Ancestry of the King James Version #2: Mythology, Archaeology & Translation

Greetings from the land of Saguaros and Scorpions. The following post, my second, continues my series on translations in honor of the 400th birthday of the King James Version (See HERE for #1). The KJV was a remarkable work of scholarship for its day but it was not and is not above criticism or improvement. This post reflects some of the conversations I have had on the weaknesses of the KJV as recently as yesterday. What I say is not to be construed as a put down on the king's men in 1611 for they were the first to recognize that others would one day improve on their work. Rather I want to show, briefly, how archeology has continued to help us understand the language of the Bible better.

The advance of knowledge in the Hebrew and Greek languages has more than sustained the proposition that contemporary translations like the NIV, NRSV and ESV are in a much better position for accurate translation than the KJV. A long list of discoveries has made this possible. In this post I will list numerous examples where discoveries in archeology in the 19th and 20th century have taught us the meanings of Hebrew and Greek words more accurately -- thus having a better translation of God's word. But first a . . .

Quotable Quote from Alexander Campbell

"The labors bestowed upon the original text, . . . the great advances made in the whole science of hermeneutics . . . since the commencement of the present century [19th], fully justify the conclusion that we are, or may be, much better furnished for the work of interpretation than any one, however gifted by nature and by education could have been, not merely fifty but almost two hundred and fifty years ago. The living critics and translators of the present day, in Europe and America, are like Saul amongst the people -- head and shoulders above those of the early part of the seventeenth century." (Alexander Campbell, Address to the American Bible Union Convention, 1852, pp. 583-584).

Archaeology Debunks the KJVs Addiction to Mythology

The proof of Campbell's statement (made 28 years after his production of the Living Oracles) is seen in the following examples. In the area of linguistics, especially in the Hebrew Bible, the modern scholar -- towers over the king's translators (not a claim to more intelligence just more and better info!). Objects formerly simply guessed at have now been identified (see Ex. 25.29; 37.16; Num. 4.7; Lev. 26.30; Isa. 17.8; 27.9; Ezek. 6.4 in the KJV and the RSV/NRSV or NIV). Many kinds of animals were simply unknown to the King's men so they supplied mythological names to these creatures of God. We see this mythological strand running throughout the Hebrew Bible of the KJV: Satyrs (Isa 13.21), Dragons (Job 30.29), Unicorns (Deut. 33.17), cockatrices (Isa 14.29), all of these animals are now known and translated properly and accurately (see the NIV in each case). What these men thought, in 1611, was "sapphire," is now known to refer to "lapis lazuli."

The same has happened in the NT as well. Regardless of the text type used, we now know Greek much better than in 1611. The papyri -- which revealed the world of koine Greek to modern scholars -- has taught us this. Just one example. The verb kapeleuo in 2 Corinthians 1.17. This is rendered in the KJV as, "For wee [sic] are not as many which corrupt the word of God . . ." The ASV also translates kapeleuo in this manner.

Here is an example where advancement in knowledge, not a change of text, has resulted in a more accurate translation. In 1611 they never dreamed of the papyri buried in the sands of Egypt and 1881 they were still a decade away from the fabulous discoveries. The verb kapeleuo occurs quite frequently in the papyri. Moulton and Milligan (The Vocabulary of the New Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources) tell us that the verb means to "trade" or "sell." The noun form being used in the sense of "dealer" or a "peddler" of wares (like a used car dealer). This knowledge simply was unavailable in 1611 nor 1881. Thus when we pick up the NRSV or the NIV it should surprise none that we find this fine (and accurate!) translation of kapeleuo :

"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit . . ." (NIV).

Interestingly the ASV anticipated this rendering by suggesting it in the footnote. Today we know that the footnote was correct. Other examples of this kind of movement to an accurate translation (that is rooted in the benefits of archeology) are in Matt. 28.1; Acts 19.16; Phil 4.18; 1 Thess. 5.14, etc.

I for one thank almighty God that he -- in his good grace and mercy -- has allowed us the good fortune to see his word with more clarity. The NIV is clearly more accurate in all of these places. The words of Campbell ring more true today than he could ever have imagined.

A good book like Adolf Deismann's classic Light from the Ancient East contains literally hundreds of examples of what we are talking of. Aren’t we glad that mythology has been sent back to the books on Greek gods rather than in the word of God.

Read More

Ancestry of the King James Version #1: KJV: A Literal Translation?

The year 2011 will witness the 400th anniversary of the publication of what is commonly called the King James Version. It was a major milestone in 1611 and its shadow continues to fall across English speaking Christendom. Throughout the coming months I hope to blog on various themes related to the history of the English bible from various angles. The history of the bible combines numerous areas that have long fascinated me: church history, Hebrew and Greek languages, biblical interpretation and the like. Tonight I begin with some thoughts on the King James as a "literal" translation. Many are under the illusion that it is and that a so called "literal" translation is by definition more accurate. We will touch on all these themes in the future ...

KJV: A Literal Translation??

Greetings this Wednesday nite. I was reading Romans in my 1611 so called Authorized Version this morning and was struck by something: Its lack of consistency in rendering the same Greek term the same way in English. I will be the first to admit that often times a word should be translated differently in different contexts because the meaning is different. But if the KJV was an exacting literal translation it would in fact render the terms the same -- consistently. Further there are places where the same Greek term is used -- in the same passage -- by the inspired author for emphasis; in these places the English should be rendered the same. The English reader will not know the apostle uses the same word for effect. The King's translators themselves warn us about this feature of their work. Hear them:

"Another thing we think good to admonish thee, of gentle Reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense every where), we were especially careful, and made a conscience according to our duty." (Translators to the Readers, pages are not numbered).

Having recently gone through Romans in my Greek Testament, I was struck by the KJV in Romans 5. Here we have a picture perfect example of the love of variety in translation testified to in the quoted section above. In Romans, in the KJV, we read:

"we . . . REJOICE in hope in the glory of God" (5.2); In the very next verse we read, GLORY in tribulations" (5.3) and a few verses down in 5.11 we read "we also JOY in God . . ."

The bold face words are all the one and the same Greek verb. Further they have the same connotation in each place. The NIV reads "rejoice" in all three places (more consistently and more accurately than the KJV).

If the aim of translation should be the production of an equivalent effect in the reader of the translation as the reader of the original text, then there is much to be said for translating in a passage like Romans 5, and the examples provided above, the same words with the same English word. For a good part of the effect intended by Paul was produced by his deliberate repetition of the same word. This is but one single example that could be multiplied into dozens but there is no need. F.F. Bruce, a widely respected historian and NT scholar comments on this "character trait" of the KJV:

"It is probably right to say that the Authorized Version has gone too far in its love of variation, whereas the Revised Version runs to the opposite extreme" [1].

A true "literal" translation is simply not possible. For example if you can suggest to me how one might "literally" translate the middle voice from Greek into English I would be grateful. English does not HAVE a middle voice. This is a major problem since the middle voice is not a rare bird in the Greek NT.

Other examples of the KJV's love of "variation" would include:

1) Matthew 25.46, renders "aionios" as "everlasting punishment" opposite of "life eternal" - why not the same? The text invites the reader to suppose that there is a difference when the same term is used.

2) In Romans 4 the same verb is rendered "counted" (vv 3, 5); "reckon" (vv. 4, 9-10) and "impute" (vv.6, 8, 11, 22-24). This is significant variation! Especially when Paul seems to be consciously using the same meaning.

3) In Romans 7 epithumian is rendered three different ways in the space of two verses: "lust" (v.7), "covet" (v.7) and finally "concupiscence" (v.8).

The NIV is much more consistent and accurate in all of these places (cf. NIV in the texts cited).

4) The Greek word katargein occurs twenty-seven times in the NT. But the King James Version translates it with seventeen different English words (which is a tad excessive!).

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year,
Bobby Valentine



Endnotes:

[1] F.F. Bruce, The King James Version: The First 350 Years (Oxford University Press, 1960), p. 27.

Read More

Francis Chan: Repentance, Baptism & Spirit

Francis Chan - Baptism & The Holy Spirit from Wes Woodell on Vimeo.

I commend this to all my readers.

Read More

Some Looked & Couldn't See: Galileo, Seeing and the Quest for Truth

A Momentous Fall Evening

Four Hundred and One years ago, on November 30, 1609, Galileo Galilei took his "spyglass" and some drawing equipment into the garden of his apartment in Padua. On this night Galileo did something no one had done before ... he pointed his spyglass at the Moon. Galileo's evening in the garden set off a series of events that would rock the world. When the dust settled it became clear that Galileo did not just usher in a few new facts about the universe rather what he had done was bring about a new way of "seeing" the cosmos itself.

The world Galileo lived in had undergone serious change in little over a century. Christopher Columbus had "discovered" a "new world" completely unknown to the ancients. Martin Luther had innocently brought a revolt against the Roman See. But these events had all occurred in the imperfect, unclean, lower realms of creation. The heavens were a different story. For two millennia classical Aristotelian cosmology was embraced as not only pure common sense but was married to Scripture by the medieval church and became theological dogma. The heavens, unlike the earthly realm, were perfect and unchanging. The celestial bodies were perfectly smooth crystalline spheres according to this doctrine. The large visible spots on the Moon were explained as parts of the sphere that absorbed and then emitted light differently from other parts.

How does one see, interpret, and understand phenomena? How does one explain what has never been seen by a human before? When Galileo first began to observe the Moon and then Jupiter at the end of 1609 and the beginning of 1610 he wasn't sure how to interpret the data ...

Just WHAT was he seeing?

A perfectly smooth crystalline sphere should be ... well it should be smooth! But on November 30th when Galileo trained his crude spyglass (the word telescope was not invented yet telescopio was coined by John Demisiani a Greek theologian residing in Rome on April 14, 1611 at a dinner held in Galileo's honor) on the Moon it appeared ... splotchy! The terminator was not smooth but appeared to be "jagged." There were lighted areas within the darker areas. What did this phenomena mean? Perhaps something is wrong with the instrument. Or perhaps something wrong with Galileo's eyes. Perhaps it was caused by Galileo's attempts to hold the spyglass steady. He did write that it was difficult to "escape the shaking of the hand that arises from the motion of the arteries and from respiration itself" [1]. But Galileo soon solved that issue ... so what was he seeing? The implications of his interpretation had cosmological significance! Galileo provides a summary of his conclusion ...

"By oft-repeated observations of them we have been led to the conclusion that we certainly see the surface of the Moon to be not smooth, even, and perfectly spherical, as the great crowd of philosophers have believed about this and other heavenly bodies, but, on the contrary, to be uneven, rough, and crowded with depressions and bulges. And it is like the face of the Earth itself, which is marked here and there with chains of mountains and the depths of valleys." [2].

Galileo then describes his observations in detail and gave the world its first ever published drawing of the moon as seen through his spyglass. The celestial spheres were not perfect! In fact they were just like the Earth. Or was it that the Earth was just like the celestial bodies ... the Earth became a planet.

Galileo was not finished with his shock and awe on how we see the world. He had taken his spyglass and looked at the Milky Way, the Pleiades's, and Orion the Hunter all suffered a similar fate. Suddenly before his eyes the Milky Way was seen to be nothing but "congeries of innumerable stars distributed in clusters!"[3] The Pleiades's were anything but Seven Sisters. And Orion was more stars.

Galileo's thermonuclear bomb however was saved till last: his observations of Jupiter the King. Since the dawn of time itself there had always been Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and also the Sun and Moon ... all of which revolved around the Earth. On January 7, 1610 "Jupiter presented himself" [4]. As crude as his spyglass was Jupiter was still resolved into a disk, whereas the "fixed stars" did not. The keen sighted observer noticed "that three little stars were positioned near him." But Galileo, understandably, interpreted these as among the "fixed stars." Yet his curiosity was piqued because "they appeared to be arranged exactly along a straight line and parallel to the ecliptic and brighter of that others [i.e. stars] of equal size." On successive nights Galileo returned to Jupiter and found that the King was "dancing with the stars" (my phrase ... couldn't resist).

The "stars" had shifted in respect to Jupiter. What was really being seen? And what, more importantly, did it MEAN? Was the movement that of Jupiter's? was it the "stars?" Was it a hallucination? Galileo decided "henceforth they should be observed more accurately and diligently"[5]. He declares that he had moved from "doubt to astonishment." On January 13, Galileo returned to Jupiter and spied four stars in respect to Jupiter. As the nights progressed the stars changed formation ... some on the East and others on the West, then all on either side or one on the West and three on the East. Galileo "arrived at the conclusion" that these stars wandered "around Jupiter like Venus and Mercury around the Sun" [Galileo betrays his orientation to the Copernican system]. This was indeed astonishing!! It was cataclysmic!

Failure to See

Galileo announced his discoveries Sidereus Nuncius in March 1610. It was a sensation. The world was both in awe and disbelief. Some "believed" and saw and others did not "see" and did "not believe." One, Martin Horky, published a short tract accusing Galileo of fraud. Galileo could not show the "planets" around Jupiter to the University of Bologna (in April 1610) faculty because they simply did not exist. Either the spyglass was bewitched or Galileo was a liar!

To demonstrate that his instrument worked Galileo performed daytime tests with observers. It worked in the daytime ... so why not at night was Galileo's point. However the encounter with Horky and the Bologna faculty highlights three responses by people to new worlds (in all arena's of life).

1) Some refused to look through the telescope. The "planets" wouldn't be there because they had decided a priori they couldn't be there. One Florentine astronomer claimed that "these satellites of Jupiter are invisible to the naked eye, and therefore exercise no influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless and therefore do not exist." Since special equipment that brings things to the senses, that is even contrary to common sense, is dangerous, useless and misleading.

2) Some looked through Galileo's spyglass and refused to see. These critics accused Galileo of stacking the data so to speak. Though unable to explain just how he did it Galileo's instrument was the problem. So one claimed that though the Moon's surface appeared to be mountainous, in reality a transparent crystalline surface as high as the highest peaks covered Luna's surface thus preserving its spherical perfection.

3) Some looked and couldn't see.

So What

Thus the simple act of looking, seeing, and understanding was no longer as simple as it appeared to be. "Seeing" is not so simple after all! All the filters that had been in place for generations inhibited the ability to see, interpret ... and understand the Truth. The flatness of the Earth (though the ancients did not believe this), the immobility of the Earth, the perfectly circular orbits of the planets, the Earth's position at the center of the cosmos ... all that we could ever hope to see ... all the assumptions based on generations of observations were gone. Without prior experience, observers had no way of knowing for sure what they were seeing.

There are many important lessons to be drawn from the experience of Galileo and those around him. I want to briefly state a few with hopes that my readers will ponder them further.

1) No matter what the subject matter be it Scripture or science we must take the time of learning the actual data. Sometimes the "common sense" explanation is absolutely not the correct answer.

2) Galileo, like an interpreter of Scripture, had to learn to let the phenomena actually "exist." It is rather easy to decide material does not exist or is of no importance at all when we discover "stars" where there should be no stars.

3) Galileo, like an interpreter of Scripture, not only had to let the phenomena exist but he had to learn to "see" it. By seeing I mean he had to study it long enough to distinguish those stars that weren't supposed to exist and how they might relate to Jupiter in which he was told it was a scientific impossibility for an object to revolve ... much less four. Galileo's learning curve here came from patiently listening to the evidence on its own terms.

4) Galileo had to have the courage to stand up against millennia of scholars and even the everyday experience of practically the entire human race. The German astronomer Kepler wrote in defense of Galileo over the charge of being arrogant enough to think he was more gifted with insight than all the ancient worthies. It was "[b]ecause he loves the truth, he does not hesitate to oppose the most familiar opinions, and to bear the jeers of the crowd with equanimity."

5) Like Galileo we need, as Christians and interpreters of the Word, to be willing to go out in the Garden once again. We must be willing to study afresh. We need to learn to "see" and make the quest for truth the only criteria ... not all the things "surely believed" but never actually examined.

In Bible study we have some who react just as did Galileo's contemporaries. Some refuse to look. They already know all truth and there is not the slightest chance they could be wrong. To even admit such a possibility is tantamount to committing a sin. Some look and refuse to see they have as amazing, and ingenious, ways to explain away the evidence as Florentine astronomers did the mountains on the Moon. Some look and cannot see.

But on that November night Galileo did in fact usher in more than a Moon with mountains. He brought in a new way of seeing and understanding the world itself. We are still reeling from the events of that night. My prayer is that our encounter with the Word will be equally revolutionary. We are committed to seeking the truth ... we do not let what we have been taught or what we have always believeb determine what can and cannot be the truth.

He who has an ear let him hear ... he who has eyes let him see ... some Look and See ...

"Yield, Vespucci, and let Columbus yield. Each of them
Holds his way through the unknown sea, it is true.
But you, Galileo, alone gave to the human race the sequence of stars,
New constellations in heaven"

- Johannes Faber

Notes

[1] Sidereus Nuncius or The Sidereal Messenger of Galileo Galilei, Translated with Introduction and Commentary by Albert van Heldon (University of Chicago Press, 1989). p. 11. Anyone that has held a pair of binoculars today can empathize with this pioneer astronomer.

[2] ibid, p. 40

[3] ibid, p. 62

[4] ibid, p. 64

[5] ibid, p. 66

Read More

Slaughter - Fly To The Angels

Some folks really want to "Fly Away" ... sometimes I really do understand that feeling. But I like this old song by Slaughter better than ... fly to the the angels

Read More

Talking with a King James Onlyist

I thought this short animation was humorous in light of a conversation I had this week. Enjoy.

Read More

Paul and the Church: Unity of the Body

This homily by N. T. Wright delivered to the students at Wheaton College should resonate quite well with us from a Stoned-Campbell background. We need to be reminded that unity is hardly a marginal thought in the New Testament!

Read More

Old Gospel Advocate Message Board Exchange (By Request): Crux Discussion

Last night (Oct 27, 2010) I received an inquiry about a discussion that took place ages ago on the Old Gospel Advocate Message Board (in 2001!!). The Crux of the Matter (Childers, Foster & Reese) had recently been published and the Spiritual Sword had dedicated an issue to it. Several on the message board had been tagged to interact with various articles. As I recall Chuck Dorsey was the ramrod of the affair. I ended up interacting with articles by Alan Highers, William Woodson and Earl Edwards. I have not thought about that board in a LONG time. I had to go digging to find this stuff. I have posted this piece unaltered. If I had to do it over again I know I'd say some things very differently. But on the whole I still agree with me. LOL! So here you go ...

Review of Alan Highers, "The Real Crux of the Matter" Spiritual Sword 33 (October 2001),1-4

Since Chuck Dorsey has given me the responsibility of being the lead review of the October Spiritual Sword I will try especially hard to set a Christlike tone for the discussion. My task is to review the editorial by Brother Alan Highers entitled "The REAL Crux of the Matter."

I wish first, however, to call attention to that remarkable little booklet by Francis A. Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian (InterVarsity Press, 1970), that powerfully and convincingly calls for a unity of love between brothers and sisters in Christ. When brothers disagree, Schaeffer writes, it is even more important to demonstrate the love of Christ VISIBLY. Our disagreement should send us first to our knees in prayer and then to our knees before the Cross. We should, "spend time upon my knees asking the Holy Spirit, asking Christ, to do his work through me ... that I ... show love even in this larger difference." (Schaeffer, p.27). It is my prayer that these discussions do not descend into hotbeds of ugliness rather we all display the "mark of the Christian." That does not mean we cannot disagree just a call to season our speech with salt -- and prayer.

I. Are "We" Coextensive with the First Century Church?

Brother Highers begins his "review" by quoting from Wineskins purpose statement:

"Our background and commitment is to the Church of Christ that was born of the American Restoration Movement. Our goal is to move that group closer to the church of Christ revealed in Scripture." (Highers, p. 1).

It should be pointed out that the authors of CRUX also refer to this statement pointing out that it was controversial with some of our brethren. In citing William Woodson, the authors note,

"But for Woodson, the one essential error that permeated all the others is the change agents' agenda to define the 'church of Christ' as just another denomination among denominations. Referring to the purpose statement of Wineskins magazine, Woodson accuses change agents of redefining the church." (Crux, p. 142).

It should be pointed out that the authors of CRUX do not comment on Woodson's statement either pro or con. They simply acknowledge the criticism.

Returning to Higher's (and Woodson's) criticism one is forced to ask if Brother Higher's imagines that the Churches of Christ that exist in the USA are coextensive with the Church of God revealed in the NT? Is our brotherhood THE universal church? It would seem to me that is the only alternative to Higher's criticism. It seems to me that Brother Higher's does indeed think the Churches of Christ are the universal church. But I think it is classic equivocation to say that "we" are coextensive with the First Century Church.

It is obvious with a moments reflection, though, that "we" are NOT coextensive with
the Church of the NT. Just briefly here are a few items that distinguish "us" from ""them":

1) The Church of the NT was charismatic, Are "we"?
2) The Church of the NT was commanded not to forbid prophecy, Do "we"?
3) The Church of the NT enrolled' widows for care taking, Do "we"?
4) The Church of the NT widows washed the saints feet, Do "ours"?
5) The Church of the NT believed in the empowering Spirit within each Christian, Do
"we"?
6) The Church of the NT proclaimed one is saved by faith in Christ apart from works, Do
"we"?
7) The Church of the NT recognized the difference between Gospel and Doctrine, Do "we"?
8) The Church of the NT allowed solos, Do "we"?
9) The Church of the NT was commanded to be "eager" to prophecy, Are "we"?
10) The Church of the NT recognized that Christ himself was the pattern for divine life, Do "we"?
11) The Church of the NT ....

I could extend my list but I need not. The point is there are large discontinuities, parts of "NT Christianity" that "we" do not practice, and in fact do not WANT to. I recall reading from Everett Ferguson once that the best we can do is be SECOND Century Christians -- perhaps he was more correct than what we want or care to admit.

A second point that must be emphasized (at least in my mind) that the very claim by Highers that "we" are coextensive with the Church of God, that "we" and "we" alone are people of God is the height of sectarianism (in my opinion) and a complete denial of the Movement to pursue nondenominational Christianity.

There was in fact a historical Movement that is variously called the "American Restoration Movement," or the "Stone-Campbell Movement," that the Churches of Christ that dot the American landscape did come out of. This cannot be denied historically -- to do so is to be untrue and historically blind.

This group of folks, I do not deny but affirm, never intended to become a denomination, sect or anything else. They originally saw themselves as a movement WITHIN the Church of God, to reform her and restore two key biblical themes: Unity and Evangelistic Missions. That they denied being THE Church of God (much less being the ONLY Christians) is plainly evident to all who spend time with them. Thomas Campbell defined the church as,

"That the Church of Christ [intended here as the universal Church of God] upon earth is essentially, intentionally and constitutionally one; consisting of ALL those in EVERY place that profess their faith in Christ and obedience to him in all things according to the Scriptures and that manifest the same by their tempers and conduct, and none else; as none else can be truly and properly called Christians" (Declaration and Address, p. 44).

There were those from time to time who sought to sectarianize the Plea but most of the representative men resisted such apostasy. This sad tendency was noted by an
anonymous writer in the Millennial Harbinger in 1864. This writer laments,

"But now -- we have become a `Religious Body.' We have our shibboleth, our fixed principles, and there is danger lest we, too, shall become infatuated with the Romish conceit of infallibility, against which we said so much in those early pioneer days, which the veterans among us have so much reason to remember." (Senex, "Free Discussion," MH, March, 1864, p. 170).

One can, as well as a people can, become what Barton Stone warned about "anti¬sectarian sectarians." This happens when we begin to think of ourselves as the only honest people reading Scripture, or the only ones without our shared fallenness, or that our interpretations are beyond question -- or that we are the only ones who are in fact Christians. Stone's warning is worth repeating in full,

"The scriptures will never keep together in union, and fellowship members not in the spirit of the scriptures, which spirit is love, peace, unity, forbearance, and cheerful obedience. This is the spirit of the great Head of the body. I blush for my fellows, who hold up the Bible as the bond of union yet make their opinions of it tests of fellowship; who plead for union of all Christians; yet refuse fellowship with such as dissent from their notions. Vain men! Their zeal is not according to knowledge, nor is their spirit that of Christ. Their is a day not far ahead which will declare it. Such anti-sectarian sectarians are doing more mischief to the cause, and advancement of truth, the unity of Christians, and the salvation of the world, than all the skeptics in the world. In fact, they make skeptics." (Stone, "Remarks," Christian Messenger, August 1835, p. 180).

One last quote about whether "we" constitute all the people of God. F. D. Srygley wrote a wonderful book on The New Testament Church. He responded to the sectarian mind set that was developing on the Texas frontier in the Firm Foundation. The FF had taken exception to Srygley's denial that "we-as-a-people" ARE the people of God. He concluded with this "I am beginning to think "we-as-a-people" are very much like other folks, as a people, anyhow. I know a man who has a way of saying some people have as much human nature in them as anybody, and I halfway believe it." (NT, Church, p. 86).

I like the grasp Campbell had of the nondenominational concept as is plainly evident in his "Letter to an Independent Baptist," and it speaks directly to our situation,

"Dear sir, this plan of our own nest, and fluttering over our own brood; of building our own tent, and of confining all goodness and grace to our noble selves and the "elect few' who are like us, is the quintessence of sublimated pharisaism. The old Pharisees were but babes in comparison to the modern; and the longer I live, and the more I reflect upon God and man -- heaven and earth -- the Bible and the world -- the Redeemer and his Church -- the more I am assured that all sectarianism is the offspring of hell ... To lock ourselves up in the bandbox of our own little circle; to associate with a few units, tens or hundreds, as the pure church, as the elect, is real Protestant monkery, it is evangelical pharisaism." (Christian Baptist, "Letter to an Independent Baptist, p. 238)

One does not have embrace "denominationalism" or "sectarianism," to become either one.

II. Is there "Salvation" Outside the Church?

What has just been said leads me to examine Highers charge that the Authors of CRUX claim "Over and over, . . . there is salvation outside the church." (p.3). Again this goes back to what was said above and again, I believe, Highers equivocates. The writers never once suggest that there is salvation outside the Church of God one reads about in the NT. Once again Highers can only maintain his criticism if he believes the Churches of Christ constitute the universal church of God. But the writers deny that the Restoration Movement IS the Church of God in its totality -- I agree with them. The writers maintain (just as Campbell, Stone, Scott, Lipscomb, Kurfees, Srygley, Larimore, Moser, etc, etc.) that we are Christians only not the only Christians. I do not think that Highers could prove in any court of law (since he is a lawyer) that his charge is a true one. The authors advocate for a firm and gracious attempt to place the doctrine of baptism before our religious friends. We do not need to paganize them before we can communicate our understanding of baptism to them. The authors state,

"We are convinced that we must not dilute our insistence on New Testament baptism. But we are also convinced that we cannot allow our resolute stance on this issue to keep us isolated from the kinds of godly people Campbell described in his articles on baptism" (Crux, p.124).

"Regardless of what some have accused us of in the past, Churches of Christ need to emphasize, explore, and teach more about baptism, not less. But we cannot do it in an isolated, abrasive, and sectarian manner as we sometimes have." (Crux p.125).

From my perspective it is hard to deny that we have been, at times, abrasive and sectarian about baptism. I believe a fine example of the kind of irenic placement of our perspective in the world of ideas is Everett Ferguson's The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Eerdmans, 1996). Ferguson has been well reviewed and received by denominational scholars across the board -- INCLUDING THE BAPTISTS, (with a W.R. Estep, a Baptist prof at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, even promoting the book!!). One will not find the same reception for any of our other authors. Further I think that what the authors recognize, but Highers denies, is there are in fact levels of fellowship (I guess LaGard Smith and his Five-Fold level is a good example of what is being discussed. Foster gave LaGard's book a positive review in Christian Chronicle).

III. The Issue of the CORE Gospel?

Highers believes that because the authors believe in a Core Gospel or Core Hermeneutic. He cites pp. 169-170 and I will also quote it,

"Interpretations connected to the core Gospel that heal relationships and enable the church to work, and worship well will be confirmed. Those that damage the core, blocking the church's mission or disrupting its priorities, must be considered flawed, no matter what method produced them or how logical they seem."

Highers is very critical of this statement, somehow this statement "perverts the gospel
and makes it of no effect" (Highers, p. 2). I personally am not clear as to why that is so. Then Brother Highers maintains that Childers, Foster and Reese do not explain "who" is to determine and "how" such determinations are to be made. He says "it is apparent that the process is a subjective one -- not an objective one based upon scriptural exegesis and `logical' deduction!"

I do not see that. Again maybe I am too blind myself but I do not see anything wrong with the statement made in CRUX. Nor do I agree with Highers that it is a "subjective" move. The statement should not be isolated from the rest of the chapter entitled "Open Bibles and Open Hearts." Here are a few more statements made about interpretation. The authors first develop some ATTITUDES that should be characteristic of students approaching the word, then they give some specific guidelines on reading from the Core (contra Highers charge).

1) Interpretation is inevitable (p. 155). I do not see how this could be denied. The authors affirm the prior authority of the Bible over our interpretations and traditions however.

"We strongly believe that God speaks to us in a special way in the written word." (p.156). "We uphold . . . that the Bible is a divine witness, the revelation of God, inspired by the Father through the Son by the means of the Spirit ... It has unique status and authority, to challenge, question, and correct any authority brought to the table." (Ibid).

Sounds Orthodox to me.

2) They believe we should approach Scripture humbly and confessionally (p. 163). Scripture needs to be "freed" to challenge us and confront us. Even our "traditions" should be challenged and corrected in the light of Scripture (I point this out because some are claiming the authors give a "normative" status to tradition which is untrue). "We must resist letting our traditional interpretations become the authority so that we elevate them as idols... "(p. 163).

We must be humble enough to admit we are mere humans and we are not the only one to have escaped the Fall.

3) "Bible reading should reflect awareness that God is a WHO rather than a WHAT" (p. 164). "Reading the Bible should lead us to tremble and wonder not set our jaws with audacious certainty."

4) Proper Bible interpretation has more to do with character and attitude than it does with intellectual training and a scientific method. Perquisites for authentic Bible study and formation of sound doctrine are piety and holiness (p. 167). I can only say amen!

5) We should read from the Core. "The core is our starting point and controls our Bible reading. " (p. 170). Reading this way "allows us to connect the pieces together and align them on the center of gravity -- NEGLECTING NOTHING, but allowing each piece to find its proper place" (p.170-171, my emphasis).
Basic Questions will lead us to the core -- every time:

A. "What things are mentioned most in Scripture?"
B. "What is specifically highlighted as most important?"
C. "What things keep showing up at the center of the writer's message?" (p. 172).

Though the writers explicitly say they are not writing so much about the nuts and bolts about interpretation rather about attitudes they do provide some fundamental questions that are anything but "subjective." Each of the questions above can be given an empirical answer.

Further I would like to say that pure logic is not the litmus test for any biblical teaching. It is hard to use Aristotelian logic to explain the atonement or the Trinity or the Incarnation. The Pharisees had their own logic and Jesus told them.

"But go learn what this means: "I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have come not to call the righteous but sinners." (Matthew 9.13, cf. 12.7).

Mercy is not logic. The cross is not worldly logic or wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 1. 20ff}. That does not make me "anti" logic or anti rational. It simply shows me that logic has limits.

The call to read from the "core" though is hardly a new thing with our CRUX authors. Alexander Campbell firmly believed one of the fundamental contributions of his Reformation was the distinction between "Gospel" and "Doctrine."

"The difference between PREACHING and TEACHING Christ, so palpable in the apostolic age, though now confounded in the theoretic theologies of Denominational Christianities [sic], must be well defined and clearly distinguished in the mind, in the style; and utterances of the evangelist" (Alexander Campbell, MH, "Address Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Christian Missionary Society," 1857, p. 60b).

This was no "speculative distinction" according to Campbell. "It was," he said, "appreciated fully understood and acted upon -- or carried out, in the apostolic ministry. Hence we read in Acts v.42, that after thousands of Jews had been converted to Christ the apostles "daily in the temple and from house to house, ceased not to teach and to preach (or announce the glad tidings) that Jesus was the Christ." (p. 607).

I find it interesting that according to Campbell it was a mark of convoluted denominationalism to miss the distinction between "gospel" and "doctrine." Now lest I be accused of following Campbell and not Scripture I maintain that this is in fact a BIBLICAL distinction. There is "kerygma" and there is "Didache." In the scholarly world this was pretty much settled through the work of C. H. Dodd's The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments.

Even Everett Ferguson recommends we read out of the core. He recommends the same basic procedure as our CRUX authors,

"Sometimes people, finding the heart of the gospel, want to treat the rest of biblical teaching as irrelevant. It may be secondary, but it is not irrelevant. The PROPER PROCEDURE IS TO WORK OUT FROM THE CENTER OF THE GOSPEL TO OTHER THINGS and apply the gospel to other aspects of doctrine." (The Church of Christ, p. xx, my emphasis).

Now I wish for Highers or Tidwell to tell me a substantive difference between what Ferguson just wrote and what the authors of Crux did quoted at the beginning of this section. I agree with every iota of -- including that other material is not irrelevant. It is just not the core.

The fact of the matter is, as painful as it is to admit (and it is painful), that "we" as a people have redefined the gospel of Christ to be much broader than it is in Scripture. I will highlight R. L. Whiteside simply because I know more about him than anyone else. Whiteside was a great servant of God, powerful writer, loved the Lord and endured hardship. He, however, redefined the Gospel to be to be the NT and anything contained within it. (see Robert P. Valentine, Robertson Lafayette Whiteside: Systematic Theologian for the Churches of Christ, Thesis at Harding Graduate School, Spring 2001, pp. 70-102).

IV. Finally "Shades of Pentecostalism."

Because the authors of CRUX believe that God is alive and well, that they believe that God is "moving among us now to reform and perfect us" he charges them with "Shades of Pentecostalism!" (p. 3). Thankfully Highers views on the Holy Spirit are not the majority view in Churches of Christ anymore. The Church of the NT certainly believed that God was active among them. It is a false conclusion to assume, as Highers does, that because one believes that the Spirit leads us today that we are "infallible."

Even in the Church of the NT in which many exercised "miraculous" gifts (including prophecy) this did not mean they were speaking ex cathedra! They still had to "test the spirits." They still received apostolic instruction. That the Holy Spirit leads Christians is to me a very "logical" conclusion from the text of scripture itself.

Conclusion

As is clear I disagree with Highers perspective on numerous issues. I do regard him as a fine brother in Christ who is dedicated to the Lord. I feel that much of his criticism is unjustified and results from a misunderstanding of the authors or even perhaps a failure to grasp certain teaching of Scripture on some points (as I see it but I am most certain he would feel the same about me).

I have not referred to any former leader because they are inspired but simply because they have something worth hearing. The same charge that William Woodson (and others) lay at the feet of the authors of Crux could also be returned to them. Woodson says the change agents think they are wiser and have discovered things missed by everyone else. Rather it is Woodson and company who think they are wiser than all our Forefathers in the faith. I have not discovered anything "new." No I have discovered something "old" that my grandfathers in the faith knew and understood but was forgotten along the way. I rediscovered the beauty of Christ-centered undenominational Christianity. And I think CRUX can help us along the way . . . if we are humble and open to dialogue.

Read More

Jesus' Mission; Our Mission, and the Logic of Grace

The Jesus Pattern

As we read through the Gospels a striking "pattern" dances gently across the pages of the life of Jesus. The most unsavory people are attracted to him wherever he went. We see a Samaritan lady, a mercenary hoodlum of Herod, a hostess to seven demons, a few tax collectors, and a woman caught in the very act of sexual misconduct. It is quite shocking actually!

In stark contrast Jesus received a very cold shoulder from the the religious "church-going" folk. The pious (and they were!) Pharisees thought him uncouth and even worldly, a wealthy young ruler walked away shaking his head in dismay, and even the open-minded Nicodemus seeks the shelter of the night lest he be seen talking to Jesus.

What is even stranger still is today the "pattern" seems markedly reversed. The Christian church now attracts respectable types who closely resemble the very folks who despised Jesus in his own day; while the folks who flocked to Jesus are hard to find and want nothing to do with us. What has happened to reverse the "pattern"? Why don't "sinners" like being around us today?


Jesus' Mission

Somehow we have created a community of respectability in the "church." The down and out no longer seem to feel welcome in our assemblies. How did Jesus, the most holy person in the history of the world, manage to attract such notoriously flawed people? And what keeps us from following his steps? These are questions I believe we must ask, and face, if we are to be the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Jesus understood his mission. He knew why he was here and that helped him "keep focused." We, the Body of Christ, are to have the same focus as the Head. But what was the focus of the mission of Jesus Christ?

The Gospels are fairly clear. Jesus, in the synagogue in his own hometown, delivered a "homily" on Isaiah 61. During worship he read a portion of the prophecy, it reads ...

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners,
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the Year of the Lord's favor" (Lk 4.18-19)

Jesus declares that this prophecy fulfilled even as the congregation heard it (v. 21). But the Spirit of the Lord came on Jesus for a specific reason, to empower him for a task, to give him a "mission." This text is programmatic for the Gospel of Luke. The Year of Jubilee ... the Sabbath of Sabbaths ... is front and center for the mission of Jesus. We might ask who are the poor, just as the rich man asked "who is my neighbor?" But the poor, the blind, oppressed are surely central for a church that claims allegiance to the mission of Jesus. Jesus' mission is to lead these captives in a new exodus to freedom, redemption and life.

Jesus' mission, as defined by himself, was to liberate the down and out people. His mission was to was a mission of mercy. His mission was to set the captives free. Notice none of the people targeted by Jesus were the respectable people with money and power, those who had it all figured out, none that were in control. The people addressed in this text are simply nobodies like those in Moses' original exodus ...

Jesus knew his mission to be the embodiment of Jubilee. The question for us is do we understand that our mission is the same as his? Jesus came to heal the world. To set the Jeffrey Dahmers of Tucson free. Jesus came to serve those in their third ... yes even fourth or fifth marriage! Jesus saw his task as that of a doctor (Lk 5.31f). He came to bring slaves out of bondage. He came to banish the suffering that vandalized God's good creation - the blind, the exploited, the humble. He even came to rescue me!

Some may think "Bobby there was more to Jesus' mission than this." I don't think so. Everything Jesus said or did in those wonder years on earth was to accomplish what he says right here in Luke 4. We have confirmation of this in numerous passages in the Gospels.

In Luke 7, John the Baptizer was thrown in prison with his life hanging on by a thread. He sends a fact finding crew to Jesus with a list of questions ... "have I made a mistake" (see v.20). The response of Jesus to the Baptizer is enlightening. It is remarkably similar to his sermon in 4.18f. Luke describes the situation in this way:

At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sickness and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind? So he replied to the messengers, 'Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor" (7.21-22)

John's question was "are you really the Messiah?" Jesus' response was "look at what the Spirit of the Lord has anointed me to do." The new age has dawned, the new exodus of setting the captives free is in full swing. This mission is why Jesus was friends with sinners. This is why unsavory folk liked to be around him. This is why the respectable church going crowd were put off ... why they held their councils and why they branded him as a false prophet and eventually murdered him!

Luke reveals a Jesus hardly threatened by a person's so called "uncleanness." He reached out with his Word incarnated hands and embraced the unsavory with love and compassion. He talked to them. He listened to them. He touched them. He sat with them. He ate with them. He was seen with them. He loved them. He was on their side. This was his mission. Jesus brought the Good News of liberation, redemption, and wholeness to the folks the religious folks held at arms length. The Pharisees, the Essenes, the Sadducees all said in one way or another "you are not good enough." You are not clean enough. You do not have the right pedigree. You have tattoos. Your clothes are not proper. You are from the wrong side of town. You are the wrong color. We really haven't decided why but you still can't come!

Jesus of Nazareth smashed ALL of that! This situation was not of Moses btw! He led a mission of liberation for outcasts too! But Jesus said to the ones with no pedigree, the ones with no power or influence, the "sinners" of all stripes ... the God of Israel has NOT REJECTED YOU. The Father has sent me to proclaim his special favor on even you.

Sometimes we, like the church folk of Jesus day, we erect hurdles and barriers to God's grace. Certain tests have to be met before we welcome them. C. S. Lewis once remarked "prostitutes are in no danger of finding their present life so satisfactory that they cannot turn to God: the proud, the avaricious, the self-righteous, are in danger of that."

The "Logic" of Grace

Jesus' mission was one of grace to all. The mission of the Year of Jubilee was a rescue mission. We cannot really be too concerned with our own personal safety when on a rescue mission - it is inherently dangerous. This is how the Son of God ended upon a Tree. It wasn't the so called "sinners" who crucified the Son of Man! It was the elders, the deacons, and the Sunday School teachers who killed him!!

The church is the "body of Christ." Our mission is the same as Jesus'. Luke picks up on this theme from Jesus' "personal" ministry and shows how it is the mission of the Gathered People in in the book of Acts. There were no "needy" in the Jerusalem church. The assembly of God welcomed eunuchs and even unclean "Gentiles" The old way said "no undesirable people allowed" And Jesus said "come unto me all who are weary and burdened ..."

The early church struggled to follow the "Logic of Grace" exhibited in the Messiah. After some training in the ways of God they became renown in the Roman Empire for their support for the poor and suffering. The Christians, unlike many, readily ransomed their brothers and sisters from "barbarian" captors, and when the plagues hit, the Christians tended the suffering even as the world abandoned them. The early church took the mission of Jesus as their mission -- to receive strangers, to clothe the naked, to feed the hungry, and to visit the ones in prison. These were not ancillary ministries of the kingdom ... they WERE the thrust the kingdom of God into a world needing redemption.

Recently I have tried to picture the scene from Jesus' day. The poor. The sick. The sinners. The prostitutes. They all crowed around the picture of purity and holiness stirred by his message of healing, forgiveness and wholeness. The rich. The powerful. The Bible thumpers. The righteous. They are all gathered on the perimeter snorting in derision. They test his doctrinal soundness. They spy. They try to trap him in some debate on doctrinal minutia. I know these facts about Jesus' time, and yet, from the comfort of a middle class church in a wildly rich country like the United States, I easily lose sight of the real core of Jesus mission ... which is his message. I looked in my mind's eye, and to my consternation, I found myself among the church-goers of Jesus' day instead of loving and offering forgiveness to those who desperately need it. And I confess that I desperately need it!

If we are to be the Church OF Jesus we can see no undesirable human. The Logic of Grace is that God loves the poor. The suffering. The persecuted. The outcast. The divorcee. The misguided. Even, thankfully, the Sunday school teacher and preacher! If we dare to place the name of Jesus upon our buildings then we need to be rooted in his mission. Jesus challenges us to look at the world through what the early Christian, Irenaeus, termed "grace-healed eyes!" With Grace-healed eyes we begin to see the world through the Logic of Grace defined in the Mission of Jesus himself ... only then are we really the church of Jesus the Messiah.

Read More

when the children cry - white lion - with sub

White Lion had several songs in the 80s that were among my favs of the day. I offer this video on behalf of the children of the world. One day the Gospel of Jesus Christ will flow over all of us and there will be no more need for songs like this. May the Lord have mercy upon us all ...

Read More

The Worship of God: Insight from the Apocrypha

Here is a short study I shared with local preachers here in Tucson by request. May it bless you ...

Tucson Preacher’s Meeting
September 8, 2009
The Worship of God:
Insight from the Apocrypha

When the subject of worship comes up I see basically two extremes that form. 1) There are those who out of fear of "Pattern Theology" reject any notion of "corporate" worship and something called an "act" of worship. This view is also rooted in a sharp (ironically an extreme form of Campbell’s dispensational hermeneutic) disjunction between the Testaments. This is a view that I believe is wrong headed. This view is also rooted in a caricature of Jewish worship in Jesus' own day. The "assembly" in this view is not about worship at all but edification. Worship can only take place through daily life. 2) The other extreme is that of Pattern Theology itself with its assumption that worship is limited only five prescribed "acts" of worship. If one of these "acts" are not named it cannot be worship. Edification plays only a small role in the assembly of this point of view. I think both views fall short of the biblical, historical and theological mark. (See my book with John Mark Hicks and Johnny Melton A Gathered People for more on my views on the assembly)

What I propose to do is share some attitudes pertaining to worship by the Jews during the Second Temple period -- that is basically the time of the Christ or just prior to him. Both groups mentioned above usually approach the subject of worship and the teaching of Scripture in an unhistorical manner -- thus coming up with some demonstrably wrong conclusions about Jewish attitudes of the day.

The Apocrypha provides extremely valuable information and background for understanding many subjects in the NT and even specific passages. Worship happens to be a subject that is enriched by the Apocrypha. Scattered throughout this literature are references to both corporate and "life-style" worship.

On several occasions the Apocrypha contains detailed accounts of entire "worship services" or “worship gatherings.” For example Josiah's Passover celebration in 1 Esdras 1 and Nehemiah's sacrifice of dedication in 2 Maccabees 1; the Temple rededication account in 1 Maccabees 4 and the Temple dedication in 1 Esdras 5-7. These accounts show us the role of the priesthood in Hebrew worship, the role of the "congregation" in participating in worship also.

More specifically the Apocrypha mentions a wide array of worship responses from God's People during the time of Jesus and the early church. These would include:

1) Raising hands and prostration in worship (1 Esdras 9.47; Sirach 50.17; 1 Maccabees 4.55; Judith 6.18; 13.17; etc)

2) Pilgrimages to Jerusalem and festival worship (Tobit 1.6; 5.13; etc)

3) Prayer including certain postures of prayer (Tobit 12.8; 13.1; Sirach 7.14; etc)

4) Repentance and confession including fasting (1 Esdras 8.91; Tobit 12.8; etc)

5) Temple worship including daily sacrifice (Judith 4.14; 16.16-18; etc)

What comes as a surprise, perhaps, to those unfamiliar with Jewish literature of the period is the heavy emphasis on personal piety as the foundation of any corporate worship and upon "works of righteousness" as an outgrowth of worship. Personal devotion is rooted in obedience to God's gracious Torah and is essential for proper worship (4 Maccabees 5.24). In addition the "fear of the Lord" (Judith 16.15; Sirach 1.11-20; 7.29-31) and a right heart are accorded prominence in the worship of God in Jewish writings of the time of Jesus (among other places see 2 Maccabees 1.3-4; 15.27; Sirach 1.12; 21.6; etc). Listen to the words of 2 Maccabees

"May he {the Lord} give you all a heart of worship and a willing spirit. May he open your heart to his law and commandments, and my he bring peace" (1.3-4).

Likewise, worship as service to others, that is as in a lifestyle of good deeds, is regarded as a natural complement to the worship of God (3 Maccabees 3.4). This Third Maccabees text sounds reminiscent of Luke's description of the early believers in Jerusalem where they did good deeds and yet were also outcasts ...

"The Jews, however, continued to maintain goodwill and unswerving loyalty to the dynasty; but because they worshiped God and conducted themselves by his law, they kept their separateness with respect to foods ... but since they adorned their style of life with the good deeds of upright people they were established in good repute with everyone." (3 Macc 3.3-5)

For Jews of Jesus' day charity and almsgiving to the poor and the socially disadvantaged are essential works of mercy of God's People (Tobit 4.11; 12.9; Sirach 17.22; 29.12; 40.17, 24; etc).

The Book of Tobit brings most of these themes together in one delightful, and very edifying, story. Sometimes called the Pilgrim's Progress of the Apocrypha, Tobit is a tale of faith in adversity. Tobit recognizes the spiritual warfare surrounding this life and the importance of personal piety in the sea of human trials. Significant for my purposes is the nexus in Tobit between corporate worship (1.6-9), private devotion (13.3-6, see the whole chapter), and the worship response of a life-style of service to others (12.6-10).

The key ingredient for inspiring this participation in corporate worship and the lifestyle of praise and service to God is personal piety before God. Here the Book of Tobit mirrors quite closely the Hebrew Bible's demand of personal piety for coming into the Holy Presence of God. In Tobit piety is focused upon the "fear of the Lord" (4.21; 14.2, 6) and is demonstrated by three practices: prayer, fasting and almsgiving to the poor (4.5-11; 12.8-15). These three acts of piety would later become known as the "Three Pillars of Judaism" (See G. F. Moore's classic, Judaism in the first Three Centuries of the Christian Era, vol. 1, p. 35ff).

What I think we see in Tobit is a balance that is not seen in many contemporary discussions of "worship." To say that there is in fact a time when God's People gather together in his Presence in "corporate" worship in no way negates the truth that we are to have a "lifestyle" of worship responses (a lifestyle of sacrifice). Tobit knows this truth very well -- and I am convinced that Paul did as well.

Tobit sees that corporate worship, a lifestyle of praise and devotion and works of mercy are not "either/or" propositions; rather all three are like strings in a rope that depend upon each other. What the Apocrypha, and especially Tobit, show us is that the Jews never believed that worship was reduced to legalistic RITUAL and certain prescribed "acts" done in the Temple. Rather worship was the essence of life itself and service to God (this should not surprise us for every word Paul uses for worship he pulls out of the Jewish Bible and "lectionary" when he mentions worship -- this is particularly true of the Hebrew Writer). The Apocrypha exposes our assumptions about Jewish worship in the time of Christ -- that it was essentially legalistic or . . . as unfounded. The Apocrypha shows that Jews in Jesus' day saw a meaningful connection between corporate worship, private worship and works of mercy as responses to worship.

Maybe I am wrong (but I do not think so) but I believe this same dynamic underlies the New Testament's teaching regarding worship -- especially as it is seen in 1 Corinthians, Hebrews and even Revelation. When we get Christians to understand this relationship of the grace of coming into his Presence in corporate worship and how that then empowers us for a holy lifestyle (and how that lifestyle also prepares us for corporate worship) of devotion and service -- we just might see a major revival among our churches. Perhaps we would also see fewer "worship wars!"

Read More

BAMA Readings ...

Greetings! I have been a busy beaver lately and have not updated my blog as I like or planned. I just returned from a visit to Alabama for legal reasons. That trip did not end up going as expected but God is still in control. While there I still had to prepare for lessons at PaLO VErde here in Tucson. Being near a small theological library (at Heritage Christian University) afforded me the opportunity to dig into a few journals that I do not normally get too. Sooooo I followed the Pauline injunction to "redeem the time." I thought I might share some of the readings ...

Spent most of my time reading the Acts of the Apostles especially the ending ...

I read a good deal of the September/October Biblical Archeology Review ... I recommend especially Michael Homan's piece "Did the Israelites Drink Beer?" ... Through this article I tracked down Homan's much more scholarly "Beer, Barley, and shekhar in the Hebrew Bible" in Le-David Maskil, A Birthday Tribute for David Noel Freedman. Homan argues, and I think has sufficiently demonstrated, the case that shekhar is basically ale or beer. The word is usually translated "strong drink" or the like in modern English versions. Homan reviews the linguistic evidence, and probably most interesting, and the archeological data. Through Homan footnotes I discovered Magen Broshi's "Date Beer and Date Wine in Antiquity," Palestine Exploration Quarterly 139 (2007): 55-59 which examines five vats used for producing "Date Beer" around Jericho and Ein Feshkha. "Date Beer" was the principle alcoholic beverage in Mesopotamia in the Iron Age on down. These three articles are fascinating in their own right but also provide quite an interesting window into numerous passages in the Hebrew Bible and on the life of the People of God. Those interested in what the Bible says about beer but are tired of heat and smoke but no light these are worth the effort to get.

The July 2008 issue of Interpretation was themed on Gerhard von Rad. Several fascinating articles are to be found here. Bernard M. Levinson's "Reading the Bible in Nazi Germany: Gerhard von Rad's Attempt to Reclaim the Old Testament for the Church" (pp. 2338-254) was more than enlightening. Von Rad the young 30 something German scholar found himself teaching at the Nazi infested University of Jena. The theological faculty moved to sever Jesus from his Hebrew roots (denied Jesus' Jewish heritage, ceased teaching Hebrew, etc). von Rad publicly lectured there is no access to Christ except through the "Old Testament." At any rate this article is rich in nuance in demonstrating not only the genuine faith of von Rad but also of how our circumstances genuinely influence not just what we read in Scripture but how we read it.

While looking for something else I accidentally found, and got distracted by, Harvey Minkoff's essay "Coarse Language in the Bible, It's Culture Shocking!" in Approaches to the Bible: The Best of Bible Review (edited by Harvey Minkoff, published by BAR). Numerous questions pop up in this essay, like "How should we approach euphemism and rough language in Scripture." Minkoff notes that translators often have issues to deal with that are beyond simply what the Hebrew text means but rather the sensitivity of a religious public. There are many places where the Bible is far more graphic and "coarse" than what is perceived as righteous talk in Sunday school. He quotes a letter to the editor of the Oxford Study Edition of the NEB over changes in the British and American editions ... "we delicate American mortals are being protected by the coarse language of Scripture."

Finally on my way home on the plane I read through Barry L. Perryman's A Call to Unity: A Critical Review of Patternism and the Command-Example-Inference-Silence Hermeneutic. Perryman argues that in essence "patternism" is a doctrine of self-salvation built on the notion that IF humans obey God's law "well enough" God must reward us with a crown of righteousness. After arguing that "CEIS" divorces passages from their context to construct new doctrines yet many patternists do not see how the pattern demands conforming to the law of love and forbearance.

There are many positives in Perryman's Call to Unity. Patternism does not respect the narrative quality of the Gospel. This particular approach has often led to a defensive posture rather than an exploratory one. And I agree that Patternism has often led to unbelievable division with in the Lord's church.

There are some weaknesses in this work as well. On a minor note the "Inductive Method" did not begin with the 13th century philosopher Roger Bacon (p. 19). Perryman is probably parroting D.R. Dungan on this point (he cites Dungan repeatedly in this work). Francis Bacon gave this method to the world around the same time as Galileo. Bacon was a highly regarded thinker across the board in the 18th and 19th centuries. This is one of the weaknesses of Perryman's book is that it does not reflect engagement with a large body of literature on the history and development of what we might call the "restoration hermeneutic." Finally, and this is not a defense of either Patternism or "CEIS", but this hermeneutic does not necessarily lead to sectarian attitudes or legalism. Men like J. D. Thomas who were devoted to the traditional hermeneutic were men full of the Spirit and dedicated to unity.

There are so many things to read ... so little time.

Shalom,
Bobby Valentine

Read More

Desperately Seeking SPIRIT-uality: Connecting to God's Refreshing Spirit

This post dates way back to the turn of the Millennium. I received an invitation from Jerry Rushford (on the recommendation of Tom Olbricht) to teach at the Pepperdine Bible Lectures. Lots of water has gone under the bridge since 2001, and my own thinking has matured and gone through the Valley of Achor, yet I hope that the direction of my thinking then continues to point in the right direction. I might say things slightly different now than then and I pray my depth is deeper now but overall I still believe this presentation. This presentation at Pepperdine was what I would call "soundings" and I invite you to ruminate upon them in that "spirit" as well.

Desperately Seeking SPIRIT-uality: Connecting to God's Refreshing Spirit
Pepperdine University Bible Lectures

Opening

On December 7, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbor which brought the USA into World War II. While most anguished that night over the loss of life and the prospect of an arduous road ahead, one man perceived things differently. This man had been fighting a war for three years already. This man had watched France fall in lightening speed. This man had endured Nazi bombers blasting English cities. This man for three years had not slept peacefully. But ironically that all changed on December 7. This man saw Pearl Harbor not as defeat but as victory. On December 8, 1941 this man wrote these words,

"So we HAD won after all! I had studied the American Civil War ... American blood flowed in my veins ... I thought of a remark ... that the United States is like a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate! Being saturated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."

That man's name was Winston Churchill.

The mere presence the USA in that bloody war convinced Churchill he had already gained victory. The United States had done nothing, as of yet, but he slept the sleep of the saved and thankful. In the midst of the chaos of England, the news of Pearl Harbor was the news of power, not weakness, to Churchill. The day of infamy was a day of victory simply because that "gigantic boiler" was now pumping on England's behalf.

I can identify with Churchill. I stand before you today not as a spiritual master but as a pygmy. I stand as one, who for so long, who felt as if I was meeting the onslaught of forces beyond my stamina ... alone! I stand before you as one who has often had that fitful sleep of uneasiness. But one day, much to my joy, I "discovered" that boiler much more potent than the mighty United States was on my side ... God's Refreshing SPIRIT.

First Move: Non-SPIRIT-ual Confessions

I grew up in North Alabama Churches of Christ. In fact I cannot remember when I did not go to "church." My dad led a wonderful and godly example of quietly reading his Bible every night sitting by his bed. He often had some study books (Nave's Topical Study Bible, Unger's Bible Handbook, Strong's and even Josephus!) spread out as he delved into God's Word. That image of my dad has remained vivid in my mind to this day. In my family we prayed especially at meal times. I went to college and got a BS in Bible, went to graduate school for the MA and MDiv, I have been preaching for years and I cultivated those practices. Bible reading and praying in gratitude for the blessings the Lord provided for me, Pamella, Rachael and Talya.

Be that as it may ... in all honesty we were not giants of prayer or spiritual discernment. Prayer was more a perfunctory matter than a vehicle to intimacy with our Abba. I confess that I did not have a SPIRIT-ual relationship with God, his Son, or his Spirit. This became apparent to me around 1998 when a sister asked of me two things. She wanted me to

1) teach her to pray
2) teach her to worship

She said she wanted to have a "deeper relationship with God." I freely confess that I would have been much more comfortable is she would have asked me to teach her to study the Bible.

"Relationship with God" had always been viewed suspiciously in my neck of the woods. That was a Baptist phrase. I was accustomed to speak of "being a member of the church." I had a "relationship with the church" ... not God, Jesus and certainly not with the SPIRIT himself.

I again confess, sadly now, that this sister caused angst in my life. My religion was almost completely cerebral ... it was a head faith. I loved God, Jesus and even the Spirit though the he made me nervous. Something was awry!

As Robert Richardson cautioned in that Restoration classic of spirituality, Communings in the Sanctuary, "it is this religion {i.e. of the head/intellect} that inspires that spiritual pride which dogmatizes in matters of opinion and that intolerant bigotry which persecutes in matters of faith" (p.24) ...

This relationship talk could be just a smokescreen for shoddy bible study. Indeed, spirituality (or piety as spirituality is sometimes reduced to) has been, at times, disparaged by some significant leaders in Churches of Christ. R. H. Boll, for example, was renown in his day as man of prayer. But in the eyes of his nemesis, R. L. Whiteside, this made him suspect. Whiteside, commenting directly on Boll's spiritual demeanor, chides "when a man boasts {something Boll did not do btw} of his honesty, veracity, piety and devotion ... well anybody but dupes become suspicious" (Christ and His Kingdom, pp. 23f). I can relate to RLWs words because I have believed them and lived them.

Signs of the Refreshing SPIRIT

But the simple questions of that dear sister would not go away. Like a poltergeist floating around my noggin I began to come to grips with the terrifying fact that though I had been baptized, and took the Lord's Supper routinely, and deeply studied the Bible ... I did not know how to pray, and though I was a Christian I had precious little "relationship with God, Christ or his Spirit." I was comfortable talking about God but I was not comfortable communing with God.

I firmly believed, by this time, in God's saving grace and I believed in the indwelling Spirit. I proclaimed we were saved by God's grace through faith (to the best of my ability). But now, I suspect, that I misunderstood the PURPOSE of my salvation.

I believe, now, that God did not send his Son simply to remove the stain of sin. He did do that. But the goal, the reason, was not simply to forgive sin (though he does that praise his name). Rather Jesus shed his blood so that we (I) could have restored communion with God. The goal of salvation was not the removal of sins. That was a means to the goal. The telos was restoration of communion, the restoration of fellowship ... Restoration of intimate intimacy.

We all believe that we will be in God's Presence in the eschaton. But now I believe we have that glorious fellowship NOW ... the goal of our salvation. We have that through God's refreshing Holy Spirit. Many of our Fathers understood what I did not clearly. To quote from Robert Richardson again,

"To establish and maintain this communion is the great end of religion. To unite the soul to God; to erect in the human heart a living temple for his abode; to secure the enjoyment of that Divine presence which is the earnest of eternal blessedness: these are its noble and exalted aims -- its truest, holiest purposes. And oh! how intimate is that fellowship to which we are thus introduced by the true and living Word ... As sons to a compassionate father, we approach him to hear his words; to rejoice in his power, wisdom, and love; to cast our cares upon him and to repose in the faithful assurances of his unceasing favor" (Communings, p. 45)

Interestingly, it was from walking with giants of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement like Robert Richardson, James A. Harding and K. C. Moser that I felt God seeking my heart as well as my brain. I began to see that SPIRIT-uality was not simply being good or even pious. SPIRIT-uality is nothing short than the Holy Spirit himself God's communion and operation in our lives. And slowly (and I mean slowly) I began to learn that it is ok to "walk with the Spirit."

Signposts of God's Refreshing Spirit

This notion of communion with God, I believe now, one of the central unifying themes of all Scripture. God created us for communion. God recreates us through his Son for communion. God wants to be with his creation! That is why he sacrificed his Son. That is why he sent his Spirit.

There are many texts in the canon that point to this theme and goal. However three that have come to mean so much to me are two from Paul and one from Moses.

1) Ephesians 1.13-18; 2.18,22 (know him better; access through the Spirit; know hope)

2) Ephesians 3.14-19 (strength and knowledge of the depth of Christ's love through the Spirit)

3) Exodus 24.1-11. (God's gracious Presence ... I want to eat and drink in his Presence, I want to "see God")

{In the Pepperdine presentation I spent significant time with each of these important, and in the case of Exodus unknown texts}

Plugging into the River of the Refreshing Spirit

SPIRIT-uality is not works righteousness. It is not a new legalism. It is not a means to manipulate God. Rather SPIRIT-uality is a gift of grace from the Holy Spirit. I take Paul as my guide on this point. "SPIRITUAL" is used as an adjective at least 24x by Paul. This is so important and we must grasp this point. Spiritual does not mean mental, an internal disposition or some such notion. Paul's use of SPIRITUAL as an adjective means BY, OF, FLOWING OUT OF, COMING FROM God's Refreshing Holy Spirit. SPIRITUALITY is the product of or Fruit of God himself in the Person of his Spirit. God's own Spirit conceives and forms the life of Christ within us. Our spirits are formed by THE SPIRIT ... that is what we seek.

Thus when I called this class "Desperately Seeking SPIRIT-uality" I mean desperately craving to be caught up in God's rhythm of grace for life. I mean surrendering to the raging current of the River of the Spirit. I mean coming to know, to be known and to see God as the elders of Israel did and as Paul says in Eph 1.

I share the following suggestions that have been helpful to me. If I had to answer that dear sister today these are things I would share with her. There is nothing original or revolutionary here ...

First. Ruminato. "to consider, to meditate upon, to ingest and chew upon." Lectio divina ... an ancient way of SPIRITUAL reading. I am convinced that no one in the restoration tradition has taught more on the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of a disciple than James A. Harding. From him we learn that the Spirit renews and deepens our commitment to the written word as HIS instrument. Scripture is a "means of grace" he says, a sacrament so to speak of communing with God himself. If I ever get a chance to delve more in Harding's life I would love to write a book about his theology of the Spirit. Desperately seeking SPIRIT-uality means we are committed to serious study of God's word, but as a Nigerian Christian put it to me, "we don't need any more leaders with heads full of Greek and hearts full of lust!"

Ruminato, lectio divina, is a way of reading that says "if I took this passage seriously what would I have to change right now?" What a dangerous question to submit to the Refreshing Holy Spirit ... we may not like the answer!

This is a way of reading in which we "savor the word" {at this point I have written in the margin that Billy Wilson, a keynote speaker, used a chocolate illustration}. The word is like a delicious lozenge we carry in our mouths all day. 

I would like to recommend ruminating on images of God like Father, Husband, Lover, Mother ... get caught up, and even lost, in these metaphors and watch how the Spirit nourishes your soul.

Second. Prayer. I have learned that prayer is easy to begin but difficult to develop. But over the last few years I have discovered that the Spirit has provided a magnificent "prayerbook" for the saints. Since 1997 I have been not just studying and ruminating on Scripture but I have begun to pray the Bible. The Psalms of course are a treasure trove but they are not alone. Here Scripture is not a means to doctrinal precision but an instrument bearing our spirit to the Holy Spirit. Nothing, I believe, can help us plug into the river of the Spirit more than simply praying his word back to him. We will find even in the Story itself prayer warriors like Moses himself who engaged God in wrestling prayer through Scripture.

But I have discovered that the saints in Scripture are not the only prayer treasures providentially preserved by the Spirit for us. I have discovered, ironically, the value of God's church, the community of disciples down through the centuries. You will recall Paul's words in Eph 1 and 3 about the role of the community in discovering the riches of fellowship with God. Does that mean only the living saints? Clearly not! Have we not inherited a wealth of SPIRIT-ual riches? I confess that I did not think so in years past ... I had that opinion by the way with practically NO knowledge of that heritage. But today I do believe so.

Many Christians have written down their prayers. These prayers are not inspired like the Psalms. Yet they are often incredibly helpful, amazingly rich and ... inspiring! Their faith in the darkness, I claim as my own. Their courage and boldness in the face of satanic onslaught, I claim as my own. Their words rising to the throne of God like sweet incense ... have become mine.

{At this point I referred to specific examples of earthy, earnest, SPIRIT-ual prayer. Manasseh's Prayer of Repentance. Tobias' prayer for a God-centered marriage. The church's prayer to glorify God in Te Deum. Etc.}

Some of these great prayers of the past have been preserved in books like The Prymer or The Book of Hours. These are wonderful tools to cultivate a river of the Spirit into the mundane tasks of life. Through some we are daily focused upon the Incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord. Our prayers become centered in the rhythm of grace rather than our individual whims.

I have found that these resources have enriched my prayer life tremendously. They have not by any means diminished spontaneous prayer. Rather I have found that I have found a disposition towards prayer that I credit the work of the SPIRIT for. Perhaps this is something like what Paul meant when he urged us to "pray IN the Spirit."

Third. Sabbath. This is a strange suggestion to the ears of us in Churches of Christ. Sabbath is not simply a saturday but a period of rest and cessation of activity to enjoy the things of God. George MacDonald once wrote that sleep is God's contrivance for giving us the help he cannot get into us when we are awake ...

The sabbath principle is one of the finest examples of the rhythm of grace. Here GOD works and we simply "let it be." When I stop my work nothing essential stops. The world goes on. It is both humbling and liberating to know that the burden of the care of the world does not depend upon me. Evening and Morning is the biblical rhythm beginning in Genesis 1. God is working before we are created or rise from bed and he continues to work when we return to sleep or rest. In our lives we are graciously invited to join in his work in the power he supplies through his own Spirit.

Taking a break, a sabbath, allows us to slow down and let the Spirit give us rest and perhaps a "tune up."

Concluding Remarks

I am still a spiritual pygmy. But I do believe that God has blessed me in profound ways over the last few years through his Refreshing Spirit. I have lots of flesh yet to crucify but I join Churchill in saying, by God's grace of the SPIRIT-ual, I now sleep the sleep of the saved and the thankful.

Read More

With a Book ... Communion across the Page

For those out there that are Civil War buffs as well as disciples of the prince of peace I want to call attention to Mark Noll's The Civil War as a Theological Crisis. Noll is one of the foremost historians of religion in its North American contexts and has done us all a huge service in this small (200 pages) and very insightful work. The Civil War was for all intents and purposes a religious war in many ways akin to those in Europe. The religious dimensions of the war have often been minimized and even downright denied by much 20th century scholarship. Noll explodes this myth and does it soundly. Of particular interest to those who take following Jesus seriously, Noll's chapter on "The Crisis over the Bible" is worth ruminating on at great length. Put this one on your to read very soon list.

Over the last decade Thomas Cahill has become one of my favorite writers. His "Hinges of History" series has been a delight to read, entertaining and informative. His Mysteries of the Middle Ages and the Beginning of the Modern World is larger than his previous volumes and it is beautifully and lavishly illustrated. I love it for the medieval art alone! People were not as dumb in the "dark ages" as popular mythology would have us believe. Again one can not read through this period of history and not at the same time learn something of the ways of God's ever flawed people in this world.

Sometimes it is interesting to hear about what others think about certain books or authors. One author that has been influential in my "scholarly" development has been Gordon Fee. His book, with Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth changed forever how I read the Bible. Fee's works are some of the preeminent examples of not only what scholarship is but what faith scholarship must be. So it was interesting to me to come across this short interview with him on who he finds to be stimulating. Enjoy. Blessings and Shalom.

Read More