A High Touch Church: 20 Random Acts of Grace & Love

A High-Touch Church in A High-Tech World: 20 Random Acts of Grace and Love



1) Give love and support to a parent of teens

2) Rake a widows rocks

3) Take a single to lunch

4) Offer to keep a young mother’s children for a few hours so she can

have some personal time

5) Write a note of appreciation to an elder, deacon, Bible class teacher, or even the

preacher

6) Make an anonymous gift of $50 to a couple for a date

7) Visit someone in the hospital

8) Invite a visitor to sit with you

9) Invite a family over for snacks and games

10) Volunteer for the Giving Tree or other helping ministries

11) Host a teen event

12) Write a letter to a missionary

13) Pray daily for people in this church by name

14) Never let a visitor go unspoken to

15) Smile instead of frowning

16) Give love to those recovering from substance abuse

17) Offer to tutor a student struggling academically

18) Pick up the phone and call to tell someone that you love and

appreciate them

19) Share a good book with someone

20) Find the good and praise it



It is so incredibly easy to be a well-meaning dragon. It is so easy to tear down but it takes loving maturity to find the good and contribute to the good of the family of God.



"Finally, beloved, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of SHALOM will be with you." (Philippians 4.8-9, NRSV)



Shalom,

Bobby Valentine

Read More

J.W. McGarvey's Evolving Relationship with Mk 16.9-20

J. W. McGarvey is widely regarded as the greatest scholar produced by the Stone Campbell Movement. As we continue to think about the ancestry and history of the King James Version I thought I would tie Stone Campbell history with that of the KJV. McGarvey was indeed a great scholar and one of his strengths was the ability to let fresh light change his mind on even important subjects. Briefly in this blog I will trace the "evolution" of his views on the ending of the Gospel of Mark. His "conclusion" of the matter in his commentary on Mark dating from 1875 (really became nothing but a point on the timeline), his visitation of the subject again in 1886 and then ten years later in 1896 (2x). Its should be fairly obvious that McGarvey softens and alters his original position in light of further evidence.

1875: Commentary on Matthew and Mark

McGarvey has an extended discussion on the ending of Mark in this commentary. He says "Our final conclusion, is that the passage in question is authentic in all its details, and that there is no reason to doubt that it was written by the same hand which indited [sic] the proceeding [sic] parts of this narrative. The objections which have been raised against it are better calculated to shake our confidence in Biblical Criticism than in the genuineness of this inestimable portion of the word of God." (p. 379).

McGarvey, in his Commentary, had made great efforts to disprove the work of British scholar Henry Alford (The Greek New Testament) who had made -- at the time -- the most persuasive arguments against Mark 16.9-20. At the end of his discussion McGarvey reveals that he had received John W. Burgon's The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. He cautiously recommends the book to his readers with this interesting caveat that Burgon tends to be "extravagant in many of his expressions, and often extreme in his conclusions." McGarvey’s endorsement of Burgon is hardly the wholesale or “over the top” like some of Burgon’s later fans. We will mention Burgon again below.

Also of interest is this interesting qualification that McGarvey make, especially in light of his rather confident "conclusion." He writes: "The authenticity of the passage being conceded, and the fact being apparent that it was written by some one who possessed of independent and correct sources of information, the question of its genuineness might be waived without detracting from its authority or credibility; for a true piece of history attached to Mark's book is not less valuable or authoritative because some other person than Mark may have been the author of it . . ."

Why make this qualification? Why separate authorship and authority?

1886: Evidences of Christianity

The eleven years after the publication of McGarvey's Commentary, were years filled with significant developments in the field of textual criticism. One of the most important was the publication of the 1881 Revised Version of the Bible and Westcott and Horts Greek New Testament and Introduction with the Appendix of variant readings. McGarvey briefly returned to the issue of the ending of Mark. He says, "The genuineness of these [Mk 16.9-20 & Jn 7.53-8.11] is doubted by some critics, though confidently defended, especially the former, by others. Further investigation will doubtless bring all to the same judgment concerning them" (Evidences, pp. 15-16).

In a lengthy footnote McGarvey pitted Hort's discussion against that of Frederick Scrivener (Introduction to the Critical Study of the New Testament). Scrivener, in McGarvey's view, has provided an "elaborate answer to all the arguments of Dr. Hort.” But McGarvey does not say anywhere where he comes down on the issue. Significantly, I think anyway, McGarvey makes no mention -- at all -- of Burgon's book that also tried to meet the arguments of Hort.

1896: Christian Standard

We are now twenty-one years after McGarvey's Commentary and his original conclusion. In the space of two months McGarvey visited the subject of Mark 16.9-20 two times (in his column "Biblical Criticism"). I quoted one of those in my earlier post that was questioned. By this time much more light had been shed on the subject than was available in 1875, and even in 1886. Significantly, McGarvey defers to Alford's opinion rather than his own (which recall he tried to refute in 1875):

"Yes, the statement is true; and it is true of more verses than the gentleman said; for the last twelve verses are absent from the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., the two oldest now extant, both belonging to the fourth century. They are also absent from some later MSS., and in some others they appear in various forms. The question whether this negative evidence proves that the verses are not genuine, has excited much controversy among textual critics. Some contend that they have been accidentally lost from the few MSS. which have a gap here, while others contend that the original gospel did not contain them. I think the trend of opinion in recent years is in favor of the suggestion first made by Alford -- that the fragment was not originally part of Mark's Gospel but that it is an authentic piece of history appended by a contemporary writer. This would account for its absence from some MSS. and its presence in others." ("An Oft Repeated Question," Christian Standard 32 [1896], p.1239).

Immediately one thinks of the "qualification" McGarvey made originally in 1875 in his Commentary -- the historicity and authorship do not depend on coming from Mark's hand. Why is it that McGarvey does not come out as strong as he did in his Commentary? One can see that he has moved in his position regarding the Ending of Mark.

One month later, McGarvey received a question from C.H. Thompson concerning Mark 16.9-20 and Vaticanus. I will quote his reply:

"The question of the genuineness of these verses is one of the most intricate with which textual critics of the New Testament have to deal. At the close of my commentary on Mark, I attempted to set forth the principal evidence, pro and con, as it was known at the time of publication. Since then new light has been thrown upon the question, and the most elaborate discussion of it, in the light of them recently gained information, can be found in the appendix to the Greek text of Westcott and Hort. I think that, after a candid study of the evidence as a whole, it must be conceded that the question is as yet unsettled. It would be reckless to say that the passage is spurious; and it would be hazardous to affirm that these verses are certainly genuine. At the same time, I think it safe to say, as I did before, that the statements contained in them are authentic, whether written by Mark or appended by another hand." (Ending of Mark, Christian Standard 32 [1896], p. 1367).

This is certainly an "evolved" view from his "conclusion" at the end of his Commentary in 1875. He flatly states the question is unsettled and it is hazardous to affirm them as genuine. He returns to his position -- his "out" -- in his commentary. The information in 16.9-20 is accurate whether written by Mark or not. Why? Because the information is all paralleled in the other Gospels. Please note that Burgon is not even on the radar scope of McGarvey any more. In fact McGarvey says that the best discussion to be found is in Westcott and Hort commending that source. There is clear movement, by McGarvey, away from his confident conclusion of 1875.

One should note that the question has moved considerably since 1896. I would say two thirds of the info now available was not in 1896. The status of the versions has changed drastically since then, Burgon's claims about the Church Fathers has been disproved in study after study. Perhaps we can learn from McGarvey's willingness to amend his conclusion in light of further information.

A McGarvey Appendix from a letter I wrote several years ago:

Greetings Brother ... from the land of beer and cheese. Thank you for the copy of the article by Brother Wayne Jackson in the Carolina Christian about Baptism and Mark 16.9-20. I read the article. . . agreeing with some . . . disagreeing with some. My reply will be simply to a few short footnotes to the article.

Before I give my two footnotes on Jackson's article let me say that we should be able to present a biblically based, Christ-centered theology of both the form and function of baptism without recourse to Mark 16.9-20. Now just in case Brother Jackson sees this I confess that I do believe in baptism and Acts 2.38 (all of it). Now to the footnotes.

First the textual issue regarding Mark 16.9-20. Jackson cites J.W. McGarvey as a defender of the authenticity of the "Long Ending" of Mark. McGarvey's Commentary on Matthew and Mark was published in 1875 (if my memory serves) before the publication of Westcott and Hort's Greek NT. It was before the discovery of the Syriac MSS at St. Cathrine's in the Sinai Desert. It was before the discovery of many other evidences that suggest these verses are not authentic. McGarvey's commentary is about as out of date on textual issues as a book on the Solar System from the same period. That is not a put down just a simple fact.

However, McGarvey was an astute student of textual criticism and his views on the "long ending" of Mark went through considerable evolution after 1875. By 1896, writing in his column in the Christian Standard "Biblical Criticism," he indicates that Mark probably did not write verses 9-20. Today there are few scholars of any kind (including Churches of Christ) that accept the authenticity of these verses. There are actually four endings to this Gospel that are known. I would not base any "doctrine" on this text. We have nothing to fear from this. As Jackson says in his article (when he critiques A.T. Robertson) we should let "grammar" (i.e. the TEXT) determine our theology and not theology the text.

Second, it is most fascinating that Jackson uses McGarvey in the manner he did. Why? Because McGarvey did not believe that baptism (immersion) was absolutely, necessarily, essential to salvation on that glorious day of reckoning. He declared this very clearly in the Gospel Advocate in reaction to some he believed were taking extreme views on the issue,

"Dear Bro.:
Replying to yours of the 15th, I have no doubt there are pious persons who have never been immersed. It would be absurd and ridiculous to deny it in the face of what we see and know of thousands of persons living and dead who have exhibited self-sacrificing love of God and man, which puts to shame all common disciples. I have as little doubt that many unimmersed persons will be saved in the final day. It is not necessary in order to contend for scripture teaching on the subject of baptism to take the ground that God has tied his hands and put it out of his power to grant mercy to any who have been misled in regard to that ordinance. He has bound us, but he has not bound himself; except that he is bound to do what he has promised. He has not bound himself to do no more than he has promised. Don't injure the cause of truth by taking positions which rob God of the power to be merciful.

Yours fraternally,
J.W. McGarvey"

(Gospel Advocate [vol 37 [December 12, 1895], 790).

Now I wonder if McGarvey is one of those "apostate change agents" that Jackson was talking about “brother …” But I think McGarvey has some pretty wise words here. We do not have to become folks who rob God of mercy in order to present the biblical theology of baptism. Baptism is, after all, about God's mercy and grace -- to present it as otherwise is to present an untruth.

__________

Concluding Thoughts

I want to recommend an outstanding resource by my friend Stan Helton. Stan has done a yeoman's task sifting through nearly all the articles published on the textual issue of Mark 16 in the Stone Campbell Movement. See his article "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20" in Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 33-52. I give him credit for first calling my attention to McGarvey's maturing views.

Read More

The Crucible of Worship: Reflecting on Psalm 116

A New Pair of Eyes

When I was 15; something happened that changed my life, I got my first pair of glasses! It was time to go down and get my drivers permit. I was excited and ready to take an exam. I hurriedly filled out the answers to the written test and I blew it away. Then that mean lady, you know her, made me sit down and take an eye exam! I stumbled and fumbled over letters trying to read them to her. I was confident I was not blind and did not need any thing attached to my face. Much to my consternation -- I failed! I had to go down and get glasses! I was shattered. I was humiliated! Here I expected to drive home in our ugly yellow/brown Dodge Cornet Station wagon home but instead I had to go get glasses!

We went down to the eye doctor a couple of days latter and I came away with a brand new pair of glasses. I hated admitting that I couldn't see well enough to drive without them. But when I put them on -- whoa! I could see! Those were leaves on the trees. The clouds were not just huge blobs in the sky, they had shapes and sizes. That night I went out to look at the stars and the night sky looked very different indeed. I could see four times as many stars as before -- so many in fact I lost my bearings and could not find where I wanted to go. I never knew all the good things I was missing out on simply because I didn't have glasses to see. Now I thank God for my glasses.

I have had similar experience in worshiping God. I grew up going to church, every Sunday and Wednesday. But the concept of `praising' God was as nebulous to me as those clouds without my glasses on. The thought of worshiping God, I was as blind to what that meant as I was the night sky which I thought I knew so well! I thought I worshipped the Almighty but I was just mouthing words that I didn't understand, and singing and praying to a God I did not really know!

I remember when I first failed my "praise exam"! I had been going to Bible college for three years so I should have known how to worship -- or so I thought! I baptized a lady and she wanted me to teach her how to praise God. I was dumb-founded! No one had ever asked me a question like that before. Well, just pray and sing . . . "go to church," was what I told her, but I knew that sounded hallow, and realized I myself did not know how to praise my God. I have, btw, failed my praise exam many times since then ...

I thought surely the Bible would tell me how to praise God. But I could find nothing that said: "This is how you are to praise God, here are three steps..." But I started to read the Book of Psalms (Book of Praises in Hebrew) and I discovered that these people knew how to praise God. As I read the book over and over I discovered that praise is not so much a routine or technique we go through but a matter of the heart. Worship, simply put, is a heart expressing love toward God.

Then I did begin to notice a “pattern” of sorts in the Psalms, however. There was not a flag that said here is step one or step two. But over and over certain concepts kept coming to the forefront of the Psalms. I want to share with you what I discovered in the Psalms. I want to share how different my world looked, so different that like the night sky I can say before I did not have the foggiest idea of what was really in the sky. Now God has given me glasses to see and those glasses are called the Book of Psalms. I discovered three basic components of praise in Psalms: 1) it is first a simple acknowledgement of WHO God is; 2) it is acknowledging what God has done; 3) acknowledging what he can do or will do in the present. We will see these themes in Psalm 116.

LIFE'S PAST CRISIS (116: 1-4)

I love the LORD, for he heard my voice; he heard my cry for mercy. Because he turned his ear to me, I will cull on him as long as I live.

The cords of death entangled me, the anguish of the grave came upon me; I was overcome by trouble and sorrow. Then I called an the name of the LORD: `O LORD, save me''

Our unnamed psalmist confesses to what we ourselves often confront -- the harsh realities of life. He describes his situation as being entangled in "cords of death," he was in "anguish of the grave" and "overcome by trouble and sorrow." Does any of that sound familiar? It does to me. I don't know if this person was deathly ill or under severe persecution. Bu whatever it was it was enough to cause anxiety in our psalmist.

The psalmist's exact situation may not be ours but I have been under similar burdens, haven't you? The struggle we all have over a loved ones illness or our own. Maybe financial hard times have come upon you and creditors are breathing dawn your neck terrorizing your existence. Maybe the IRS has decided to do an audit on you or your boss is on your case. Maybe your job is in the balance. Perhaps your family is falling apart. We have all been here with this psalmist.

For the psalmist it was this horrible experience that pushed him to call upon the LORD to act in his behalf. God have mercy on me, you know my situation. You know those seeking my life are liars, please deliver me! Lord you know the troubles in my life so "save me!" It is here that we see principle three in action, praise grows out of the belief that God will ACT on my behalf! I must believe that God is active in the world - without that I will never call on the name of the LORD. That leads us to the second section of this psalm.

GOD'S DEEDS ON BEHALF OF THE PSALMIST (116.5-11)

The LORD is gracious and righteous; our God is full of compassion. The LORD protects the simple hearted when I was in great need, he saved me. Be at rest once more, O my soul, for the LORD has been good to you.

For you, O LORD have delivered my soul from death, my eyes from tears, my feet from stumbling, that I may walk before the LORD an the land of the living.
I believed; therefore I said, "I am greatly afflicted." And in my dismay I said, "All men are liars.

Before I got my spiritual glasses (which hardly gives me 20-20 vision by the way!) I thought praise was just a matter of singing. Nothing could be further from the truth! Praise is dependent upon knowing God, and not just facts knowing God but knowing him accurately I praise him because I KNOW him. If I do not know him I am just mouthing words that get no higher than the ceiling.

Throughout the whole Bible, but especially in Psalms, God's people come to know him through his actions. Even in the NT when John the Baptist is sitting in prison wondering if he made a mistake about Jesus, he sent his disciples to ask Christ "are you the one?" Jesus did not respond by quoting prophecies or give a list of his divine attributes. The Savior said:

Go back and report to John what you heat, and see: the blind receive sight, the 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 (Mt. 11:4-5).

Jesus wanted John to draw his own conclusions about his messiahship on the basis of what he DID!! Actions speak louder than words we always are told, well God has given us a plethora of action to determine if he is a faithful and trustworthy God. In the Hebrew Scriptures in God says in essence: look at my record, it speaks for itself, now you draw your conclusions about me from that record.

Hebrew saints did just that. Again and again in Psalms believers refer to that marvelous experience of crossing the Reed Sea and they use it as a rallying point of experience to encourage themselves and others -- if God could do that, then surely he can do wonders now in the present!

This is absolutely fundamental to praise. Our psalmist believed God could and would act -- and he did. He KNOWS the Lord because he has experienced the Lord. Yahweh delivered him and he praises him for a concrete personal deliverance. That is the crucible of praise! Listen to the psalmist: "the LORD is gracious and righteous . . . full of compassion. The LORD protects the simple hearted..." The minstrel alludes to Exodus 34.6: Yahweh is gracious. How did the psalmist know that? He knows because he himself has experienced the grace of God first hand: "when I was in need, he saved me!” Praise grows out of that intimate personal knowledge of God. Who has God delivered? ME! Based an the accurate knowledge that God delivers, the psalmist can calm his troubled spirit; "be at rest once more, O my soul" Why, because God has been, active in his life.

Did you notice those extremely significant words in verse 10. "I believed; therefore I said, 'I cam greatly afflicted.” What did the psalmist believe? He believed that God would act. He believed in the God who had proven himself as trustworthy! His faith in God drove him to praise & prayer. This gives us a big clue to the crucible of worship. Worship are a response to the mighty deeds God has worked in the context of our own lives.

How can I put my spiritual glasses on so I can see the mighty acts of God in my life? The best way to do that is to do what the psalmist did -¬ keep a list of victories that God brings. David kept one: he knew how many lions and bears Yahweh had delivered him from so when he met Goliath he knew God would give him the victory. The Israelites praised God for the Exodus and her deliverance; we must acknowledge the Egypts, Babylons and bears that God has defeated in our lives. When you pray, keep a list and date the request, then come back and put the date of the answer. Listen to other Christians prayer requests, ask them about times when there could be no doubt God was watching faithfully over them. When you are troubled and a Scripture suddenly speaks to you -- it seems as if God put it in there just for you -- mark it down in on your list. Your Bible will be knitted together with the threads of your life, they become the fragrance of praise.


HOW CAN I REPAY THE LORD (116.12-19)

How can I repay the LORD for all his goodness to me?

I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD. ? will fulfill my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people.

Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints. O LORD, truly I am your servant, the son of your maidservant; you have freed me from my chains"

I will sacrifice a thank offering to you and call on the name of the LORD. I will fulfill my vows to the LORD in the presence of all his people, in the courts of the house Of the LORD -- in your midst, O Jerusalem

Praise the LORD."

Once we start seeing the world with our new glasses and we see how gracious our Lord really is toward us, we realize how inadequate any praise from our lips must be. I can never repay the Lord for what he has done in the past nor for what he is doing in the present. The psalmist realizes this. The best he can do is fulfill his vows to the Lord. He will lift up the cup of salvation, which is part of the thanksgiving offering and praise Yahweh as best he can. His true intimate knowledge of God convinces him how inadequate his attempts at praise really are; but it is from his heart and he means every word of praise offered to God. That is why it is a sweet sacrifice to the Lord. The rest of the psalmist's life will be spent in praise to God for what he has done (v.1)

Do we have any vows we need to keep before the gracious God of heaven? You made a vow when you were baptized didn't you? You vowed before heaven that you were making Jesus the Lord of your life! Does that vow need a little attention? I vowed I would give him my heart for allowing his Son to die for me, have I? Am I fulfilling my vows to God? My praise flows out of these. If I am not seeking to honor him, and to know him intimately then how can I really praise him. The words I sing out of the song book are someone else’s praise. They become mine when I can say these words represent the knowledge that God has been active in my own life. It is my praise when I say with our psalmist "how can I repay the LORD ;or his goodness to me?" Before I can say that I must know that he has been very good to me!

CONCLUSION

The daily deliverances in our become the crucible of praise. The little things that happen day in and day out -- keep track of them and praise God for them! Think of the bad times in your life -- did God see you through them? Have you thanked him for his grace in those situations, or did he rescue you and you forget to acknowledge it was He who delivered you? I must confess that I have frequently forgotten . . .

Read More

Book of First Maccabees: God's Family of Deliverance

I continue in this post with our journey through the Ancestry of the King James Version with a look at another of those books in its table of contents that never appeared in a New American Standard or NIV. I hope you enjoy it.



First Maccabees recounts how those doughty defenders of God’s People, Mattathias and his five sons, delivered Israel from Antiochus IV and the “renegade Jews” resulting in political freedom for Israel first time in four centuries. The author, whose name has not been preserved, gives us with a carefully crafted history showing Judas and his brothers to be the divinely appointed agents of salvation for Israel. The ideology of 1 Maccabees would shape Jewish nationalism and messianic hopes for the next three centuries and has tremendous value in understanding the hope of Israel in the time of Jesus. The love and respect for Judas is seen when he passes in these words, “How the mighty is fallen, the savior of Israel!”



Introductory Matters



First Maccabees was written shortly after 134 BC in the Hebrew language. The book, however, survives in Greek, Syriac, Old Latin, Vulgate and Armenian translations. The early church father, Origen, seems to have known the book in its Hebrew version (cf. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical Histories, 6.25) but was known as “The Book of the House of the Hasmoneans” or “The Book of the House of the Princes of God.”



The story of 1 Maccabees divides neatly into three main parts: The Crises and Mattathias response to it (1.1-2.70), the exploits of Judas (3.1-9.22), and the exploits of Jonathan and Simon (9.23-12.53; 13.1-16.24).



Luther on First Maccabees



We have seen that Luther, though rejecting the canonical status of Apocryphal books, held most of these books in very high regard. Likewise, 1 Maccabees was a great book in Luther’s eyes. He translated the book for his German Bible in 1533, here are a few words from his Preface to the First Book of Maccabees:



This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel. For the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy in the chapter, about the abomination and misfortune which was going to befall the people of Israel, is here described – namely, Antiochus Epiphanes – and in much the same way that Daniel [11.29-35] speaks of it . . . This [among other reasons] is why the book is good for us Christians to read and to know. (Luther’s Works, vol. 35,pp. 350-352).



The Crises of the Maccabees



The “crises” of Maccabees was that of Hellenization. God’s People had existed peacefully under other Greek rulers like Alexander and the Ptolemies of Egypt. However, there arose a “sinful root” (1.10) known in 1 Maccabees as Antiochus Epiphanes the ruler of the Seleucid Empire. As the author of 1 Maccabees makes clear the problem is not only Antiochus but renegade Jews who wish to undermine the law of God:



In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many saying, ‘Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us.’ This proposal pleased them, and some of the people eagerly went to the king. He authorized them to observe the ordinances of the Gentiles. So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil (1.11-15, RSV).



Soon things went from bad to worse. Antiochus invaded Egypt defeating their armies and for good measure decided to “enter the sanctuary” and loot the temple (1.21-24). He soon stationed troops in the city and began a zealous program of converting the Jews to enlightened paganism. He demanded that “alters and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals and to leave their sons uncircumcised” (1.47-48). The Torah was confiscated and burned. In a very moving passage we read about the courageous faith of certain Jewish women,



According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks. But many in Israel stood firm and were resolved in their hearts not to eat unclean food. They chose to die rather than be defiled by food or to profane the holy covenant; and they did die. And very great wrath came upon Israel (1.60-64).



The Maccabaean Response



The revolt against the Seleucid king began in a small town named Modein. The king’s representative set up an alter and called the people to come and sacrifice on it. Mattathias’ was encouraged to take the lead in this activity but refused.



Even if all the nations that live under the rule of the king obey him, and have chosen to obey his commandments, everyone of them abandoning the religion of their ancestors, I and my sons and my brothers will continue to live by the covenant of our ancestors (2.19b-20).



However, when a “lawless” Jew stepped forward to comply, Mattathias killed him and the king’s men. The author explicitly links the “burning” zeal of Mattathias to that of Phinehas (2.26, cf. Numbers 25.6-15). Mattathias soon dies and leadership passes to his son Judas.



One of the moving testimonies to the faith of Judas comes in chapter 3 when he has to face the massively superior force of Seron, commander of the Seleucid army. His men are faint with fear. Judas exhorts his troops with a faith building speech,



It is easy for many to be hemmed in by few, for in the sight of Heaven there is no difference between saving by many or by few. It is not on the size of the army that victory depends, but strength comes from Heaven. They come against us in great insolence and lawlessness to destroy us and our wives and our children, and to despoil us; but we fight for our lives and our laws. He himself will crush them before us; as for you, do not be afraid of them. (3.18-22).



The “Abomination of Desolation”



One of the major issues in 1 Maccabees relates to Daniel 11.31. Following the decree of Antiochus a series of provocative acts were made against the faith of Israel: the desecration of the alter of burnt offering outside the temple; the building of alters through-out Judea; the destruction of the books of Torah; and finally, the ultimate, the offering of illegal sacrifice “on the alter which was upon the alter of burnt offering (1.54-59). The dates of the 15th and 25th of Kislev in 168 B.C. are clearly remembered as the ultimate sacrilege.



First Maccabees speaks of the erection of a bdelugma eremoseos, a “desolating sacrilege” or “abomination of desolation” upon the alter of burnt offering (cf. Daniel 11.31 and a variants of the phrase in 8.13; 9.27; 12.11). This phrase is picked up in the New Testament in Mark 13.14 and Matthew 24.15. The question is what does the phrase mean to our author? Most scholars think it refers to a derogatory parody of the Syrian god, Ba’al Samen (“Lord of Heaven”). This god of heaven is then related to Zeus Olympios (cf. 2 Macc. 6.1) in whose name the temple was rededicated. Thus Antiochus wants the Jews to worship an alternative god with unclean sacrifices (for more details see John R. Bartlett, 1 Maccabees in the Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Series, pp. 64-65).



Influence of 1 Maccabees



First Maccabees is an invaluable work for understanding the social situation of Jesus and his early disciples. The Maccabees shaped the political ideology that would fuel messianic movements in Judaism for centuries. The beliefs that God would grant victories in the face of overwhelming odds would motivate all would be liberators of Israel in the Roman period.



The model of a military messiah comes shining through the pages of the NT. For example John and James are portrayed as regarding their association with Jesus as a chance to gain temporal power after a revolution (Mark 10.35-45). The messiah figure of Judas Maccabeus certainly is in their minds. In the trial of Jesus, the Jewish and Roman accusers assume a connection between messianic claims and political subversion. In Acts 1.6 the disciples are still searching for a (seemingly) political restoration of the kingdom of Israel.



First Maccabees equates “zeal for the law” with violent action against renegade or apostate Jews (as well as Gentiles). This notion permeates the Zealots and Sicarii assaults on Jewish collaborators, and it also sheds considerable light on Paul’s own zeal to destroy those whom he imagined to be apostates.



The continuing influence of 1 Maccabees is seen in the celebration of Hanukkah (See Jesus the Jew and Hanukkah). The rabbis were quite familiar with the story of Maccabees and we have seen that Josephus used 1 Maccabees 1-13 in writing his history of the Jews. The book enjoyed popularity in the early church as well. But as we will see 2 Maccabees left a larger impression because of its glorification of martyrdom. The Hebrew Preacher lauds the Maccabees in his Hall of Fame of Faith (See Jewish Traditions in Hebrews 11).

Read More

Dust in the Wind: Life in Qohelet's Postmodern World

Qohelet’s Sonnet: Life in the Postmodern World

Ecc. 3.1-15



Ecclesiastes 3 is probably one of the more famous passages in the Hebrew Bible. Many folks remember either the hippy era (or Forrest Gump) and can sing along with The Byrds, 'Turn! Turn! Turn! (To Everything There is A Season . . .)' The beauty of Qohelet's poetry, however, often obscures for us the irony and sadness he is lamenting.



Unfortunately as moving as the Byrds version is that is not the message of the poem. The poem cannot be divorced from its textual unit which ends at v. 15 not v.8. In my previous study ("A Note on Ecc. 1.13") I pointed out how Qohelet understands that God has given humanity the 'task' (or 'burden' the Hebrew term has a distinctly negative connotation) to explore 'everything.' These two passages are clearly linked because Qohelet again uses 'inyan' in the middle of this unit (3.10).



What Qohelet has now done is turn to the 'burden' or 'task' of the 'proper' or 'fixed' time. This is actually a fairly common concern in ancient wisdom literature (Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek). What follows is an outline of the section, my translation of the text (I finished translating Ecc two days ago and has been a wonderful exercise) and a few notes.



I. The Sonnet (vv. 1-8)



This section, in exquisite poetry, expresses the theme that a 'set' or a 'fixed' time exists for everything under 'heaven' (not the usual 'sun' which occurs 29x [1]). Qohelet is certainly a master poet. He ensnares the reader in the lilting rhythm with the constant use of the infinitive construct and the repetition of 'et' (time) [2]. The lines of poetry pit one 'fixed' thing against its opposite. The message of the poem is bleak for in v.9 Qohelet rather rudely snaps us out of the trance he has placed us in by suddenly bringing us back to 1.3, 'What PROFIT is there . . .?'



II. The Reflection (vv. 9-15)



Verse 9 is, as I said, a rude awakening. Yes there is a 'fixed' time to everything - but for what? What does it 'profit' us that there IS a 'fixed' time when it is beyond human ability to manipulate or control. In the final analysis, argues the Preacher, everything is 'frustrating' and out of the control of humans. Everything in poem must be read in light of the entire context of the unit. In light of his observations the speaker again advocates the simple pleasures of life. But even these not all can enjoy.



III. A Proposed Translation (I am open to suggestions)



'For everything there is a moment,

and a time for every affair under the heavens.

A time to be born and a time to die;

a time to plant and a time to uproot what has been

planted.

A time to kill and a time to heal;

a time to tear down and a time to build.

A time to cry and a time to laugh;

a time of mourning and a time of dancing.

A time to cast stones and a time to gather stones;

a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.

A time to seek and a time to give up as lost;

a time to keep and a time to throw away.

A time to tear down and a time to sew;

a time to be silent and a time to speak.

A time to love and a time to hate;

a time of war and a time of peace.

What PROFIT do people have from their toils?

I observed the task that God has given to the human race to keep them occupied. He makes everything appropriate in its time. He also places eternity in their hearts. But still, no one can discover what God is doing from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for them than to be happy and enjoy themselves during their lives. Also everyone who eats, drinks, and enjoys their toil -- that is a gift of God. I know that everything God does lasts forever. Nothing can be added to it or taken from it. God has acted, so that they might fear him. Whatsoever is, already has been. What will be has already been. God makes the same things happen over and over again.'



Exegetical Comments:



Qohelet intends on covering everything -- no exceptions. The second colon makes the first line more specific by stating 'every affair/activity.' There are two 'time' words in v. 1: zeman and het. The second term is repeated throughout the poem.



What follows in the poem is a list of activities that are descriptive rather than prescriptive of what happens under heaven. After all, it would be hard to say that there is a 'good' time to be born, to die, or to lose something.



Verses 2-8 contain fourteen pairs of contrasting opposites. The citing of opposites in this way is known as merism, a fairly common pattern in Hebrew poetry.



Verse 9 is critical. The poem has now ended and the Preacher reflects on these set times. The point of the poem is that God has established periods of time for a wide array of emotions and activities. Is the world then not wonderfully ordered and a varied place of joy??



Qohelet responds in the negative: 'What profit do men have from their toils?' By means of this rhetorical question (the identical question is in 1.3 showing its negative content) the Teacher states that there is no purpose to doing anything in this fallen, absurd, world. His reasoning for that evaluation follows in vv. 10-15.



Verse 10 develops the thought of v.9. God has given mankind tasks to keep him busy (and Qoheleth will share even more 'depressing' observations on that in v.11). Verse 10 repeats and sharpens 1.13-14. The 'task' or 'burden' that God has laid on Qohelet is 'evil.'



Verse 11 must be understood in the context of Ecclesiastes or we are sure to import meanings that are not in the book. Taken apart from its context this is one of the most inspiring sentences in the Bible (Don Richardson has built an entire book on this one verse!!). Flowing from the poem in vv. 1-8 this verse says that God has made everything appropriate in its time. Indeed, if this statement had occurred IMMEDIATELY after the poem, it would give us a positive perspective on the first eight verses.



The following line notes that God has place 'eternity' in the human heart. Since eternity is a divine attribute and since its counterpart, mortality, is dreaded, one would think Qohelet would be pleased with this truth.



However the context clearly shows otherwise. Qohelet is not happy as a result of his observations about God's workings in the world and in the human heart -- the verse is yet another cry of frustration on Qohelet's part. He goes on in the last part of the verse to complain that God has kept his human creatures from knowing (or understanding) what is going on in his creation. It is almost as if God is baiting with his creatures, giving them a desire for something that is beyond their reach/ability.



More reflections on 'eternity.'



In the second sentence of v.11 God has placed eternity in our hearts according to the Teacher. I have done some more research on this part of the text and found their are four main interpretations of 'olam' that are summarized by James Crenshaw [3]:



1) eternity

2) world

3) course of the world

4) knowledge or ignorance



Each of these possibilities has both ancient and modern proponents. The most likely ones are 1 and 4. Rendering 'olam' as 'ignorance' has received some scholarly blood transfusions through the discovery of the Ugaritic texts at Ras Shamra where the Hebrew root and the Ugaritic root are related. But still the preponderance of evidence suggests that 'eternity' is the best translation -- we just need not import post-NT understandings of that into Qohelet.



Thus I understand v. 11 to be saying that God has placed within man a deep seated desire to -- a compulsion -- to know the meaning of the world (the 'burden'), its purpose and destiny. But Qohelet's 'drive to know' leads him to frustration not satisfaction or rest. So if I can paraphrase it is as if he is saying: 'There may indeed be appropriate times for everything, and God does know these times, but, speaking of humans, NO ONE CAN DISCOVER WHAT GOD IS DOING.' There is nothing 'from beginning to end' that humans can truly fathom.'



Verses 12 -15 form the conclusion. Qohelet affirms that we need to get on with life. Enjoy what we have -- as best we can.



Concluding remarks



In vv. 1-15 Qohelet acknowledges the order he sees in God's universe. There are proper times and seasons -- set by God. Nonetheless, since humans cannot know these times, the result is frustration. In the light of humanity's inability to discover the larger picture or significance of God's creation, Qohelet advocates settling for the lesser pleasures of life.



However, not everyone can avail themselves of these diversions -- only those whom God so blesses. The implication is that other people, including Qohelet himself, must struggle with depressing reality.



Again I call attention to the thought parallel with Paul in Romans 8. 18-21 and Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus.



Notes:



[1] the phrase 'under the sun' is unique to Qohelet in the Hebrew Bible appearing nowhere else. It does occur in extrabiblical Hebrew (of a much later date than Solomon interestingly enough -- another clue). The places the phrase occurs in Ecc. are 1.3, 9; 2.11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22; 3.16; 4.1, 3, 7, 15; 5.13, 18 [English text 5.14, 19]; 6.1, 12; 7.11; 8.9, 15[2x], 17; 9.3, 6, 9[2x], 11, 13; 10.5.



[2] This repetition is known as 'Anaphora.'



[3] James Crenshaw, 'The Eternal Gospel (Ecc. 3:11),' in Essays in Old Testament Ethics (New York, 1974), pp. 40ff.

Read More

Dust In the Wind: Qohelet's Protest against "Solomon"

Ecclesiastes is one of my favorite books in the Bible. It is one of the strangest books in the Bible too. Its real messages tends to be neutered among Christians. This is my second short reflection on this amazingly profound piece of biblical protest literature.



I have been asked about my KJV series ... yes there is more to come!



Who wrote Ecclesiastes?



It is important to note that that this is a separate question from who is Qohelet. Qohelet is the person who speaks through most of the book - the preacher. But the book was not written by Qohelet. There is the voice of the narrator that opens in the Prologue and reappears in the Epilogue to the book - clearly not the same person as Qohelet -- even in English. This question is also not a question about inspiration.



Even the most conservative scholars have long argued against the position that

Solomon was either the author or Qohelet -- I have come to accept this position for a number of reasons to be listed below. E. J. Young, probably the most conservative OT scholar of the last century even denied Solomon was the author of this book. There is in fact nothing in the book to support the notion that Solomon was author of the book.



1) Ecclesiastes 1.12 (Qohelet, was king over Israel in Jerusalem).



It is striking that the past tense is used here. Its use is a claim that there was a time when Solomon was alive but was no longer king (if we were to understand Qohelet as Solomon). Indeed the ancient Targum understands it this way and creates a legend that Solomon abdicated his throne in his old age. The historical books (Kings and Chronicles) however not only do not mention such a thing, but do not allow such a period in Solomon's life. According to 1 kings 11, Solomon died WHILE STILL king of Israel.



2) Ecclesiastes 1.16a (I said to myself, 'I have surpassed in wisdom everyone who ruled Jerusalem before me . . .")



This sounds very strange on Solomon's lips. Qohelet claims more wisdom than all the rulers in Jerusalem that proceeded him, but only David was ruler in Jerusalem before him. Unless one wishes to postulate that these included the pagan rulers of Jebus before it was Jerusalem.





3) The use of the image of "king"



I have concluded is a literary device used by Qohelet. That Qohelet is not really a king, or was a king, becomes evident when careful readers notice that the association between Qohelet and "king" lasts only through the first 3 chapters of the book, after which nothing is made of it. In fact when the kingship comes up later in the book there is a large gap between the speaker and the institution. For example:



Ecclesiastes 4.1-3 "I turned and observed all the oppression that is done under the sun, and Oh, the tears of the oppressed!! There is no one to comfort them. Power is in the grasp of the oppressors. There is no one to comfort them. So I praised the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still alive. But better than both of these is the one who does not yet exist. That one has not seen the evil activity that is done under the sun."



How could Solomon write these verses? He was the mightiest ruler of the land. He could easily have done something more than bemoan the plight of the oppressed -- as king that was his sworn duty. He was sworn to protect the oppressed. Note what Psalm 72 says (it is attributed to Solomon in the heading:



"He will defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy; he will crush the oppressor . . .



For he will deliver the needy who cry out,

the afflicted who have no one to help.

He will take pity on the weak and the needy

and save the needy from death.

He will rescue them from oppression and violence

for precious is their blood in his sight." (Psalm 72. 4, 12-14a).



Indeed from Kings we know that Solomon himself rather than bemoan the plight of the poor was in fact the oppressor. He created heavy burdens for his people, something that continued until the end of his reign as we know from the dialogue between the people of Israel and Rehoboam (1 Kings 12, esp. v.4).



4) Ecclesiastes 5.7-8 [English text 5.8-9] "If you see oppression of the poor and deprivation of justice and righteousness in the province, do not be surprised concerning the situation. For one official looks out for the other, and there are officials over them. The profit of the land is taken by all; even the king benefits from the field."



As before this seems like an impossible statement coming from Solomon. It is rather a PROTEST against the establishment, against the king, not by the king. Solomon, I doubt, would have so written about himself. And the comments under #3 apply here as well. The internal clues point to a person who was anything but the king.



From a stand point of the language of the text one can only comment that the Hebrew of Ecclesiastes is not like that of any other book in the Hebrew Bible. As one scholar once noted "if Koheleth were of old Solomonic origin, then there is no history of the Hebrew language" (Franz Delitzsch). The Hebrew of Ecc is more like what one finds in the Mishnah than in the rest of the Hebrew Bible. That strongly suggests that the book originates probably in the 3rd or 4th century B.C.E. rather than the 10th. Who wrote Ecclesiastes? A man known to us simply as the "Teacher" or "Preacher" whose confessions or observations were brought together by one of his students. Only in heaven will we learn of their real names. The names are unimportant however because the teaching is truly profound.

Read More

Dust in the Wind: Ecc 1.13

NOTES and TRANSLATION OF ECCLESIASTES. 1.13



"I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men!" (NIV).



The above translation offered by the NIV is just adequate to leave us hanging. I propose to make a short analysis of the Hebrew text and offer a tentative translation.



After introducing himself in v.12, Qohelet (the Preacher) records his exhaustive search and his "depressing" conclusion on the matter.



Outline of Text:



I. First Reflection vv. 13-15

A. Statement of "absurdity" of pursuing wisdom vv. 13-14

B. A proverb quoted, ironically, to support the absurdity v. 15

II. Second Reflection vv. 16-18

A. Statement of the "absurdity" of pursuing wisdom vv. 16-17

B. A proverb quoted, ironically, to support the position v. 18



A Note on translating "Hebel"



The word "hebel" occurs like a dripping water faucet throughout the text of Ecc. (32x in the Hebrew text). It is not simply "vanity" or "meaningless" in its various meanings for Qohelet. Rather "hebel" like "absurd" for Camus is oppressive and tragic [1]. In other texts in the Hebrew Bible the term is parallel with such words as kazab, seqer, awen, and ma'al which are usually translated as "deceit" or "lie" (cf. Zechariah 10.2; Psalm 62.10 and Job 21.34 as examples). Because the actions of people "under the sun" and the results of those actions are often so divorced in terms of outcome -- "hebel" is itself an injustice. I think the English word "absurd" captures Qohelet's meaning far more than the NIV's "meaningless."



With that background look at 1.13. This is how I render the verse:



"I devoted myself to search and to explore wisely [2] all that is done under heaven. It is an evil task that God has given to the human race to keep them occupied."



At the beginning of the unit (vv. 13-18, see outline) the Preacher informs us of his task, as given by God -- and his negative evaluation on it. The scope of his wise explorations was extensive -- "all that is done under heaven."



What is, perhaps, missed in the English versions is Qohelet's negative evaluation here in v. 13 that anticipates his conclusion in v. 17 that "wisdom" is nothing but "re 'ut ruah" -- "chasing after the wind." The Teacher uses the noun "inyan" ("task" or "burden") which only occurs in the book of Ecclesiastes in the Hebrew Bible. The mood of this negative word is retained elsewhere in the book (cf. 3.10). "inyan" is modified by the word adjective "ra" usually has moral overtones in the Hebrew Bible and is frequently translated as "evil." God's task given to Qohelet is seen as "evil" because of what he has learned -- it is all "absurd." Including wisdom.



In his conclusion to this teaching we see the Preacher's post exploration attitude -- not the beginning. It is only after he has exhaustively and wisely explored that he decides that the task was "inyan ra" an evil task.



Here we see some of the diversity in the Biblical canon. In Proverbs Wisdom brings joy and life. Qohelet begs, kindly, to differ. Wisdom rather than solving the issue of justice simply has allowed the Preacher to see it. Wisdom has brought frustration, pain and absurdity because the world is unjust. At the end of the journey of exploration Qohelet places "wisdom" and "folly" squarely on the same foot in sharp contrast with Proverbs. (read through Ecc with an eye on the issue of fairness and justice -- the theme is frequent).



It has occured to me in the last few days while reading Ecclesiastes through a couple of times that it provides a nice commentary on the world described by Paul in Romans 8.18-21. Though there is no direct quote of Ecc in this text, it is noteworthy that Paul uses the term "mataiotes" ("frustration," 8.20) which is the exact word the LXX (Septuagint) uses to translate "hebel" in Qohelet. In all his wisdom the Preacher sees the world as it really is in the present age -- UNREDEEMED!!



I hope to explore this "insight" somewhat further -- later. Again these are my "thoughts" generated by sustained reflection and study of the book but they are not set in stone by any means.



Notes:



[1] Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus, provides many interesting points of dialogue with Qohelet. There are many differences between these two but there are remarkable parallels as well.



[2] Bruce Waltke and M. O'Conner, Biblical Hebrew Syntax, pp. 196-97 describes the preposition "beth" as a "beth comitantiae-mental." That simply means the prep is to be rendered as an adverb.

Read More

Reviews of the NIV 2011 ...

Here are a few links to Daniel Wallace's four part review of the NIV 2011

Daniel Wallace is an outstanding New Testament scholar and expert in textual criticism. His book Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament is within easy reach all who work with the Greek text. His review of the NIV 2011 is fair and balanced (truly so). Far too often nothing short of a "hatchet job" is paraded around as a "review" ... I have no hesitation in recommending these posts.

Review of the NIV 2011 Part One

Review of NIV 2011 Part Two

Review of NIV 2011 Part Three

Review of NIV 2011 Part Four

Ben Witherington III is one of my favorite churchmen/scholars. His works have brought the modern reader to the streets of the first century in his commentaries such as Conflict & Communinty: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Corinthians. He is a believer and a scholar and his commitment to the word is great indeed. Here is his review:

The NIV 2011 and Inclusive Language

For a deeper but still succinct introduction to the "Gender-Inclusive" controversy there is no better work than Donald Carson's The Inclusive-Language Debate: A Plea for Realism. This small book is the best book around on the matter.

Rodney Decker has given by far the most extensive review of the NIV 2011 focusing only on the New Testament. The review is about 50 pages long and I read through it this afternoon. Decker give us substance and material to reflect upon. It is worthy of our attention. This is a downloadable PDF file ...

Decker's Review of the NIV 2011

Read More

"Sound Doctrine," "Pattern," "Timothy:" Reflections on Restoration Hermeneutics #2

Part one of "Sound Doctrine" & "Patternism" can be read HERE

The Problem of NOT Distinguishing Doctrine & Good News/Gospel

It should come as no surprise that Paul roots "healthy" (i.e. sound) teaching in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One proceeds out of the other. For Paul, it seems, everything that can claim to be uniquely Christian is Christocentric. Scripture itself, Paul says, is ultimately Christ-centered for its function is to makes us wise unto salvation by focusing our faith onto the Christ (2 Tim 3.15)[1]. Bernard Ramm in his semi-classic work The Pattern of Authority said it nicely,

"Christ is the supreme object of the witness of the Spirit, and Christ is the supreme content of the Scriptures. The Spirit who bears his chief witness to Christ also inspired the Scripture. The Scriptures are inspired of the Spirit and they witness supremely to Christ, the personal Word of God. Such is the pattern of authority." [2]

Yet the Stone Campbell Movement has not been Christologically focused but rather ecclesiologically focused. We use the Pauline language of "sound/healthy doctrine" to refer to dogma about baptism, the Lord's Supper, instrumental music, elders, deacons, role of women, etc, etc. However we never use "sound/healthy doctrine" to refer to having a gentle spirit, loving our enemies, commitment to the unity of the body or being joyful in the Spirt. We have turned Paul's language quite literally on its head and used post-biblical notions of dogma to make "sound doctrine" mean everything but what it actually means in the "Pastorals." Even more we have often made our notion of dogma (our redefined "sound doctrine") equivalent to Gospel itself. The Gospel is just another doctrine instead of being that which healthy teaching is built upon and in accordance with!!!

The Eclipse of Christ

When the Bible (or the New Testament) becomes the pattern, Christ's supremacy is eclipsed. When Christ is eclipsed Christianity is perverted into what some Pharisees had made the Law of Moses - a perversion, a mere caricature of the Gracious Word (and God's Torah was/is gracious too). It becomes a religion based upon human performance rather than the achievement of the Cross of Christ. This is not as God established it but as humans have practiced it.

Many have noticed the confusion that results when the Bible replaces Christ as the pattern under the reign of God.  J. D. Thomas himself argues that the controversy over pattern hermeneutics is ultimately the outgrowth of the "Man or the Plan" controversy[3]. Thomas admits that most of our problems in Churches of Christ stem not from hermeneutics per se but from legalistic tendencies.[4] I, myself, would argue that the hermeneutic drives the legalistic confusion. Thomas singles out as "major doctrinal" weaknesses as our failure to understand the Gospel of Christ Crucified and the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit.[5] Thomas is hardly a "new hermeneutic" advocate, yet he is perceptive and open enough to see that "Back to the Bible" movements have often let their allegiance to the written word eclipse the Living Word with their own agenda. Don't misread me here ... we are committed to the written word but the written word is NOT an end or the end ... the written word is a vehicle, a sacrament if you will to come to the Living Word - Jesus the Messiah.

In our own Stone-Campbell Movement the process of moving the focus of our faith from the Living Word and Patterned life under the reign of God has been gradual but steady. It did not happen overnight. This movement has almost always come as a result of some conflict in our history. One of the earliest prophets came from the Founding Generation itself: Robert Richardson. After a series of conflicts in the late 1830s that resulted in the production of lists (for the first time!) of marks for the "one true church," Richardson believed many had fixated on upon the Bible and not the Gospel. He said it is true to say the Bible is our religion in that it contains Christianity but it also contains Judaism. He pointed out the lack of clarity in our thinking that sometimes resulted in unhealthy teaching and even sicker division ...

"men seem to have lost the obvious distinction between the Bible and the Gospel ... it should never be forgotten that the Apostles and the first preachers of the gospel had no Bibles or New Testaments to distribute."

The preaching of the gospel was around long before there were New Testaments. The Bible is our spiritual library but the "Gospel" is our "standard of orthodoxy"[6]Richardson declared.

A couple generations later, two writers called attention to our confusion in our preaching over the Gospel and "healthy" teaching. K. C. Moser and G.C. Brewer questioned if we were truly preaching gospel sermons. Brewer wrote in the publication, Gospel Advocate, he feared (along with Moser) that "we" were putting to much emphasis on a "plan" or conditions of salvation which made our preaching biblically "off key."[7] Brewer would return to this theme throughout his career. He voiced his concern that a plan/pattern replaces Christ as Savior. In response to a question about the role of confession in the "plan of salvation" he said quite pointedly,

"to put stress upon a PLAN and specific items and steps of that PLAN may lead to a wrong conclusion. We are saved by a PERSON not by a plan; we are saved by a Savior, not by a ceremony ... our faith is in Christ not FAITH IN A PLAN."

Brewer goes on to say that trusting in a plan is to build according to a "blueprint" but we don't build according to a blueprint (i.e. pattern) but faith in Christ the Savior.[8] Just before he died Brewer was even more blatant stating flatly,

"I have frequently said that we sing a much better gospel than we preach. I believe with all my heart that this is true. Too many of us do not preach Christianity; we preach "Churchanity." Too many of us instead of preaching Christ preach a creed."[9]

The institutional controversy, which tore the bonds of fellowship over matters not remotely related to Paul's use of the phrase "sound doctrine," is a sad commentary on the truth of Richardson's and Brewer's observation: Christ had been eclipsed by "Churchanity!" This sad affair was, and is, only possible when we change the biblical meaning of the phrase "sound teaching/healthy doctrine" in Timothy and Titus to mean everything but behavior among brothers and sisters in the family of God.

Our hermeneutic has been flawed precisely because it has not been Christocentric. It has been church-centric. If it had been rooted first in the Living Word we would never have been confused over Gospel and "Sound Doctrine." One of the clearest examples of the eclipse of Christ through all of this is the classic series of books by R. L. Whiteside and C. R. Nichol entitled, ironically, Sound Doctrine. Through four books co-authored and the last by Nichol alone, there is not a single chapter on Jesus!! Jesus is confined to a short paragraph under the heading of "Creation" in Sound Doctrine, vol 1, pp. 22-23!! Had our hermeneutic been more Christocentric we just might have had more Spirit-filled Christians in our pews and the shalom that marks His presence.

Sound Teaching

"But do you inculcate the things which become wholesome doctrine: that aged men be vigilant, grave prudent, healthy by faith love, patience. That aged women, in like manner, be in deportment as becomes sacred persons--not slanderers, not enslaved to much wine, good teachers ... (Titus 2.1ff, Living Oracles, Alexander Campbell's version)

The Jerusalem Bible renders: "It is for you, then to preach the BEHAVIOR which goes with healthy doctrine ... (Titus 2.1)

Paul told Timothy to keep the "pattern of healthy teaching." That teaching is moral instruction rooted in and springs from the redemption we have received through the Crucified One. True healthy/sound doctrine is not a legal code of dogmas on various contemporary issues. "Wholesome doctrine" is instruction that leads to a life conformed to the image of Jesus by the power of the Spirit as we live under the reign of God. Paul, it seems, could not be clearer in what he means!

One writer on the subject of the Bible's authority, and role, very insightfully says

"we would understand much more about the authority of the Bible if we paid more attention to its function in ordering the moral life--forming character and guiding conduct--rather than attempting to derive abstract and intellectual theological systems from it."[10]

The Bible must be allowed to function in the capacity that God gave it. We cannot respect God, or his word, by artificially forcing words or phrases into some preconceived pattern. Exegesis, not current controversy, defines what Paul meant in the first century by "sound teaching/doctrine." That teaching had everything to do with the life of the community together, its peace, its harmony, it holiness and nothing to do with later dogmas formed in the heat of religious debate. Scripture reveals the ONE who is the paradigm/pattern for sound living under the reign of God: Jesus the Christ. Good, sound, healthy, biblical doctrine is teaching that is first rooted in the Gospel of Christ Crucified and second moves us to be transformed into the image (the pattern!) of Him who saves by his blood, Jesus.

Notes:

[1] Notes Jesus' own testimony in John 5.39-40.

[2] Bernard Ramm, The Pattern of Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 37

[3] J. D. Thomas, Harmonizing Hermeneutics: Applying the Bible to Contemporary Life (Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1991), 95.

[4] Thomas speaks of the "legalistic mindset" ibid., pp. 82-84. He also dedicates considerable space on legalism in We Be Brethren, all of Chapters 9, 10, and half of 20 are devoted to this theme.

[5] Thomas, Harmonizing Hermeneutics, 89

[6] Robert Richardson, "Reformation, IV" Millennial Harbinger (September 1847), 508.

[7] G. C. Brewer, "Are We Preaching the Gospel?" Gospel Advocate (26 August 1937), 798.

[8] G. C. Brewer, Autobiography (Murfreesboro, TN, Dehoff Publications, 1957), 92.

[9] ibid., 151

[10] Michael R. Weed, "The Authority of Jesus, or the Jesus of Authority?" Faculty Bulletin 2 (October 1981), 55-56.

Read More