Hermeneutical Hypocrisy?

I have been pondering some things lately and in the process I came to a realization but want to get some feedback before I make any final conclusions on this thought. So for all you theologically and philosophically minded people out there, I could use your help.

The topic I am studying is the biblical teaching on divorce, and I was reading an article today from the theological journal Didaskalia, and it provoked some thoughts. If you are curious and have access, the article is titled “Divorce and Remarriage in Church History” and it is by David Smith (Sp 2000, p 59-75).

Here is the thought: in Matthew’s gospel is the primary teaching of Jesus on divorce, and there is the infamous clause that has created significant controversy. Either way, it seems Jesus gives the ok for a particular form of divorce related to some form of sexual immorality (see Matthew 5:31-32). The Greek word there is porneia, which is debatable as to what form of sexual immorality Christ is referring to, but most believe it to be adultery. This does not mean he is condoning divorce, only that he is allowing it in this particular case.

But let us consider this in its context. Just before our divorce text, Jesus gives a teaching on lust and adultery. The teaching there is that even lusting after a woman is committing adultery. He is getting at the heart of the law and going beyond the simple letter of the law. Even before that we have the passage on hating a brother is the equivalent of murder, again the heart of the law versus the letter of the law. Put all this together:

If looking at a woman with lust is adultery, and sexual immorality which is typically accepted as being adultery in Matthew 5:32 is grounds for divorce, is it possible to say Jesus was implicating lust as being legitimate grounds for divorce? I titled this blog “Hermeneutical Hypocrisy” because it seems we are forcing a limiter on Christ’s teaching on divorce, ignoring the context. We are forcing our desired understanding into the text?

Again, this is where I am asking for help out there, to see if there is a flaw in the logic. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Grace Be With You

What a nice way to close a letter! Warm fuzzies spread through the body as we close out conversations and letters with the simple phrase (or maybe a slightly more developed form) “grace be with you.” Paul liked to use this, giving some form of it in every one of his letters. But is that all this is? Some trite statement that sounds like a simple, nice way to open and close a letter? I do not believe so.

Consider the nature of Paul’s letters. Typically, his purpose in writing is to address a spiritual or theological issue plaguing the church. The letters usually consist of two parts, the first doctrine, and the second action. We could label them as the first the Orthodoxy section, and the second as the Orthopraxy section The second is always rooted in the first as if to say; “this is what we believe, now here is what we should do as a result of that belief.” Yet, with a careful reading of the orthopraxy, it seems as though his desires of what the church should do is unattainable. These are high and lofty demands!

Rooted throughout his demands though is one thing we can never forget. Paul’s writings are loaded with the centrality of the Gospel. He knows that in everything, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, the Gospel is what gives it power, what makes both possible. Without Christ, doctrine is useless and practice is hopeless. It is this fact, this Gospel, that makes “grace be with you” more than just a trite statement to give the readers warm fuzzies. The grace of Christ is what makes anything Paul writes about possible, without his grace we are powerless to live a life that is pleasing to him.

Think for example; Timothy, a young man is placed in charge of a troubled church and Paul gives him this list of things he wants Timothy to do to make the church become strong again. The charge is immense, almost impossible. But Paul closes out the letter with a very simple statement, three words in the Greek; “grace be with you.” I can hear Timothy now, reading those words; “ahhh.” Timothy may have been overwhelmed, but that simple reminder let him know God is with him, God’s grace is upon him, and because God’s grace is there for him, he can do what he has been charged to do.

So as we face the tasks of life, seeking to live according to the holy will of God, just remember this statement and all its implications:

GRACE BE WITH YOU.

Being Broken

It is common today to hear Christians talk of their 'brokenness.' but when you listen closely, you may discover that they are talking about their wounds, the things they have suffered, not about the evil that is in them.

(Dallas Willard, 60)

Reading this quote has brought to mind a number of thoughts in my head, mostly about my own "brokenness" but also about the many revival events I have attended where people became "broken." And these revival events are not necessarily intended to be that, but are later labeled as a meeting that experienced revival. Too often I wonder if we are more tired and sorry about the symptoms of our sin rather than the sin itself. When is the last time you truly felt broken about the wicked nature lying within? Are you merely tired of the fact that you have at various times "screwed up?" Or how many times have I confessed a sin, felt sorry that I had committed it, but did not seek to make things right? These are examples of a false sense of brokenness.

True brokenness results in true repentance. Repentance is not just feeling sorry for a mistake you have made and searching out forgiveness. Repentance is the quest to do more than just make right a past wrong. It is the work of putting in place barriers, reforming a thought process, whatever it may take to prevent from ever allowing that sin to occur again. When is the last time we took part in true repentance and did not stop at the stage of confession. Confession is an act, repentance is a work. And I honestly believe repentance comes only when true brokenness occurs.

But as Willard pointed out, brokenness does not occur over just one specific act of sin, but over the nature of sin, the wickedness residing within us. Numerous times have I graced the doors of a church, walked into a sanctuary, sang the music, listened to the sermon, and left having felt no sense of my sinfulness. We are gathering to worship a Holy God. Any encounter with this God results in a complete awareness of just who we are. Note Isaiah's reaction when he came into contact. He fell flat on his face and cried out "Woe is me!"

I have spent numerous hours over the course of my life sitting in a church pew, looking at the cross perched on the wall behind the pulpit. How many times have I truly felt a sense of humbling awe while staring at that cross and the significance of what it represents? Not enough. I can certainly say that.

Entering this Easter season, I am reminded of the significance of the cross. It is easy to feel brokenness over sin when being forced to truly, deeply meditate on the cross. But this Palm Sunday, something else entered my mind. As Jesus was approaching Jerusalem, what did he do?

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it… (Luke 19:41)

It is interesting that later, as Jesus enters the city, there is great pomp and circumstance over his arrival. He enters as the triumphant king. But within a week the whole city turns completely against him and crucifies him. How can this change happen? The people are blinded by their own desires. They saw him as a triumphant king about to overthrow the Roman government. Instead he came as the triumphant king about to defeat sin and death. The people were focused on their selfish desires, not on who God is and what is his mission. Being blinded to God is devastating. This is why brokenness is so vital. Brokenness opens our heart’s eye to God, removing the distractions of our own selfish desires. Our desires and sin can blind us so much that tragedy is made certain. But when we enter into brokenness, our eyes are opened, and we can celebrate God’s wonderful work in our own lives and in the world.

Do You Tremble?

Thus says the LORD:
"Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool;
        what is the house that you would build for me,
        and what is the place of my rest?
   All these things my hand has made,
   and so all these things came to be,
                         declares the LORD.
But this is the one to whom I will look:
       he who is humble and contrite in spirit
       and trembles at my word.

Some time ago a pastor mentioned these words from Isaiah 66 should be seriously looked at when looking to someone to become a spiritual leader, namely, a pastor.  I think he is right.  And it is true that this should be seriously considered in that context, but it also applies to everyone else as well.

The first line of the proclamation is the most encouraging line for all people. God is in charge. He is in charge over the heavens and the earth. The word picture of calling the earth his footstool is amazing. In Old Testament thought, the footstool of God is often a description of the Ark of the Covenant in the Holy of Holies. Bear in mind this is where man was required to go if he were to commune with God. But here, the whole earth is his footstool. We are not required to go anywhere, for he is here. We think we must build some church building, and only there can we meet God. But that is simply false. He made the earth. He made the materials we use to build our churches. We cannot build anything adequate for him, anything that is sufficient to “house” God. I like how we often refer to the church building as the house of God. It isn’t. It is a meeting place for the Church to gather corporately to worship God. We cannot build him a house. He has already built one ~ the whole of creation, the heavens and the Earth.

How often do I think about what I can do for God?  In reality, I can do nothing to help his cause that he cannot already do.  It is not about what I do, but my attitude.  I shouldn't do things because I can or I should, but because He has given me the opportunity and privilege.

Then think about the last line.  When I read His word or hear it preached, do I pay attention to it with fear, reverence, and awe? Or have I started to treat it as another interesting book on the shelf? Or (especially in my case - being in seminary) has it become another textbook?  These are tough words.

Are You a Man?

My final installment on a series of old posts from a previous blog I authored that has been shut down.

I could wait no longer.  Earlier this week I was directed to view a video on YouTube that I found to be both hilarious and sad all rolled into one.  This video is been quickly spreading around the Grace College campus, and so I decided to post some of my thoughts on the video and the beliefs behind it.

The exegesis committed by this pastor is horrendous.  He shows no regard for context and has no interest in how language functions.  He is a King James Only advocate which creates a whole other host of issues, but his arguments from his church's website are poor at best and very anti-intellectual.  I was raised in a KJO church, and at that church the arguments were at least academic in nature, so while I do not agree with the position, I at least respect their attempt at making their argument.  But those who make an argument based on strict opinion and even anti-intellectual beliefs, they earn zero respect.

What saddens me most about this is the fact that this man is standing behind a pulpit, proclaiming what he believes to be the Word of God, and thus leading a church down a treacherous path.  He also, by publishing his sermon videos on YouTube, is potentially creating a negative witness to the Gospel message and what true followers of Christ are about.  It seems he is more concerned about the judgment of God than he is the love of God.  True, even I believe the judgment of God is poorly understood and downplayed far more than it should be, but if it is not preached alongside the love of God, then the Gospel is not preached.  And the purpose of preaching is to proclaim the good news.  (side note, the word translated Gospel in the Greek literally means 'good news' and the verb is 'to proclaim good news').

So here is the video.

Ok, now some critique on it.

 
First - the issue of context.  The pastor is seeking to proclaim that only men who urinate while standing are true men, and this is whom God is seeking.  Therefore, we should also only urinate while standing if we want to be men that God seeks.  But notice that in the context God is seeking these men for one purpose: to destroy them.  The passages he is referring to are I Sam 25:22, 34; I Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; and II Kings 9:8.  In each one of these the phrase is used in the context of those whom God is going to destroy.  Is this message reflected in the pastor's exposition?

Second - the understanding of language.  He attacks the NKJV and NIV translators for not correctly translating the phrase, but instead translates it only as "men."  This is true, and there is nothing wrong with it.  The phrase in Hebrew is simply idiomatic. There may be some emphasis being made by using the idiom, but this does not automatically display inferiority in the newer translations. His other attacks have issues as well, but are outside the scope of this post.  And we don't even have time to get into the issues of textual criticism!

Lastly - poor understanding of canonical development.  He alludes to numerology, particularly pointing out verse referencing.  The problem with this is that the verse numbering system was not in place until well after the cannon was established.  But he uses the verse numbering system to make a theological point.  The verse and chapter divisions are in no way inspired, so on what basis can he make this argument.

There are more, but I can only spend so much time blogging.  I do have a life outside of the internet, and it is a busy one.

Just please, pay attention to II Timothy 2:15!

I Feel So Good

The third in a series of old posts from my previous blog.

Thanks to a friend, I was directed to an article in Newsweek called Happiness: Enough Already that I found to be very interesting.  Apparently too much happiness is bad for our health.  We all need a little more depression in our lives.  Imagine what would happen to love songs if the song writers paid more attention to the article... ok, scary thought!

However, there is some truth to what they are saying.  If we were all happy 100% of the time, life would be stagnant and boring.  After all, what would there be to gossip about??? But then, wouldn't that result in our being dissatisfied with life and therefore we would become unhappy?  Maybe complete happiness 100% of the time is not even possible.

Contrary to social gospel preachers, it is nice to know that while the Bible does not offer euphoric unending happiness, it does offer a sense of joy and peace that is beyond explanation.  Maybe because the weight of sin and guilt has been lifted?...

Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.

Boot Camp

Again, this post comes from an old blog I authored that is been shut down.

Like last week, this week I am posting on something brought to my attention some time ago that I occasionally revisit to meditate on.  Whereas last week I mentioned a sociological study that got me thinking, and still does every time I visit the supermarket, this week I shall focus on a study of a single verse of Scripture.
I was directed by my Greek professor Matt Harmon to occasionally check out another blog called Hellenisti ginoskeis by Daniel J. Phillips about Greek studies.  It has been very enriching, and one particular entry consistently gets me thinking.

Hebrews 5:8 is an incredible statement of the "boot camp" Christ had to go through as he worked to be the source of salvation for us. 

The ESV reads;

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.  And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:8-10)

Anyway, allow me to point out the beauty of verse eight, which really gets me thinking.  For ease, I'll just quote Phillips;

Then there is what I'll un-academically call the syntactic suspense. The author does not write, ἔμαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν. Rather, it is ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν. "Son though He was, He learned from the things He suffered"— learned what? The wickedness of sin? The brokenness of the world? The rough providences of God? No. "Submission." And this is held in suspense until the last, syntactically. As if to say, "Son though He was, He learned from the things He suffered—submission!"

It is amazing first of all to think that Christ learned anything.  Obviously, he did not learn in the same way we do, because he is infinite and we are finite.  But he still learned.  How to wrap this into my theological understanding is no easy task, and I have yet to do so.

Another difficult thing to grasp is how he learned - suffering.  I doubt anyone will contest that he endured suffering unlike anything any other man has ever endured.  For he, being one with God the Father, came under the weight of the full extent of the wrath of God.  Not only this, but he who enjoyed complete fellowship with the Father since eternity past was forsaken by the Father while enduring the Father's wrath.  Not one of us will ever begin to understand just how much suffering he endured.

The most difficult aspect is what he learned.  He is God, equal with the Father, and he placed himself under submission to the Father.  This is most clearly seen in the Garden of Gethsemane; "Not my will, but your's"  The one who is ruler over all submitted himself to the Father.  I struggle under my pride to submit to anything and I do not hold the position he held even before he came to this earth.

But most importantly, he did all this for us.  He did it to save us, which is astounding enough.  But here's the kicker - he did it as an example for us also.  He placed himself under submission to the will of God both for our salvation and to demonstrate to us the extent to which we should be willing to submit ourselves.  This is tough to swallow, for it is easy to submit to God's will when it gives us immediate warm fuzzies.  But what about when it calls for us to endure a little suffering for only a while.  My tendency is to shy away.  Instead, we, like Christ, should be saying "Not my will, but your's."