Friday, September 21, 2012

Halo of hatred


Last night I wanted to read something that I haven't picked up in a long time, and so I sorted through the section of "classics" in my library and found a book by G. K. Chesterton called The Everlasting Man, which, if I recall correctly, C. S. Lewis said was one of the most profoundly influential pieces of Christian literature he had ever read. As I finished reading one chapter before bed, the words posted below stood out to me as being so powerful, that I couldn't resist posting them. Hopefully this will spark some more interest in the works of Chesterton. In The Everlasting Man, he writes:
...Atheism is abnormality. It is not merely the denial of a dogma. It is the reversal of a subconscious assumption in the soul; the sense that there is a meaning and a direction in the world it sees. Lucretius, the first evolutionist who endeavored to substitute Evolution for God, had already dangled before men's eyes his dance of glittering atoms, by which he conceived cosmos as created by chaos. But it was not his strong poetry or his sad philosophy, as I fancy, that made it possible for men to entertain such a vision. It was something in the sense of impotence and despair with which men shook their fists vainly at the stars, as they saw all the best work of humanity sinking slowly and helplessly into a swamp. They could easily believe that even creation itself was not a creation but a perpetual fall, when they saw that the weightiest and worthiest of all human creations was falling by its own weight. They could fancy that all the stars were falling stars; and that the very pillars of their own solemn porticos were bowed under a sort of gradual Deluge. To men in that mood there was a reason for atheism that is in some sense reasonable. Mythology might fade and philosophy might stiffen; but if behind these things there was a reality, surely that reality might have sustained things as they sank. There was no God; if there had been a God, surely this was the very moment when He would have moved and saved the world... 
It was the end of the world, and the worst of it was that it need never end... 
Nobody yet knows very clearly why that level world has thus lost its balance about the people in its midst; but they stand unnaturally still while the arena and the world seem to revolve round them. And there shone on them in that dark hour a light that has never been darkened; a white fire clinging to that group like an unearthly phosphorescence, blazing its track through the twilights of history and confounding every effort to confound it with the mists of mythology and theory; that shaft of life or lightning by which the world itself has struck and isolated and crowned it; by which its own enemies have made it more illustrious and its own critics have made it more inexplicable; the halo of hatred around the Church of God.1


1. G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man [Ignatius Press: San Francisco, CA; 2008; original edition published in 1925] pp. 162-165

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Beginning, Birth, & Exodus

As noted in a previous post (cf. Israel's Expectation, Sept. 2012), the opening genealogy of Matthew's gospel begins with God's promise about the "seed" of Abraham and the expectation of a promised Messiah to sit on the throne of Israel. Just as God's plan for His kingdom begins in Genesis with a promised "seed", so Matthew's Gospel begins with the fulfillment of that promised "seed", King Jesus, who brings a new beginning to the advancement and expansion of God's kingdom on earth.  But this is only the beginning of Matthew's gospel. This is only the launch pad from which his audience learns the nature of Jesus' mission.

Matthew is not interested in having the gospel of King Jesus remain in the narrative of Genesis. It's interesting what occurs immediately after Matthew's genealogy. Matthew first provides us with a story about a man named Joseph in whose dream the Lord speaks and directs to adopt Jesus as his own firstborn son; and then that narrative is followed by magi (foreign representatives of other nations), and then finally by Herod ordering the little children in Bethlehem to be killed.

Although many commentators focus mainly upon the birth narrative of Jesus in the opening chapters of Matthew and how it harmonizes with Luke's account, such a narrow focus is likely missing Matthew's main point. I recommend that before diving into a discussion about harmonizing the birth of Jesus with Luke's gospel, it's probably best to zoom out a bit and see the much larger picture being painted for Matthew's audience.


Remember, I have already discussed in previous posts the way Matthew's gospel begins and ends. It begins with Genesis and ends with the last book of the Hebrew Scriptures. In Matthew's eyes, that is the farthest his audience could "zoom out" to view the entire scope of his Gospel. But for now, in this post, I'm recommending that we only zoom out a little -- just enough to cover the first few chapters where we find explicit thematic and textual parallels between Israel's birth and Jesus' birth (i.e. as the Father's "firstborn son", Exod. 4:22; Hos. 11:1), and between Israel's exodus and Jesus' exodus.


Below is a list of parallel themes and textual indicators between the story of Jesus and the story of Israel. The majority of this information comes from Peter Leithart's thesis (as noted in earlier posts), but I have made a few modifications of my own below:


Matthew
1:1                          "Book of Beginnings" (biblos geneseos)                              
1:1-17                     Jesus, Son of Abraham                                                                                    
1:18-25                   Joseph the dreamer                                                                                                                
2:1-12                      Foreign Magi travel from east to west          
[2:6   Quotation from Micah 5:2-5a, which refers to Genesis 46:27]

2:13-15                    Herod orders young children to be killed
[2:14   Jesus is rescued + flees to fulfill Hosea 11:1, which reads: "Out of Egypt have I called my Son"]

3:1-12                      Announcement of judgment (by John the baptizer) + immanent judgment
3:13-17                    Jesus passes through waters
4:1-11                      Temptation in "wilderness" route
[4:7, 10   Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 6:16]
[Matt. 4:1-2   Jesus fasts for "forty days and forty nights"]

4:18-22                     Jesus calls disciples


Old Testament
Gen. 2:4; 5:1             "Book of Beginnings" (biblos geneseos)
Gen. 12-26                 Abraham and a promised son
Gen. 37                      Joseph the dreamer
Gen. 46:27                 Representatives of the nations travel from east to west
[Gen. 49:10   LXX & Syriac says "for he is the expectation of the nations."  The MT says "until Shiloh comes", but has a variant which reads: "until he comes to who it belongs."]

Exod. 1-2                    Pharaoh orders young children to be killed
[Exod. 2   Moses is rescued & flees]


Exod. 13:1-15:21        Exodus/Passing through waters
Exod. 15:22-17:16      Temptation in "wilderness" route
[Deut. 6:16   Description of Israel in Exod. 17:7]
[Exod. 24:12-18; 34:27-28   Moses fasts for "forty days and forty nights"]

Exod. 18                      Moses appoints rulers


And what do we find Jesus doing immediately after Matthew finishes this birth and "exodus" narrative?   We find Jesus ascending a mountain to receive God's Law and deliver it to the people of Israel, just as Moses did (cf. Exod. 19ff with Matt. 5-7).

These explicit literary connections (especially the quotation of Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:14) must be more intentional and calculated than what ordinarily meets the eye, and certainly much more than coincidence. And to a Palestinian Jewish audience, which myself and many scholars contend was Matthew's intended audience, there is no way this would have been viewed as merely coincidental.

What we learn from all of this is actually very important for understanding the rest of Matthew's gospel. In chapters one through seven Matthew portrays Jesus, using true historical facts of providence, as the greater "firstborn Son" of God. He is greater than Israel as a "son" because he is the faithful and obedient son par excellence; and Jesus is even greater than Moses because Moses was only a mediator of God's Law (and a sinful one at best), but Jesus is the actual lawgiver and source of Divine Law.



Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Incarnation & Sacrament


This book looks really good. 

For further information on what this book is about, download or stream the MP3 audio interview with author Jonathan Bonomo and Pastor Uri Brito of Providence Church, Pensacola Fl. 

Monday, September 17, 2012

Judges: Opening Structure

In The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi, David Dorsey outlines the first two opening sections of the book of Judges. Below is my own adaptation of Dorsey's outline:



First opening section:  Judges 1:1-2:51

A.  Optimistic opening assembly (1:1-2)
  • conquest of Canaan begins
  • obedient Israelites initiate positive communication with Yahweh
  • tribes prepare to conquer, with Yahweh's blessing (because of obedience)

               B.   Rise and fall of Israel's dominion in the promised land (1:3-36)
    1. Judah: seven victories (Bezek, Jerusalem, Hebron, Debir, Arad, Hormah, and region of Philistia)
    2. Benjamin: failure
    3. Joseph: one positive victory (Beth-el) and six failures
    4. Zebulun: failure
    5. Asher: failure
    6. Naphtali: failure
    7. Dan: failure

A'.  Ominous closing assembly (2:1-5)
  • conquest of Canaan ends
  • Yahweh initiate negative communication with disobedient Israelites
  • Yahweh will no longer help tribes conquer the land (because of disobedience)





Second section:  Judges 2:6-3:62

Optimistic opening remarks: Israel sets out to receive their inheritance; they serve Yahweh (2:6-9)

           
            A.  Sin of next generation (2:10-13)
    • contrasted with their fathers
    • served the Baals; worshipped other gods
    • went after other gods
    • occurred once; and they had an excuse ("they did not know")
                    
                    B.  Judgement: defeated by surrounding nations (2:14-15)
      • Yahweh was angry with Israel

Central Section: Yahweh's gracious intervention (2:16)


            A'. Sins of each successive generation (2:17-19)
    • contrasted with their fathers
    • served the Baals; worshipped other gods
    • went after other gods
    • not just once (but repeatedly); no excuse is given 
                      
                    B'.   Judgement: defeated by surrounding nations (2:20-3:4)
      • Yahweh was angry with Israel

Ominous closing remarks: Israel fails to receive their inheritance; they serve other gods (3:5-6)





1.  David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi [Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, MI; 2005] p. 106
2.  Ibid., p. 107

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Highest Communion


While preparing notes for a discussion about the incarnation, I ran across some outstanding observations by Karl Barth in his book, The Humanity of God. He writes:
God's high freedom in Jesus Christ is His freedom for love. The divine capacity which operates and exhibits itself in that superiority and subordination is manifestly also God's capacity to bend downwards, to attach Himself to another and this other to Himself, to be together with him. This takes place in that irreversible sequence, but in it is completely real. In that sequence there arises and continues in Jesus Christ the highest communion of God with man. God's deity is thus no prison in which he can exist only in and for Himself but also with and for us, to assert but also to sacrifice Himself, to be wholly exalted but also completely humble, not only almighty but also almighty mercy, not only Lord but also servant, not only judge but also Himself the judged, not only man's eternal king but also his brother in time. And all that without in the slightest forfeiting His deity! All that, rather, in the highest proof and proclamation of His deity! He who does and manifestly can do all that, He and no other is the living God. So constituted in His deity, the deity of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In Jesus Christ it is in this way operative and recognizable. If He is the Word of Truth, then the truth of God is exactly this and nothing else.1 


1.  Karl Barth, The Humanity of God [Westminster John Knox Press: Richmond, VA; 1960] pp. 48-49


Saturday, September 15, 2012

Opening Oddities


Now that my wife is home with our newborn son, our family schedule has changed a bit. Just a tiny bit though. Certainly nothing to get flustered about. One way in which it has changed is with the amount of time my wife now has to study God's Word, the history of the Church, and other related subjects she didn't have a whole lot of time to study before (working full-time).

When I got home from a long day of work three days ago, my wife told me that she picked up the book of Judges and started reading it carefully. This was a bit surprising because we've been studying John's gospel as a family for months, and also Matthew's gospel every week with a small-group of friends (for almost a full year), while at the same time attending another bible study (for months) on the book of Job; and now, all-of-a-sudden I come home to find that my wife is starting a new book: Judges. And of course, she wrote down questions to discuss with me when I got home from my busy day of work. Needless to say, my initial response to her question was probably not what she expected. "Seriously? The book of Judges?", I said with a somewhat-wearied, somewhat curious look on my face. "Couldn't you have picked an easier book to study right now?" Apparently she thought the book of Judges would have been one of my first picks, had I chosen a fourth book to study right now; and I suppose it would be if I wasn't currently so busy studying three other books simultaneously. And so, wondering what to do, we discussed what we could, shared our thoughts on the subject matter of the first chapter, and continued on with the remainder of that's days tasks. But there were a couple things that did strike us both as a bit odd at first glance -- certainly something worth looking into with more detail.

Here are the two things that struck us both as odd:

1)  Joseph is mentioned in the first chapter, but so are both of his sons who received his birthright. What was the author's purpose in mentioning all three, especially since Joseph's inheritance was technically replaced by his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen. 48)?

2)  Was the author intending to write a strict chronology throughout the book of Judges? The reason for asking this is because Judges 1:1-2 begins with the death of Joshua, but chapter two (2:6-10) also begins with Joshua's reign and another mention of his death.

After a bit of studying, I not only have answers to scratch both itching-spots of our curiosity, but I definitely feel like I have a better grasp on the book of Judges as a whole. And so, I'm pretty excited about starting book number four, and writing about it from time to time.

In order to answer question number one (above) -- why the author of Judges mentions Joseph and his two sons -- it's best to first recognize that something positive is only mentioned under Joseph's name. In 1:22-26, it is "the House of Joseph" that conquers Bethel (in the land of Canaan), which the reader is supposed to acknowledge as a positive event. But in the following verses -- the verses where Joseph's two sons are mentioned -- only negative comments are listed. In fact, after the only single, positive event mentioned about "the House of Joseph", there are six consecutive negative events listed (listing seven events total):

  1. "The House of Joseph" conquers Beth-el  (1:22-26)
  2. Manasseh fails to conquer Beth-shean  (1:27)
  3. Manasseh fails to conquer Taanach  (1:27)
  4. Manasseh fails to conquer Dor  (1:27)
  5. Manasseh fails to conquer Ibleam  (1:27)
  6. Manasseh fails to conquer Megiddo  (1:27-28)
  7. Ephraim fails to conquer Gezer  (1:29)1

According to this list, two things are emphatic: There is a victory by "the House of Joseph" worth mentioning and there is a definite decline within that "house" thereafter.

Because the tribe of Joseph was legally split into two tribes (Gen. 48), the description of victory for the "House of Joseph" describes both Manasseh and Ephraim together in an attempt to conquer Beth-el. When the house of Joseph is faithful, the Lord is with them (v. 22) and they are victorious. But when the house of Joseph is shown as unfaithful, the Lord removes His presence away from them. It is in these descriptions of unfaithfulness that the author describes the house of Joseph by the adopted tribal names of his sons, Manasseh and Ephraim.2

In order to answer question number two (above) -- whether the author intended to write a strict chronology of events -- it's important to recognize that the book of Judges opens up with two sections. The first section is chapter 1:1-2:5, and the second section is 2:6-3:6. The first opening section describes the rise and fall of Israel (after Joshua's death) in all their attempts to conquer the promised land of Canaan. The second opening section is a description of the rise and fall of Israel in their worship (after Joshua's death). So, in other words, the second section is a behind-the-scenes look at the sins which provoked the Lord greatly, the consequence of which was the Lord turning away from them in battle as they attempted to conquer the promised land. Each of the two opening sections begin by mentioning Joshua's death because both sections are mutually interpretive. The second section clarifies why the Lord removed His presence from certain tribes of Israel as they attempted to enter the promised land of Canaan.




1.  David A. Dorsey, The Literary Structure of the Old Testament: A Commentary on Genesis-Malachi [Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, MI; 2005] p. 106
2.  I am grateful for the many helpful insights of James Jordan concerning this section of Judges. See James B. Jordan, Judges: God's War Against Humanism [Geneva Ministries: Tyler, TX; 1985] pp. 15-18

Friday, September 14, 2012

Forbidden Fruit Syndrome



From time to time I can't sleep for long at night, and so I go into my library to read something I haven't read in a while. The choice is sometimes random, sometimes calculated. Last night it was random. I picked up Augustine's Confessions and soon remembered why that work remains classic:
In a garden nearby to our vineyard there was a pear tree, loaded with fruit that was desirable neither in appearance nor in taste. Late one night--to which hour, according to our pestilential custom, we had kept up our street games--a group of very bad youngsters set out to shake down and rob this tree. We took great loads of fruit from it, not for our own eating, but rather to throw it to the pigs; even if we did eat a little of it, we did this to do what pleased us for the reason that it was forbidden.1 
Surely, Lord, your law punishes theft, as does that law written on the hearts of men, which not even iniquity itself blots out. What thief puts up with another thief with a calm mind? Not even a rich thief will pardon one who steals from him because of want. But I willed to commit theft, and I did so, not because I was driven to it by any need, unless it were by poverty of justice, and dislike of it, and by a glut of evil-doing. For I stole a thing of which I had penty of my own and of much better quality. Nor did I wish to enjoy that thing which I desired to gain by theft, but rather to enjoy the actual theft and the sin of theft.  
Behold my heart, O Lord, behold my heart upon which you had mercy in the depths of the pit. Behold, now let my heart tell you what it looked for there, that I should be evil without purpose and that there should be no cause for my evil but evil itself. Foul was the evil, and I loved it. I loved to go down to death. I loved my fault, not that for which I did the fault, but I loved my fault itself. Base in soul was I, and I leaped down from your firm clasp even towards complete destruction, and I sought nothing from the shameful deed but shame itself!2

The line which strikes me the most is his admission that he didn't even enjoy pears.


1.  For those who have a copy of Augustine's Confessions, it is rather noticeable that I have rearranged the order of what Augustine originally recorded. The English translation which I used for this post includes three paragraphs total, but I begin with the second paragraph which Augustine originally wrote, followed by the first paragraph, before concluding with the third paragraph. My reason for this new arrangement is merely to bring out the occasion for this confession first, as that, in my mind, helps clarify things for an audience who may not be familiar with Augustine's writing style.
2.  St. Augustine, The Confessions of Saint Augustine (translation by John K Ryan) [Doubleday; New York, NY; 1960] pp. 69-70