Portable Water

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.

This is another passage that makes one wonder if it means what it appears to mean. If we read this and take it at face-value it looks like Paul was saying that Christ traveled with the Jews in the wilderness. Can that possibly be what he means?

Well, the language is clear enough. The phrase πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας is very literally, “the spiritual rock, the one that followed.” This is connected with the weak conjunction δὲ and it clearly states that the rock was Christ. There is no ambiguity in the language here.

The problem is that this creates something of a tension for us. We know from Paul’s teachings in places like Colossians 1 that the church was a mystery until the revelation that came from Christ. Yet here we see him describing how Christ traveled with the people. The passage goes on to explain how they were apostate despite having Him with them.

What to do? I think that we need to accept Scripture for what it says. Somehow Christ was represented in the rock that traveled with them and provided water. As God saved Israel through the wilderness Paul makes a connection to Christ. Does this mean that Christ was really present with them? It appears so, but I’m not sure that it is necessary to see it this way to interpret this passage faithfully.

One takeaway is to understand that Christ appears in the Old Testament more than is clear at face-value. He was certainly a mystery, but Paul shows us that He was there. This also helps us to understand the language of Ephesians 1:10 that describes how God had “a plan for the fullness of time.”

But we also must be careful not to interpret every piece of wood as the cross or every instance of water as baptism. Not every drop of shed blood in the Old Testament points to Christ’s shed blood at Calvary. However, we also need to be sensitive to how the New Testament authors saw Christ in the Old as they wrote under inspiration of the Holy Spirit

Final Justice

Revelation 18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven, and you saints and apostles and prophets, for God has given judgment for you against her!"

20 Εὐφραίνου ἐπ᾽ αὐτῇ, οὐρανὲ καὶ οἱ ἅγιοι καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι καὶ οἱ προφῆται, ὅτι ἔκρινεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ κρίμα ὑμῶν ἐξ αὐτῆς.

This comes at the end of chapter 18, which describes the ultimate fate of Babylon. Babylon is portrayed as a city of great wealth, but also of great sin. It is ultimately judged and will be destroyed. One could even conceivably make a parallel of what happened with New York on 9/11, but I don't think that is what this passage refers to. It is possible that is what John was predicting, but it is highly unlikely.


I do, however, suspect that Babylon is a metaphor of some kind. John and his audience would think of the actual city of Babylon. After all, it was Babylon that led to their captivity. But here we get a vision of Babylon falling some time in the future. At least, that's what we get if we take Revelation to be a continuous story speaking of the future.


Basically, we are left with three interpretive options:

1. The futurist view of Revelation is wrong and this speaks of a judgment already past from our perspective
2. The city of Babylon will be rebuilt, will regain its former splendor, and will then be destroyed
3. It is symbolic for a great city that is a hub of sin and rebellion

I'm inclined toward the third view. This is something that I need to study more deeply before I make any kind of final decision though. What do you think?

Round and Round

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel blew his trumpet, and I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key to the shaft of the bottomless pit.

1 Καὶ ὁ πέμπτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν· καὶ εἶδον ἀστέρα ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ πεπτωκότα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ ἐδόθη αὐτῷ ἡ κλεὶς τοῦ φρέατος τῆς ἀβύσσου

My point today is not so much exegetical as it is hermeneutical. The question is how we should read the book of Revelation. If we take the simplest approach, we just read it like a sequential letter. We take the first three chapters to be like a straight epistle and then we take the rest to be a description of what will happen at the end of time.


However, there is another way that I think is perhaps more plausible. Instead of reading it like a sequence of events, perhaps we should read it as sort of a commentary on itself. It looks like concentric circles that get larger and larger in scope. I'm not going to detail every example, but this is one of them. It seems like this is retelling what we just saw in chapter 8 with Wormwood falling to earth. In other words, I don't think it is a separate event.


I don't really have time to develop this more deeply right now, but I just wanted to point out that there are different ways to read Revelation. Obviously they are not all legitimate since God did not write it with multiple meanings in mind. However, I would submit that perhaps the literalistic method is not the best. I realize that is a heretical idea to a dispensationalist and I also realize that this opens the door a crack for liberalism to barge its way in. However, I also think that a plain reading of Revelation makes a lot more sense if we see it a continually retelling a story and elaborating on it each time rather than a straight sequence of events.

The Kingdom

John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world."


36 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς· ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου· εἰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἦν ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμή, οἱ ὑπηρέται οἱ ἐμοὶ ἠγωνίζοντο [ἂν] ἵνα μὴ παραδοθῶ τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις· νῦν δὲ ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐντεῦθεν.

This was Jesus' answer to Pilate. Pilate didn't really understand what Jesus was all about and this answer didn't help things much. But it helps us when we consider what Jesus came to do.

The Jews were confused because they were sure that He came to establish an earthly kingdom. In fact, that's what they asked Him about in Acts 1. They were all set for Him to depose the Romans and set up His rule from Jerusalem. What nobody seemed to get is that He had to suffer and die on the cross first and then be raised on the third day.

Jesus had told them that the "Kingdom of heaven is at hand." Here we see that His kingdom is established. It's just not what everyone expected. Eventually He is going to return and reign in glory over the New Heavens and New Earth. Until then, His kingdom is a spiritual one.

Normally, I have a practical application from what I write, but here I don't. Instead, I just think that this gives me a hermeneutical principle as I read the Gospels. Enjoy!

Old Testament Perspicuity

Luke 16:31 He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'"


31 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ· εἰ Μωϋσέως καὶ τῶν προφητῶν οὐκ ἀκούουσιν, οὐδ᾽ ἐάν τις ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστῇ πεισθήσονται.

As I wrestle with the big issue of hermeneutics, I am trying to decide which set of presuppositions makes the most sense. To me, it makes more sense to give the NT priority over the OT. This then leads to seeing the narrative of Scripture as God calling a people to Himself. He started with Israel and then added the church. The church does not replace Israel, but adds to it. This seems to stand up better to tests than the classical dispensational hermeneutic of reading everything through the lens of Israel.

One of the results of this hermeneutic for me is that I see the NT as being a vital part of proper OT interpretation. My thesis on Matthew 2:15 has convinced me of that as I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to see Christ in Hosea 11:1. My advisor disagrees and wants for me to take a deeper look at how the OT was constructed to show Christ through its structure. This verse makes me think of that question.

Here Jesus is giving a parable about a rich man who ends up suffering eternal punishment and he wants for someone to go back from the dead to tell his family about what awaits them if they do not repent and believe. This statement is very profound. Basically, it tells him that they have everything they need in what we call the Old Testament ("Moses and the Prophets is an idiom"). I can see that as there is plenty in the OT to point us to Christ. In fact, we can point to fulfilled prophecy as an apologetic for the inspiration of Scripture.

I see all of this as a both/and rather than an either/or. I think we can say that there are glimpses of Christ in the OT. Some of them are more obvious than others. However, I also think that we can now read the OT as Christians rather than as Jews. Therefore, with the benefit of the first advent of Christ we have a better interpretive grid than they did. We can see how the suffering servant of Isaiah was Christ. We can see how Christ was the better Moses. Basically, we understand Him to be the Messiah that they were looking for and, if they are faithful Jews, still look for.

I think what this parable tells us is that the Jews had to really believe the OT so that they would understand that Jesus was indeed Messiah. I rejoice that we no longer have to look through types and shadows and have the benefit of the NT and, most importantly, the Holy Spirit. Amen?

The Prophet Has Come

Mark 9:13 But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him."


13 ἀλλὰ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι καὶ Ἠλίας ἐλήλυθεν, καὶ ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ ὅσα ἤθελον, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.

This is something Jesus tells Peter and James after they witnessed His transfiguration.  They didn't know what to make of Elijah and Moses on the mountain with Jesus and they start asking Him questions.  They were trying to understand why it was written that Elijah must come first.  This is how Jesus responded to them.  He tells them that Elijah ἐλήλυθεν, which is in the perfect active indicative.  The most generic understanding of the aspect of the perfect is that it refers to a completed action with present effect.

Why do I quote this verse on a day when I am emerging from a blogging slumber?  I guess I'm in an academic mood, but it makes me think of hermeneutics, which is one of my favorite subjects.  It seems to me that Jesus could be referring to the fact that Elijah was with them at the transfiguration.  Or as is often supposed, it means that Jesus is referring to John the Baptizer.  For what it's worth, the ESV cross-reference points to Mark 6 which recounts why John was beheaded by Herod.

If Jesus does indeed refer to John the Baptizer here then this is something of a hermeneutical oddity for us.  It tells us that there is some sort of non-literal language being used here.  If we take this passage literally we are confused or perhaps we look for Elijah to come before the Messiah as the Jews do.  After all, if we take this passage literally then they are right.  But if we read this with an understanding to the symbolic language we see that not all is as it seems.  In fact, Jesus is explaining this with symbolic rather than literal language.

My point is that we need to be careful about being too literal.  The key is to figure out what should be taken literally and what should be taken symbolically.  It sure helps when the New Testament interprets it clearly for us, doesn't it?

Don't Follow Men

Matthew 15:8 "'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"



8 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ· 9  μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.

Every time I read through the gospels I am amazed at how Jesus' teaching applies so well to today.  In other words, people have not fundamentally changed.  Although the writers could not have imagined that we would communicate to each other with telephones, blogs, twitter, etc, what they wrote applies today as much as it did 2000 years ago because the human condition has not changed.

When I read this passage I immediately put my "team" mode on and think how great it is that Jesus is sticking it to the Pharisees again.  Way to call out those hypocrites!  I'm so glad that my heart is close to Jesus!  I'm glad that I don't follow the commandments of men.  After all, I have no real creed but the Bible, right?

This attitude is problematic for a couple of reasons.  One is that my heart is not as close to Jesus as I would like to think it is.  I realize how easily distracted I am by the world.  I give lip-service to Jesus, but I don't stay as close to Him as He commands.  I've addressed this in numerous posts and I'm sure I will again.  I know how easily my heart strays since it is an idol factory after all.

The other is that the idea of "no creed but the Bible" is impossible.  We say that, but ultimately we follow the traditions of men.  Suppose that we think church should only be on Sunday mornings at 11:00 AM with wooden pews.  That's fine, except pews did not exist in the first-century.  So we've already started following a tradition of men.  It's not a bad one, but it's naive to think that we don't.

Then there is how we read Scripture.  We're all informed by our lives.  We all bring certain prejudices to the text.  For example, when Luther read Galatians he saw it as a condemnation of the Catholic Church.  I suppose it can be used that way, but that's not what Paul had in mind since the Roman Catholic Church was not invented yet.  He read his situation into the text.  We may say that we don't want to do that, but we all do it to some degree.

This is not necessarily wrong as long as we don't change things to suit our moods.  That's what happens when we read a feminist understanding into 1 Timothy 2:12, for example.  We are all in a hermeneutical spiral.  Let's just be honest about it rather than pretending that we truly have "no creed but the Bible."  And let's obey this passage by not elevating those secondary matters above the clear teachings of Scripture, amen?

He Has Called His Son

Matthew 2:15 and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."


15 καὶ ἦν ἐκεῖ ἕως τῆς τελευτῆς Ἡρῴδου· ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος· ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου.

Matthew is making a very clear reference to Hosea 11:1 which reads: When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.  If you look at Hosea you see that he is clearly referring to the Exodus.  The nation of Israel was still relatively young, but God graciously called Israel out of Egypt and we have the record of that in Exodus.  You don't have to read the Old or New Testaments very carefully to find that the Exodus is a major theme used to explain what it means to be a Christian.  We are previously in bondage to sin and through Christ we are set free.

Even though this is a repeated theme, Matthew's use of this verse is a bit puzzling.  After all, Hosea was referring to the nation of Israel.  Matthew is clearly referring to the child Jesus.  Although some disagree, I find it highly unlikely that Hosea was thinking of Jesus when he wrote Hosea 11:1.  So what was Matthew doing?  Was he using a Jewish hermeneutic where you can take any language you want from the OT as long as it suits what you want to say?  I don't think so.

I think that Matthew was using typology here.  You also could think of it as sensus plenior, if you mean that Matthew was adding meaning that the original author could not have intended.  I come to this conclusion based on the research I'm doing for a thesis on this topic.  When I have it done I will certainly post it.

But what difference does this make?  I think that Matthew is identifying Jesus with Israel.  Just as Jesus is the better Adam, the better Moses, the better Aaron, and the better David, He is also the better Israel.  He is the consummation of the Old Testament.  Certainly the Old Testament spoke to the nation of people known as Israel.  However, in a greater sense it was leading them to Messiah.  Here Matthew is telling his Jewish audience that in this boy they had the fulfillment of their search.

Every Bible reader needs to decide what is at the center of his Bible.  Is it Israel?  Or is it Jesus?  Israel is certainly important, but I would maintain that Israel points us to Jesus, not the other way around.  I believe that at Christocentric hermeneutic is the way to go.  This verse is a large part of why I come to that conclusion.  Seeing Christ throughout the Old Testament without resorting to ridiculous allegorizing magnifies my view of God and gives me great hope.

Babylon the Great

Revelation 18:2 And he called out with a mighty voice, "Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place for demons, a haunt for every unclean spirit, a haunt for every unclean bird, a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.

2 καὶ ἔκραξεν ἐν ἰσχυρᾷ φωνῇ λέγων· ἔπεσεν ἔπεσεν Βαβυλὼν ἡ μεγάλη, καὶ ἐγένετο κατοικητήριον δαιμονίων καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς πνεύματος ἀκαθάρτου καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς ὀρνέου ἀκαθάρτου [καὶ φυλακὴ παντὸς θηρίου ἀκαθάρτου] καὶ μεμισημένου,

I don't want to comment on this verse too specifically other than to use it as an example of the troubles I've had with Revelation over the years.  For the most part, my churches and other teachings I've been exposed to have had a Dispensational bent to them.  This is supposed to mean that we champion a literal interpretation of Scripture.

However, that seems to go out the window when we get to the apocalyptic genre.  We see all kinds of things that aren't there.  Some folks see the plague of locusts as huey helicopters.  They read the passages about swords being beaten into plowshares and they figure those passages must refer to weapons in general being used for peace.  Of course, not everyone is guilty of that, but both have been done.

When I read through Revelation and I read about the fall of Babylon I can't help but think of New York City.  There are plenty of parallels.  But if I am committed to an authorial-intent hermeneutic I really can't go there.  I can't apply Jeremiah directly to the USA, even though there are parallels there too.

I still don't claim to have everything sorted out, but I do know that Babylon has indeed fallen.  I understand that Saddam Hussein wanted to rebuild it, but we got in his way.  So as I read this passage I have two choices if I refuse to engage in speculation:

1. Babylon will be rebuilt and fall again
2. This refers to something that already happened

Otherwise, I am as guilty of speculation as those who see the cross in every reference to wood in the OT, baptism in every reference to water, etc.  I don't think I'm ready to go there.  I've set foot in that land, but am not comfortable pitching my tent there.  What does a faithful futurist do with this passage?

Better than the Prophets

Hebrews 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

1 Πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις 2  ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ, ὃν ἔθηκεν κληρονόμον πάντων, δι᾽ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας·

I admit that the book of Hebrews has always intimidated me.  I've never been quite sure what to do with it as I've tried to jam it into a theological system.  I've decided that this time through I'm just going to take it as face-value as much as I can.

Even if you don't know much about the book of Hebrews you've probably at least heard the "at many times and in many ways" line.  What did God do?  He λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις.  More literally it is that He "spoke to the fathers by the prophets."  But since this is a book addressed to Jews and presumably written by a Jew, it is fine for the author to use "our" here.  Whether or not that is appropriate for a Gentile to read it that way is another discussion.

I notice that there is no adversative in verse 2, but that is added by the translators.  The phrase ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων is most literally understood as "on these last days" or something similar.  We need a conjunction here to make it work as good English.  Incidentally, the HCSB, KJV, NASB, and NET do not add the conjunction, but the ESV and NIV do.  This is one of those places where the ESV goes a bit beyond the literal.

I think it is valid to add the conjunction here because it would seem that there is a contrast between God speaking through the prophets and now speaking through the Son.  You may note that the word "his" does not exist in the Greek, but that it is consistent with the phrase ἐν υἱῷ.

Why am I going into all this detail?  I think it is important that we handle the text faithfully, which is one of the goals of this blog.  And, frankly, because I have a little bit more time this morning than usual :)

What do we get from this?  What I see is that the prophets had their place.  God spoke to the Jews through the prophets.  As we see one fulfilled prophecy after another we can take great assurance in God's faithfulness and His sovereignty to accomplish His will.  But in the times of the author of Hebrews (I suspect Paul, but we can't be sure), God spoke to His people through His Son.

This means that the Son is better than the prophets.  It means that He fulfilled what was predicted of Him.  The Jews missed it as they were waiting for a king like David who would throw off the shackles of Rome.  They didn't realize that Jesus was the better David who would ultimately come to set the captives truly free, rather than simply politically free.

There is much debate about whether the NT should interpret the OT.  When I read this I see no question.  We'll get into this more when we get to 1 Peter 1.  The point for now is that God has spoken to us through His Son.  Let's listen to what the Son and His apostles have to say.  That is not to say that we throw out the OT.  Far from it.  But let us realize that Jesus came as the fulfillment of the law.  I am finding that it really makes things much clearer as I read my Bible.

Literal Hermeneutics

1 Corinthians 10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.

4 καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.

Much is said in my circles about reading the Bible and particularly the Old Testament literally.  I'm all for that.  After all, if we allegorize too much then we risk putting words into the mouths of the Old Testament authors.  We need to go to the plain sense of Scripture whenever possible.

However, Paul presents a difficulty for us here.  It would seem that perhaps the Covenantal Theologians are on to something.  Perhaps the Old Testament is all about Jesus after all.  When you read the Exodus account, do you see the rock that gave them water as a type of Christ?  Would you unless you read this passage?  I probably wouldn't either.  But Paul does, doesn't he?

This tells me that there is something to finding Christ all over the Old Testament.  However, we must be cautious with this too.  Paul wrote this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  The text is illuminated to us by the Holy Spirit, but I'm not sure that we can take hermeneutical leaps like this.  What do you think?

Reversal

Joel 3:10-12

(10) Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears; let the weak say, "I am a warrior."

(11) Hasten and come, all you surrounding nations, and gather yourselves there. Bring down your warriors, O LORD.

(12) Let the nations stir themselves up and come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat; for there I will sit to judge all the surrounding nations.

This is at the end of the book of Joel as the Lord pronounces judgment on the nations. Basically, this tells them that they will be in serious trouble. And, for what it's worth, judging in the Valley of Jehoshaphat is kind of a play on words because the name "Jehoshaphat" comes from the word that means "to judge."

Verse 10 is what got me when I read this today. Frankly, until I read the note in my ESV Study Bible I read it backwards because I am used to seeing that imagery in terms of the final peace that will come when Christ returns in glory. While God's people will be able to turn their swords into plowshares, those who are not His will need to do the reverse. Of course, it won't help them, but they're going to want to put up as much of a fight as they can. The long and short of it is that you want to be on the winning team at the end.

This verse also makes me think of a basic hermeneutical issue. My school teaches a Dispensational hermeneutic. That means that they take every passage literally unless there is a very good reason to see it otherwise. But what to do with these plowshares and swords? Two hundred years ago it would have seemed perfectly reasonable to take this literally. Now we might see it as a general metaphor that we will not need weapons of war anymore. I think that is a perfectly valid interpretation, but isn't it conditioned by the culture? If we could have taken this literally 200 years ago and now realize that we don't need to do that, then weren't folks reading it wrong 200 years ago?

I'll have to bounce this off some friends.

Context is Key

Galatians 2:7
(7) On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised

I don't have any profound truths to share today other than a little hermeneutical note. This may seem obvious, but as I worked on memorizing this verse I thought of a little truth that we all would do well to remember. It's so easy to proof-text and ignore context.

If you just look at this verse in isolation you may think that there is a different gospel for the Jews than for the Gentiles. However, if you look at it in the context of the whole passage, book, and Bible you will see that everyone needs the cross. This passage is merely saying that Paul's mission was to preach Christ to the Gentiles while Peter's was for the Jews.

Don't fall prey to proof-texting. That's how cults form.

Hermeneutics and Parables

As we discuss parables in class we try to answer four questions:

1. What background information would help to clarify this parable?
2. What contextual information is important?
3. What does the parable mean?
4. What applications can we get from this parable?

Number 1 is a bit tricky because I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture. However, we agreed in class that some background information can give color and depth to the teaching of a parable. For example, in the parable of the unjust steward we know that he owed his master 10,000 talents, but he choked his servant over 100 denarii. It's pretty clear from the context that he owed his master more than his servant owed him, but it does help to understand that a talent was roughly 20 years' wages, while a denarius was roughly one day's wage. In other words, he owed his master more than the gross national product of many third-world countries, while he was owed a significant, but not unpayable sum. This does add a bit of depth to the teaching.

The question of context is also interesting. We tend to look behind a story for context, but I found it interesting that this parable appears just before Jesus' teaching on divorce (Matthew 18-19). Is it significant that there are all these teachings on forgiveness just before the discussion on divorce? I believe that the gospel writers were redactors in that they arranged their gospels for a theological purpose. If that is true, then it only makes sense that there would be teaching on forgiveness just before an admonishment about divorce. How can we prevent divorce without a solid foundation on forgiveness?

The meaning of the parable should be fairly clear. If a parable does not have a clear meaning then Jesus really was not a master teacher. This is where we need to be careful about going off the allegorical deep end like many of the church fathers did. The swine in the parable of the two sons (prodigal son) don't represent demons like Origen thought. Rather, they tell the reader that this Jewish boy sunk about as low as a Jew can sink. They add color to the story, but they are not necessarily representative of something else.

Finally, the applications can be quite extensive. The parable of the unjust steward shows us that we who have been forgiven much should be willing to forgive as well. We owe an unpayable debt to God because of our sin. Therefore, how much more willing must we be to forgive those who have wronged us? All of their debts to us pale in comparison. If we aren't willing to forgive them then we need to reassess the condition of our hearts because we really don't understand forgiveness at all.

So that's what I've learned in my class so far. We're going to spend the next two days just practicing this. It should be interesting, though potentially tedious at times as well.

Handling the Parables

We talked about the history of interpretation of the parables last night. It's incredible to hear what some of the early church fathers did with them. For example, men like Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine thought that everything in the parables was an allegorical reference to something else. While there is a certain beauty to that, it is also very arbitrary. It's hard to imagine that is what Jesus meant when He first told the stories. How could the typical first-century hearer really understand the depth of the allegory? It seems unlikely.

Of course, the parables do have allegorical elements to them. Jesus explains them as such as in the parable of the sower, for example. The point is that these stories are simpler than some of the church fathers would have us believe.

Last night I had a little bit of a revelation about what I've learned in seminary. Basically, I've learned that the Bible as a whole is much simpler than some would have you think. There are certainly some tensions and difficulties, but it is not completely inscrutable. It does require some scholarship to understand fully, but the main message is not hidden to the basic reader either.

We're talking hermeneutics tonight. I will write more about that tomorrow.

Reading Jeremiah

My daily reading has brought me to Jeremiah. This is one of the big books of woe in the Old Testament. It was of course written to the people in Judah. Israel had fallen years before and now it was going to be Judah's turn.

It is very tempting to read this book as if it was written to America. We face the same problem of spiritual whoredom that they did. We worship our share of false gods. We make unholy alliances with other nations. The recent swings in the economy have brought our greed to light.

So this begs a big hermeneutic question. This book was written to a specific people at a specific time. Yet God preserved it as part of our canon. Does that mean it applies to just any nation?

I don't think so. We like to think of ourselves as the "good guys" in any story that we read. However, I don't think we have the same standing before the Lord as the nation of Israel did. I'm not sure that the current nation of Israel has the same standing either.

I don't have this all settled in my mind. If anyone reading this would like to give some feedback I'd appreciate it.

Song of Songs

What do you make of this book? I have heard a variety of interpretations for it and just had to write a short paper on it. I think that this book can be read at three levels, in progressing levels of obscurity:

1. A love poem
2. An allegory for Christ's love for the church
3. A metaphor for how much we should pursue wisdom

The love poem is pretty obvious. I think that it clearly speaks to the passion that a husband and wife should have for each other. In Christian circles it is sometimes mentioned that wives should take care of themselves for their husbands. I agree with this and I winced at all the flak Mark Driscoll once took for making this point. However, I think we also need to remember that husbands should take care of themselves too. Men, we need to bathe and shower. We also need to do the little things that make our wives happy. We're so easy to stimulate as it usually just takes a suggestive look or a glimpse of flesh. Women are more relational. Work on it. Talk to your wife about it.

The allegorical interpretation is the historic one of the church. The problem is that the book lacks any clear references to Christ and the church. Sos 1:4 is perhaps a reference to Joh 6:44, but that's kind of subtle. I think that Epheisans 5:25-33 makes it more clear. That passage shows that the marriage relationship is a metaphor for Christ's love for the church. Therefore, as this book shows the passionate pursuit of a married couple for each other it would seem to make it clear that Christ pursues us passionately and we should pursue Him with vigor as well.

The wisdom metaphor is a bit strained, but I can see it. Proverbs 1-9 makes it clear that there are two women -- folly and wisdom. The whole passage is an apologetic for pursuing woman wisdom. Perhaps Song of Songs is telling us how we should pursue woman wisdom.

Either way, it's a fun book if you're not too prudish about winds in gardens and hands on bolts.

Psalms

I finished watching the lecture on Psalms last night. It was amazing to consider God's handiwork in composing this book. He took 150 discrete poems and knit them into a unified whole. The biggest thing I got from it was to note how Psalm 1 is a wisdom psalm and Psalm 2 is messianic. Ever notice how the book of Psalms is split into five books? Take note of how each book ends with a doxology. Then note the theme of the psalms that begin and end each book. The only exception is the bridge between psalms 41 and 42, which is a bit different.

The point is that there are themes of wisdom and messiah throughout the psalter. The next time you read through the psalms try reading them with that "lens" and see what you can find.

Colossians 1:13-20

I finished this part of my Hermeneutics project. Check it out.

Psalm 19

Here is my first draft at this one. The more I looked at it the more I saw the emphasis on the value of the Word of God. Not a big surprise, I realize.