kata Drew

I wrote this some time ago and just now decided to publish it. I’ve been making corrections since publishing which means I should have read carefully before publishing. In fact, I’m adding these introductory lines after publishing! Oops. Let me know if it strikes a chord. Let me know if I’m heretical, ’cause that’s one thing I’m not interested in.

===

In heaven a mighty council convened
seeking one capable of humans redeem.

Approaching the throne, asking each one,
“Send I, I can get the job done.”

“Yes, you, I am able to raise
for it’s by my Spirit and to garner my praise.

“You, however, are unable to bear
the sins of the many and the wrath poured out there.

“There is none other who can open the scroll
than my Son incarnate, Messiah foretold.

“The task is one of putting to death
so that through death the many may resurrect.

“Let the One who is perfect be given for all;
a remedy applied, a consequence of the fall.

“Let the One who will be raised be given for them;
lest they die in vain a propitiation for sin.

“Let the One who will be raised die for them;
Zimri approached but burning with sin.
‘Atone for your own’ is where he was told to begin:
impotent in guilt, impotent others to win.

“The One for the many is where he was told to begin:
bearing the burden without, shielding the elect within.

“Let the One who is perfect be given for them,
a matchless sacrifice presented to make many his kin.”

Therefore let the One capable be given for us
not that we can demand or imply that God must
but he has created us modeled after his being
thus it pleases him us to be freeing.

By far the most comprehensive review and treatment of The Shack is that of Tim Challies. He’s got it in a professional looking PDF which is designed better than most Christian books for crying out loud. I would almost recommend just reading his little PDF rather than actually reading the book, but I think the book is helpful on several counts. But, in a pinch, read the PDF.

I don’t really wish to combat the theology of The Shack, and believe me this novel is heavily theological, but I would like to encourage one thing: caveat lector. Why should the reader beware?

Caveat Lector

The biggest problem I see with reading The Shack and really divesting oneself in the story is that the theology of The Shack will find its way into your theology surreptitiously. In other words, the danger is that your view of God will become that of The Shack. God is not Sarayu (the name adopted by the Holy Spirit meaning “wind” in Sanskrit). God the Father is not a buxom black lady.

But, you might say, that surely this critique could leveled against any book, that one musn’t allow the view of God presented in that book to become their view of God. The difference, however, is that the God presented in The Shack is not built explicitly and solely from Scripture, but is born out of one man’s experience.

Overhearing random conversations is always intriguing.

“So, I was talking to my friend who grew up Catholic and I told her that she could have a relationship with God.”
“She said ‘No way. Really?’”
“‘Yeh,’ I replied, ‘He’s like a person and stuff.’”

Missy, not only is he a person, but he’s three persons and stuff. What are we going to do about this lack of articulation, Al?

The event was advertised as the Fire Conference at which Pastor Benny Hinn would share powerful insights from God’s Word. Being a seminary student, curious Christian, and interested interlocutor of the Word, “powerful insights from God’s Word” is something I am most definitely interested in. However, attending the Fire Conference proved to shed light not on God’s Word but the fundraising techniques of popular televangelist Benny Hinn.

The evening started a few minutes off schedule with a video featuring orphanages from Mexico and the Philippines for which Benny Hinn Ministries and their partners graciously provide with money and prayer support. The overarching theme of the video was that peoples’ money has gone to establishing orphanages and spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Repeatedly the number 45,000 was given as the total number of orphans who are currently benefiting from the work of Benny Hinn Ministries.

After the video, a financial advisor turned financial redeemer, entered the stage to share the twofold gospel: Jesus’ person and his principles. “Why do men such as Bill Gates who are not Christians but extremely wealthy prosper like they do?” Todd contends that it is because they follow Jesus’ fixed principles of wealth of which anyone, Christian or otherwise, can take advantage. In essence, the god who emerges is not that different from his Son’s principles: know the principles, apply the principles, and reap the benefits of the principles automatically. It is turns out rather mechanistic and impersonal. God is the transcendent wish dispenser who will grant all your wildest dreams when you insert the coinage of faith as in a soda machine. As impersonal principles like gravity automatically respond so too does God. “Your faith decides divine timing” quickly became a popular maxim of the conference. Said plainly, you receive from the mechanistic god what you will when you insert what he wills: faith.

Moreover, characteristic of the god who emerges is not an interest in personal holiness and sanctification but an interest in providing wealth. Why then is that? “For you can’t preach the gospel without money.” The gospel cannot go out without money therefore God desires all to be wealthy so that the gospel can proceed. And we’re not talking metaphorically and symbolically of being wealthy in love for God and others; we’re talking cash. “I’m not going to be the one to tell you to be satisfied with what you have.” But God might.

Insights from God’s Word?

So, for a conference which promised to share insights from God’s Word, which passages were preached? That’s kind of a difficult question to answer because only short Scripture snippets were quoted randomly as opposed to a particular passage being worked through in an expository fashion. But, let me now try to remember which passages made the headlines. On an interesting note, before turning to the passages themselves, it is worth noting that all Scripture quotations and references were taken from what sounded like the King James Version. It would be interesting to find out if the speakers feel that this translation in particular adds additional emphasis to Scripture. In other words, if they feel it sounds more authoritative; how they most definitely would want to sound given that they’re encouraging the audience to hand their money over into their care. Now the verses.

The first that I can recall is “seedtime harvest shall always be on the earth” which was said to be from Genesis 8. Indeed it is Genesis 8, verse 22 to be exact, which in the English Standard Version reads: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” The context into which this passage was imported had to do with Jesus’ principle of sowing (inserting the coinage of faith) which I mentioned above. With this passage the speaker was corroborating his understanding that the principle(s) which God has fixed concerning wealth will always yield, not just generic wealth but especially that for which you specifically ask. I think this notion is known as Seedtime Theology. The biblical context of this passage will most likely be familiar to many: Noah’s ark and the flood. Indeed, God is speaking here of promise. In verse 21 he says “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.” The Lord’s promise here loudly bespeaks his gracious dealings with sinful humanity in that even though our intentions are evil from youth, he will allow time and space for us to repent. Further, he will never again curse the ground because of man, but will punish man because of man in the judgment. His promise is not only to man but also concerns the earth. What then is herein emphasized is not wealth from impersonal principles but the gracious of God juxtaposed to the radical depravity of man. In conclusion, we should be forced to our knees to beg for mercy from the Lord from this passage not led to demand material wealth. He is providing for us in allowing the earth to continue to do its thing (grow seeds, yield harvest, heat up and cool down, etc.) even while our sinfulness wrecks his creation. While most assuredly more is going on in this chapter of Genesis, what I have described shouldn’t be missed, and to leave the context behind is to reinforce unbiblical presuppositions of wealth gaining.

The second Scripture that I can recall is Luke 10:2 which says “And he said to them, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.’” This was imported with the simple phrase “He is the Lord of the harvest,” here again meaning that to sow to him by sowing a “thousand dollar seed of faith” is to insure a harvest because he is the “Lord of the harvest.” The context of Luke 10 is vital to uprooting such extra-biblical thinking for here Christ is speaking of salvation and laboring to that end, not wealth or planting seeds of faith. Frightening (lack of) exegesis.

Fundraiser

It is for these reasons and more that I refer to Benny Hinn’s Fire Conference as Benny Hinn’s Raleigh fundraiser. Powerful insights from God’s Word were not shared. The audience was, in the main, exhorted to give, to sow a seed of faith while the preaching of the gospel was neglected.

Tip of the Ice Berg

Lamentably, more could be said: the undoubted morning-after crisis of faith by many givers, the ease with which the audience was duped, the shame of having a packed out auditorium and not exhorting sinners to turn to Christ in faith for the forgiveness of sins, poor theology proper presented (the mechanistic god), and more; but I shall draw to a close here.

Most often the phrase “the great exchange” is associated very specifically with the obedience of Christ on the Christian’s behalf as part of his redemptive work whereby he took on our sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and we consequently are able to be clothed in his righteousness (Isaiah 61:10). The great exchange in the New Testament is Jesus takes our sin and we get his righteousness imputed to us. He gets sin, we get God. O glorious gospel! Trust in him now!

Well, the great exchange of Deuteronomy is very similar but less specifically and explicitly about the redemptive work of the Messiah. Deuteronomy 29:10-15 (ESV) magnificently preaches exchange when it reads,

You are standing today all of you before the Lord your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the Lord our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.

The bolded portions are to help trace the line of thought amidst the enumerating of persons present (elders, lumberjacks, water boys, etc.). The people are standing before God in order to cross (over) into the covenant of YHWH (לעברך בברית יהוה), a covenant which he is making in order to establish them as his people and he as their God ( לעםוהואיהיה־לך לאלהים למעןהקים־אתך היום לו). The “exchange” is that we become his people and he becomes our God. He gets us, we get him.

The ל (lamedh) prepositions here (ל+עם and ל+אלהים), though functioning differently syntactically, remind me of Song of Songs 6:3 where quite famously it is asserted that “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine.” Here also are ל prepositions, though attached simply to object pronouns masculine and feminine rather than nouns. Again there is a certain amount of what I think can be called exchange or reciprocity which reflects, albeit dimly, the great exchange which is the gospel revealed in the work of Christ and the New Testament Scriptures.

Respond

Take a moment to read Deuteronomy 29. Think about all of God’s provisions for sinful, rebellious laid out throughout the Scriptures. Think on what it means for you, as a Christian, to be part of God’s people. Think on God becoming your God when you at one time were alienated from him and without him in the world (Ephesians 2). Now, rejoice at the thought of the gospel!

If you’re not a Christian, trust in Christ as God’s provision for sinful humanity to be brought back into communion with him after being separated by our sin and rebellion. Now, rejoice in the gospel!

Hebrew Help

What’s the best way to blog Hebrew? I just copy and pasted from e-sword. No vowels. Hopefully, everyone who cares will be able to read it. Sorry if it shows up garbled. Read the English. It’s not a bad translation.

I’ve finally finished Tim Keller’s The Reason for God and I only say “finally” because I’ve had 10ish pages to read for the past week or so which is not only annoying but embarassing. I found the book very helpful especially the attitude and grace with which Keller approaches the issues many in his New York context find most difficult to deal with when thinking about Christianity (e.g., exclusivist claims).

Keller’s use of endnotes has led me on a quest to follow up some of the referenced material for further reading on topics of interest. Of particular interest was his reference to Miroslav Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation, a book which I have since and currently checked out of the library. It speaks of the formation of identity based on excluding others and the need (read: Christian imperative) for reconciliation. This might be one that I just skim read to catch the gist of and survey for quotables.

On a slightly differerent note, I have categorized this post in the Reasons to Read section simply to point out the trail of further reading which footnotes can provide for the reader. The mention of Volf’s book above is exemplary. In reading The Reason for God I was intriqued by the thoughts of Volf which were being incorporated into Keller’s book and decided to look into them in more depth and ad fontes. The reason for reading here given then is that books are connected and one will lead you to another and seemingly ad infinitum. (OK, I’ve just ended two sentences in a row with Latin phrases. Anyways…) It would go like this: Read Keller’s The Reason for God. Find out about Volf’s Exclusion and Embrace. Read it and find out about blah blah blah, etc (et cetera? I’ve done it again). Maybe this is how you read books already or find what to read after you finish the book you’re currently reading, but the idea just kind of dawned on me while constantly flipping to the back of Keller’s book to take in the endnotes.

I was even thinking that it would be neat to set up a web site where people could see connections between books and get ideas on what to read after what. This could be computer-generated based on footnotes/references or user-submitted. But then again maybe it’s best to leave it up to the reader’s fancy to string books together which help maintain an interest in reading altogether instead of easing a reader into a rut. Rut notwithstanding, I reckon it could be a useful tool. So, let me make the first suggestion(s): check out Exclusion and Embrace after reading The Reason for God; other options include: Mere Christianity (Lewis) or Simply Christian (Wright), both of which are repeatedly referenced by Keller.

How do you figure out what to read after what? Can books be strung together?

How does God constantly put up with our wrong-doing and breaking of his commandments? Surely it must be horrific to observe the kinds of behavior that the debase human mind conjures up for torture and malice. Taking the life of an innocent human being foremost in mind, both in the mind of the casual news observer and the good-natured person struggling with the problem of evil. How is this possible? How must this be for God who observes and sees not only the outward actions but the hidden motives and thoughts of the heart?

We see foremost in the ten commandments that we shall have no other god besides God. We also see that the greatest commandment is to love the Lord God with our whole beings. How much more are these commandments, the first and the greatest, broken than those which are perpetrated horizontally, human-to-human such as murder, rape, lying, deceit, and injustice. What of the family who raises their children to not bless the name of the Lord but to curse, blaspheme and disregard not only his name but his person?

The greater question, assuming priority according to the ordering of the Decalogue, is how must it be for God to observe this teaching and disregard for him even from youth?

[Though the above is stream-of-consciousness, I was careful to avoid using "passive" language, not wanting to imply that God is at all overwhelmed by, surprised with, or controlled by "feelings."]

There’s election and there’s election.

Hill and Walton in their A Survey of the Old Testament describe God’s election of Israel as making “the Israelites the people of God only in a revelatory way.” They further clarify by saying, “By this we mean that God chose them as his instrument of revelation.”

The difference between this use of election and the (modern) Christian usage is that “when we speak of the church as God’s people, we refer to those who have accepted salvation through faith, specifically faith in Jesus Christ.” The Christian concept of election is strictly soteriological while that of Israel as a people is understood as revelatory. This is not to deny that “many Israelites of the Old Testament could be identified as God’s people by virtue of their faith in Yahweh”; but that “God revealed himself to the world through Israel” through the law, their history, writings of the Bible and Jesus the Christ.

How does this square with Romans 11 where Paul seems to be speaking of the election of Israel in soteriological terms? In line with the understanding and differentiation of election given above, “a remnant chosen by grace” (Rom. 11:5) appears to differentiate those Israelites who are “identified as God’s people by their virtue of their faith in Yahweh” from ”the rest [who] were hardened” (Rom. 11:7) who were only God’s people in the sense of belonging to the people group God elected revelatorily. For if Israelite election were the same as Christian soteriological election, how could the Scripture speak of “Israel not find[ing] what it was looking for, but the elect did find it” (Rom. 11:7)? It could not. Therefore the distinction made by Hill and Walton appears to fit with the Pauline distinction made in Romans 11.

Ultimately, this distinction leaves soteriological room for Gentiles which is the vein in which Paul continues through to the end of the chapter leading to an eruption of praise to God:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How unsearchable His judgments and untraceable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Or who has ever first given to Him, and has to be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 11:33-36)

[All quotations from Hill and Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament, Zondervan: 2000, 74. Scripture quotations from the HCSB.]

1 Timothy 2:13-15 (ESV)

For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
And Adam was not deceived
but the woman was deceived
and became a transgressor
Yet she will be saved through childbearing
if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control

“Yet she will be saved through childbearing” makes the most sense in light of the woman becoming a transgressor and the consequent curse of becoming such: “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children’” (Gen. 3:16). Here Paul starts a digression on the order of creation, leaving women by the end of v. 14 in the consequence of her sin. Paul can assure the women that the curse will not keep them from salvation “if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control” because the Seed has come and bruised the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15).

The sense of the verse then is that women will be saved despite childbearing (even through childbearing) which is her consequence of being “deceived” and “a transgressor.” This consequence—multiplied pain in childbearing—is not too much to bear and it will not keep them from salvation. Their salvation is rather dependent upon their faith and love and holiness which is evident by self-control. Faith, love and holiness and self-control are all results of regeneration. Salvation is tied to genuine regeneration by the Spirit and unhindered by childbearing.

Interpretations that give childbearing as the means through which women are saved must be rejected as well as interpretations that take “saved” to mean “preserved” and thenceforward posit that the woman’s heritage or legacy is preserved through childbearing. These are not most faithful to the Fall context in which women are said to be saved through childbearing. Similarly, the means of salvation is not in view. Instead, the phrase gives comfort to women who fear that the curse of multiplied pain in childbearing might overshadow salvation.

Matthew 8:23-27:

23 And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. 24 And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. 25 And they went and woke him, saying, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing.” 26 And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?” Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. 27 And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?”

Psalm 148:7-8

7 Praise the Lord from the earth,
you great sea creatures and all deeps,
8 fire and hail, snow and mist,
stormy wind fulfilling [doing] his word!

What sort of man is this indeed? The God-man. Before Abraham was, he was.