Wanna Avoid Being a Job's Comforter? Study Hermeneutics!

The title of this blog is two-pronged: (1) "Excerpts" (2) "Unoriginal Thoughts." So far, I have posted only excerpts: ideas that come directly from other people. This post will serve as my first sharing of an unoriginal thought--ideas that come indirectly from other people after being filtered through my mind, personality, and experience (both first-hand and vicarious). The words of C.J. Mahaney also apply to me: "I've never had an original thought" (Tilly disagrees with me on this, but she's wrong. :-) )

This unoriginal thought comes from my final exam in Dr. Robert Plummer's hermeneutics class. Hermeneutics is the study of how to interpret the Bible. I took this class in the Fall of 2009. Since then, Dr. Plummer has published his own book on hermeneutics called 40 Questions about Interpreting the Bible (which I own if anyone wants to borrow it). This was apparently question number 7 on the exam. The question was:

(7) “Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.”  I recently received an email from an old friend who told me to “claim the promise” of this verse.  Is this a correct way to think about this text? (10 points)

To which I responded:

I’m sure the friend meant well, and his or her trust in the truth of God’s word is admirable. However, before we go “claiming any promises,” we must first ask the question, “Is this a promise?”

We must keep in mind that the Bible contains many literary genres, such as historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, and apocalypse. Each genre has different rules for how we are to interpret it. So in order to interpret any passage properly, we must know what genre it belongs to and how to interpret that genre.

The answer to the question “Is this a promise?” is actually “No.” This verse belongs to the genre (and book) known as “proverbs.” Proverbs are not promises that hold true in every instance, but instead are short, pithy sayings that convey general truths. For example, when one proverb counsels us to “answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you become like him,” it does not mean that we should never answer a fool, because the very next verse tells us to “answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” Neither proverb is an absolute statement that applies in every case. Both are appropriate at given times, just as both are inappropriate at given times. Deciding which proverb applies requires wisdom. As I said, proverbs are short, pithy sayings. In order to remain short and pithy, however, they can't go into the exceptions; they simply state the rule. In this case, as a rule, if you raise a child properly, he will turn out well. But this does not guarantee that that will happen in every case.

In a similar example, there are proverbs that talk about how prosperity comes from hard work and poverty comes from laziness. Again, this is generally true, but this does not mean that all poverty comes from laziness, or that if someone is poor he must be lazy. Scripture often speaks of poor people who are righteous. If we were to interpret these proverbs as promises, we would end up acting like Job’s miserable comforters toward all poor people, telling them that they must have sinned or been lazy, otherwise they wouldn’t be poor. In the same way, we can easily become Job’s comforters toward Christian parents with wayward children if we misconstrue this proverb as a promise, telling them that they must have failed in some way, since the Bible promises that if you train up a child in the way he should go then he will not turn from it."    

Digging Up Buried Treasure

“We have been instructed by faith to recognize that whatever we need and whatever we lack is in God, and in our Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the Father has willed all the fullness of his bounty to abide so that we may all draw from it as from an overflowing spring. It remains for us to seek in him, and in prayers to ask of him, what we have learned to be in him. Otherwise, to know God as the master and bestower of all good things, who invites us to request them of him, and still not go to him and not ask of him—this would be of as little profit as for a man to neglect a treasure, buried and hidden in the earth, after it had been pointed out to him...It is therefore, by the benefit of prayer that we reach those riches which are laid up for us with the Heavenly Father. For there is a communion of men with God by which, having entered the heavenly sanctuary, they appeal to him in person concerning his promises in order to experience, if necessity so demands, that what they believed was not vain, although he had promised it in word alone. Therefore we see that to us nothing is promised to be expected from the Lord which we are not also bidden to ask of him in prayers. We dig up by prayer the treasures that were pointed out by the Lord’s gospel, and which our faith has gazed upon.” 

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (1559 A.D.)

Stein on the Person of Jesus

Chapter 10- "The Person of Jesus: 'Who Then is This That Even the Wind and the Sea Obey Him?"

"At times Jesus performed certain actions that were the exclusive prerogative of God. When Jesus forgave the sins of a paralytic, the scribes protested: 'Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?' (Mark 2:7). Similarly, when he forgave a woman of her sins, some of those present responded: 'Who is this that even forgives sins?' (Luke 7:49). Attempts have made to interpret these actions ('your sins are forgiven') as examples of 'divine passives'--a reverent way of avoiding the name of God by using the passive. The words of Jesus, according to this view, should be interpreted 'God has forgiven you of your sins,' rather than 'I personally have forgiven you of your sins.' It is evident that neither Mark nor Luke understood these sayings in this manner.

Nor did Jesus' audience understand his words in this way, for they were greatly upset. They all believed that Jesus was exercising a prerogative belonging to God alone. The accounts furthermore do not give the slightest hint that Jesus sought to explain to his opponents that they misunderstood his action. There is no hint of Jesus saying, 'You have misunderstood me. I was simply using the 'divine passive' and stating that God had forgiven him/her.' The gospel accounts clearly portray Jesus as consciously exercising a divine prerogative and personally forgiving sins."

***********************************************************************

"Unlike John the Baptist, the ministry of Jesus was typified by miracles. Thirty-four separate miracles are performed by Jesus in the Gospel accounts...One cannot read the Gospel accounts without the question arising, 'Who is this man who is master of nature, disease, and even death?' In Jesus' actions people saw a bold claim to a unique authority. Even as the prince dressed a pauper unconsciously revealed who he was by his behavior, so Jesus, despite his modest dress and occupation, revealed his understanding of who he was by his actions." 

 

Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah 

They Don't Realize They're Future Meat

Dr. Russell Moore is the Dean of the School of Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, where I am headed in a few short weeks. This comes from his excellent book Tempted and Tried. 

“The first question the devil asked [Jesus] was a hidden one, wrapped in the first clause of an offer: ‘If you are the Son of God…’ This is precisely the opening salvo the demonic powers launch to this very day. The factory farm wants the cows to see themselves as pets or as companions, or simply as ‘free’ and alone. What they don’t want the cattle to recognize is that they are future meat. Identity confusion is the reason people are able to affirm one thing and do another. And it’s the reason more worldview training on how to think like a Christian doesn’t stop people from wrecking their lives. 

Most people don’t ‘choose’ fiery tempers of alcoholic binges or torturing prisoners of war or exploiting Third World workers or dumping toxic chemicals into their community’s water supply. Most people don’t first conclude that adultery is right and then start fantasizing about their neighbor swinging from a stripper pole. Most people don’t first learn to praise gluttony and then start drizzling bacon grease over their second helping of chicken-fried steak. It happens in reverse. First, you do what you want to do, even though you ‘know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die’ and only then do you ‘give approval to those who practice them’ (Romans 1:32). You start to see yourself as either special or as hopeless, and thus the normal boundaries don’t seem to apply.” 

Russell Moore, “Tempted and Tried” (p. 36)  

http://www.amazon.com/Tempted-Tried-Temptation-Triumph-Christ/dp/1433515806/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321620822&sr=1-1

David Brooks on Politics and Prudence

I have yet to post any political excerpts on this fledgling blog. But there's a first time for everything. This excerpt comes from one of my personal favorite columnists, the New York Times' David Brooks. He wrote it back in July in the midst of the government shutdown crisis, and was lamenting the fact that (in his opinion) the Republicans missed their chance to make positive progress toward their goals because they were unwilling to compromise. He proceeded to give a taxonomy of the species of conservatives whom he believes obstruct progress toward conservative goals. I'm not sure if I agree with him on all the details (I don't follow politics closely enough to judge), but I agree with his overall view of the nature of the political process. So yes. Here's Brooks' taxonomy of imprudent conservatives:

The Beltway Bandits. American conservatism now has a rich network of Washington interest groups adept at arousing elderly donors and attracting rich lobbying contracts. For example, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform has been instrumental in every recent G.O.P. setback. He was a Newt Gingrich strategist in the 1990s, a major Jack Abramoff companion in the 2000s and he enforced the no-compromise orthodoxy that binds the party today. 

Norquist is the Zelig of Republican catastrophe. His method is always the same. He enforces rigid ultimatums that make governance, or even thinking, impossible. 

The Big Government Blowhards. The talk-radio jocks are not in the business of promoting conservative governance. They are in the business of building an audience by stroking the pleasure centers of their listeners. 

They mostly give pseudo Crispin’s Day speeches to battalions of the like-minded from the safety of the conservative ghetto. To keep audience share, they need to portray politics as a cataclysmic, Manichaean struggle. A series of compromises that steadily advance conservative aims would muddy their story lines and be death to their ratings. 

The Show Horses. Republicans now have a group of political celebrities who are marvelously uninterested in actually producing results. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann produce tweets, not laws. They have created a climate in which purity is prized over practicality. 

The Permanent Campaigners. For many legislators, the purpose of being in Congress is not to pass laws. It’s to create clear contrasts you can take into the next election campaign. It’s not to take responsibility for the state of the country and make it better. It’s to pass responsibility onto the other party and force them to take as many difficult votes as possible. 

All of these groups share the same mentality. They do not see politics as the art of the possible. They do not believe in seizing opportunities to make steady, messy progress toward conservative goals. They believe that politics is a cataclysmic struggle. They believe that if they can remain pure in their faith then someday their party will win a total and permanent victory over its foes. They believe they are Gods of the New Dawn. 

Fortunately, there are still practical conservatives in the G.O.P., who believe in results, who believe in intelligent compromise. If people someday decide the events of the past weeks have been a debacle, then practical conservatives may regain control."  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/opinion/19brooks.html?ref=davidbrooks

Stein on the Message of Jesus Part 2

"To understand Jesus' ethical teachings, we must recognize that his teachings on ethical behavior are intimately connected to the coming of the kingdom of God. Since the God of the kingdom is the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and the prophets, we should expect continuity with the ethical teachings God gave to his people in the Old Testament. Those teachings stem from the moral character of God himself. As a result, ethical holiness in the new covenant corresponds with the ethical holiness in the old. Yet with the coming of the kingdom the attainment of that holiness has been enhanced because of the 'already.' With the coming of the kingdom of God, the 'childhood' of the old covenant gives way to the maturity of 'adulthood' in the new. Thus certain teachings concerning clean/unclean give way to the freedom (and responsibility) found in the new covenant (Gal. 4:1-7). Whereas this was alluded to in germ form by Jesus (Mark 7:12-23), it would become clearer to the church after the resurrection (Rom. 14:1-23; Acts 10-11).

********************************************************************

"The ministry of Jesus was marked by the announcement that something new was taking place. The day awaited and longed for had arrived. The promises of the Old Testament were being fulfilled. The kingdom of God had come. This new day brought with it such joy and excitement that fasting was inappropriate. It was rather a time for celebration (Mark 2:18-19).

A new covenant was inaugurated. Yet this new covenant was not a repudiation of the past covenant, but its fulfillment. It involved not a new religion or movement but the fuller realization of the covenant God made long before with the people of Israel. Unlike Marcion and some later church leaders, Jesus did not see the coming of the kingdom of the kingdom as a repudiation of the covenant God made with Israel. Nor, as some would later argue, did he understand the new covenant as identical with the earlier one. The fact that he called it 'new' (1 Cor. 11:25) reveals this.

The coming of the kingdom brought with it a certain sameness, for the God of the new covenant was the same as the God of the old covenant. The same God was worshiped in both, although a new intimacy was apparent in the use of the title Abba. The same ethic that stems from the character of the unchangeable God is found in both, although the deeper intention of that ethic and a new empowering is now present. Paradoxically the ethic Jesus taught was both the same and different, old and new!"

Robert Stein, Jesus the Messiah

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Messiah-Survey-Life-Christ/dp/0830818847/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321563803&sr=1-1

 

 

 

"God, Please Help it Not to be Our House"

This excerpt is from a great book on prayer by Paul Miller.

“The church’s tendency toward unnatural spirituality has been further influenced in recent years by our culture’s embrace of Buddhist spirituality. In Buddhism you become enlightened and reach nirvana when you stop desiring. Thus Buddhist monks repeat “om” mindlessly to themselves in an attempt to become one with the all. The goal is the suppression of desire.

Jesus could not be more different. Read the gospels and you’ll discover a passionate, feeling man. Thank God we have a Savior who is in touch with the real world, who prays that he will not drink the cup of his Father’s wrath, who cries out on a rough wooden cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Jesus neither suppresses his feelings nor lets them master him. He is real.

It is perfectly natural to pray, ‘God, please help whomever’s house is on fire. Keep them safe, and help it not to be our house.’ You are honest with your desire and loving at the same time. If you are sinking on the Titanic, you pray ‘God, get me a place in a lifeboat,’ and then you put all your energy into helping other people get on. Desire and surrender are the perfect balance to praying.”
Paul Miller, A Praying Life