dodgy in their translation or simply superfluous to our needs yet I feel bad about throwing any of them out. What should I do?