OT (made simple): Something about Narrative 1

The bulk of the OT is made up of narratives or in story form (there are alot of sticky issues but lets not go there for the moment haha). But not that it has anything to do with fairy tales for that matter. A working definition for understanding OT narrative would be, stories with a particular intent with a "retelling of historical events of the past that are intended to have meaning and direction for a given people in the present."

As mentioned above, narratives tells about things of the past. One can divide narratives into three parts:

1. Character: protagonist (primary character), antagonist (conflict bringer), agonist (major character who gets involved in the struggle)
2. Plot
3. Plot Resolution

Now moving on to explaining plots, lets gain some perspective in understanding the basic plot of the biblical story.

1. God created people in his own image and thus they became his image bearers who were given stewardship of the earth which was created for their pleasure.
2. Enter the enemy, and what he did was made humans conform to his 'image' instead and thus made humans to become God's enemy.
3. Following this is the long story of redemption of how God rescues his people from the enemies clutches and restores them back to his image and then finally restores them to the new heavens and new earth.

OT: Reading with the modern mind or some other way?

I'm doing a course on Old Testament survey and we were in a discussion on whether it was possible, using our modern minds to exegete the text scientifically, that is reading the text with modern bearings, that the Israelites were able to cross the Red Sea (i'll not get into details about the Reed sea debate)?

Some scholars contend that the number of Israelites, if there were millions of them, it would be impossible for them to cross the Red sea in the space of hours but it might take a week for them to do so. (Sorry I haven't got the time to cite the references of where i got these facts. I'll probably do explanation when i have free time to spare)

But let me just pose a few questions on this. Should we use modern ways to read some portions or the whole of the Old Testament? Modern as in reading them in the way we read historical books now, where facts are studied and chosen and weighed to determine whether they are real or not.

For the moment though, I lean towards trying to understand the OT in the manner how someone in that particular era understood things. Take for example missionaries who come from developed countries and they work among tribal groups who live in the jungle. If the wanted to communicate Christianity with these people, do you think it necessary for them go tell these people about the original Greek language of a certain word, or talk to these people about science and religion? I think these people would be scratching their heads and wondering what on earth these missionaries are talking about.

I think it is more rewarding to read an ancient text, not to look too much into how they relate scientifically (although in some cases this is needed), or factually (in the manner of archaeological discoveries). Another way to appreciate the ancient text is also to read them in a way that we try to dig out their theological bearings or meanings. The bible is first and foremost, after all, a book telling us about God and his story.

Jesus' Return & Hell

Two blog posts that i found helpful, both written by Klyne Snodgrass on Jesus' return and hell. Here are some exerpts that should whet your appetite. 

Jesus and his Return

"...I like N. T. Wright’s recent book Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, And the Mission of the Church (HarperOne, 2008), but as with his earlier work Jesus and the Victory of God(Fortress, 1996), his view of Jesus’ eschatological teaching is unsatisfactory. In Surprised By Hope Wright states baldly that during his earthly ministry Jesus said nothing about his return. Did Wright confine himself to the Synoptics—if that were his intent—and ignore Johhn 14:3, 18, and 28?.... "

Jesus and Hell

"...My concern is to stress that we know far less from Scripture about "hell" than most Christians think. If asked if I believe in hell, I often respond that I believe in gehenna. Most NT writers never mention "hell" or even have much on judgment by fire. All of us know what the English word "hell" means, but that meaning derives from medieval sources (and Greco-Roman ideas) more than Scripture..."

Richard Hays speaks at the Junaluska Peace Conference, February 1, 2008

The God I Don't Understand- Chapter 1

Let's begin Chapter 1: The Mystery of Evil of Christopher Wright's book with some thoughts and reflection.

If you're into comics and superheroes, maybe some would agree with me that the first series of Batman movies (those that stared Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney) has to be said as a bad adaptation of a superhero character to the big screen. But come 'Batman Begins', I was totally blown away by the storyline. I especially like how Bruce Wayne evolved into the mysterious Batman. It was one of the ultimate origins story of a superhero adapted to the big screen and with that minimizes the mysterious character that superheroes have.

But as for evil as explained by C.H.Wright in his book, it's origin is somewhat difficult to pin point. I've heard people use texts like Isaiah 14:4-21 and Ezekiel 28:1-17 as reference points to how evil or rather Lucifer's fall from grace came about. On these two texts C.H.Wright says that "they were written originally to describe the defeat and death of historical human kings, and so it is a dubious exercise to build detailed doctrinal statements about the devil or the "underworld" upon them." (40) But although that may be the recurring fact about the two bible passages "they have a spiritual counterpart that is recognizably satanic." (40) For a more clearer description of Satan and his demons read Jude 6, 2 Peter 2:4 and Revelation 12:7-9.

So, what are we to make of trying to understand evil and let alone it's origin to get a better understanding on things? For C.H.Wright, "evil does not make sense. "Sense" is a part of our rationality that in itself is part of God's creation and God's image in us. So evil can have no sense, since sense itself is a good thing." (42) Evil is not something that has any part of anything God created so therefore evil is "an intruder, an alien presence that has made itself almost (but not finally) inextricably "at home"." (42) Because Evil is foreign it makes no sense and should stay at the point of making no sense.

I must admit that I am frustrated with not being able to understand evil and it's origin and especially when C.H.Wright tell us to park at the space where we simply embrace the fact that evil should not be understood and that it simply makes no sense. But I do see the wisdom in taking this slant to making amends to our brains that always seeks understanding.

C.H.Wright goes on to say that "...God...has chosen not to explain the orgin of evil, but rather wants to concentrate my attention on what he has done to defeat and destroy it." (43) But this does not negate our desperate emotions to ask deep and frustrating questions on the mystery of evil. We are all the more encouraged to do so.

Evil will always have the capacity to pry our emotions out in the open but we are to take comfort that we are not meant to understand it but to work with God in trusting what he did and what he is doing to defeat it.

S. F. R. J. (Thoughts & Reflections) Chp 1: Joining Mary at the Feet of Jesus

Just so you know, the initials S.F.R.J stands for 'Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus'. So the time you see these initials you will know that these particular posts are ongoing discussions, reflections and thoughts on that particular book.

This chapter sets the frame on two Jewish understandings on the use of these sentences ‘sitting at his feet’ as well as ‘anointing’ (in this case Mary anointing Jesus). Using these two examples, the authors are communicating to us the importance of studying Jesus in his Jewish context. It is interesting for them to use Mary to open up the pathway of following this rabbi named Jesus and subsequently framing the depiction of discipleship to Jesus the Messiah in the two sentences I mentioned above.

Take ‘sitting at his feet’ for example:

“If we were first-century visitors, we would have recognized the significance of something else in that story. It was customary for rabbis to sit on low pillows or chairs while they were teaching. Their disciples would sit on the ground or on mats around them. That’s how the phrase “sit at his feet” became and idiom of for learning from a rabbi…So when Mary was described as “sitting at Jesus’ feet”, she was being described as a disciple.” (14)

Without the Jewish understanding of this particular sentence 'sit at his feet' we miss something profound and essential. A simple understanding would just depict Mary as an avid listener or willing to hear Jesus teach. These understandings might be right but coupled with Jewish eyes, the words that were once simplistic and had some sort of mundane imagery turns into a rather enlightened portrayal; discipleship.

...as well as ‘anointing’:
“By anointing him (Jesus) with expensive fragrances, Mary may well have been making a statement about who she believed Jesus was, proclaiming him as Messiah.” (16)

Anointing was clearly framed to Jews on occasions where kings and priest were put into office. It is interesting to observe that the authors link Jesus’ riding the donkey and his anointing in parallel with Solomon’s episode in 1 Kings 1:38-40. It is explained that the fragrance of Jesus being anointed by Mary would have lasted for days and that his fragrance was surely evident wherever he went. Jesus smelled like royalty. (18)

These depictions are fascinating because without cultural background of first-century Judaism, these insights would never have popped up to the imagination. Something that the authors were able to convince us at the beginning of the chapter is that there is a growing need of reading and understanding scripture in the light of its first-century background. Thinking through this chapter arouses my curiosity back again to the gospels and the deconstruction of what we have always thought certain passages meant.

There is a list of the online conversation discussing the book. Click here to see the other blogs that are discussing about the book!

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus (Thoughts & Reflections) Introduction

Let me begin by thanking Lois Tverberg (co-author of "Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus") for being gracious enough to send me a copy of the book (especially when I'm in Malaysia, that is a considerable great distance from the States!) and giving me the opportunity to blog about it! A special shout out to Kurt as well over at Groans From Within who was thoughtful enough to recommend my blog as a possible reviewer of the book. Do follow his discussion of the book over at his blog:

Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus Intro; Can we find a more Jewish Jesus?
Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus 1; Do You have the 'anointin'?

Today I will start to do a blow by blow reflection as well as some thoughts on each chapter of the book. So if you have the time, join in the conversation. Your comments will be greeted with open arms. If you haven't been following, I have already done a review of the book here on my blog which you can see here.

Thoughts and Reflection

One of the things that has bothered me whenever I read the gospels before was the puzzling effect that it had on my mind. This has been a lifelong (well maybe not lifelong, i just tend to exaggerate sometimes) struggle for me from time to time. I had a hard time reading the Sermon on the Mount because it seemed to run counter with Paul's gospel. At some points Jesus seemed a far more striker Lord then some might want him to be; 'meek and mild'.

At points I simply get frustrated with Jesus' parables and sayings, simply foreign. Foreign might be an understatement but, foreign might be a better description for labeling Jesus' words. Why foreign? Because Jesus lived in a time when our values did not exist. He lived in a cultural background that had different thought patterns than what we might have now. Another factor to the foreignness of Jesus is, his nationality; he was a Jew.

In the introduction page, the authors says that,“The goal of this book is not so much to help you understand Judaism as to help you hear Christ’s life-changing words with greater clarity and force.” (8) With this, one could come to the conclusion that studying Jesus' Jewishness brings together clarity and force to words that would have been lifeless or sounded clueless to our ears. But some people might cringe to this proposal. Take these quotes from Piper in his book "The Future of Justification" on sources bearing in mind Jesus' cultural context,

"...the interpreter may misunderstand the first-century idea." (34)

"...while it may accurately reflect certain first-century documents, nevertheless it may reflect only one among many first-century views." (35)

"...while the New Testament writer may embrace the external idea in general, a scholar might misapply it to the biblical text." (36)

The overall view is that it is simply impossible to reach a consensus on what is true of Jesus' first-century context and therefore the probability of distorting the text is considered high. Though I am aware of the difficulty of this should navigating our way to clearly understand God's words in the context of his chosen people deter us from taking the plunge? Lois and Ann continue on to say that,

“We have also been careful to place Jesus within his first century Jewish context rather than that of later ages. We hope the end result will be of help to pastors, students, and lay people who find their reading of the bible all the more fascinating and life transforming as they come to appreciate and understand the Jewish context that shaped it.” (8)

For me, based on Lois and Ann's findings which they have projected in the book, their take on Jesus' first-century background is refreshing breath of fresh air. Although those who might be curious to find out where they got their sources could look up the page on the books that they researched through. I would not go as far as saying that they have covered all the bases on first century issues because i'm not an expert in this field yet (hopefully someday) but there is a degree of humility resonating all throughout the book.

To conclude this post, Jesus' Jewish context might be a new field of study, but non the less a minefield you might want to look at seriously simply for the fact that clarity abides there. This calls for a restructuring in how we used to view Jesus. For me personally, understanding Jesus in his Jewishness makes things more clearer.

A verse for everything?

There have been times when people have asked pastors, "Where can I find a verse for when I'm facing an exam?" or "Is there a specific verse for me getting retrenched from my work?" or "Is there a verse for me to find a wife/husband?" and with those questions some go and look for these verses and give these people answers to their question.

Some bibles even come with verse support system for time like when we are worried, in fear, sad, lonely and that's just to name a few. Sometimes it feels like the bible is a book where we get answers to specific issues in life. I wonder what verse would be fitted to questions pertaining the Internet.

While the intent might be a genuine thought of wanting to apply the bible to life, this is somewhat a faulty way for us to read the bible. We take verses out of context and that will eventually lead to a degree of distortion. So if the bible is not supposed to be read in this manner, do you have any perspective on how we are to read the bible?

Are you kidding me????

I've heard my fair share of bad exegesis of the text being expounded in a sermon but I simply can't tolerate this type of teaching. This is simply way off the mark. And to make it worse, why are people clapping?

The Prodigal Son- Explained by Kenneth E. Bailey

Some important cultural context in which we should consider when we interpret this parable. Good stuff.

Bible and Alcohol

This is quite an interesting post by Scot McKnight. Something that I have been thinking about myself but didn't have the courage to pursue my thoughts on the blog. Lets just say that I take the position of this professor. So if you haven't read it already, here I am directing your attention to it.

Faith-Sacrifice-Testing-Faith

I have been really slacking on two post series that i started (one on Peter Enns book and the other one on Virgin Birth). Sometimes you do something and the emotional pull of things that happen around you hits like a wave. At these times I'm pretty glad that i could still gather some thoughts here and there. If I'm lucky, i can think straight and come up with some worthy thinking on a post, well at least worthy to me that is.

Stuck in a rut at the moment and it really is draining my energy. Sometimes i wonder how Abraham does it. His walk of faith is remarkable not to mention the strain of years. I'm reading through Eugene Peterson's "The Jesus Way" and the chapter on Abraham is pretty amazing (although i had trouble reading the chapter on Moses. Really messed with my head. Anyone read the book? I could use your insights here.).

Let me quote some profound stuff that I read on Abraham chapter

"Untested faith does not yet qualify for faith." (57)

"The test is the catalyst in which our response to god, the raw material of faith, is formed into a life of faith. Or not. If the test dissolves whatever we were calling faith into romanticized sludge or pietistic ooze, we are blessedly rid of what will dissipate our life in self-deception."(57)

In other words, faith to be faith must be tested to examine the quality. Testings purify or more likely, sheds the unnecessary ounces that we gather to be faith. I really like what is said here. But it is another thing if we are to embody this sort of thinking. I would add another thing though. Maturity in faith is spelled 'Trust'. After all the sacrifices and testing going on and purging faith, or what you though faith was, the refines fire works through and yields a life of trust. Sometimes there is a slight wish that mature faith or trust to yield its fruit in an instant. I would like it that way. Wouldn't all of us?

The road from infant faith to maturity in faith is laden with sacrifices and testings, the things that happen in the in between of life. But yet, after we have arrived to maturity in faith, we stary another journey again. The only difference is we dont really have to struggle between the goads too much.

At the end of the chapeter Peterson brings up this line

Lk 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

My initial response now would be, "Lord increase my faith." But I know he would just say, "It's not about me increasing your faith, it's about you discovering it." I'd like to think that's what he would say.

The View from the Mastaba

This article by Gary M. Burge on how the cultural context of the gospels colors our reading of the NT, in this case the Gospels, is a good reminder to us on the how we labor through find the meaning of the text with regards to what we are to consider as solid historical/cultural facts. As daunting as the task, it is nonetheless rewarding. Burge mentions a splendid book; "Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes:Cultural Studies in the Gospels" by Kenneth E. Bailey, which is on my bookshelf. I haven't gone through it yet though. Hope you will benefit from the article.

Lenses

I'm beginning to see that we read the bible with many types of lenses. I say this because Piper just can't see eye to eye on Wright's way of reading the bible. Both of them have valid points, its just that I've out grown the reformed lens of reading and understanding the Bible.

I also think that as we journey in our lives our reading of the bible also takes on a journey together with us. It make me wonder, what if I had never grown tired of reading using reformed lenses, would I still come to the same conclusions now in the way I read the bible? There is a big chance I would just stay 'reformed'.

With this comes other questions again. What made me tired of reading the bible in Piper's dimension? Was it the curiosity element? I mean there are some people who like to learn new stuff and posture their minds in that direction. But then I'm not saying that we are swept away easily by various trends. In a big way, we reason through and wrestle this new wave. Thinking, "I wonder how will this work out?"

But with this new lens in motion, brooding it's growth in me, it's pretty difficult to present this new way of reading the bible to people. My recent attempts in lending N. T. Wright's "Surprised by Hope" has been met by some disapproval, but thankfully not the heresy kind of vibe. Is reading the bible taking Wright's lens in taking the Jewish context seriously new? Maybe, to some degree.

But right now people are still happy, reading Piper (to some degree), Rich Warren (at an elevated level) and people who write about their heaven infused visitation (these books sell like hot cakes!).

Red alert...it's not biblical...or so it seems.

I once heard someone in church say something like this:

"There is nowhere in the bible that talks about us having a joint account."

Obviously this person thinks that we should treat the bible as a law on what we can do and what we cannot do. In this case we are guilty of acquiring microphones for our speakers because we don't find Jesus and his apostles adjusting their mics before they spoke. I'm just weary that people can stoop so low in their handling of the bible, and this is from a leader.

Let us just be clear of something here. The bible does not talk about everything in life. Notice that it was originally written in a certain context, addressing a certain group of people on issues pertaining to their day. But with that on the side the bible is the source book on our faith. Our reflections on scripture are interpretations of the ancient text on what they meant and after that seeking application of this pathway.

With that on the side, it is simply off the mark to tell someone not to watch television because Jesus never talked about TV. Or, we are not to travel by air on an airplane because it is not biblical and the bible only talks about traveling on foot and by ships. Or, it is not biblical that we have a worship band or worship leaders because we don't find this in the NT.

Remember that not everything that the bible does not mention is a reason for us to say "it is not biblical and therefore we cannot do this". It simply might be context wise or the world we are living in now.

So get your interpretation right. Please.

4 or 5 point pamphlets or the whole biblical narrative

An excerpt from Donald Miller's "Searching for God Knows What";

"Earlier the same year I had a conversation with my friend Omar, who is a student in a local college. For his humanities class, Omar was assigned to read the majority of the Bible. He asked to meet me for coffee, and when we sat down he put a bible on the table as well as a pamphlet containing the same five or six ideas Greg had mentioned. He opened the pamphlet, read the ideas, and asked if these concepts were important to the central message of Christianity. I told Omar they were critical; that, basically, this was the gospel of Jesus, the back bone of Christian faith. Omar then opened the bible and asked, "If these ideas are so important, why aren't they in this book?"
"But the scripture references are right here,"I said curiously, showing to Omar that the verses were printed next to each idea.
"I see that," he said. "But in the bible they aren't concise like they are in this pamphlet. They are spread out all over the book."
"But this pamphlet are the summations of the ideas," I clarified.
"Right," Omar continued, "but it seems like, if these if these ideas are that critical, God would have taken the time to make bullet points out of them. Instead he put some of them here and some of them there. And half the time, when Jesus is talking, he is speaking entirely in parables. It is hard to believe that whatever it is He is talking about can be summed up this simply." " (p 152)

You can go to seminary too...for free

Calling all christian leaders, church members, youths and anyone interested (or those curious). If I were to make this call specifically, to all Mirians to be precise! I have been going through this website, "Biblical Training", and it is simply a breath of relief. Why so?

One of the problems we have in churches all around Miri is the lack of biblical literacy and knowledge, and this is never ever a good thing. I'm not saying that we need to be scholars. What we do need is to be at least informed. It is a pity in this day and age with all the biblical knowledge at the mercy of our finger tips (and some are even free!) Christians simply shrug off being knowledgeable of their faith. I have heard of people saying, "Theology are for pastors, not the people in the pew. All we need are straight to the point sermons with application. We want something relevant to real life." To me, hearing statements like this makes me sad.

Another problem that I see is on Christian teaching. There are many teachers of the bible but not all are biblical in their presentations and teachings. If people sitting in the pews simply gulping all the teaching that they hear because they simply trust that whosoever is standing at the pulpit is teaching 100% accurate word of God without discernment or 'some proper biblical knowledge', I can say that 90% of the time people are going to subscribe any form of biblical teaching.

My plea here is not to say that if we have some form of biblical study we will get things right all of the time but a plea that we become people who know enough to help us grow as well as discern what is good. Take this verse for example

Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

One of the things we cal see here is that these Bereans, although taking Paul's teachings with great delight they were weighing Paul the Apostle's teaching whether it was in line with scripture! If people during the days when the apostles were still alive did this, should this responsibility not be on us as well?

Anyway rants on the side, visit Biblical Training and sign in for free, as well as learn from seasoned scholars for free as well (such as Craig Blomberg, Bill Mounce, John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, Robert Stein and many more).

Reading, Studying, Reflecting, Meditating...and now Listening to James

These few days have been a constant 'dark night of the soul' kind of experience. I think I will be taking a break from blogging until the storm has resided. My thoughts are fluctuating like waves and it is sort of hard to maneuver concrete and meaningful ideas. I'm going through the epistle of James these few days. Blame Scot McKnight's blog for my fascination in this epistle. James has not had a fair hearing amongst people (namely because of the being justified by work issues). Well I used to be one of those people, struggling with this epistle. Here is James being read using the NET bible version Chapter 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Or simply go to this site.

The Possibility of Faithful Exegesis without Historical/ Linguistic Knowledge?

I have been struggling with this issue at hand for a couple of years now. I think I started thinking of this when I was in the middle of my studies in bible school.

Is there a possibility/ any possibility that one can do proper exegesis/ interpretation of the biblical text if one does not have any or has limited knowledge of the historical background and the original language of the biblical text?

How important is the Virgin Birth? (2)

This is a reflection of N. T. Wright's explanation of the Virgin Birth in the book he co-authored with Marcus J. Borg entitled "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions", found in chapter 11 (pg 171-178).

Far too much attention is given towards Jesus' birth than "it's role in the New Testament warrants". A song noted by Wright simply says "Man will live forevermore because of Christmas Day", a song popularized by Bony M (if I am not mistaken), further enhances Wright's argument. According to the NT however it is the explanation of "Calvary, Easter and Pentecost" which looms as the highlight of New Testament theology. It is not possible to construct a meaningful NT theology minus the death and resurrection.

In the NT, the virgin birth account can only be found in Matthew and Luke but nowhere in Mark and John. The rest of the NT writers did not bother to mention it to support the understanding that Jesus is divine or is the Messiah who is to come. As Wright notes, "One can be justified by faith with no knowledge of it."

According to Wright "it has become a test case in various controversies" noting arguments such as accepting miracles, biblical truth, views of sexuality and incarnation being cases made for the authoritative case for the virgin birth. Wright being ever so right, nails these test cases of their freedom to fly by stating, "None of these arguments bears much relation to what either Matthew or Luke actually say."

It seems like these test cases are just vain reflections of authoritative fallacy. Which brings us to the question of 'what does Matthew and Luke actually say?'. The next post will deal on this issue.