Seeking a Homeland

One-Upmanship

2012-02-04T05:08:00.002-06:00

As humankind we have been embedded with the desire to compare great people to other great people. Of this I can speak with great confidence as I have participated in many such discussions over the course of my life. Consider the following somewhat, banal debates that you may have found yourself taking part in:

Best Quarterback of all-time (fill-in your choice - I'd go Montana with Brady getting close and Elway/Manning right there)
Greatest Golfer of all (Tiger or The Bear - is this really a question :) )
Best President in history (typically Abe the Honest or George the cherry-tree hacker)

This embedded trait was not lost on the ancients particularly those of the ancient Near East. The corpus of literature is filled with Pharaohs and Mesopotamian kings falling over themselves in attempts of "one-upping" their predecessors and contemporaries. The Hebrew kings of the Old Testament were no strangers to such thinking - Saul defeated the Philistines on occasion, David conquered Philistia, but was not allowed to build the temple, Solomon built the temple and caused Israel to flourish. In each case the next king sought to carve out a particular niche that set them apart from their predecessor. Often times the record dips into the well of hyperbole to show the superiority of an individual - consider the following:

“Thus King Solomon excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom. And the whole earth sought the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put into his mind. Every one of them brought his present, articles of silver and gold, garments, myrrh, spices, horses, and mules, so much year by year. And Solomon gathered together chariots and horsemen. He had 1,400 chariots and 12,000 horsemen, whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem. And the king made silver as common in Jerusalem as stone, and he made cedar as plentiful as the sycamore of the Shephelah.” (1 Kings 10:23–27 ESV)

Whereas, the kings of the ancient world often employed the technique of hyperbole to show their grandeur - not so with the true King. David, Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, and Ramses II all had to play by the rules of the hyperbolic game and exaggerate for the sake of describing their true greatness - not so with the King of Kings. Where the kings of history reached beyond their means to explain that which was by all accounts describable - the King of glory must reach beyond our means to explain to us the indescribable.

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?” (Hebrews 1:1–5 ESV)

Why You Should Pull for the Patriots...

2012-02-02T10:26:00.000-06:00

On my 1.5 hour commute back and forth to school I have been reading R.C. Sproul's now-classic work "The Holiness of God." I have found it to be a thoroughly engaging book that illustrates various aspects of the holiness of God in bite-size chapters that stick with you and cause you to think. Consider the following analogy he makes:

"I remember a senior student I had in my college teaching days. She was the best female student I had ever had. Her cumulative average was a sold 4.0. Her work was extraordinary.
I was shocked when I graded one of her senior exams, which she flunked so miserably. Her performance was such a radical departure from her normal level that I knew something was seriously wrong. I called her into my office for a meeting and asked her what went wrong. She immediately burst into tears and between sobs confessed that she had intentionally failed the exam. When I asked her why, she explained that as she was nearing graduation, she was experiencing a growing fear that she would never find a husband. 'None of the guys want to date me,' she said. 'They all think that I'm too smart, that I'm just a brain.' She poured out a heart-wrenching tale of loneliness and a personal feeling of being ostracized from the social life on campus. She was feeling like a pariah.
This student had committed the socially unpardonable sin. She had broken the curve... I remember my student days and the dreadful feeling of walking out of a classroom after doing poorly on a test. I remember how it was music to my ears when teachers said that they would grade the test on a curve. That meant if I got only 60 percent on the test, the curve might promote me to a D to a C, or even to a B if enough people did poorly. This put me in a position where I was rooting for the other students to fail.
But there was always one in the crowd. When everyone else was making 20s and 30s on the test, giving incontrovertible evidence that the test was unfair, and the teacher would be morally bound to grade by the curve, there was the inevitable brain who would make 100 percent on the test. I can't ever recall the students rising to their feet to offer the brain a standing ovation. Nobody likes curve breakers. They make us all look bad.
Jesus Christ was a curve breaker. He was the supreme curve buster. He was the ultimate super competent. The outcasts of society loved Him because He paid attention to them. But those who held the seats of honor and power could not tolerate Jesus."

May we never reproach the "supreme curve buster"because His light reveals our imperfections and failures, rather let us be encouraged and ever-grateful that He took the test for us and received a perfect score (Heb. 12:2-4).

Back to my title - pulling for the Pats. Lest I bring my father's "gray hairs down into Sheol" (Gen. 42:38) - I am all for pulling for the underdog in sporting events - as I have been taught since my youth. However, when an organization, like the Patriots, displays such "curve-breaking" excellence for the length of time that they have - I feel compelled to root for them. Of course them playing the hated New York Giants could have something to do with it...

PS - this type of logic should never be applied to that Gold and Purple hoops team that plays just off the 405.

The Blessing of The Curse

2012-02-01T12:40:00.001-06:00

The following was written in response to a friend of mine's request that I "point to one passage in Scripture to show that the geo-political nation of Israel did not have a planned obsolescence that would cause it to pass away upon the completion of Christ's earthly work, what passage would you point to?"

Well first of all - by way of clarification I should say that I do believe that there is a point in time where Israel as a geo-political entity no longer continues as the emphasized vehicle of God's redemptive plan. In other words there is a time in which geo-political Israel's role will be completely "filled." From my vantage this distinction is seen most clearly in Revelation 21 - when Christ makes "all things new" and brings the final real thing that shatters all of the previous types (i.e. the Heavenly Jerusalem of Revelation 21, the tent of Hebrews 8 versus the earthly tabernacles and temples, even any temple constructed during the Messianic Age). So with that ending in mind and with Genesis 12 (i.e. Abrahamic Covenant) as our beginning we have our field of potential references.

(Sidenote - Honestly, if someone asked me this and I did not know their background I would point to Romans 11, but taking into account our previous discussion - I will go elsewhere.)

The best passage or in this case, book, is Deuteronomy - the whole book is written in the form of a covenant between Yahweh and Israel. Over and over again Moses warns the people of the perils of disobedience - this culminates in the enacting of the covenant/treaty with the recounting of the blessings and cursings (Deut. 27-28). Specifically, I would point to the promises laid out in Deut. 29 and 30.
Consider this passage:

“And the next generation, your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, will say, when they see the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which the LORD has made it sick— the whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger and wrath— all the nations will say, ‘Why has the LORD done thus to this land? What caused the heat of this great anger?’ Then people will say, ‘It is because they abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt, and went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them. Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, bringing upon it all the curses written in this book, and the LORD uprooted them from their land in anger and fury and great wrath, and cast them into another land, as they are this day.’“The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.“

And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the LORD your God has driven you, and return to the LORD your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the LORD your God will restore your fortunes and have mercy on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the LORD your God has scattered you. If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the LORD your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. And the LORD your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. And the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. And the LORD your God will put all these curses on your foes and enemies who persecuted you. And you shall again obey the voice of the LORD and keep all his commandments that I command you today. The LORD your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the LORD will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers, when you obey the voice of the LORD your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” (Deuteronomy 29:22–30:10 ESV)

Moses promised and expected that the bless and the curse would occur - the ultimate curse was exile, but the result of exile was always return. This was the view of the prophets (too numerous to cite - but here is one Isaiah 10:17-23) and if we were to assume that this expectation ceased post 516 BCE with the return of Zerubabbel and the rebuilding of the temple see Zech. 10:9-12. More so - the disciples continued this expectation see the following reference:

“But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago. Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul who does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came after him, also proclaimed these days. You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’” (Acts 3:18–25 ESV)

In that last sentence Peter invokes not just the Abrahamic covenant, but the whole of the idea of redemptive narrative from Abraham to Prophets - this includes the Mosiac covenant. If we don't have a distinction after the 586 BCE destruction or the resurrection of Christ then why should we setup a dividing wall post-70 CE? The apostles used the same language that Moses and the prophets used.

So in brief I would say that for Israel the Mosiac covenant's blessings and cursings are still in effect - they have been in an exile state since 70 CE and should be waiting for their ultimate return with the Messiah. This to me is the ultimate proof that Israel has not become obsolete. Did they fail? Yes. But has their 4,200-year-old expectation been met yet? No. Where they failed Christ triumphed (Hosea 10; Matt 2), but it's not enough for Israel to be merely the genetic pool of the Light, they were promised that they would be the "light to the nations" (Is. 49:6). Christ is both the Light which shone into the darkness of the world (John 1:5) and the Light which will reside at the heart of the Israelite Theocracy. Meaning he succeeded where they failed and will be the result of them succeeding despite their failures. This is one of the core theological values of the Messiah.
I might ask a hypothetical question - If Romans 9-11 were written post-70 CE - would that change anything?

Free Will and the American Dream

2012-01-28T09:37:00.000-06:00

Oprah or Glenn Beck can opine about the greatness of "free will" and we all understand the "wonderful" truth that they are talking about. After all free will is what America is all about - becoming successful by our own choices (basis of capitalism). We think we can change, because we can choose. Certainly, this idea has an element of truth, we are definitely responsible for our choices and our choices definitely affect the outcome of our life's successes and failures. However, to apply "free will" as a universal axiom for choice flies in the face of the Bible. For me, the reprobate, damned, self-loving, God-hating, unchanging sinner (that's what we are described as by Scripture) to say that I have any part in the choice of Heaven or Hell misses the point entirely. The whole of Scripture screams at me the ignorant one "if you did have a choice YOU WOULD CHOOSE HELL!"

By the way the same is true for losing your salvation/"P"erseverance of the Saints. John MacArthur likes to say, "If I could lose my salvation I would have a long time ago." Word and word.

The point is this - if the onus (to any degree 100% or .0001 %) is on you to make the decision you will choose pleasures of sin over Sin-Conqueror. Perhaps the clearest passage of this truth is the following: (one of my favorites).

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sin which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God (perhaps the greatest conjunction in all of Scripture), being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:1–10 ESV)

The arguments for "free will" are ideologically grounded in two things - 1.) a lessening of humanity's total depravity and 2.) a sense of entitlement of choice (the second rises from the first). There is a reason why TULIP begins with T (total depravity) it's the basis by which all Calvinistic soteriology is based upon. Put quite simply dead men don't resurrect themselves. Listen to John Piper's words on the subject - particularly at the end where he says, "Free will explains nothing."

Nazareth's Unregistered Populace

2012-01-17T07:00:00.000-06:00

The Nativity is one of the most poignant events in the imagination of the Christian world. Literally, billions of people intimately relate and often times re-create the events surrounding the advent of Christ. However, the perceived Nativity of the masses has some rather large historical holes in its traditional rendering (I talked about some of these previously here).

One of those "holes" is the idea that Mary, Joseph and donkey (not mentioned by the way - but probably a good assumption for a pregnant woman traveling over a hundred miles) left Nazareth by themselves in a hurry to make it to Jerusalem before the birth of Jesus. Most of this derives from the "no place for them in the inn" myth (see post link above). However, a careful reading of the text gives us no reason to add the unnecessary drama of a hurried delivery to the already fantastic drama of God taking on human form.

“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth.” (Luke 2:4–6 ESV)

The phrase "And while they were there" is key - this implies that Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem before she went into labor. If we think about it rationally - we might also conclude that Joseph and Mary were smart enough to know that it was not wise to travel right at the end of the pregnancy. Therefore it seems very likely that they were in Bethlehem a couple of weeks or even a month before Jesus was born. More than that, when one considers that the reason they went to Bethlehem was for a census (i.e. an all-encompassing-people-counting event, with the expressed purpose of cataloging everyone's name for taxation purposes) we can confidently suggest that both Joseph and Mary's parents accompanied them on their trek to Bethlehem, because they too would have been compelled by the Roman government to return to their "father's city" (i.e. Bethlehem). Otherwise, we are left with the problem of the Holy Family's surrounding family ignoring the command of Rome and not going up for the census - leaving them non-registered. I guess a case could be made that they went later or even earlier to Bethlehem - but common sense dictates that proud grandma's love to be around brand new grandbabies - and let's be clear no grandma should have ever been more proud.

Certainly it was inconvenient to have the baby in Bethlehem over Nazareth, but when one considers that much of the family was likely with them during this process that makes even this prospect seem less daunting.

If God is Love...

2012-01-16T07:00:00.000-06:00

John's Definition of Love:

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” (1 John 4:7–9 ESV)

Is love axiomatic? The natural response is "of course" - but when we consider the biblical definition of love (look above) - how then can so many state various renditions of the following "How could a loving God send people to hell, let bad things happen to good people, etc.?"

If we follow John's logic we are stuck by his statement that "God is love." The natural implication is that the true definition of love is incomprehensible without a knowledge of its source, namely God. Even the basest human can understand love in some form, but without knowing God that knowledge is at best an understanding of the result of God's actions and not his ultimate means. In other words, we can understand the effect of love through the common grace of creation, but we cannot grasp its true meaning because we don't know where it came from, who it was ultimately meant for, or how we benefit from its existence.

A true understanding of the means and result of God's love - causes a thinker not to ask the question of "How could a loving God send people to Hell?" Rather this understanding causes one to flip the question on its head and ask with shame like the tax collector of Luke 18:10-14, and pose the following query: "How could a God who is Love, send the fullest expression of His Love, His divine Word, His only Begotten, His very Wisdom to His blaspheming, hateful, Eden-ruining, self-worshiping creatures?" This is the ultimate question for humankind. This is the question that we must ask before we can ever hope to understand the true meaning of love.

So is love ultimately axiomatic? Yes, but only for one who is "born of God and knows God."

David Robinson and Tim Tebow

2012-01-13T13:05:00.003-06:00

When I was a kid I was an avid reader of Sports Spectrum - a magazine directed at giving young believers good role models from the world of sports. Back then there was a 7'-1" 260 lb center for the San Antonio Spurs, named David Robinson, who often could be found gracing the cover of Sports Spectrum. David Robinson was everything you could possibly want from an Evangelical athlete - humble, giving, bold for Christ, but as an athlete despite possessing all of the physical gifts and skills necessary he was often perceived as lacking in "heart," that ineffable quality that separates Lebron James from Michael Jordan (also very begrudgingly... I might add Kobe Bryant).

Fast forward 15 years or so and while admittedly it has been a long time since I have looked at the magazine - I think I can safely assume that the editors of Sports Spectrum are pretty fond of this Tebow guy (he's talked about all over the web - but I have to point to Randy Alcorn's post here - it's excellent). What's interesting to me is that although he is very similar to Robinson on the spiritual side - he could not be more different on the talent-to-heart ratio side (something talked about here). On one hand there was not one sport's critic who said David Robinson lacked the skills necessary to play center in the NBA, on the other hand Tebow's skills have brought criticism from virtually avenue of media. Similarly, there is not one critic of Tebow who would question his heart or "it" factor on the field, whereas there were many who questioned the heart of the once-in-a-generation talent of the seven-foot Robinson. Interesting parallel? I think so. But what can we learn from it.

Success or failure in the field or on the court has nothing to do with the prayers and God-honoring platitudes of Christian athletes like Tebow or Robinson, because ultimately that's not what they are trying to do. In other words, the purpose of both athletes is to glorify God by thanking Him for their talent and their ability to display his gifts through them - a thoroughly biblical idea. This has nothing to do with winning or losing a game - and everything to do with who they are trying to ascribe honor. Any other interpretation of cause and effect is in the words of Sheldon Cooper - "Hokum."

This gets confusing when a victorious flushed and sweaty Tebow gushes on about his Lord and Savior after he has just won a playoff game in improbable fashion. What's lost in all of this is that Tebow does this win or lose - it's not about the grandness of the win it's about the grandness of the Creator and the gift-giver. We might not all appreciate Tebow's or even Robinson's manner of showing their affection to Yahweh, but believer's should all appreciate the courage it takes to boldly proclaim the Lord amidst the catcalls of unbelief and God-hatred. Tebow, like his predecessor Robinson, is in a word - unashamed.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.” (Romans 1:16–17 ESV)

Unparalleled: Samuel vs. Caiaphas

2012-01-13T11:00:00.000-06:00

Though separated by a thousand years - Samuel and Caiaiphas were placed in quite similar situations - both lived during the rule of a foreign oppressor (Philistia and Rome), both were charged with leading God's people spiritually and politically, and both were faced with the difficult prospects of a paradigm-shifting power move on the part of a young king who resonated strongly with a nationalistic, king-hungry, beleaguered populace. Despite these similarities these two men responded radically differently when they encountered Yahweh's Anointed. Notice the sharp distinction in ideology and practice between two of Israel's most famous (and infamous) leaders.

Caiaphas' response to the pleas for a king and encountering Jesus:

“So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.” He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but also to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. So from that day on they made plans to put him to death.” (John 11:47–53 ESV)

Samuel's response to the pleas for a king (Saul) and encountering David:

“Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” (1 Samuel 8:4–9 ESV)

“But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” Then Jesse called Abinadab and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, “Neither has the LORD chosen this one.” Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. And he said, “Neither has the LORD chosen this one.” And Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. And Samuel said to Jesse, “The LORD has not chosen these.” Then Samuel said to Jesse, “Are all your sons here?” And he said, “There remains yet the youngest, but behold, he is keeping the sheep.” And Samuel said to Jesse, “Send and get him, for we will not sit down till he comes here.” And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome. And the LORD said, “Arise, anoint him, for this is he.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers. And the Spirit of the LORD rushed upon David from that day forward. And Samuel rose up and went to Ramah.” (1 Samuel 16:7–13 ESV)

What do we do when we encounter the LORD's Anointed? Do we ask for God's direction and follow his command to bend the knee and pledge Him fealty? Or do we look to hold on to our "place" by attacking, demeaning, or neglecting the true King? Let us make the "Anointed" both Lord and King of our "nation" - despite how it affects our own standing among our peers.

The Shadow of our Homeland

2011-10-27T11:11:00.001-05:00

In researching for a paper on the explorations of Tel Burna for next month's ASOR conference - I came across this quote from 19th cent. French explorer Victor Guerin. I find it to be quite insightful (although I doubt that I share the following with my audience).

“Whenyou first set eyes on the Holy Land, it is immediately engraved in your soulwith the same power as the land in which you were born and spent yourchildhood. It is indeed one of thefirst lands we heard of; from an early age we all learned the eternal words ofmemory connected with it, and thus it became like a mysterious common homelandof our childhood.” (Guerin 1865)

Several interesting points could be made about this quote, but I will limit it to one.

The reason why the Holy Land provides its visitors with a "mysterious engraving" upon their souls is that it beckons its viewers to glimpse the shadow of the past that we both identify with and belong to. However, it does not stop there - the shadow of the past is merely another shadow cast by the real thing. What is the real thing - you might ask?

“By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.” (Hebrews 11:9–10 ESV)

The real thing is the CITY - Abraham and Isaac lived in tents waiting for the day that the might glimpse the CITY. A thousand years later a shadow of the city was built by a son of Abraham - David, but this was not the CITY as the following verses make clear.

“These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return.” (Hebrews 11:13–15 ESV)

Long casted are the shadows of the CITY - reaching our shores with their glimpses of pleasures and hope surrounded by a dreadful present. So why do we cling to the pleasures that lace the dread?

Because the CITY is so overwhelmingly satisfying that its shadow towns' sweetness are oft able to overcome the bitterness of this world's cup. So we drink deeply with hopes of tasting the delightful amidst the acrid. But when the bitterness leads sway our hope in the semi-sweet is shaken.
Why does this cup not quench?

“Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”” (John 4:13–14 ESV)

King Jesus offers citizenship into the CITY, not a shadow town (the Holy Land), not a shadow of a shadow town (our homeland), but the real, genuine shadow-casting CITY.

Do we drink deep of its all-satisfying cup? Give ourselves over to the will of the CITY KING?

Are we content with our shadowy, twice-brewed, lukewarm mug of insufficiency - so that we might be the overlord of our shadow shanties?

“And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal. It had a great, high wall, with twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and on the gates the names of the twelve tribes of the sons of Israel were inscribed— on the east three gates, on the north three gates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. And the wall of the city had twelve foundations (Hebrews 11:10), and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb...
And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there.” (Revelation 21:10–25 ESV)

What's Wrong with this Picture?

2011-08-12T22:39:00.001-05:00

Found this gem a while back at one of my favorite places on earth - Half Price Books. Mindy and I were looking for baby name books and Mindy pointed out a shocking error in this 2010 Copyrighted book. See if you can spot it. Any guesses? (it's in the second picture)

Dung vs. Oil

2011-07-19T10:48:00.001-05:00

In the ancient world there were two main types of fuel - dung and olive oil. Dung is a by-product of the animal and is primarily used for cooking - olive oil is a by-product of the olive and is primarily used for lighting a lamp. With these two fuels in mind the writer of Kings draws a striking picture that illuminates God's feelings toward the lines of David and Jeroboam (son of Nebat).

The dung line -
“I (Yahwh) will cut off from Jeroboam every male, both bond and free in Israel, and will burn up the house of Jeroboam, as a man burns up dung until it is all gone.” (1 Kings 14:10 ESV)

Result:
Unrelenting syncretism (mixing Yahwism with Canaanite idolatry) and immediate destruction of Jeroboam's line (death of his son - Nadab - 1 Kings 15:25-27).

The olive oil line -
“Nevertheless, for David’s sake the LORD his God gave him a lamp in Jerusalem, setting up his son after him, and establishing Jerusalem.” (1 Kings 15:4 ESV)

Result:
Continuation of Davidic line until 586 BCE (destruction of Judah) - resulting in the first return of the King (Matthew 1) and to be culminated in the final return of the warrior king - Jesus (Zechariah 14:4-5).

Happy 4th!

2011-07-04T12:03:00.000-05:00

God is Different

2011-06-16T10:35:00.002-05:00

Sermon preached 6-5-11 at Country Bible Church.

The Setting of The Song of Moses - Deuteronomy 32

2011-06-04T22:32:00.002-05:00

Tomorrow I am preaching at my church, Country Bible Church in Taft, TX. My text will be Deuteronomy 32 - aka the song of Moses (Deut. 31:30). As I have repeatedly read through this chapter of Scripture I have been struck by how specifically the flora, fauna and overall geographical setting of the passage matches that of Israel's contemporaneous political positioning. Namely - their encampment in the "Plains of Moab" after conquering the western side of the Transjordan hill country (outlined green on map) from Moab to Bashan (Deut. 32:14). This specific location looks over the general area of Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut. 32:32) and became the spot where the great leader, Moses, gave up the ghost (Deut. 34 - Mt. Nebo). To illuminate this point it is vital to establish both what is mentioned and what is not mentioned.

Mentioned: desert land, waste of the wilderness, eagle, high places of the land, produce of the field, honey from the rock, oil from the flinty rock, curds from the herd, milk from the flock, fat of lambs, rams of Bashan (Golan Heights), very finest of the wheat, foaming wine, blood of the grape, vine of Sodom, fields of Gomorrah, grapes of poison, bitter clusters, poison of serpents, venom of asps.

Not mentioned: no city west of the Jordan, hill country, trees, wine from coast or CisJordan hill country (wine mentioned is explicitly from Bashan and Sodom and Gomorrah), fox, bears, lions, non-carrion birds.

If this passage was created by a Judean living in the late 7th cent. BCE (or anytime after 1400 BCE for that matter) then he certainly had a keen eye for deceptive detail and a flair for illusory authenticity.

Why does God...

2011-05-29T15:43:00.000-05:00

A proper understanding of God pursuing his own glory = coming to grips with the perfect appropriateness and absolute necessity of God seeking to display his self worth through self-centered actions. God has perfected pride because he is perfect in holiness.

Our great joy in this equation is that our salvation in the humbled king is the vehicle that brings God's self-centered motivation to the finish line of the proclamation of his self worth.

Out of Egypt I called my son.

2011-05-24T23:21:00.025-05:00

“Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.” And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egyptand remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.” (Matthew 2:13–15 ESV)

The last phrase is a citation from Hosea 11:1.
“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." (Hosea 11:1 ESV)

Giza Pyramids - photos by Mindy McKinny

Many have pointed out the "inconsistency" of Matthew equating God's son to Jesus by citing Hosea who clearly identifies God's son as Israel. Is there an inconsistency? Does Matthew rip Hosea's context to shreds by practicing poor hermeneutics and disregarding the background of the 8th cent. BCE? If not then what is the purpose of equating this enigmatic passage to the holy family's sojourn to Egypt?

Washing dishes in the Nile - a task shared by two Israelites named Miriam (only ca. 1500 years apart)

Its primary purpose in the Gospel narrative is to connect the theological idea of Israel as God's divinely chosen son (ethnic nation - inheritor of God's promises - look at Ezekiel 16 for seeing Israel as Yahweh's chosen wife - the point is the same - the illustration differs) to Jesus as God's heir. In the context of Hosea 11 - the passage shows that God's son (Israel) failed disastrously in keeping themselves holy (the whole point of Judges, Kings and Chronicles) - and fell well short of their ultimate purpose ("be a kingdom of priests" - Ex. 19:5-6). On the flip side - Jesus is God's son who was sent down to and called "out of Egypt," but instead of failing to keep himself holy, and thereby be unable to fulfill his ultimate purpose of "being a light to the Gentiles" Is. 42:6 (cont. of purpose mentioned in Ex. 19:5-6), the God-man perfectly fulfilled the inward holy requirements while nailing the outward salvific purposes (the point of the book of Hebrews imagery relating to Christ's high priesthood).

Luxor Temple - built by Ramses II in the holy city of Thebes in the 13th cent. BCE

Another example of this is the temptation of Jesus in Luke 4 - Luke could have easily made an explicit comparison to Christ's 40-day-whineless fast to Israel's 40-year wilderness-gripe, but did not - because (in my opinion) the connection would have been abundantly obvious to 1st cent. readers.

Secondly and related - this interpretation has some interesting implications on the comparison between Christ in Egypt and Israel in Egypt. If it is seen as a typological event with a fulfillment in Christ then it invokes the entirety of the Egyptian bondage and the circumstances by which Israel found themselves in Mizraim (Hebrew for Egypt). Certainly, this cannot be pushed too hard, but it is no stretch to see the significance of relating the following passage to the physical salvation of "God's son" and the subsequent spiritual salvation through "God's Son" :

“His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. So do not fear; I will provide for you and your little ones.” Thus he comforted them and spoke kindly to them.” (Genesis 50:18–21 ESV)

Finally, I think this passage and its interpretation well illustrate the importance of the need for Israel to fulfill their divine purpose of "being a light to the Gentiles" or "a kingdom of priests." This passage (Matt. 2:15; Hosea 11:1) brings you to a crucial three-way junction with regards to Israel's future purposes:

Route 1.) cancellation or alteration of physical Israel with a spiritual fulfillment of Ex. 19:5-6; Is. 42:6 in God's second Son, Jesus (basic amillenial thought, even if it's not postulated in so many words);

Route 2.) salvation of Israel (first son) through the Messiah/High Priest/King/Prophet (second and preeminent son) with a physical and spiritual fulfillment of Ex. 19:5-6; Is. 42:6 in God's Sons - with Israel as the nation and Christ as the King (see Zech. 14:18 - not sure how that could possibly be fulfilled spiritually) (basic premillenial thought - even if the "rapture" has become the core view - which is one of the greatest travesties in the history of eschatology).

Route 3.) Some garbled convergence of the two which has some affinity for both views, but can't quite make up their mind. They might like the consistency of the soteriology and magnification of the NT in the Amillenial system, but they can't quite get around Romans 11 or the witness of the prophets' view of Israel's end in premillenial theology. So instead of choosing a mount they ride with one foot on the gray-sweat-stained burro, named Amillenial Kingdom, while the other rests on the magnificent, brown, triple-crown winning steed, named Dispentariat, with a barbed wire fence racing beneath their widening legs.

A Confusing Equation

2011-05-23T15:19:00.002-05:00

Here are the components of the equation.

Component #1 - The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) = the recognized branch of diplomatic Palestinians (the government/national entity in waiting - with President Abbas at the helm) who have acted as the bargaining party with Israel.

Component #2 - Hamas = terrorist organization whose stated purpose is to destroy Israel.

Equation - PLO+Hamas = Obama's response - Israel must return back to the pre-1967 borders!?!?

Huh? So the PLO teams up with the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda, Hamas, and instead of refusing to go to the negotiating table with them we (President Obama) reward this unholy union by making Israel return to the pre-1967 borders!

If you were the Palestinians what would you think? The west (US/Israel) says - "quit the terrorism - don't associate with terrorists" but when we get married - they give us exactly what we want.

Egyptian Slavery and Wilderness Wanderings pt. 2

2011-05-21T17:29:00.002-05:00

Egyptian Slavery and Wilderness Wanderings pt. 1

2011-05-20T09:32:00.002-05:00

"His Grave with the Wicked"

2011-05-20T09:25:00.000-05:00

“And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth” (Isaiah 53:9 ESV)

A while back a friend of mine asked me a few questions regarding the two thieves crucified beside Jesus. The first question related to the identity of the "thieves" - were they common thieves or insurrectionists (zealots or sicharii)? The next question related to the purpose of the "thieves" in the redemptive plan - were the mere bystanders or major pieces of the mediatorial puzzle?

The identity of the "robbers" on the cross

There is woefully insufficient data to make any definitive conclusions regarding the crimes of those being crucified beside the King. Based primarily on the writings of Josephus and other Roman writings we know a vast amount of information about Roman crucifixion. For instance - we know that in 70 A.D. the Romans crucified tens of thousands of Jews in the besiegement of Jerusalem.

We also know that crucifixion had a dual purpose: First - punitive action against an offender. Second - and just as vital - a glowing example of brutal justice to the populace. The second purpose is of utmost importance - particularly in the context of 1st century Judea. Judea, much like the 19th century Wild West of America, was on the absolute eastern frontier of the Roman Empire. Rome's border was the Decapolis cities (Beth Shean or Scytholplis was one of these cities) - its last vestige of Romanism before the world dropped off into the dismal abyss of the Arabian desert. Beyond it were the Parthians, the Nabateans and the unknown.

Fixed within this eastern border was a group of people that had become increasingly more patriotic and disgruntled (remember 1st century Judaism was a hotbed for Messiahs - Jesus was not the only Messiah proclaimed in the first century - read Gamaliel in Acts 5) towards their overlords, the Romans. Especially since they still cherished the independent Hasmonean kingdom, then only a mere 100 years extinct. It is within this context that the practice of crucifixion on Jewish subjects must be placed. Rome was primarily concerned with keeping the peace and for many years had chosen the lenient route over the punitive one - but that was all changing during the life of Christ (in fact - Pilate himself was exiled to Gaul in 36 AD due to his inability to control the Jews - you can read about my discussion of Pontius Pilate Paul Maier's awesome "documentary novel" here). With Messianic fervor on the rise Rome chose to begin to pound the Jews into submission by using publicly grotesque executions. On a related note - one of the absolutes about crucifixion was its finality. Every person crucified - died - period. If for whatever reason the prisoner did not die - then the soldiers in charge of the crucifixion would take their place on the cross - that was Roman law.

So - is it possible that the "robbers" were insurrections, zealots or Sicharii (one of the parties of rebels)? Absolutely. Can we say with certainty? Absolutely not. Because it's just as likely that these men were common robbers or thieves who were being executed for their mundane crimes. In either case - the point from Rome is the same - common thievery or insurrection resulted in a harsh punishment that was primarily pointed at squelching the wick of rebellion in 1st century Judea. What a time and place our Lord chose to put his son, eh?

God's plan for the robbers

The second part of your question is more difficult to answer - because it probably has a ton of correct answers. Here are a few that I can think of off the top of my head.

1. God chose the "weak things of this world shame the wise" (1 Cor. 1:26-31) - the perfect King of Creation died a humiliating death beside two guilty, deserving criminals - this continues the idea that the true king is very different than everyone's expectations.

2. It shows just how abandoned Christ was on the cross - Jesus was forsaken by his disciples and followers, betrayed by his own people, murdered by the "righteous" establishment, and executed by the political establishment - add to that "mocked by criminals who had every reason to empathize with a fellow dying Jew" and you get the picture that Christ went through the most hellacious experience that God the Father has ever designed.

3. The criminal's repentance and Christ's forgiveness shows the measureless love and limitless mercy of God as made evident in the selfless, benevolent actions of the dying Messiah. Instead of arguing back with the criminals and showing them their sin - Christ forgave.

4. I don't think it's primary purpose is to show that no one is "too far gone" - although that also is true - I think first and foremost this amazing encounter is about what one does when they behold the Son of Man in all of his innocent, glory reflecting, Yahweh obeying perfection. There are many options one can choose - run for cover (disciples), betray and fight against him (the Saduccess/Pharisees, Judas and the Jews that demanded his death), mock him because his absolute holiness is the great antitype to our unabashed wickedness, or if God is gracious and so chooses - one may look upon the Son of God - behold his perfection and innocence, mourn their sin against him and put their self at his marvelous mercy with hopes that the King might find favor upon a murderous rebel (like me). Thank God - Christ always fulfills this hope - he did for the thief and he did for me.

The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon

2011-05-15T21:42:00.000-05:00

Have you ever wondered about the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Well look no further - watch this video produced by SourceFlix (formerly known as Living Hope Ministries). The SourceFlix team continues to create great documentaries on a number of topics including Biblical Archaeology and Mormonism.

The World of the Patriarchs pt. 4

2011-05-14T22:23:00.002-05:00

Dispensationalism Wrapup

2011-05-14T08:01:00.002-05:00

Whether you are replacement (i.e. Amillenial, Covenant, Reformed) or premillenial/dispensational in your eschatology (theology of last things) - you should read this summation of Dispensationalism by Vlach. Here are some excerpts:

Dispensationalism has undergone significant developments throughout the years but Dispensationalism has a core set of beliefs that have remained stable, namely: (1) historical-grammatical hermeneutics should be applied to all aspects of Scripture including both testaments; (2) the NT does not reinterpret the OT; (3) OT promises and covenants that have not been fulfilled yet must be literally fulfilled in the future; and (4) there will be both a salvation and restoration of the nation Israel in the future.

The strength of Dispensationalism is found in its hermeneutic of a historical-grammatical approach to all Scripture including the OT, and its rejection of NT reinterpretation of the OT.

Another strength of Dispensationalism is found in its holistic understanding of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants and how these intertwine with each other. It is better to base one’s theology on covenants explicitly discussed in the Bible than covenants that are not clearly seen or emphasized in Scripture.

(HT: Todd Bolen)

Shall We Rejoice?

2011-05-02T12:40:00.000-05:00

It's been 60+ years since our country has enjoyed a similar victory (death of Hitler/end of WWII). Should they not have rejoiced at that mass-murderer's death? Slaughtered millions are worth patriotic cries, but butchered thousands should be met with mere solemnity? Please.

After all - Moses after crossing the Sea could hardly contain his grief and solemn words of warning to his rejoicing Israelite populace - how dare they rejoice at the death of the Egyptian army - don't they know that God hates for the wicked to perish? ("drip-drip" goes the sound of the sarcasm faucet...)

Related - great post by Will Varner.

The World of the Patriarchs pt. 3

2011-04-27T15:13:00.001-05:00

Yes.

2011-04-27T15:07:00.001-05:00

See MacArthur's recent discussion of Rob Bell - here, here, here, and here.

Rob Bell's Questions (Velvet Elvis, 26-27)

"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?
But what if, as you study the origin of the word ‘virgin’ you discover that the word ‘virgin’ in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word ‘virgin’ could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being ‘born of a virgin’ also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?"

(John MacArthur) Bell compares the Christian faith to a large trampoline, with its cardinal doctrines (truths evangelicals have historically deemed essential) functioning like the springs that support the jumping platform. The individual springs aren’t absolutely essential, Bell says—including the virgin birth:

What if that spring [the virgin birth] were seriously questioned? Could a person keep on jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best possible way to live? Or does the whole thing fall apart? . . . If the whole faith falls apart when we reexamine and rethink one spring, then it wasn’t that strong in the first place, was it?” (26-27)

To synthesize the above rambling questions into one coherent inquiry you might say Bell is asking the following question - "Does the disproving of any of the the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith mean that it, as a functioning belief system, becomes invalid and untruthful?" Bell allows his artistic rhetorical questions and flair for mysterious meaning answer the question with a negation. However, I must side with Paul (1 Cor. 15:17-19) and answer thusly, "Yes."

Pontius Pilate

2011-04-24T09:30:00.000-05:00

I have really enjoyed reading "Pontius Pilate" by Paul Maier - (I am about 2/3s of the way through it.) I have read one other book by Maier - the "Flames of Rome" and both of them are fantastic pieces of historical fiction. In fact it's a bit of an understatement to call them "historical fiction" as they are thoroughly researched and come complete with chapter notes, citations of original source material, and rules of methodology for using literary license. It is written with the same quality and methodology as "O, Jerusalem"- it's not quite history, but you don't want to call it fiction either.

The biggest advantage to these works are of course the intellect of the author - he is a scholar and a good fiction writer - oil and water can mix! Another advantage to these works is that they are cheap - you could get both books (used copies) for under $10 including shipping!

Allow the following paragraph to introduce you to his work:

"It was not until evening that Pilate received a full briefing on the palm-waving phenomenon from the tribune at the Antonia. But the explanation hardly satisfied him, since it was so full of contradictions. Yes, the demonstration was in honor of a man, the prophet Jesus, who had evidently come out of hiding. Yes, the event might have serious political overtones. Many Jews though their Messiah would be declared as king on that very Mount of Olives. The crowds had also shouted praises to 'the son of David,' a loaded name if Jesus should claim to be heir of King David in a restored Judean monarchy. Even the waving of palm branches could be symbolic, for the palm was the national emblem of Palestine (my comment one criticism I have is the use of this term - it's anachronistic - the land had a name - Judea). These were Jewish flags... And of the extra quarter million people jamming Jerusalem, how many were members of the Zealot party from Galilee?

Yet others told him that Jesus was a nonpolitical person, the commandant continued, and that he was misunderstood by the swarms of pilgrims. Still others insisted that the people knew this and were only cheering on their favorite prophet. His vehicle was not a golden chariot but a jogging ass, certainly a poor prop for any kingmakers.

And when he reached Jerusalem, Jesus made no incediary speeches to the masses or flaunted pretentions of any kind. He simply walked over to the temple, enjoyed the view across the Kidron Valley then returned with his disciples to Bethany, for it was getting toward suppertime.

Pilate was baffled by the significance of it all. The episode was harmless or it was meaningful in the extreme. But the fate of the puzzling prophet would clearly depend on what he did or did not do from now on in the face of such enthusiastic support. If Jesus veered into politics, Rome would intrude, much as Pilate hated the thought of getting involved." (Maier 1990:195-196)

One of the disadvantages of knowing the Gospel story is that we know "the end" too well - we allow it to color how we view the plot. We forget that Pilate, Caiaphas, Judas, Peter, and Jesus were real people who had real expectations of how their fates would come out and how extraordinarily surprised all of them (save the Wisdom of God) must have been with the events of Passover 33 AD. Likewise, one of the benefits of reading historical fiction is that we can recapture the sense of anticipation and feeling of "calm before the storm" that we lose in our devotional readings and expositional sermons of the Passion of the God-man.

That's My King

2011-04-24T05:46:00.002-05:00

I have heard this before - but with a different presentation - this one is better. It would be an understatement to say that it is Christ-exalting - "He is Risen!"

Inerrancy = Perfect Preservation of the Bible? Part 3

2011-04-23T08:22:00.007-05:00

Part 3 and conclusion of our discussion - it's long, but hopefully instructive. For context see Part 1 and Part 2.

Friend #1 Reply

I can tell you I study the Bible cover to cover... Why though? Because I have a command to do it in ...2 Timothy 2:15 ... In the modern versions there is no command to study. The English language has "evolved" into "Do your best.." or some other "interpretation" as you call it..

Now I believe the Bible was given by inspiration and we have the perfect translation in the KJV. The modern translators do not believe we have a perfect word of God in English.

You say we have an abundance of textual data, much more than in the 17th century. Which is true. However, in my opinion this only solidifies the KJV, in that approximately 99% of the newest discovered manuscripts agree with the KJV. The remaining 1% is the difference between modern translations & the KJV.

Now I didn't say we have less information or a less complete text than they did in 1611.. I said there hasn't been anything discovered that need be added to the Bible.

The fact is that over 5000 manuscripts exist of the Greek new testament & for the most part, these manuscripts along with KJV & modern translations agree. When they do not agree, modern translators refer to about 5 manuscripts because they are the oldest, which disagree with the majority manuscripts & the KJV, as opposed to the rest of the 4,995+...

Now I'm no Greek or Hebrew expert, but I can read English, & I know when somethin ain't right..
I'll give you an example..
Take your NIV & turn to Matthew 5:22, "anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement...anyone who says 'you fool' will be in danger of the fire of hell" Why, Jesus Christ was angry when he overthrew the tables in the temple in Mark 11 & he called the Pharisees fools in Matthew 23:17. You believe he is in danger of the lake of fire? Well - why not? The "oldest & most reliable" texts along with the NIV & others say that. But wait, the verse left something out. I'm sure you know, but if you don't know, you can check your KJV to see what it is (note: KJV has "angry without cause"). This "best text" you speak of OMITS a very important piece of scripture & forces Mark 11 & Matthew 23:17 to CONTRADICT Hebrews 4:15. Get out a Bible and check it out.. & I can give many more examples, this is just the one that popped in my head

I absolutely "presume" to have a perfect uncorrupted text, that's why I believe it! If you've got a corrupt bible with errors, what are you doin believing it? How do you know what's corrupted & what's not? I'm no Bible corrector, but it seems as though the modern translators thought it fit to correct the Bible & thus effectively trick you & other millions into thinking that God can't & didn't promise to preserve his word.

Psalm 12: 6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Now read those verses in your NIV (NIV - “And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.” (Psalms 12:6–7 NIV)). What a convenient verse to change the meaning of! I'm no Greek or Hebrew expert, but I'm not too blind to see when someone is trying to fool around with the WORDS of God.

My Response

This will be my last post - unless there are clarification questions - I am not in to this whole debate thing for debate's sake.

To Friend #2 - the only reason I commented on this post is that I thought that it would be instructive. I hope it has been.

To Friend #1 - the KJV was never meant to be the end all translation. If it is truly the "perfect" transmitted text does that mean that God's word was only preserved perfectly in the King's English? What about the people who lived before the English translation of the Bible? Was there a progression of perfect texts - or was the perfect only given in 1611? What about German, French, Spanish (and the rest of the other languages) speaking peoples do they just get the proverbial "shaft" with regards to God's continued perfect revelation? Do you see how asinine and arbitrary that is? Broaden your horizons - the world did not begin nor will it likely end with the English language.

Not sure where you are getting your facts about textual criticism - but you are dead wrong on a number of issues.

First of all you dumb down the discipline - it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be. Manuscripts are classified by families of texts (Byzantium, Alexandrium, etc.) - an error or alternate text is usually copied and continued from the "parent" text down through the rest of the family. If you feel so strongly on the issue - learn Greek, learn Hebrew, start studying textual criticism. I am amazed that you are so confident because you "know English... and known when something aint right." Those are hardly qualifiers for speaking truth about textual criticism and the doctrines of inerrancy and inspiration. Quite honestly, I am shocked that you would not at least listen to what I have to say (I do know Hebrew and Greek and have a M.A. in the Hebrew Bible - so it's not like I don't have exposure in this field) - I am not trying to debate you for debate's sake. Common sense and theological fortitude are great traits - but stubbornness and blindness to the reality of easily recognizable truths are extremely unhelpful attributes. So please - I beg you - listen to what I have to say. This is not a light issue - this issue deals with how you approach the word of God - his revelation to you.

Second 1% (and the number is higher than that) of a document as large as the Greek NT is a large number of variance. More importantly - what you say about 5,000 texts = 4,995 vs. 5 makes absolutely no sense at all for a number or reasons. Most importantly - it's simply not true - the differences in texts don't decrease over time - they multiply. The Bible did not come with some "deleted scenes" that need be placed back into their original locale. If there are differences in later texts that's because they crept in through errors of transmission over time. Logically speaking - how in the world do later texts have more "complete texts"? How do they have more verses or explanations? If the text was not there in any of the earliest manuscripts - how could it be in the later texts?

Third - your so-called "examples" are randomly picked prooftexts with no contextual relationship to one another - they ultimately say nothing about the original text or the legitimacy of one translation over another. If you were to study these verses in any translation including the KJV - you would understand that there is no contradiction at all - in Matt. 5:22 Jesus is talking in the context of "murder" (Matt. 5:21) - he is saying - having murderous hatred that leads you to call someone a fool is a sin worthy of hell's flames - not anger itself. This point is abundantly obvious based on the context and Jesus' form of discourse throughout the Sermon on the Mount. There is no voodoo attached to the word "fool" or "raca" - Jesus is giving outward examples of inward feelings - those outward examples need not always be expressions of those inward feelings - the tone is clear. If you have more examples along these lines - I have no desire to hear them - I can find my own prooftexts and apparent contradictions. The Bible is not some mathbook that you can prove 2+2=4 - it's language with nuance, emphasis and different contexts. If you make it out to be math - it will contradict itself throughout - regardless of translation.

Fourth - to answer your question - "how do you know what's corrupted and what's not?" Answer - textual criticism. The Greek NT is in a class all by itself - for all of the major ancient texts like Josephus, Philo, Homer - we have a handful of copies. For the Greek NT we have thousands of manuscripts - that is amazing! It's a witness to the Word of God's life-changing, history-altering power - the fact that men for two millenia have rigorously and as accurately as possible copied this text of texts speaks to its immeasurable impact upon human history and divine interaction. The doctrine of inerrancy does not need to be updated to fit 21st cent. fears. Quite simply you have no theological reason to presume or believe that God's Word has been preserved perfectly - you base your entire belief of perfected continuity of text on fear. Fear that if we don't have the perfect autograph copy than we don't have a good text. Well I have earth-shattering news for you - never ever, ever in God's Word does it say anything about the preservation of the biblical record in either an imperfected or perfected state.

By contrast - we have an example in the Bible where God's Word was lost! Perish the thought. In the time of Josiah (2 Kings 22:8) the "Law of the Lord" was found by people working in the temple. That means that for at least a generation or two the people of Israel, God's chosen, were without the Bible! In the intervening time since then -say around 1610 did God change the way he does business and say? - "Do you see my servant James? The English have the Tyndale Bible but it's not up to snuff - no longer will my children lose my perfect word -next year I am going to make sure that that old wizenheimer, King James, gets my perfect word that way 21st cent. American Christians can still speak colloquial English - after all when they write 'speak' - they should have written 'spake.'" In this debate - the only "tricking" going on is by those who would have the church believe that King James' translators were on par with apostolic authority (you realize that this was the same King James that caused the Mayflower? Not exactly the epitome of Christian virtue).

Lastly - Ps. 12 - the text that you quote as God's promise to preserve his word. This text has nothing to do with the continued perfection of the text of the Bible and everything to do with God's promise to keep the words that he speaks. Meaning that if God says that he has chosen Israel he will fulfill his vows - if he has promised that he will save those who trust in him - then he will sovereignly and judicially save them. Again - the context is so clear and obvious that you would have to be blind to say that it's talking about God's preservation of his written word. Actually this verse acts as a perfect metaphor for textual criticism. "The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times." Every ancient manuscript of the Greek NT acts as a refinement of our view of the actual text - the slag (waste) of time and error of transmission is melted away through each refinement. Because of this, based on the overwhelming evidence of ancient manuscripts - I will state again - boldly and confidently - the English translations that we possess today are extremely close to the Greek NT and Hebrew OT. This reality is only from a gracious gift from God to the world and his universal church - not a promise that he explicitly promised or implicitly implied to fulfill.

In conclusion I have two imperatives that I hope you listen to -1. use any translation you like, if it's the KJV - fine, it contains God's word and was amazingly accurate for its time, if it's the accursed NIV or it's devil-sister the ESV, study all the more. 2. Friend #1, self-proclaimed skeptic, don't place your hope in a theology that is outside of the bible - the bible is God's revelation to man, that is, it is the means by which we come to know him. Don't make it an end in itself. If you base your hope on a theological truth alien to scripture - how sound is that hope? Christ's saving sacrificial work is the only hope that we have - the only remedy to the maladies of doubt and skepticism. Don't place your hope in King James' translators. Or you might end up like this guy...

(HT: Craig Dunning)

Friend #1 Response

I think this is something we will just have to disagree on. Regardless, you seem like a well-meaning, respectable, well-educated Christian, and I admire your credentials.

I just urge you to reconsider the fact that the Bible you read every day is corrupted and imperfect. Don't you think that having a reliable and infallible book is essential to our faith? I know Greek & Hebrew as well, I'm no expert, but If God came down from heaven & gave me the original autographs, I'd still read my KJV. Greek is a dead language & useless to winning the lost & Hebrew is spoken by less that 1% of the world. He's magnified HIS WORD above all His precious name. If you believe He hasn't preserved his word down through the generations forever, I encourage you to look at psalm 12:7 again, in Hebrew.

I have answers to your other questions such as where was the perfect Bible before 1611, the accusation that I took Matthew 5:22 out of context, & so forth. But I do not want to be argumentative. Those answers I'm sure you are capable of finding if you want them.

I've studied the Alexandrium, the Sinaiticus & the Vaticanus.. You can call your Bible corrupt, but leave mine out of it please.

The Bible said that there will be a famine in the last days of hearing His words.. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways... So when you have two bibles telling you two different things in the same verse, (many examples IN CONTEXT) well simply put, 2+2=4

This is my last post as well, Chris, nice talking with you. I saw your pictures, I hope to make it over to Jerusalem someday in the near future. I'm sure that was a great experience! I've listened to everything you've said, keep looking into this issue, as I will do the same.

We're obviously not going to convince each other, there is no need to continue this "debate". You read over 100 translations and believe them all... I read over 100 translations and believe 1.

One thing we do know is that His Word is settled in Heaven, & I'll be glad one day when I can ask Him face to face instead of having to deal with all this mess down here! Until then we'll just have to keep looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ!

My Final Response

Friend #1 - I enjoyed the discussion. I completely disagree with you - but that does not mean that we are not brothers in Christ - have a great Easter!

Friend #1 Final Response

I completely disagree with you too & hope to meet you someday, maybe we could find some things we agree on.

Two Deaths - One Purpose

2011-04-22T11:13:00.002-05:00

During Passover - God saved his chosen by putting to death the heir to the known world.

During the Passion - God slaughtered the heir of the universe to save his chosen.

Inerrancy = Perfect Preservation of the Bible? Part 2

2011-04-22T07:51:00.003-05:00

For the first part of this discussion see here. The following conversation continues in a discussion of the the main issue involved - perfect preservation of the inspired word.

In order to grasp the gravity and nature of this issue - pertinent questions such as the following must be asked: Does the Bible say that it would be preserved for all time in a state of perfection? Does it need to be "perfect" to be trusted? How close to the original are our modern translations? In what follows - I seek to answer those questions through the means of debate with a friend who holds to KJV primacy.

Friend #2 Response to my Interjection:

Ok Chris, now I'm not trying to convert you to the KJV or anything like that, the bible you choose is your choice... However, here's what I know. The KJV was translated from the Textus Receptus. You're right, there have been many new discoveries of manuscripts since 1611. BUT, there have been no new READINGS discovered. Meaning nothing new has been found that they didn't already have 400 years ago.

I believe you said more "complete" manuscripts have been found, yet when I read the NIV, I find MANY verses "missing". My favorite is Acts 8:37. So you see, if you have an NIV, you don't have a complete Bible. We can get deeper into the manuscripts they used if you want.

And that isn't all, if you have an NIV, you have a bible which is hard to understand. I'll give you an example, which of these texts makes more sense to a 21st century reader?

"The tents of marauders are undisturbed, and those who provoke God are secure."
OR
"The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure."

Both come from Job 12:6. I'll give you one guess which one is the NIV.
I'll give you another one. "I will stand at my watch, and stand myself at the ramparts." OR "I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower."

Now, you may know what "ramparts" and "marauders" mean, but the majority of 21st century readers don't, although they sing that word in their national anthem 100 times each year.

The point is, we are not capable of understanding everything that's in that Book. The Bible says that "the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." The Holy Spirit is our interpreter.
When you look at the origins of modern versions, their omissions, & contradictions, it's hard (for me at least because I'm a skeptic of everything) to believe they are the word of God. If you dont think Satan is trying to attack this book, you don't know Satan very well. He started attacking God's words right from the beginning in Genesis 3:1.

Like I said I'm a skeptic to everything, even my own religion & Book, but when you set out to disprove something that can't be disproven, your faith only strengthens.

Now, try to disprove the modern versions, & see what happens.

My Response:

I am going to have to completely disagree with you - the last 400 years has brought an abundance of textual data that was previously unknown - a cursory look of a textual apparatus of a Greek New Testament makes this plain (see UBS4 or look here http://www.sblgnt.com/.)

More than that the "Textus Receptus" is not even a complete manuscript - but a composite of many different manuscripts put together by Greek scholars just after the Middle Ages (basically it was the forerunner of our modern day Greek New Testaments - a great, pioneering work for its time.) But even they placed a priority on older texts - to say that we have less information or a less complete picture of the Greek NT than those living in the early 17th cent. is completely false.

You are right in saying that the KJV has more words (or verses) than modern English translations - however - you are wrong in assuming that the existence of more words equals a more complete text. Ancient texts that are copied over and over again - by nature become conflated - words and phrases are usually added or corrupted - not lost. In other words, it's far more likely for an ancient scribe to add a few explanatory notes to an account than it would be for that same scribe to omit a paragraph (for instance see the ESV's treatment of Acts 8:37-40, John 8:1-11, Mark 16:9-20). We are not looking for the largest text possible - but the most accurate text possible.

In fact there is an entire discipline founded upon discovering the actual, ancient text by looking at a variety of ancient manuscripts - this discipline is called textual criticism.

In this regard (as I do have a degree in Biblical Languages - not to sound uppity, but just to let you know that I am not coming out of right field with this stuff) - I can speak with complete confidence in saying that our modern English translations are based on the best and earliest ancient texts possible. Sure there are issues related to translation, but you would be lying if you said that the KJV does not have translation issues. Feel free to use the KJV as your Bible - but don't presume to think that you have a better text or a an uncorrupted one.

I am not sure what you mean by contradictions, omissions, etc. in modern English translations. Those issues are related to interpretation - don't mix interpretation with translation. You want to have as accurate a text as possible before you start dismissing it because of its "errors."

While it's certainly true that Satan tries on every occasion to malign God's Word - that does not mean that we need to hold on to a set of assumptions that is without any basis in reality. Namely, that the KJV is the most complete, accurate text of the Bible- this assumption is based on outside influences and has nothing to do with the translation's antiquity. The reality is this - God supernaturally spoke his revelatory truth to men who in turn wrote down those words (2 Tim. 3:16) for their/our instruction - but God said nothing about preserving that text in its perfect, uncorrupted state (it's not the Book of Mormon after all).

I hope that as you study God's Word, regardless of translation, you will be convinced of it's truth and life-changing worth through the illuminating work of the Spirit.

Look for the conclusion of our discussion - part 3 - tomorrow

Jesus in the Garden vs. Disciples in the Ship

2011-04-22T05:49:00.000-05:00

As I have mentioned before - I really enjoy Russ Moore's blog Moore to the Point. It's one of those few blogs that constantly passes along meat and not just pieces of meat (i.e. other people's writing - like I am doing right now :)) So without further ado - I highly encourage you to read his thoughts on Christ in the garden vs. the disciples in the ship. Here is an excerpt - hint it should produce gooseflesh... (HT: Justin Taylor)

When the disciples screamed in the face of a storm, Jesus slept (Mk. 4:37-38). When Jesus screamed in the face of a cross, the disciples slept (Mk. 14:37,41).

Why could Jesus sleep so peacefully through a life-threatening sea-storm, and yet is awake all night in the olive garden before his arrest, crying out in anguish? Why are the disciples pulsing with adrenaline as the ship is tossed about on the Galilee Lake, but drifting off to slumber as the most awful conspiracy in human history gets underway?

Inerrancy = Perfect Preservation of the Bible? Part 1

2011-04-21T01:56:00.001-05:00

For some reason the issue of the continued perfect preservation (or lack thereof) of the Bible has been popping up quite often in my life. Of course, this issue is tied directly to KJV (that stands for King James-I-persecuted-Protestants-but-still-somehow-was-elevated-to-Pope-status-among-crazy-American-21st-century-Evangelicals Version) primacy. The following is a recent discussion I had with some friends of mine regarding the larger issue of biblical preservation seen through the lens of the KJV issue. I rarely get into theological debates and rue the thought of arguing for the fun of it (something I did often in college :) - but sometimes there is a chance to influence, a chance to persuade - in this instance I saw a chance and I went for it. Enjoy.

Friend #1

I have yet to find an error in the king James Version. The same cannot be said of any other version I know of.. The KJV has many presumed errors & problematic texts... But these all can be explained with some deep study......

I disagree that the original Hebrew is the only text without error.. Simply because there are no originals there are only copies of the originals.

So be careful with that ESV.. It isn't translated from the same manuscripts as the KJV.

Friend #2 Response

Some would call this tragic. Others wouldn't. I personally use KJV, but will, on occasion, refer to ESV or NIV for something that's easier to understand. I think the only real "version" without error is the original one... and that's not the KJV, its the original Hebrew and Greek text. While I do think the seemingly endless reproduction of different versions of the Bible that are required to have changed "X" number of words is a little bit of a bastardization of the text, a money plot by publishers, and just might sometimes get a little close to straying away from the original Hebrew message, I do think some people may need to refer, as I do, to a commentated source in order to understand something every once in a while. Judaism has done this without making 54 different translations... its the Talmud, and contains a commentary on the original and a commentary on the commentary., for applications sake.
that being said, I'm only comfortable saying the absolute FIRST text, in the original old Hebrew and Greek, is the divinely inspired, error free, word of God, to the horn of the yod.

Friend #1 Response

The KJV says God preserved his words through the generations, the inspired inerrant scripture CAN'T be just the words on the paper of the original autographs... I can show you some shocking verses if you want...

My Interjection

If you don't mind - could I interject? First of all the OT in all modern English translations as well as the KJV is translated from the Masoretic Text (10th cent. AD document). Second the KJV was translated in 1611 when only a few Greek NT texts were available. Since 1611 - something like 2700 Greek manuscripts have been found and deciphered - many of them much older and more complete manuscripts than what the translators of the KJV possessed.

So what does that mean? Modern English translations like the ESV, NASB, NIV are far and away closer to the original Hebrew and Greek texts than the KJV, because they have the added benefit of 400 years of archaeological discovery and textual critical work. Not to mention that they take into account the evolution of the English language. For example - which one of these texts makes more sense to a 21st cent. reader “But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort” or “But the Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace” (example indebted to one of my favorite teachers) They both are from Acts 17:5 - but the second translation (NIV) is clearly easier to understand for people that live under the US government and not under the monarchy of King James.

Furthermore - there is absolutely no reason to believe that in 1611 - God decided to pass down the perfect, uncorrupted text. This is the key issue. To state that the KJV is the uncorrupted text is without textual basis and frankly a little prideful - what about the previous 1600 years when English was not the main universal tongue? Did they not have a perfect translation? Was God waiting to reveal the perfect English translation to us Anglo-Saxons?

to be continued...

Thesis Word Cloud

2011-04-14T05:10:00.005-05:00

See if you can tell what my thesis is a about (most frequent words appear larger than less frequent.) Created using Wordle.

Thesis Microcosm

2011-04-12T15:02:00.002-05:00

This map, in the humble opinion of its creator, best captures the main thrust of my thesis on the alliance between Ahab and Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 18:1). See if you can make heads or tails...

The Genesis Record - Pt. 2

2011-03-08T01:59:00.000-06:00

Continued discussion on the Genesis record of creation and the flood with analysis of some extra-biblical ancient Near Eastern creation and flood narratives.

Guest Blogging

2011-02-21T22:35:00.003-06:00

In case you missed it you can check out my blog entries at BiblePlaces blog at the following links.

Beth Haccherem Identification Intro

Jericho's Earliest skyscraper

Titus Tobler

Some Thoughts on Anson Rainey the Teacher

The Genesis Record - Pt. 1

2011-02-17T23:06:00.001-06:00

Here is the audio from this Wednesday night's discussion on a biblical view of origins.

Guest Blogger: BiblePlaces Blog

2011-02-11T11:01:00.000-06:00

For the next month I will be contributing to Todd Bolen's BiblePlaces blog. BiblePlaces is one of the most read archaeological blogs on the internet. Today's post provides the following bio introduction for your faithful servant:

Chris McKinny is finishing up his M.A. thesis at the Jerusalem University College. Last semester he taught full-time at the Israel Bible Extension campus of The Master’s College. Chris has a particular passion for archaeology, and he has spent summers excavating at Tell es-Safi (Gath) and Tel Burna (Libnah?) in the Shephelah of Judah. Chris lives in Jerusalem with his wife Mindy (whose photographic work has been featured on this blog in the past). He blogs occasionally at Seeking a Homeland.

The World of the Patriarchs pt.1

2011-02-11T10:21:00.000-06:00

For the foreseeable future - I will be teaching a class on the History of Ancient Israel at Country Bible Church on Wednesday nights (7pm). It will not be your typical Sunday School lesson (partly because it is on a Wed.)...

The following is a taste of what Wednesday nights at CBC will sound like. You can go to the church's audio archive here or you can click on the play button below (no video).

(Correction: Herzl proposed Uganda - not Sudan - as an alternate homeland for the Jewish people).

"I Am a Man"

2011-01-18T09:01:00.000-06:00

I love Russ Moore's writing - in my estimation he is the most eloquent and thoughtful writer out there. Check out his cutting article on racism - very well written and applicable to everyone, everywhere.

The civil rights movement succeeded not simply because the arc of history bends toward justice but because, embedded in our common humanity, we know that Someone is bending it toward a Judgment Seat.
The gospel that reconciles the sons of slaveholders with the sons of slaves is the same gospel that reconciled the sons of Amalek with the sons of Abraham. It is a gospel that reclaims the dignity of humanity and the lordship of God. It is a gospel that presents us with a brother who puts the lie to any claim to racial superiority as he takes on the glory and limits of our common humanity in Adam. Jim Crow is put to flight ultimately because Jesus Christ steps forward out of history and announces, with us, “I Am a Man.

Tel Burna Featured in BAR

2011-01-12T13:56:00.001-06:00

The recent addition of BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) chronicles the different active archaeological sites in Israel. Tel Burna, the dig that Mindy and I are involved with is one of the featured sites - see some information regarding Biblical Libnah (?) and it's beautiful cover girl/photographer here.

When Did the First Advent Occur?

2011-01-07T16:34:00.001-06:00

Read "How December 25 Became Christmas" an excellent article in the recent addition of BAR (Biblical Archaeology Review) by Andrew McGowan.

The sum of the article is that the Christian tradition for a December 25 date predates the "pagan sun festival" that it is almost unanimously associated with the Christmas event. Here are a few excerpts.

The most loudly touted theory about the origins of the Christmas date(s) is that it was borrowed from pagan celebrations. The Romans had their mid-winter Saturnalia festival in late December; barbarian peoples of northern and western Europe kept holidays at similar times. To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25. Christmas, the argument goes, is really a spin-off from these pagan solar festivals. According to this theory, early Christians deliberately chose these dates to encourage the spread of Christmas and Christianity throughout the Roman world: If Christmas looked like a pagan holiday, more pagans would be open to both the holiday and the God whose birth it celebrated.

Despite its popularity today, this theory of Christmas’s origins has its problems. It is not found in any ancient Christian writings, for one thing. Christian authors of the time do note a connection between the solstice and Jesus’ birth: The church father Ambrose (c. 339–397), for example, described Christ as the true sun, who outshone the fallen gods of the old order. But early Christian writers never hint at any recent calendrical engineering; they clearly don’t think the date was chosen by the church. Rather they see the coincidence as a providential sign, as natural proof that God had selected Jesus over the false pagan gods.

It’s not until the 12th century that we find the first suggestion that Jesus’ birth celebration was deliberately set at the time of pagan feasts. A marginal note on a manuscript of the writings of the Syriac biblical commentator Dionysius bar-Salibi states that in ancient times the Christmas holiday was actually shifted from January 6 to December 25 so that it fell on the same date as the pagan Sol Invictus holiday. In the 18th and 19th centuries, Bible scholars spurred on by the new study of comparative religions latched on to this idea. They claimed that because the early Christians didn’t know when Jesus was born, they simply assimilated the pagan solstice festival for their own purposes, claiming it as the time of the Messiah’s birth and celebrating it accordingly.

The "No Vacancy Inn" - A Fanciful Interpretation

2010-12-15T03:25:00.000-06:00

Allow this clip from the well-beloved, very flawed "Nativity Story"refresh your memory regarding one of the world's best known narratives. (See especially from 6:13-8:15)

But did it really go down like that?

Originally published 3/16/10.

No where in Luke 2 does it imply that Mary, the mother of the Messiah, went into labor on the way to Bethlehem - in fact the passage suggests quite the opposite.

“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the town of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.”
(Luke 2:4–7 ESV)

We often assume that because "there was no place for them in the inn" then the labor must have been hurried - it's like we are trying to make a Lifetime special out of the first Advent. Even if the line "no place for them in the inn" is a correct translation, which is highly suspect, there is no reason to believe that Mary was about to "bring forth" as she reached the hometown of King David. The line "And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth" makes it abundantly clear that there was a sequence of events at work here. The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem, an unknown length of time in which Mary and Joseph settled in before the birth of the King, and finally the birth of the Firstfruits of God.
Moreover, the Greek phrase underlying "no place for them in the inn" should be read "no place for them in the guest room." The word kataluma is only used two other times in the New Testament and in both cases it is referring to the same event - Jesus telling his disciples to go and secure the room for the Last Supper.

“And tell the master of the house, ‘The Teacher says to you, Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?’ (Luke 22:11 ESV see also Mark 14:14).

The translation "guest room" eliminates any need for a hurried delivery on Mary's part or any amount of desperate consternation upon Joseph the soon-to-be father. Beyond that, this translation is much more fitting with the cultural context of the story - Mary and Joseph, Judeans of Davidic origin, would have had family members living in Bethlehem who would have been more than happy to host the expecting parents (remember how Mary stayed with her cousin Elizabeth 6 months earlier - somewhere around Jerusalem only 5 miles from Bethlehem). However, due to the overcrowding caused by the census guest rooms were full so they had to move their extended family to other rooms in the home - the next candidate would be the stable (which were almost exclusively built into the homes since the livestock of the family was an integral part of its livelihood, as well as acting as a free furnace during cold months).

This reconstruction then means that Mary came to Bethlehem towards the end of her pregnancy, but not to the point where she would give birth as soon as she got there. (Seriously why would Mary and Joseph do this? It's not like they did not know when the census was supposed to be - Rome worked on a rigorous schedule, it's no coincidence that the modern calendar has it's foundations in the Roman one. Mary and Joseph would have had to have been extremely irresponsible or just plain naive to wait until the last minute.) When they arrived in the ancestral home of their fathers they stayed with family (most likely extended as their immediate family was in Nazareth) whose guest room had already been filled by other extended family - thus they were put in the next likeliest location - the stable where the God/Man was born and placed in a stone manger.

Let us cast aside the traditional fanciful interpretation of the advent of our Lord - the actual story of his condescending and taking flesh is humble enough - let us not go beyond the Bible in our attempts to steep lowliness upon the shoulders of the Lord. Let us add the myth of the "no-vacancy inn" to the myth that the "three kings" were present at the manger - perhaps they can stay in this mythical inn during their alleged visit to the manger.

Two New Christmas Carols

2010-12-10T05:10:00.000-06:00

This week my History of Ancient Israel students were faced with a difficult task - learning all of the names of the kings of Israel and Judah in chronological order (and their relationship to each other) for the final exam. They all did swimmingly - here is how some of my best and brightest accomplished this difficult feat.

Dare I say that no teacher has ever been more proud...

Kings of Israel to Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer (Zedekiah = Zechariah - they got it right on the test so we will let it slide :)

Kings of Judah to Joy to the World

Finals Week - the Other Side

2010-12-07T14:22:00.000-06:00

Wow. I think this is the hardest finals week I have ever had.

Today I graded around twenty 6-12 page papers, thirteen final exams, about fifteen 2-5 page reports - my head hurts, but my excel skills are razor-sharp :)

Now on to writing an exam for tomorrow...

Jacob and Nathanael

2010-11-22T04:13:00.002-06:00

The following passage is in the context of Jacob fleeing from Esau, his murderous brother, by leaving his home at Beersheba and heading to his maternal ancestor's homeland in Haran. Jacob met Yahweh for the first time at Bethel (Hebrew - "House of God") and the Lord revealed himself in a dream re-ratifying the covenant with Abraham's descendants.

“Jacob left Beersheba and went toward Haran. And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night, because the sun had set. Taking one of the stones of the place, he put it under his head and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it! And behold, the LORD stood above it and said, “I am the LORD, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac. The land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring. Your offspring shall be like the dust of the earth, and you shall spread abroad to the west and to the east and to the north and to the south, and in you and your offspring shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Behold, I am with you and will keep you wherever you go, and will bring you back to this land. For I will not leave you until I have done what I have promised you.” Then Jacob awoke from his sleep and said, “Surely the LORD is in this place, and I did not know it.” And he was afraid and said, “How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.” (Genesis 28:10–17 ESV)

At the beginning of Jesus' earthly ministry - Jesus used the same imagery to give Nathanael a better perspective about His intentions for mankind.

“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!”Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.”And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” (John 1:45–51 ESV)

One interesting aspect of the story is the parallel of Bethel (patriarchal ties, major cult site throughout Israel's history) and Nazareth (no mentioning, no importance, no religiousness). From a historical perspective Bethel was eternally cognizant in the minds of every Jew - whereas Nazareth was completely forgettable. The Branch was about to change that dynamic.

Even more interesting is the connection between Jacob and Nathanael. Here is what Jesus is saying to Nathanael - "you think it's amazing that I knew what you were thinking under the fig tree - here's how amazing I am - I was there when Yahweh revealed himself to Jacob - in fact I am the Ladder - the Ladder is the only way to have access to the Father - Jacob learned that, you will have to as well. Jacob only saw the Ladder in a dream, but you are talking to the Ladder face to face."

John's Ultimate Irony

2010-11-17T23:21:00.004-06:00

Worldwide Perspective: The Creator was/is unknown by those who had been created to find their pleasure in him.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. (John 1:9-10)

1st Century/Jewish Perspective: Yahweh's chosen king, high-priest, prophet (i.e. Messiah) was/is unrecognized by those who had been chosen to be "a Kingdom of Priests" (Exodus 19:5-6).

He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. (John 1:11)

Despite humanity's debased ignorance and Israel's woeful lack of perception the "true light" still offers the ultimate truth to the ignorant and the imperceptive alike - new birth. A birth that rectifies the general failure of mankind and the specific failure of Israel.

But to all who did receive him, who believe in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12-13)

All of this is because the imposing, seemingly all-powerful "darkness" that brought ignorance and lack of perception met its absolute Kryptonite counterpart - the "Light."

The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:5)

The Kingdom(s) of Israel

2010-11-16T18:56:00.001-06:00

Check out my new chart for the United and Divided Kingdoms of Israel. If we are to understand the larger ideas and concepts of the Old Testament it's vitally important that we grasp the relationship between the actual biblical characters and the larger flow of events. A chart like this can help you "relationalize" the biblical kings with their respective compadres.

Flesh-Nuggets

2010-11-01T15:10:00.001-05:00

Transubstantiationism (that the wine and bread become the actual blood and flesh during communion) is wrong, but can provide good humor. Case and point. One of my good Israeli friends recently asked me if he could come to my church and partake in some of our "flesh-nuggets."

Lecrae's Rehab = Money

2010-10-06T15:23:00.000-05:00

I know it's been over a month..... No excuses. So I'll just start trying to be more regular - we shall see.

You need to listen to Lecrae's new album - Rehab. You can check out the best song on the album at Justin Taylor's blog here. Or click on the pic below to preview or buy at Amazon (8.99 there vs. 9.99 on Itunes).

Stephen Hawking and Coincidences

2010-09-03T04:35:00.002-05:00

Stephen Hawking's recent comments on his new view of the origin of the universe,

In his (Hawking) latest book, he said the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting another star other than the Sun helped deconstruct the view of the father of physics Isaac Newton that the universe could not have arisen out of chaos but was created by God.

"That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions -- the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass, far less remarkable, and far less compelling evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings," he writes.

Yes, in a sense the uniqueness of "the coincidence" that makes human life on earth possible is slightly diminished when we look at the vastness of the universe and the chance for other possible "coincidences." But, the fact remains that we live in a very, very unique situation in the universe that would have unlikely occurred without a designer. All Hawking has done is shown that the Big Bang Theory is only virtually impossible, instead of completely impossible. The possibility of another explanation being correct does not make it correct...only possible and in this case it would seem exceptionally unlikely. Basing his belief in a creator on the uniqueness of our circumstance - would seem a pretty flimsy foundation for believing in intelligent design. It fails to answer the question of origins and only represents a small part of why intelligent design is the likeliest source of the origins of the universe.

Nevertheless, Hawking's argumentation is compelling in this regard - the possibility of similar "coincidences" may allow for other forms of life in the universe. Perhaps there are pockets of life, like ours, in the universe. In my mind this possibility further establishes the idea of a supreme Creator, Designer who can cause and form not just one amazing "coincidence" but billions. Stephen Hawking should have read Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra.

Facebook and Ministry

2010-08-31T10:09:00.001-05:00

Here is an excerpt of a really good post on facebook and ministry by Tim Challies (love the last line).

Be Present but not Always Present
Though Facebook can be a valuable tool for the pastor, it is a tool that is far more often used to waste time than to redeem time. Your congregation will be glad to see that you have a presence on Facebook, but they will be dismayed if they see that you have a constant presence. if they see that you are continually commenting, chatting, posting notes, interacting and racking up high scores on Bejeweled Blitz, they will come to believe that you are spending your entire day there. Even if that is not the case, you will want to be very cautious to give them no reason to think that you are wasting your study time or sermon preparation time stalking them on Facebook. So use it, but use it carefully and sparingly.
Don’t Play Farmville
Just don’t. It’s stupid and it will make you stupid.

This and That: August 30

2010-08-30T12:19:00.004-05:00

Here a few links and a video from over the last week or so that I found to be interesting.

Justin Taylor has some interesting insights on what church would look like in the Middle Ages - maybe we should go back to some of these styles.

Check out the animated version of Sovereign Grace's "Gospel Song" with John Piper preaching in the middle.

(HT: Larry Mayo)

Love, love, love this quote by Mark Driscoll. Read his blog post on biblical manhood and womanhood here.

You may disagree with a lot of what I have said. My questions would be this:
Do you disagree because you’ve been reading your Bible a lot?
Or do you disagree because you haven’t been reading your Bible a lot?

Some good thoughts on Facebook and believers by Ryan Mann.

Honestly, sites like Facebook are pretty cool. A great way to stay in touch, to stay connected. But are we really more connected now? Are we better friends? Are we closer to one another because of Facebook and other instant online communication? I say no, not necessarily...

Let me explain. Facebook is a great tool to enhance friendships. But it is a horrible replacement for face-to-face, voice-to-voice relationships. Facebook can give me information on what friends, family, and acquaintances are up to and how they are enjoying it. But the key is what do I do with this information? Do I encourage? Do I pray? Do I serve?

If you have seen or heard about the recent Glenn Beck hoopla I would recommend reading this post by Russell Moore. I can't say I feel one way or the other at this point, but I found the following quote to be particularly insightful.

Too often, and for too long, American “Christianity” has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barabbas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah.

It’s sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not pessimistic. Jesus will build his church, and he will build it on the gospel. He doesn’t need American Christianity to do it. Vibrant, loving, orthodox Christianity will flourish, perhaps among the poor of Haiti or the persecuted of Sudan or the outlawed of China, but it will flourish.
And there will be a new generation, in America and elsewhere, who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer.

Russell Moore posts pretty infrequently, but when he speaks you should listen - he's a good thinker and communicator.

Source Criticism 101

2010-08-25T11:06:00.002-05:00

What's the most effective way of doing source criticism? Let Walter be your guide.

(caution one gratuitous use of the "h" word)

Source criticism uses an intensely practical method - known as the "Higher-Throwing-a-Plate-of-Noodles-against the-Wall-Hermeneutic." Once the noodles have been thrown then the ever-watchful, always-careful scholar may be able to disseminate the common and uncommon relationships between the noodles that stuck on the wall and the noodles that didn't. Such questions as - "what made this extra short noodle so sticky?" or "how come this half noodle decided to fall to the ground when 10% of the other half noodles stuck to the wall?" or the always effective "what made these three linguines stuck together become a triplet?" may be asked so that exceptional, fool-proof conclusions can be made.

Consider the following conclusion: The previously mentioned extra short noodle stuck on the wall because of its considerable shortness, which likely means that it originated from a different packaging than its fellow noodles. It is well-known that the Wal-mart brand has irregular lengths - 60% of the time being shorter than the average spaghetti noodle - whereas Kraft noodles (the most common of all noodles) are always the same length. It is safe to say that the extra-short noodle did not come from the same common noodle packaging as the other noodles and is a hold-over from a Wal-mart package that was overfilled. Based on this clear evidence it would seem likely then that the "wal-mart shorty," aka WMS, was well-known to the Kraft noodle packager and decided to embed WMS into the otherwise un-molested Kraft package of noodles - after all it was easier than getting up and crossing the room to throw WMS away. Hmm...Compelling.

OR - the answer could be that the best relationship between the noodles is that they are all part of one bowl of spaghetti, excuse me Jack, linguine.

Going Back to Narnia

2010-08-25T02:30:00.007-05:00

Exact cover of the one I read as a kid

Recently I have been reading a lot of C.S. Lewis - some old, some new (Till We Have Faces.) In my reading of the Last Battle (the last book in the Chronicles of Narnia) I was surprised to see something that I had never noticed before - a direct reference to Platonic thought. In one of the best classes I have ever taken, Exegesis of the book of Hebrews, one of the best teachers I have ever had made the connection between Lewis and Plato (specifically - the Allegory of the Cave) in the context of Hebrews 8 (really Hebrews 7-10). The indirect references were obvious to me after his explanation, but it was quite entertaining to see a direct reference that I had missed or not understood in one of my favorite books from my childhood. See if you can see the connection in the following video, scripture, and book excerpt.

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises (it's better because it was enacted on the "real" things - not the shadows). For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.
For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
(Hebrews 8:1–13 ESV - emphasis and comments mine)

"Kings and Queens," he cried, "we have all been blind. We are only beginning to see where we are. From up there I have seen it all - Ettinsmuir, Beaversdam, the Great River, and Cair Paravel still shining on the edge of the Eastern Sea. Narnia is not dead. This is Narnia."
"But how can it be?" said Peter. "For Aslan told us older ones that we should never return to Narnia, and here we are."
"Yes," said Eustace. "And we saw it all destroyed and the sun put out."
"And it's all so different," said Lucy.
"The Eagle is right," said the Lord Digory. "Listen, Peter. When Aslan said you could never go back to Narnia, he meant the Narnia you were thinking of. But that was not the real Narnia. That had a beginning and an end. It was only a shadow or a copy of the real Narnia which has always been here and always will be here: just as our world, England and all, is only a shadow or copy of something in Aslan's real world. You need not mourn over Narnia, Lucy. All of the old Narnia that mattered, all the dear creatures, have been drawn into the real Narnia through the Door. And of course it is different; as different as a real thing is from a shadow or as waking life is from a dream." His voice stirred everyone like a trumpet as he spoke these words: but when he added under his breath "It's all in Plato, all in Plato: bless me, what do they teach them at these schools!" the older ones laughed. It was so exactly like the sort of thing they had heard him say long ago in that other world where his beard was grey instead of golden. He knew why they were laughing and joined in the laugh himself. But very quickly they all became grave again: for, as you know, there is a kind of happiness and wonder that makes you serious. It is too good to waste on jokes.
It is as hard to explain how this sunlit land was different from the old Narnia as it would be to tell you how the fruits of that country taste. Perhaps you will get some idea of it if you think like this. You may have been in a room in which there was a window that
looked out on a lovely bay of the sea or a green valley that wound away among mountains. And in the wall of that room opposite to the window there may have been a lookingglass. And as you turned away from the window you suddenly caught sight of that sea or that valley, all over again, in the looking glass. And the sea in the mirror, or the valley in the mirror, were in one sense just the same as the real ones: yet at the same time they were somehow different - deeper, more wonderful, more like places in a story: in a story you have never heard but very much want to know. The difference between the old Narnia and the new Narnia was like that. The new one was a deeper country: every rock and flower and blade of grass looked as if it meant more. I can't describe it any better than that: if ever you get there you will know what I mean.
It was the Unicorn who summed up what everyone was feeling. He stamped his right fore-hoof on the ground and neighed, and then cried:
"I have come home at last! This is my real country! I belong here. This is the land I have been looking for all my life, though I never knew it till now. The reason why we loved the old Narnia is that it sometimes looked a little like this. Bree-hee-hee! Come further up, come further in!" (emphasis mine)

Haughty Wild Olive Branches

2010-08-21T17:43:00.002-05:00

Romans 11 is one of my favorite passages in the Bible. Within it Paul culiminates his argument (Romans 9-11) concerning the eschatological destiny of ethnic Israel by delivering one of the most powerful images in the Bible - wild olive branches being grafted into a pure olive tree.

"But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you" (Romans 11:17-21 ESV)

Now my point in writing this blog post is not to discuss the nature of Paul's argument or its implications upon Premillenial or Amillenial theology. Although much can and should be said about this passage's relationship to these views (hint - Amillenialism misses the relationship - big time). My point is to shortly discuss how this passage relates directly to me and people like me - students/teachers of the Bible and its ancient, Jewish background and our relationship to the church body.

While in America I am often asked such questions about Israel.

"Are you sure it's safe to live there?"
"What's it like living in a war zone?"
"Why would you want to live in the desert?"
"Do you feel closer to God there?"
"What's it like walking where Jesus walked?"

These types of misconceived questions are an inevitability. Yes they can be annoying - especially answering the same ones over and over again. But, I think some times the problem of misconception lies with the traveler and student of bible lands and not the curious church. I believe we have been a little ignorant of the fact that up until 50-60 years ago visiting the land of the Bible was nearly impossible. We have had the great privilege of seeing the story, of putting the place with the name, of making the connection and answering the why - but the vast majority of the church have not. They should not be considered inferior on account of this.

I guess what I am trying to say is that - going to the Middle East and studying biblical geography, history, archaeology, or even languages should not be a requirement that we impose on the local body - we should not act like our home churches should know the ends and outs of the International Coastal Highway (they are many and fascinating) or even that they get the Palestinian-Israeli conflict straight (as if someone could). Knowing about these things is amazingly helpful for understanding the text, but overstating their importance can be a problem. It is infinitely more important for someone to get the Gospel straight and fervently evangelize the lost than ever finding out about the distinction between Upper and Lower Galilee (it's the Beth-Hakerem ridge - by the way) or even the amazing geo-political dynamics of the Central Benjamin Plateau (they help understand around 1/2 of OT history - so yeah, kind of a big deal). These things are fascinating - but in the end they are non-essential.

Acting like our knowing about the land, history and Hebrew background of the Bible gives us a special level of knowledge that ranks us above the average church layperson is something like, "wild olive shoots" being haughty towards other "wild olive shoots" on account of their knowing more about the history of the growth and development of the "root" and the topographic features of the plot of ground on which the "root" is planted.

I believe Paul would have us not be haughty towards our fellow "wild olive branches" in the same way that he warned us not to be boastful towards the "natural olive branches." We all have one master-grafter who has put together one strange-looking olive tree that perfectly radiates the majesty and grandeur of His infinite worth - so let's not be boastful over some less-informed branches.

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."(Romans 11:33–36 ESV)

Tel Burna 2010-11 Excavation Season(s)

2010-08-17T04:09:00.003-05:00

The dates for Tel Burna's excavation seasons have just been announced. Can't wait to go back for a couple days with IBEX this November to continue work at this fascinating site. You can see some of Burna's fortifications here. Our short season will include a continuation of the surface survey, as well as a clearing of brush around some of the fortification lines.

Taken from 1980 Calloway, J. "Sir Flinders Petrie: Father of Palestinian Archaeology," BAR 6/6: 44-45.

Here is what Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie (of headless fame) had to say about the site in 1891 in his journal on Tell el Hesy:

“Tell Bornat – Late Jewish pottery, no Greek (?) or Roman. Top is in crops, the sides half barren. About 200 feet square with long slopes."

Petrie's description was spot on as this is the exact archaeological picture (there were no such designations as EBIV/MBI/IB, LB I, Iron IIa in Petrie's day) we have of Tel Burna with the same dimensions he describes nearly 120 years ago. As confirmed by Google Earth.

If you look closely you can make out the shape of the tell on its north, west and east sides (oriented due north) - these sides are basically symmetrical and according to Google Earth about 200 ft long. (Google earth is amazing).

The Road

2010-08-16T11:06:00.004-05:00

All animals are gone, all plant life is dead, the sky is progressively getting grayer, the world....colder. There is no more food. Gangs and loners are all that's left. The Man and his Boy are walking to the coast.

I love the post-apocalyptic genre - ever since reading The Stand by Stephen King I have developed a deep appreciation for depictions of human life after a great disaster. This is not due to some great attraction to epic, gray landscapes or amazing special effects as displayed in such movies as Day After Tomorrow, 2012, and the Book of Eli. Those things are nice, but often distract from the fascinating sociological, psychological shifts that (would) occur with the total abdication of modern society and near obliteration of the human race.

"The Road" nails these shifts in society by telling the unbelievably, brutal story of a father and son and their fight to survive in a world that is all-but-dead. Personally, I was both entertained and profoundly shaken by both the gut-wrenching moral dilemmas and exceptional acting.

Post-apocalyptic scenarios such as those portrayed in "The Road" can effectively display the baseness of humanity. Horror movies and books are usually only scary, because they make you jump or squirm, what's way more frightening (and I believe in many ways edifying) than jumping in your chair as some knife-wielding masked man makes quick work of his stupid victims - is being shown THIS IS WHAT HUMANITY REALLY LOOKS LIKE WITHOUT RESTRAINT. The horrifying part in all this is that effective fiction, like "The Road" and "The Stand," puts you directly in the character's scenario and make you ask the question - "what would I do?"

Tel Burna Slideshow

2010-08-07T14:08:00.000-05:00

My lovely wife has put together a phenomenal slideshow of this year's excavations at Tel Burna.

Tel Burna 2010 from Mindy McKinny on Vimeo.

The Women of Abraham: Sarah, Hagar, and Keturah

2010-07-28T11:38:00.000-05:00

Originally published on 1/20/2010

This afternoon I was reading in Genesis, trying to catch up on my reading program, when I read this passage, “Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Jokshan fathered Sheba and Dedan. The sons of Dedan were Asshurim, Letushim, and Leummim. The sons of Midian were Ephah, Epher, Hanoch, Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah. Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country.” (Genesis 25:1–6 ESV) Whenever, I have read this passage in the past I have often been struck by the problem of Abraham having sons "after" the death of Sarah. The problem is not so much with the fact that Abraham would remarry, but rather how old he was when he remarried and had kids - somewhere in the neighborhood of 137 years old (Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born (Gen. 17:17) and 10 years older than Sarah who died when she was 127 according to Gen. 23). So that got me thinking...

Could it be that some of these sons (if not all) were born throughout Abraham’s sojournings and not merely after Sarah’s death? The beginning of Gen 25:1 would suggest otherwise, namely calling Keturah a “wife,” however the end of the passage Gen. 25:6 suggests that Keturah (and presumably Hagar among possible other concubines since its in the plural) was a lesser wife. If this is the case this might shed some light on the Hagar-Sarai-Abram relationship and the nature of the expected status of Ishmael in terms of inheritance. If Keturah and other concubines were living within the confines of Abraham’s tent while Sarah was yet living that could mean that these concubine relationships were acceptable to Sarah and consequently the Hagar-Abram relationship was something different, at least at first. Initially Sarai wanted Hagar and Abram’s son to be her own (see Gen. 16:2) and the inheritor of Abram’s house and covenant (the inheriting son in a patriarch-matriarch family must both be the son of the patriarch, in this case Abram, and the designated (by the patriarch) matriarch, in this case Sarai). However, that quickly changes when Hagar becomes pregnant and then “looked with contempt on her mistress” (Gen. 16:5). Typically, this passage is explained by examining the jealousy of Sarai and the ambition of her servant, Hagar. To be certain those elements exist in the text, but what is driving those feelings? It’s quite possible that this was more than a simple in vitro pregnancy, Lifetime movie-esque cat fight between two women fighting over one man. When observed through the lens of the ancient Near Eastern family system - this squabble takes on a much more serious tone. Hagar was not simply, puttting down or “making fun” of her mistress, she was in essence laying claim to the matriarchy of Abram - she was trying to rise above her status as servant/handmaiden and reach the lofty role of matriarch of the clan, thereby replacing Sarai with herself and making Sarai a mere concubine. Cast in this light Sarai’s response to Hagar seems much more fitting.

Now back to my original premise, specifically that the concubines were part of Abraham’s tent makeup before the death of Sarah. Since Keturah was not mentioned until after the death of Sarah, we assume that Abraham took her as a concubine/wife after Sarah’s demise. This creates a rather large problem - Abraham’s ability to reproduce. Already in Gen. 17:17 we are told the following, “Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old?” Now while it is not beyond the realm of the miraculous for Abraham to have children in his 130s and 140s (Abraham was 10 years older than Sarah and she died when she was 127 according to Gen. 23) considering that he had Isaac at 100, but why then would the Lord grant six more miraculous sons from Keturah (She bore him Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Gen. 25:2) when they would serve no further purpose to the “promised seed” or the redemptive plan.

The more likely scenario would be that Keturah was part of Abraham’s life all along, as a concubine (presumably among several others - due to Abraham’s great wealth and Gen. 25:6, Jacob, Abraham’s grandson had two himself), and the birth of his sons through her occured during his natural “child-begetting” years. Keturah and her sons were mentioned by name in Genesis because she was elevated to the status of “wife,” and their listing along with the accompanying “exile” of Gen. 25:6 was recorded to dispel any notion of threat to the status of Isaac and his mother Sarah. Genesis 25:1-6 could be seen then as an epitaph to Sarah and her unquestioned legitimacy to Abraham’s matriarchy. If this explanation of the text is correct it would mean that Hagar’s status went from Sarai’s “handmaid” to “designated in vitro incubator (obviously less "civilized" than today's methods)” to “matriarch contender” to “temporarily exiled” to “concubine” to “permanently exiled.”

The only problem arising from this explanation would be that Abraham lists his servant, “Eleizer of Damascus,” as the designated inheritor of his tent in Gen. 15:2. Why would Abraham do this if he already had sons through concubines (albeit not legitimately through his chosen matriarch, Sarah)? Would these sons, his own blood, not be better inheritors than a simple servant? Admittedly, this is a problem with the argument, however, this problem appears small when compared to the problem of Abraham bearing at least six sons after 13 or 14 decades on the earth. The problem might also be explained by looking at Sarai’s jealousy towards Hagar. It would seem that a de facto inheritor among the ranks of Abraham’s servants would be far less of a threat to Sarah, since that servant’s mother (if she was even in the clan of Abraham) would have zero chance of overtaking Sarah’s role as matriarch. A de facto inheritor presented Sarah with something she desperately needed, time. Time for the Lord to open her barren womb and deliver on what he had promised.

Safi Streaming

2010-07-25T01:36:00.000-05:00

Last week's excavations at Tell es-Safi/Gath were periodically broadcast live you can check out the broadcast this week here (bottom left corner).

Tel Burna's Impressive (Visible) Fortifications

2010-07-17T11:25:00.001-05:00

Here are a few looks at Tel Burna's impressive fortifications taken by Sky View. Understand that it is extremely rare to be able to see Iron Age architecture directly on the surface of a tell - especially one that has not been touched by the spade of archaeology (you should hear the giddiness in my voice).

Needless to say - the possibilities for this site are very tantalizing. You can see some other aerial shots and descriptions at the official blog site of Tel Burna.

Spectacular Sins

2010-07-04T01:26:00.000-05:00

Mindy and I just finished reading Spectacular Sins by John Piper - it is a great little book with typically moving purpose statements and Christ-glorifying insights. Here is an excerpt from the last chapter that I found particularly insightful. You can read, listen or watch the sermon that the chapter is based upon here.

Satan’s Role in His Own Destruction
The second question is why Satan would lead Judas to betray Jesus. Doesn’t he know that the death and resurrection of Jesus would result in Satan’s final defeat (Colossians 2:13-15; Revelation 12:11)? There’s good reason to think Satan knew that.
When Jesus began his ministry on the way to the cross, Satan tried to turn him away from the path of suffering and sacrifice. In the wilderness, he tempted him to turn stones into bread and jump off the temple and get the rulership of the world by worshipping him (Matthew 4:1-11). The point of all these temptations is: Don’t walk the path of suffering and sacrifice and death. Use your power to escape suffering. If you’re the Son of God, show your right to reign. And I can help you do it. Whatever you do, don’t go to the cross.

Then do you remember the time when Jesus predicted he would suffer many things from the elders and the chief priests and be killed and Peter rebuked him and said, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you” (Matthew 16:22). In other words, I will never let you be killed like that. Jesus did not commend him. He said, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Matthew 16:23). Hindering Jesus from going to the cross was the work of Satan. Satan did not want Jesus crucified. It would be his undoing.
But here he is in Luke 22:3 entering into Judas and leading him to betray the Lord and bring him to the cross. Why the about face? Why try to divert him from the cross and then take the initiative to bring him to the cross? We are not told. Here is my effort at an answer: Satan saw his efforts to divert Jesus from the cross failing. Time after time, Jesus kept the course. His face was set like flint to die, and Satan concludes that there is no stopping him. Therefore he resolves that if he can’t stop it, he will at least make it as ugly and painful and as heartbreaking as possible. Not just death, but death by betrayal. Death by abandonment. Death by denial (see Luke 22:31-32). If he could not stop it, he would drag others into it and do as much damage as he could. It was a spectacular sequence of sins that brought Jesus to the cross.

This reasoning makes abundant good sense - I think. It also helps show the spiritual obstacles Jesus hurdled on his way to the cross - getting to the cross was no easy feat. A careful study of the Passion Week narratives clearly shows that Jesus was in control of everything that went on including his triumphal entry as King, his secretive last supper, and Friday sacrificial murder/death - Satan was in reality playing right into Jesus' hands despite his best efforts to stymie the Perfect one.

History of Ancient Israel Schematic

2010-07-03T14:13:00.000-05:00

For those of you interested in such things here is a chronological chart I just made up for my upcoming History of Ancient Israel course. The flow chart basically shows the growth and prosperity (or lack thereof) of ancient Israel at any given time during her history. A quick glance will produce mostly gibberish to the onlooker (as my wife rapidly informed me when I asked for her opinion), however, I think a chart such as this can be a valuable tool for anchoring biblical history into one's mind.
This chart can show you two basic things relative strength (comparing Israel and Judah) and overall historical flow. So without further ado here is this afternoon's work.

For instance notice the difference between the period of the Judges and Solomon's rule.

Note that there are five basic peaks in Israelite history (only two coincide with Israel and Judah) the United Kingdom, Jehoshaphat and Ahab, Uzziah and Jeroboam II, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Understanding this basic framework is immensely helpful for understanding the History of Ancient Israel, as well as general Bible reading. Wherever you are in the OT you can simply ask yourself - am I in a peak or am I in a valley? If you have a chart like this you should be able to find out where you are historically.

Tel Burna Excavations

2010-06-28T12:19:00.009-05:00

For the last week-and-a-half Mindy and I have been excavating at Tel Burna (also known as Tell Bornat). So far the finds have been numerous and the fun ubiquitous.

You can check out the Tel Burna Excavation at the official website.
and Mindy's blog where she has been posting a lot of pictures of the excavation.

Mindy and I's square for the last week and a half - photos courtesy of Amit Dagam.

Working hard. This is probably a 9th century destruction level - although no one knows how far it will go across the site.

The site of Tel Burna is very interesting - it is in the Shephelah very close to Beth Guvrim/Maresha. It has never been excavated and the Israelite period is directly on the surface (a rarity nowadays). This is the first season of excavation and already the finds have been quite interesting including the discovery of Iron II fortification walls and a 9th century destruction level. Geographically, Burna may be identified with the biblical city of Libnah, which was a border town and Levitical city within Judah (Josh. 15:42; 21:13) on the fringe of southern Judah near Philistia. Two other prominent candidates for Libnah are Tel Goded and Tell Zayit. The excavations at Tel Burna are being carried out under the direction of Drs. Itzick Shai and Joe Uziel.

Here is a biblical concordance of Libnah. Note that in order for a site to be Libnah it need have material culture (remains) from each of these periods (unless of course that period was completely robbed out - which sometimes happens.)

(ca. 1400 BC - Late Bronze I (according to an Early Conquest view - ca. 1200 BC Late Bronze II for a Late Conquest view) "As for Makkedah, Joshua captured it on that day and struck it, and its king, with the edge of the sword. He devoted to destruction every person in it; he left none remaining. And he did to the king of Makkedah just as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Makkedah to Libnah and fought against Libnah. And the LORD gave it also and its king into the hand of Israel. And he struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it; he left none remaining in it. And he did to its king as he had done to the king of Jericho. Then Joshua and all Israel with him passed on from Libnah to Lachish and laid siege to it and fought against it. And the LORD gave Lachish into the hand of Israel, and he captured it on the second day and struck it with the edge of the sword, and every person in it, as he had done to Libnah.” (Joshua 10:28–32 ESV)
(Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat ca. 845 BC - Iron IIa) "So Edom revolted from the rule of Judah to this day. Then Libnah revolted at the same time.” (2 Kings 8:22 ESV; see also 2 Chron. 21:10)
(During the time of Hezekiah ca. 701 BC Iron IIc) "Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria fighting against Libnah, for he heard that the king had left Lachish.” (2 Kings 19:8 ESV; see also Is. 37:8)
(ca. 600 BC right before the destruction of Jerusalem - Iron IIc) "Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.”(2 Kings 23:31 ESV)
(ca. 586 BC right before the destruction of Jerusalem - Iron IIc) "Zedekiah was twenty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Hamutal the daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah.” (2 Kings 24:18 ESV; see also Jer. 52:1)

This and That: June 18

2010-06-18T02:27:00.000-05:00

Mindy and I have been watching old westerns (Outlaw Josey Wales, McClintock!, High Planes Drifter, Rio Bravo) during the past month - for me it's like I am re-watching my childhood, as I have seen all of these movies multiple times with my Grandpa, but the last time I saw them was when I was a preteen. For Mindy it's something completely new, which makes for fun entertainment - they don't make movies this good anymore. For your enjoyment watch Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson sing "My Rifle, Pony, and Me." If you don't like this song there is something seriously wrong with you - by the way the movie itself, Rio Bravo, is amazing.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader comes out this Christmas. Personally, I can't wait, just watching the trailer made me remember how good "Voyage" was. This looks like it will be the best adaption yet.

Chronicles Of Narnia 3

This and That: June 7

2010-06-07T04:31:00.000-05:00

The video below is a telling insight into the man and character of the late John Wooden - its so encouraging to see a godly, faithful man finish well. (HT: Justin Taylor)

I love this short article - it nails the main point of dissent in Palestinian-Israeli peace talks/land problems. See if you can pick it out here. (HT: Ryan Mann)

This video entitled "Contemporvant Worship Service" made me laugh heartily. (HT: Todd Bolen).

"Sunday's Coming" Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

Chronology - Fun and Slippery

2010-06-06T11:56:00.001-05:00

I have not blogged much the last few weeks, but that is not because I have not been writing. On the contrary I have been working extensively on my master's thesis - The Reign of Jehoshaphat: A Geopolitical Analysis. Currently I am trying to stop my head from spinning by creating a firm chronology of my boy, Jehoshaphat (means Yahweh is Judge). The accuracy of the Old Testament with regards to the chronological systems of the kings of Israel and Judah is nothing short of amazing - they have two very complicated ways of counting reigns, but the text is rigorously consistent and accurate attesting to its originality and authenticity. Here is a sample of some of my work (enjoy or not):

We Will Con the World

2010-06-04T05:54:00.002-05:00

Bitingly funny

Praying for the Sick

2010-06-01T04:25:00.002-05:00

Great article on corporate prayer by David Powlison. Corporate prayer is such a permeating church practice and should be properly understood - Powlison provides a biblical, common-sensical analysis of what corporate prayer should like, particularly as it pertains to praying for the sick. To read the article in its entirety click here.

"When you pray for the sick, and as you teach the sick to seek God for themselves, it ought to be a fiercely thoughtful firestorm."

"Why don’t people pray beyond the sick list? We want circumstances to improve so that we might feel better and life might get better. These are often honest and good prayers—unless they’re the only requests. Unhinged from the purposes of sanctification and from groaning for the coming of the King, prayers for circumstances become self-centered. Learn, and teach others, to pray with the three-stranded braid of our real need. You will pray far beyond the sick list. And you will pray in a noticeably different way for the sick."

HT: Ryan Mann

New Blog Design

2010-05-26T09:47:00.000-05:00

Hey faithful, voluminous readership. What do you think of the new layout?

14 Evangelism Principles

2010-05-19T11:51:00.003-05:00

Here is a list I came up with while attending our church's recent evangelism conference for Shavuot (Pentecost - Feast of Weeks), The list comprises some of the governing principles I consider to be vital and practical in evangelism.

1. Pray initially and unceasingly (for self preparation and opportunities).

2. Live in such a way that causes others to raise eternal questions.

3. Be ready at all times to give "an account for the hope that is in you."

4. Be opportunistic in short-term opportunities (bus, plane, passing conversations).

5. Be patient in long-term opportunities (work, gym, church).

6. Know your sinner's theology/religion (Jew? flailing "Christian"? Atheist?).

7. Emphasize your ongoing and past sin - don't whitewash your sin and in so doing nullify the Savior's sacrifice. Your perception of your own inherent sinfulness and ongoing war with the flesh will speak volumes to the self-righteous and skeptics alike.

8. Use diverse methodology - C.S. Lewis' "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" method is awesome, but it is not the end all method for every situation. All sinners have one antidote - namely the sacrificed, risen Christ - but not every sinner has the same sinful symptoms. For a religious Jew who rejects Jesus as messiah a theological, historical argument is most likely the best starting point. For a nominal "Christian" (= unsaved secular person with religious attachments) who doubts the legitimacy of established religion and promotes his own righteousness an approach grounded in showing their reprobateness might prove beneficial.

9. Address specific sins as examples of a larger, deeper problem not as a specific problem that can be taken care of individually. The difference between being a good person who "just" does bad things and a bad person who is incapable of doing righteous (God-pleasing) things. The remedy is not "stop doing these things" and "do these things instead." Rather the sinner should be told "you can't stop doing bad things - because you are evil" (that's the point) the only answer to your problem is that God has nailed your sins to Christ's cross proclaiming victory over death and the demons of our realm.

10. Don't sell a reprobate sinner a "rebate-filled" gospel (yes, that's the kind with a little "g"). Emphasize the costliness of Christ's death for both the sacrificed One and His Father. Highlight the abundantly high cost of obedient abandonment of self and adherence to the demands of the Savior.

11. Champion all aspects of the bloody, stained, murderous cross in all its gory details and theological ramifications, but never, ever forget the proof of its effectiveness. The resurrection of the One who claimed perfection, oneness with the Father, Messiahship, kingship, and most of all proclaimed victory over death.

12. Never worry about destroying a non-believer's faith in their religion, self-confidence/self-righteousness, or their family standing. These often are by-products of saving faith as the Lord makes abundantly clear. By using such as these as excuses for not presenting the Gospel or lessening its severity we in effect marginalize the decrees of the Son of God and the high price associated with the gift of salvation. This one applies directly to Jewish, Hindu, and Islamic evangelism.

13. Dismiss the temporality of the typical salvation message ("pray this prayer and heaven is yours") by emphasizing both its immediate and ongoing effects (initial change and gradual shift towards holiness - Justification and Sanctification).

14. Give the Savior his proper place of primary object in the sinner's wanderings. Heaven though wonderful and Hell though awful are insufficient means for salvation. No one has ever avoided Hell on account of fear of it and no one has ever secured Heaven's citizenship due to their desire for it. Salvation can only be received by seeing, desiring, and treasuring God's risen first and only Offspring.

What Free Will? Part 2

2010-05-13T16:54:00.001-05:00

See Part 1 for more context.

I guess the foremost thing that I am trying to get across is asking the right questions. Where does this idea of free will come from? Is it biblical? If so what does it look like?

Oprah or Glenn Beck can opine about the greatness of free will and we, the masses, all understand the "wonderful" truth that they are talking about. After all free will is what America is all about - becoming successful by our own choices (basis of capitalism). We think we can change, because we can choose. Certainly, this idea has an element of truth, we are definitely responsible for our choices and our choices definitely affect the outcome of our life's successes and failures. However, to apply "free will" as a universal axiom for choice flies in the face of the Bible. For me, the reprobate, damned, self-loving, God-hating, unchanging sinner (that's what we are described as) to say that I have any part in the choice of Heaven or Hell misses the point entirely. The whole of Scripture screams at me the ignorant one "if you did have a choice YOU WOULD CHOOSE HELL!"

By the way the same is true for losing your salvation/"P"erseverance of the Saints. John MacArthur likes to say, "If I could lose my salvation I would have a long time ago." Word and word.

The point is this - if the onus (to any degree 100% or .0001 %) is on you to make the decision you will choose pleasures of sin over Sin-Conqueror. Perhaps the clearest passage of this truth is the following: (one of my favorites).

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sin which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God (perhaps the greatest conjunction in all of Scripture), being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Ephesians 2:1–10 ESV)

What Free Will?

2010-05-13T15:25:00.002-05:00

Free will is a buzz word - it has a lot of baggage attached to it. It is a non-biblical phrase that has its origins in humanistic thinking. Is it inherently evil? No. Does it reflect our options before the God of the universe? Only partly. That's the problem with the term - free will implies the exclusion of predestination not because the words semantically exclude divine election, but because of the development of the ideology behind the words.

On account of this I prefer "human culpability" in lieu of "free will." "Human culpability" takes the emphasis off your choice as if you were at in intersection between Jesus street and Satan boulevard and places it on your godless, adulterating, King of King's murdering heart. Despite our inability to choose on our own, we have been presented an opportunity, a lifeline by which we may make peace with God. This is the essence of the relationship between Total Depravity ("T") and Unconditional Election ("E"). We already stand guilty, because of our father, Adam, and our iniquity - the choice or "free will" comes in our response to the Gospel call and on account of this we are culpable in accepting it or denying it. As one theologian puts it (my paraphrase) "divine election is not about God looking out at humanity through an ivory tower, as the plebeians (us) look up from their squalor hoping that they might be chosen to be saved from their fate - rather election is about God standing in the midst of our squalor and despair while we are running away from him as fast as we can and he in his abundant goodness and grace reaches out and saves a few here and saves a few there."

The assumptions of free will in the sense of "I choose God" or "I choose not God" miss the entire point of redemptive history ----- time and time again we have chosen sin over the joy of the Savior - Eden, Cain and Abel, Israel Monarchy, Israel today, me when I choose comfortable pleasures of sin over taking joy in the Son of the Most High. The main thrust of our feelings toward God in the bible are not "will we choose God or won't we?" It is "WE HATE GOD!" period.

So all of that to say - I don't like the term free will - it must be caveated to the point where you are talking on the same terms before it can be a useful starting point for dialogue. The main question we have to ask is "why do we care about free will?" I conclude that any attempt to force free will in the modern sense upon the biblical narrative must ignore 2/3's of Scripture in the process. Perhaps the best passage that illustrates divine election and human culpability is the call of Isaiah.

“In the year that King Uzziah died (739 BC by the way if you were wondering) I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!”

And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”

And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?” Then I said, “Here am I! Send me.” (Isaiah 6:1–8 ESV)

Some Thoughts on Revelation 1-3 - Part 1

2010-05-13T02:34:00.006-05:00

In church last Saturday (yes that's the only weekend-day in Israel) we discussed the seven churches of the Revelation. All in all it was a solid sermon that discussed the various churches of Asia Minor - highlighting their strengths and weaknesses while discussing and hoping to prevent our own. I always enjoy good, text-based sermons on the Revelation, because of its vast richness and imagery. As I was sitting in my chair attentively listening to the sermon I noticed a few things in King Jesus' proclamation that I had never picked up on before. Here is one of them.

The High Priest in His Real Sanctuary (Rev. 1:12-15)

Many preachers and expositors have noted the similarity between Christ's figure in Rev. 1:12-15 and the figure of an unidentified person in Dan. 10:5-6. Some even go so far as to say that this striking similarity indicates that the person in Daniel is none other than the pre-incarnated Lord Jesus. Personally, I think that is a bit of a stretch mainly due to the fact that the identification of the character of Dan. 10:5-6 is later revealed as an angel who was held up by the "Prince of Persia." Even if one were to say that the person of Dan. 10:5-6 was a different person than the "he" that comforts and speaks to Daniel that would mean that the person of Dan. 10:5-6 failed in delivering the message to Daniel and needed another angel (Gabriel?) to step in, which of course would again argue that the person is not Christ. Nevertheless, John/the Holy Spirit through the vision of the Christ is for sure picking up on this similarity of appearance to make a distinct connection between the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and the coming Revelation. Note the following similarities:

"a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude." (Daniel 10:5-6 ESV)

“Then I turned to see the voice that was speaking to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.” (Revelation 1:12–15 ESV)

This Daniel connection is clear, but could there be more at work than just a textual connection? Maybe. Could it be that Jesus was revealing himself to John in his Melchizedekian, priestly garments (vs. the earlier prescribed Aaronic garments) in the midst of his "real" sanctuary? Definitely the book of Hebrews was in existence during the time of John's vision (95-96 AD - Hebrews was written pre-70 AD) and would have been known by the apostle "whom Jesus loved." Unconvinced? Consider these passages.

“You shall speak to all the skillful, whom I have filled with a spirit of skill, that they make Aaron’s garments to consecrate him for my priesthood. These are the garments that they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban, and a sash. They shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen.” (Exodus 28:3–5 ESV)

My own very meager attempt at reproducing the high priestly garments based on Exodus 28. Yes, I am aware that my high priest's body shape is "formless and void."

“For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.” (Hebrews 7:14–19 ESV)

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.” (Hebrews 8:1–7 ESV)

These passages show the existence of a heavenly "real" sanctuary, but what might that sanctuary look like? Moses gave the Israelites a "type" tabernacle through the decrees of Torah, but he was only able to re-construct it based on the vision he saw on Mt. Sinai. Among other things this tabernacle included a seven-branched lampstand (known as the menorah popularized by the holiday of Chanukah and the arch of Titus in Rome).

Tabernacle model in Timnah Valley, Israel 1:1 model - highly recommend going for a visit.

Seven-branched lampstand (also known as a Menorah or a candelabrum) also inside Timnah's model. Their depiction of the high priest garments are in the upper right of the photo.

Where is the impressively dressed King Jesus in the Revelation 1 passage? "In the midst of the (seven golden) lampstands." Could these lampstands be what Moses saw and tried to duplicate in the menorah? It is important to note that the term "lampstand" in the Bible is only used in conjunction with the tabernacle/temple precinct (save one reference in Daniel 5:5 - but there it is talking about a lampstand in Belshazar's palace). The lampstand is inexorably tied to the tabernacle/temple - why should that connection stop in Revelation? Conversely, it is true that Rev. 1:20 says that the seven golden lampstands represent the seven churches of Asia Minor, but that does not exclude them from having further meaning or further inter-text relatedness. It is my opinion that Revelation 1 is presenting a picture of the resurrected Christ that is a witness both to his coming judgment on the world (Daniel connection, which will be further expounded upon in Rev. 4-21) and his covenant, high priestly mediation for his beleaguered and persecuted church (Hebrew/Melchizedekian connection which covers Rev. 1-3).

Hippus: A City on a Hill?

2010-05-05T13:38:00.009-05:00

During Jesus' Galilean ministry he delivered perhaps the world's most influential sermon - dubbed the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7; Luke 12). In this sermon the greatest rabbi and theologian asks His hearers to weigh their actions against Torah - removing the already difficult standard of the righteousness of the elite and replacing it with faithful obedience. The teaching delves deeply into the conscience of its hearers by teaching wisdom through everyday occurrences. Jesus the consummate teacher and illustrator as He often did, once again, used the 1st century Galilean sites and sounds of his surroundings to portray His timeless and boundless truths. Among the many illustrations the King of the Universe compares the manner of a believer's obedient life to a "city set on a hill that cannot be hidden” (Matthew 5:14b ESV) hmmmm.... Interesting - more on that later.

I think it is important to note that Jesus taught almost exclusively outdoors and the majority of the time in Galilee both among and to farmers and fishermen. He knew the realities each faced in this complex, eclectic region. Consider the following map:

Notice the three big regions. Galilee was ruled by Herod Antipas (Herod the Great's son) with his capital in Tiberias it was primarily Jewish with cities like Capernaum and Chorazin on the western half of the Lake. The Tetrarchy of Philip - most of which was in modern Syria and the Golan Heights. Philip had a very small sliver of the lake where Philip (also the son of Herod the Great) established the city of Julia - his populace was a mix of Jew and Gentile. The eastern half was under direct Roman rule with the free city-states of the Decapolis (literally 10 cities - although it was more than that - this would be cities like Gadera, Gerasa, Scytholpolis and Hippus). This region was almost exclusively Gentile. The casting out of demons into swine Matt. 8:30 happened in this region. All three of these regions would have their own governmental (read taxation) system and radically different diets. One can easily imagine the Jewish fishermen selling the non-kosher fish to their Gentile neighbors in an attempt to sell all of their catch. It was within this cultural context that the Son of God was revealed and eloquently interacted.

I say all of that to make one observation from the Sermon on the Mount. I will do so in the form of a question.

Is it possible that Jesus was referring to an actual city when he said “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden?" I think he may have been - examine the following images.

This is a view of the traditional location of the Mt. of Beattitudes (likely its a small hill between Capernaum and Tabgha) looking southeast at Hippus - the only major city sitting on a hill during the time of Jesus in the vicinity.

Hippus/Susita (horse) named such because the city resembled a horse's head as it sits alone connected to the Golan Heights by a small spur line.

View from the east looking west across the Sea of Galilee to the Plain of Gennesaret and Tiberias. Looking at the back of the head of a very schematic horse (with no mane or ears of course).

Would it have been shining? Probably not Thomas Edison would not be born until about 20 centuries later, but Hippus would have had large tall Roman buildings like these (remains are a little later but are indicative of the city) made out of white limestone shining in the hot Galilean sunshine. The Decapolis city could have easily been seen from all locations around the Lake, as the hill can still be readily spotted today.

More or less the same view as the first one. Clearly Hippus could have easily been seen by Jesus' audience. (all images Google Earth and Mindy McKinny).

It could be that Jesus not only pointed to Hippus (or maybe shrugged his head there emphatically) when he referred to a "city on a hill that cannot be hidden," but he also looked to the eastern shore later in his message when he said the following: “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” (Matthew 7:6 ESV) Pigs would have been found in abundance on the eastern shore (remember Matt. 8:30) and would have been very scarce on the Jewish western shore from where Jesus was speaking.

In the end this argumentation cannot be proven - it is difficult enough to uncover the meaning of texts - all the more difficult to discern a speaker's thoughts and unrecorded actions. Regardless, I believe interacting with the text geographically provides it with a certain realness that it might not have otherwise. Most believers believe the Bible is inerrant (free from error), but sometimes we forget that its people lived in a real place, in a real time, with real geographicall realities.

Why Curse a Fig Tree?

2010-05-02T03:07:00.002-05:00

The Cursing of the Fig Tree (Mark 11:12-14; Matt. 21:18-22) – (Monday Morning)

Chronological problem – Mark clearly indicates that the cursing of the fig tree occurred on Monday morning the day after the triumphal entry before the cleansing of the temple, whereas Matthew seems to indicate that this occurred on Monday morning before the cleansing of the temple. Most critical scholars will call this a mistake on Matthew’s part in his compilation according to Mark’s Gospel. However, it seems better to simply say that Matthew broke chronological order – the cleansing of the temple in his mind was inexorably tied to the coming king of Israel (his main theme) and for Mark it was important for him to highlight that the Messiah came into the temple and surveyed it (Mark 11:11). As with most Gospel problems, one rarely needs look no further than emphasis to find the conclusion to problems.

Fig leaf without fruit.

The fig tree – at first glance this miracle seems exceptionally odd. Nowhere in the Gospels do we have Jesus performing a damaging miracle – all his miracles to this point had been of the healing, restoring, even resurrecting variety. This seems all the more odd when it is considered that Mark tells the reader that the fig tree was not in the season to bear fruit (Mark 11:12). Why kill a predictably unproductive fig tree? The answer is Jeremiah 8:8-15.

“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them? Therefore I will give their wives to others and their fields to conquerors, because from the least to the greatest everyone is greedy for unjust gain; from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace. Were they ashamed when they committed abomination? No, they were not at all ashamed; they did not know how to blush. Therefore they shall fall among the fallen; when I punish them, they shall be overthrown, says the LORD. When I would gather them, declares the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them.”

Why do we sit still? Gather together; let us go into the fortified cities and perish there, for the LORD our God has doomed us to perish and has given us poisoned water to drink, because we have sinned against the LORD. We looked for peace, but no good came; for a time of healing, but behold, terror.”

(Jeremiah 8:8–15 ESV)

Jesus was using the same imagery that Jeremiah the prophet used – Jeremiah the prophet who lived just north on the Mt. of Olives at Anatoth pronounces Jerusalem’s coming doom for their idolatry – Jesus the prophet who was staying just south on the Mt. of Olives pronounces Jerusalem’s coming doom for their rejection of “he who would gather them.” This doom would ultimately come to fruition (pun intended) when Jerusalem would be sacked in 70 A.D. The Jeremiah passage fits the times of Jesus and the Great Revolt (66-70 A.D.) so closely that it becomes extremely hard to argue that Jesus was not using it as the basis for his destructive miracle.

Passion Week in One Day

2010-04-29T04:27:00.005-05:00

Monday morning I am leading a couple and their friend around Jerusalem on a very directed study of the Passion Week of the grave-conquering Messiah. I have been looking forward to it for quite a while - rarely do you have the opportunity to focus in on such a specific period (normally I will cover from Abraham-Mohamed in 1 DAY - 2100 BC-640 AD - 2750 years vs. 7 days!) We will start with the triumphal entry and make our way through the rest of the week stopping at the various sites which are mentioned in the four Gospels.

Here is a satellite view of what our 5 1/2 mile trip will look like.

1. Mt. of Olives - Triumphal Entry (Sunday or Monday of Passion Week Luke 19:37-40)

2. Dominus Flevit – Triumphal Entry (“the Lord Wept” – Luke 19:41-42)

3. Temple Mount (Monday or Tuesday-Thursday of Passion Week - Mark 11:27-30)

4. Southern Temple Mount Steps (Monday or Tuesday-Thursday of Passion Week - Matthew 23)

5. Room of the Last Supper (Thursday Night of Passion Week - John 13-14)

6. Garden of Gethsemane (Thursday Night/Friday Morning of Passion Week - John 18:1-12)

7. Herodian Quarter (Friday Morning of Passion Week - John 18:13-27)

8. Herod's Palace (David's Citadel) (Friday Morning of Passion Week - John 18:28-40)

9. Church of the Holy Sepulcher (Friday Morning-3pm of Passion Week - Mark 15)

10. Austrian Hospice Overlook – Ascension (40 Days Later - Matthew 28)

Is There a Deeper Magic?

2010-04-21T04:01:00.010-05:00

Growing up I cut my reading teeth on C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia - I must have read Clive's Chronicles at least 6 or 7 times if not more (thanks Dad for doing the Reepicheep voice) - not to mention the dozens of times I have watched the buck-toothed Lucy, giant-sized Beaver (yes I capitalized Beavers - are they not speaking animals?) BBC series. Which by the way is still better than the modern version - at least so far. To be fair the first two books (Lion, Witch, and Wardrobe and Prince Caspian) are the most boring, still good, but not as entertaining as say The Magician's Nephew. I hope and pray they don't blow that one. I can't wait to see the dying world of Charn and her wicked queen over against the singing creation of the birth of the Lion's world.

The BBC went with the true "British look" for Lucy - a young Kathleen Kenyon in my opinion.

BBC's Reepicheep looked like the morbid offspring of Abu, the monkey from Aladdin, and the flying monkeys of the Wicked Witch of The Wizard of Oz.

One of Clive's main motifs in his writings is the idea of the "true myth." In our minds that seems to be an oxymoron - how can something be both true and myth (insert dumb - Jumbo-Shrimp joke)? But in Lewis' mind every myth, every legend has a true substantive reality lying behind it. This has massive ramifications for a number of different aspects including but not limited to the following:

The nature of the New Heavens and the New Earth - what he called "living in the Shadowlands" - living in a shadow of the true reality that belies this earth.
Our spiritual and physical affections - every inkling of enjoyment that we have in this shadow earth is because we have come into contact with a shadow of the "true" reality (this includes the king of the coming true world).

If you are wondering whether or not this type of thinking is biblically valid just read this passage:

“For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” (Hebrews 9:19–26 ESV)

The book of Hebrews is full of this type of thinking (its Platonic - but let's not get into that). It's why I named this blog Seeking a Homeland - because in chapter 11 of Hebrews this idea is picked up again as the author writes,

“By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God. By faith Sarah herself received power to conceive, even when she was past the age, since she considered him faithful who had promised. Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born descendants as many as the stars of heaven and as many as the innumerable grains of sand by the seashore.
These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city.” (Hebrews 11:8–16 ESV)

What a passage! I think it might be my favorite Heaven passage. It's my earnest desire that I "speak thus."

Clearly then Clive Staples was picking up on a biblical idea. Perhaps the best example of this (or at least most well-known) is Aslan's sacrifice for Edmund (The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe) that leads to both Edmund's restitution and Aslan's resurrection.

At that moment they heard from behind them a loud noise—a great cracking, deafening noise as if a giant had broken a giant's plate.... The Stone Table was broken into two pieces by a great crack that ran down it from end to end; and there was no Aslan.

"Who's done it?" cried Susan. "What does it mean? Is it more magic?"

"Yes!" said a great voice from behind their backs. "It is more magic." They looked round. There, shining in the sunrise, larger than they had seen him before, shaking his mane (for it had apparently grown again) stood Aslan himself.

"Oh, Aslan!" cried both the children, staring up at him, almost as much frightened as they were glad....

"But what does it all mean?" asked Susan when they were somewhat calmer.

"It means," said Aslan, "that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation. She would have known that when a willing victim who had committed no treachery was killed in a traitor's stead, the Table would crack and Death itself would start working backward."

Do you have gooseflesh after reading that?

In the coming days I hope to flesh this Deeper Magic idea out in the following Biblical examples:

A Deeper Priesthood - Melchizedek, king of Salem (Gen. 14:18-21)
A Deeper King - David, Son of Yahweh and Priest of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4)
A Deeper Sacrifice - Mesha, king of Moab sacrifices his first-born son (2 Kings 3:27)

BAR Article: The Devil Is Not So Black as He Seems

2010-04-16T10:36:00.003-05:00

If you have heard of things like "low chronology vs. high chronology," "maximalist vs. minimilast," liberal archaeology, or the "10th/9th Century debate" and have no idea what to make of them than this article will be a good introduction to the figure-head of most major modern Biblical Archaeology debates.

A couple quick quotes from Hershel Shanks' interview with Israel Finkelstein- one that saddens me a little and another that helps illustrate what is very wrong with Finkelstein and his ilk's interpretations.

Shanks: Was there an Exodus from Egypt? (part of a longer question)
Finkelstein: You should start with a different example, because the Exodus is really a difficult case. I have to really concentrate now because there are many aspects to it. You put a trap. I know you, Hershel, you put a trap here. So I have to be very careful. We know each other, Hershel, 35 years or so. This is an ambush ... But I’m not going to run away. There are many answers to this question. The easiest answer is, “I don’t know.” But I think that one can offer a better answer. But the answer is again not black and white. It’s nuanced. If you are speaking about an Exodus the way it is described in the Biblical text—a very large group of people marching through the desert for 40 years—the answer is “no.”
Shanks: Of course; everyone accepts the fact that two million people did not cross the Sinai desert. We don’t need to argue about that.

Everyone does not accept the fact that two million people did not cross the Sinai desert (and yes that is a double negative mom if you are reading this) - perhaps every card-carrying member of the Late Date Exodus theory (13th century) rejects Israel's massive size (although even that is not entirely accurate). Notice that the entire questioning is centered around a 13th century date - not a mid-15th century date - i.e. the Biblical date.

Shanks: Where did these Israelites come from?
Finkelstein: Well, you know my take on this. There were local groups in Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. I don’t want to go beyond what archaeology can tell us. The majority of Israelites came from this local Bedouin-like stock, from the people of Canaan in the second millennium B.C.E. (emphasis mine)

This is the biggest problem with guys like Prof. Finkelstein (by the way almost all archaeologists would for the most part agree with the statement above - the dissidence comes in the monarchical period) - they assume the absence of textually attested remains and political situations (i.e. archaeological remains and contexts) = the negation of said text. But here is the catch - the only text that applies to is the Bible. If some other "un-biased" historical text, say the Amarna Tablets (13th cent. BCE correspondence between Canaanite city states and Egypt), does not quite match the archaeological record (which is a characteristic of the Amarna tablets and archaeology in many instances) than they get a free pass because they were not an "ideologically" driven document.

The hermeneutical scalpel of history and legend then becomes searching out and cutting through the cancerous tumor of Jerusalem/Davidic/Yahwistic bias in order to find the clean and clear and under-control unbiased historical facts. But - what if - and yes I know I am going to sound crazy for suggesting something so otulandish - what if the Jerusalem/Davidic/Yahwistic bias is historically factual? Does bias make something untrue or even factually flawed? You tell me.

Jerusalem: the Earthly Home of the Other-Earthly Yahweh

2010-04-09T06:18:00.000-05:00

When I read the books of Kings and Chronicles I am struck by the complete utter lack of "godly" kings in the northern kingdom of Israel. Israel batted a paltry .000 (0-20) 20 kings up and 20 kings down that's terrible even for an AL pitcher in Inter-league play. Judah on the other hand also had 20 kings throughout its history (including the crazed grand-child murdering queen - Athaliah) they batted a much better .350 (7-20) (Joe Mauer type numbers), but with only Hezekiah and Josiah receiving unqualified good reports (they didn't get caught taking HGH - to continue the baseball analogy). These numbers are staggering.

Were the 20 kings of Israel really that bad? And if so, what made them so wicked? Or to ask the question another way - what is the governing principle by which the author/compiler(s) of Kings and Chronicles judged the reigns of the 40 kings of Judah and Israel?

The governing principle is this - How did King _____ interact with Jerusalem worship?

Now of course each individual king's report should be studied for proper nuance of the character and actions of each king. However, I would argue that every one of the 40 kings is primarily judged on how they treated the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem - not foreign policy, not civil rights, not even following the civic law. One might ask the question - why is it such a big deal to worship God in Jerusalem? Well the answer is quite simple - Jerusalem was the earthly home that the other-earthly Yahweh chose to have his name. That's a big deal!

One of the under girding themes of Deuteronomy-2 Samuel is the search for the permanent place for the establishment of the House of God (see especially Deut. 12:5). Throughout this period of about 500 years (ca. 1450-965 BCE) the tabernacle (and some of its pieces) travels across the Sinai stopping at various stops in the central hill country before finally arriving at its permanent home on the threshing floor of Aruvnah the Jebusite (2 Samuel 24, 1 Chronicles 21) under David and then becoming a full-fledged house for God under his son Solomon. From this moment on worship of Yahweh is only allowed in Jerusalem - the place of the first condescension (Yahweh dwelling in a man-made structure - a type of the One who would take on flesh Philippians 2:5-8) of the King of the Universe! This background becomes the lens by which the regnal (kingly) evaluators view the kings of Israel and Judah - and the reason why most of them didn't make the cut. In a way the temple in Jerusalem has a mediating effect for the Davidic line despite their flaws, but has a damning effect for the Israelite lines of kings who in spite of their sometimes good qualities are repudiated for ignoring Yahweh's clear decrees.

There is no better example than the first king of the divided kingdom of Israel - Jeroboam the son of Nebat. The first action which Jeroboam takes against Judah and Rehoboam was to establish new temples (Dan and Bethel) with new priests (outside of Levi) with a new religious calender and with a new/old representation (golden calves - one at Dan and one at Bethel vs. the Ark of the Covenant) (1 Kings 12:25-33). This clever geo-political ploy against Judah and Rehoboam (the Israelites now had no reason to go to Jerusalem and Judah) was an outrageous sin against Yahweh. To be sure this was not complete idolatry in the sense of rejection of Yahweh for Baal and/or El and/or Asherah - this sin was something slightly different. This was the sin of syncretism mixing some of God's transcendent, Yahweh-centered revelation with a lot of man's earth-based, man-centered theology. On account of this all of the kings of Israel receive the following epithet - "For he walked in all the way of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and in the sins that he made Israel to sin, provoking the LORD, the God of Israel, to anger by their idols."

Personally, understanding this principle has been helpful for properly discerning the kingships of ancient Israel - especially Ahab and Jehu. The kingdom of Ahab is the wickedest of them all because it confronts and tries to replace the syncrestic religious system loosely tied to Yahweh (which flawed as it was still had a mediating effect for Israel - consider the fact that they existed and sometimes prospered for 210 years) with the complete and utter apostate system of Baalism (switching teams is an understatement). Conversely, the kingdom of Jehu properly carries out the will of Yahweh in purging the Ahab dynasty and the Baal cult - for which he is commended - but he still continues the syncretistic sins of Jeroboam, which ultimately lead to his line's demise.

All of this means that the standard of Yahweh does not change - relatively lesser sins (complete idolatry vs. "just" syncretism) do not win approval - the Judge of the Earth is not swayed by man's relative ideas of justice.

This and That: April 7

2010-04-07T07:26:00.006-05:00

Very interesting summation of the preaching of John MacArthur from Hughes Oliphant Old on Pyromaniacs. I absolutely love this quote - it speaks of a an often neglected blessing for we who have long heard Dr. MacArthur's ministry, the blessing of assumed scriptural authority.

One never gets the impression that this preacher has the least shadow of doubt but that these miracles took place exactly as they are recorded. But, again, there is never any argument that they could have taken place just as they are recorded. Defending the accuracy of the Bible seems to interest MacArthur not at all. He simply assumes it is all quite reliable. This basic assumption that the text of Scripture is reliable is part of the foundation of his effectiveness as an interpreter.

Recently Mindy has been very interested in Biblical resources for kids (to my great delight at the possible implications) - some of the stuff she has shown me has been amazing and quite honestly hilarious see especially the "Jesus Storybook Bible." See her contemplative thoughts on the subject here.

You gotta love this imagery the Resurgence blog uses in comparing dying church ministries to shooting Old Yeller. See here.

Email Forward Hoaxes

2010-04-05T12:02:00.011-05:00

Recently there seems to be a lot of e-mail traffic regarding Biblical "archaeology" apologetics. The two most prevalent email forwards that I have encountered are the "Exodus Route" and the "Giant Skeletons=Nephilim." I have been asked by a few different people about the veracity of the claims laid out in these emails - so here is my answer. The short answer - these "apologetics" are almost always a sham which mix very little truth with a lot of baloney. Concocting a tasty cocktail of flashy images, bad history, and horrible "archaeology" these emails offer up seemingly helpful answers to thirsty Christians. I think my former professor, Todd Bolen, has coined the best principle statement for dealing with email forwards like these - "I might suggest a simple principle for dealing with matters like this in the future: if you heard about it first in an email forward, it’s not true." Both humorous and accurate - always a good combo. Read more about his thoughts on the "Giant Skeletons" here (also see Michael Patton's thoughts on the dilapidated forward here).

In what follows I will attempt to debunk the "Exodus Route" email forward that I have received from a number of different people. For reference you should open the slide show in another window to follow along with my critique - you can do that here.

Sites that are mentioned in the email as historical proofs for the Bible

Jacob's Well - I just recently visited this well in Nablus (biblical Shechem). The well's identification as being from John 4 is probably accurate since the region of Shechem has a very low-water table - there are very few wells in the region since there are abundant springs throughout the region. Also the tradition for the well being that of John 4 dates as far back as the 3rd century A.D. (CE).
Rachel's Tomb - this tomb has very heavy political implications because it is in Bethlehem and the Orthodox Jews consider it to be a holy place. It matches Genesis 48:7 which basically says that Rachel was buried in Bethlehem. However, there is one major problem the tomb in the picture and the tomb there today are a Bedouin Sheik's tomb, in the neighborhood of 2500-3000 years later than the 2nd millenium B.C.E. event.
Joseph's Tomb - is also in Nablus (not visitable) - based on what I have been told about the tomb from professors and from the picture in the powerpoint it is quite clear that the tomb is of a Bedouin sheik and not from the Biblical period (compare it with Rachel's tomb).
Amram's Tomb - not sure where this is or to how to properly identify what exactly it is. I googled "Amram's Tomb Moses Father" - and I found nothing, no pictures, no webpages - other than sites that referenced the slide in the powerpoint which says, "moses must have loved his father very much! It's the longest tomb in the world! My guess is that this is also a Muslim related tomb that has been traditionally attributed to Amram (this happens alot - all over the place).
Aaron's Tomb - Petra is a possible location for the burial of Aaron (its in the same region), but once again the tomb shown is the tomb of a Bedouin Sheik (you can tell by the architecture - the dome and the brick layout - this is medieval architecture).

The Proposed Exodus Route

The first question you have to ask is. "Was it possible for the Israelites to leave Goshen and make it to the proposed crossing and Sinai site in the Biblical time frame?" Generally scholars believe that armies could travel on average 15 miles per day (document from a contemporary source say such - Pharoah Thutmose III). Some Biblical scholars estimate that it took the Israelites 7 days to get to where they crossed the Red Sea (better understood as Yom Suf - Sea of Reeds a tributary of the Red Sea much further inland) (Ex. 13:3,4; 12:33f.; Deut. 16:3; Lev. 23:42-43) others believe that it would have been closer to 9 days (three days at each campsite Succoth, Etham and Migdol). In either case its roughly 100 miles from Pithom and Ramses (where the Israelite started) to Suez city (the traditional crossing point) (7x15 miles = 100 miles). Remember this group of Israelites is estimated at being around 2 million people at this time (by conservative scholars) - and even though they were in a hurry they could not have averaged more than 15 miles per day. The map shown in the PowerPoint adds an additional 200 miles between the leaving of Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea. If this is the crossing the Israelites would have had to travel around 30 miles a day to get to their crossing point. If the Bible is to be taken literally - which is supposedly the point of this whole PowerPoint - see the last slide - than these claims are not only biblically improbable, but humanly impossible. These proposed theories were made popular among Christians by a former police detective, Ron Wyatt and his two sons in the 1980s.

The Proposed Crossing Point and Alternative for Mt. Sinai

Simply put, its a sham. The golden wheel is a complete fabrication (based on numerous sources from the internet and scholarly articles) of Ron Wyatt's and the other so called wheels and remains are part of the amazing coral reef that runs throughout the Red Sea (in fact the coral reef makes it the second best scuba and snorkel destination in the world behind the Great Barrier Reef in Australia). On the other hand I personally have found a genuine "wheel" in the Red Sea.

A "wheel" at the depths of the Red Sea

Also the proposed Solomon's pillars have zero context with which to label them - they are not inscribed - nor did Solomon ever have dominion over this region never, ever - the furthest domain of Israel in the south is Eilat, which is at the very tip of the Red Sea (where I found the "wheel" that has just as much legitimacy to the claims of Ron Wyatt). The main problem with all these theories is that most of his assertions provide zero archaeological context, meaning that they are either untraceable as far as their date or that the archaeological context is completely ignored. The core of archaeology is dating - the main tool for dating is pottery (inscriptions are very rare and sometimes are inconclusive for dating). The one place where there actually is legitimate archaeological remains is at the proposed site of Mt. Sinai (Jebel al Lawz) and the vast majority of pottery is Nabatean (2nd cent B.C.E. (B.C.) - 3rd Cent. C.E. (A.D.)) much, much later than the 1400 B.C.E. Exodus. As far as his claim that the split rock at Mt. Horeb is the one in the picture - it's just ridiculous - the area of the Arabah (Southern Israel, Southwestern Jordan, and Western Saudi Arabia) is one of the most geologically diverse places on the globe. I have personally seen dozens if not hundreds of rocks similar to that in sandstone areas such as the Wadi Rum (Jordan - of Transformers 2 fame) and the Sinai Peninsula.

Let's just say that it looked shallower than it was - but once you're soaked you might as well go for it.

I received the reaction Ron Wyatt should receive.

In short - Ron Wyatt is the Benny Hinn of Archaeologists - he is a charlatan who plays on the emotions and good intentions of American Evangelicals. Not surprisingly he has also claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant, the location of Noah's Ark, the charred remains of Sodom and Gomorrah along with the real Mt. Sinai (what else is there left to find?). I read three of his books in high school - he is a provocative writer that claims to be a better archaeologist than Indiana Jones. Truthfully, there is more legitimacy to the finds of Indiana Jones than there is Ron Wyatt's - at least Henry Jones Jr. found the Ark of the Covenant and the Sacred Grail in an archaeological context and at least he was a "Dr." and a professor of archaeology! It takes more to be an archaeologist than being good at detective work and a good writer. It takes years of careful study of history, stratigraphy (levels of remains - mainly pottery), philology (study of ancient languages), historical geography, the history of research, and many other sub-disciplines - Wyatt has zero training, zero qualifications, but yet all the answers. Moreover, the goal of archaeology is not to prove the Bible to be true, but to illuminate it. My archaeology professor (Gabi Barkay) says that the Bible does not need archaeology it can stand alone on its own merits. He is exactly right - the goal of archaeology is to understand the world of the ancients, to understand what a specific object meant to a specific people. This type of work is not archaeology its speculation that seeks to prove something that is by its very nature unprovable. Understand me though - although archaeology cannot provide definitive proof that the Bible is 100% percent true, that its inspired, that it is 100% historical - it can provide proof to much of what the Bible speaks of. For instance much of higher critical theory has claimed that the persons of David and Solomon never existed - in the last 30 years two inscriptions have been found one in Israel and one in Jordan that mention the "house of David" referring to the line of kings of David - providing substantial proof that David was in fact a real person and that he lived during the time that the Bible describes.

The Real Problem with Bad Christian Apologetics

This PowerPoint is in the vein of the mass emails about the missing days in the universe being attributed to Joshua causing the sun to stand still and other emails like it directed at the emotions of well-intending American Evangelicals who have no clue about archaeology (I don't say that pretentiously - most people are not privy to archaeological theory - and even good Biblical scholars are lead away by these theories). That is where the real harm is done in these emails and other so-called "Bible Proofs" - because well-meaning believers take these type of things and seek to argue for the historicity of scripture using these as their proofs - they are basing their faith on a very sandy foundation and have given atheists and biblical critics (who are "in the know") a way of poking fun at the Bible. It can shake the faith of a young believer who is shown that this is a sham, much like a new believer's faith can be shaken whenever he sees that Benny Hinn's healings are a crock.

Truthfully, the only truth embedded in this PowerPoint is the first picture which identifies the well of Sychar as being Jacob's well - this identification is well-attested and has good standing in both tradition, text, and archaeology, but is hardly a basis for proving the Bible's veracity.

If you want to look at it more here is an article discussing the the Exodus route and the various options for Mt. Sinai.

This and That: Easter

2010-04-04T03:23:00.002-05:00

This quote from Russ Moore is absolutely awesome - "Tremble, O proud snake king. The spike-scabbed foot on your skull isn't dead tissue anymore." (HT: Justin Taylor) - Let that sink in.

The "His Peace Upon Us" blog outlines nicely the biblical and historical proofs of the resurrection - check it out here.
Excerpt:

Jesus’ disciples were transformed.
Jesus’ disciples remained loyal to Jesus and endured widespread persecution and martyrdom, which would have been unthinkable had Jesus merely died and failed to rise as he promised.
The disciples had exemplary character.
Worship changed. The early church stopped worshiping on Saturdays as Jews had for thousands of years, and suddenly began worshiping on Sunday in memory of Jesus’ Sunday resurrection. The object of worship changed. The commandments forbid worshiping a false god . . . it is impossibly to conceive of devout Jews simply worshiping Jesus as the one true God without the proof of Jesus’ resurrection.

Mindy pointed out this ministry to me - the "Jesus Storybook Bible" here is a video about the Resurrection - really good stuff. (HT: Mindy McKinny)

It is vitally important that at their earliest stage children begin to grasp their absolute wickedness - that the begin to understand that they are in their very essence very bad. Children born in total depravity must be convinced of their total corruptness before they can understand that they need a Savior. John Piper and Desiring God Ministries proclaims this boldly - see this video. (HT: Jared Kennedy)

Cheap Grace: Bay Area Fellowship - Follow-up

2010-04-03T14:48:00.008-05:00

I just watched Bil Cornelius' Easter sermon. The sermon presented the "typical" Gospel message and was generally orthodox, however - he misses the mark on a number of historical and theological points. My point in this post is not to offer a critique of BAF's preaching styles, pedagogical methodology, or even church-growth planning - my point is to briefly examine their message regarding the Good News of the Messiah. Put another way - I am examining my initial critique of the gimmick over against the actual message preached.

If you listened to the message above (as I have) you should have seen quite clearly that the sermon follows the theology of Cheap Grace shown in the Giveaway gimmick. The offering of grace without any cost - no more is this apparent than the altar call at the end. Nowhere in the entire sermon is the word obedience or any of its close relatives mentioned - no where is the necessity of salvation-exemplifying works shown as being the sign of genuine conversion.

Of course calling out BAF's theology of cheap grace is a bit unfair - cheap grace permeates much of the evangelical church - so much so that many Christians only understand the "Gospel" through the lens of the altar call and the "converted" hand counts after the service. This is not the Gospel - it is only half of the message - it produces a divorce between Jesus as Savior and Jesus as Lord. It makes it possible to have the benefits of a redeemed child of Yahweh without following or obeying the Heir of His throne. This type of theology makes it possible to be a "Christian" without producing actions that are identifiably "Christ-like." This is the whole point of James the brother of Jesus when he remarks that "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17-26). In fact the entirety of the Gospel accounts (Matt-John) and the book of Acts in particular are focused on the salvation-exemplifying works of the followers of Jesus. Jesus said to his disciples the following, “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit,for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush.”(Luke 6:43–44 ESV) The betrayed, murdered One is not available to us as Savior alone nor as Lord alone - an acceptance of one without the other is damning.

Do we not think that Judas made a profession of faith?

Would not the rich, young ruler have been willing to repeat a prayer of repentance or raise his hand after the pastor asked if he wanted to receive Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior?

Salvation from death and damnation from the risen God-Man can only be had through His demands and by His decrees. The Light of the World demands that we believe and obey - that we forsake our former way of life pick up our cross and die - that we cast aside every worldly obstacle that we might drink deep from the Spring of Living Water. Judas and the rich, young ruler were unable to accept Jesus as Lord over their lives - they rejected His lordship preferring to only receive his benefits without actually following his hard teachings of obedience. They wanted him as Savior alone - the problem was that Jesus was not offering a partial plan - he demanded acceptance in both part and parcel. They failed to realize that the One with the Name Above All Names alone creates the terms for conversion - the risen Lord calls for us to believe and follow - not just believe, not just pray a prayer and fill out a testimonial card. What makes us think that we will fare better than Judas or the rich, young ruler? We don't get to make the rules - only the sinless-Sin Bearer can do that.

My point in drawing attention to this is to show that my main problem (I believe the Bible's main problem) with Bay Area Fellowship is not their pastor or their gimmick (certainly I have issues with this as I mentioned previously - for instance the church acting as a seducer for the idol of materialism), but the much larger false theology of Cheap Grace or Free Salvation. The disgraceful gimmick of "the Ultimate Giveaway" in actuality is a perfect metaphor for the theology of Cheap Grace. Receiving eternity for raising your hand or repeating a prayer at an altar call parallels very nicely with simply showing up for church and receiving a car. But both widely miss the mark in showing what genuine Biblical conversion looks like. The sad reality of Cheap Grace (or easy-believism) is that it produces a false assurance among those who are "converted" through it - who think that they have been saved from the fires of Gehenna while living a wicked life.

There is much more to say on the subject, but I will let this suffice.

Recommended resources for further examination of the issues of Cheap Grace, easy-believism, and Lordship Salvation:
John MacArthur - The Gospel According to Jesus and Hard to Believe (the latter was my first true encounter with the issue - it absolutely rocked my world as a Senior in high school.)
Dietrich Bonehoeffer - The Cost of Discipleship (very fitting excerpt below)

"Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace. Cheap grace means grace sold on the market like cheapjacks’ wares. The sacraments, the forgiveness of sin, and the consolations of religion are thrown away at cut prices. Grace is represented as the Church’s inexhaustible treasury, from which she showers blessings with generous hands, without asking questions or
fixing limits. Grace without price; grace without cost! The essence of grace, we suppose, is that the account has been paid in advance; and, because it has been paid, everything can be had for nothing.... 45

Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian 'conception' of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins.... In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God. 45-46

Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner. Grace alone does everything they say, and so everything can remain as it was before. 'All for sin could not atone.' Well, then, let the Christian live like the rest of the world, let him model himself on the world’s standards in every sphere of life, and not presumptuously aspire to live a different life under grace from his old life under sin....

Cheap grace is the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession.... Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate. 47

Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man’ will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the pearl of great price to buy which the merchant will sell all his goods. It is the kingly rule of Christ, for whose sake a man will pluck out the eye which causes him to stumble, it is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows him.

Costly grace is the gospel which must be sought again and again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock. Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it cost God the life of his Son: “ye were bought at a price,” and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon his Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but delivered him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God."

John Piper on Rick Warren

2010-04-01T15:47:00.005-05:00

Piper asks Warren to Desiring God Conference.

(No this is not an April Fool's Joke)

Very interesting thoughts on Rick Warren - gotta love Piper - just as curious as anyone else.
Listen to the thought process behind asking Warren to the Desiring God National Conference here.

See some interesting thoughts on the subject at Eric Durso's blog.

Football Filosofing Part 2

2010-04-01T05:47:00.002-05:00

For context see yesterday's post

His reply
Ok man
Wow
Don't worry about the length :)
well I guess it makes sense to me now about gentiles and the gospel that's cool by me and in some ways, i am not 100% sure about it but ok i think it makes a good point, cause why would they go against Jesus right?..but...I was told that believing in a man that is g-d is idol worship
So my question
Can you separate believing in his message??
With believing in him?

My reply
What was Jesus' message? What did he claim to be?
Clearly he claimed to be
1.) the Messiah (“The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things.” Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am he.””(John 4:25–26 ESV))

2.) the Son of David (rightful king of the Jews - the Davidic heir - through his lineage Matthew 1 and Luke 3)

3.) the Prophet (“The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen—”(Deuteronomy 18:15 ESV))

4.) the I am (“God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’””(Exodus 3:14 ESV) “But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.””(Mark 14:61–62 ESV)),

5.) the Son of God, and most of all God's equal (“I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?””
(John 10:28–32 ESV)).

Is it possible to follow the call of Jesus (obedience to his commandments) while denying his claims about himself?

Or in other words - is it kosher to say that Jesus was right about Torah, right about social justice, right about understanding Scripture but was a blaspheming liar who claimed to be God? How could a blaspheming liar be right about such important weighty things? Jesus must have been either been a God-diminishing boastful liar at worst or at best a raving schizophrenic. Unless of course...he was God.

As the great Clive Staples Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia) wrote - He is either Liar, Lunatic, or Lord - I have gambled my life and soul on the belief that Jesus is the latter.

Jesus' message and claim to be God are inseparable - they are part and parcel of what he represents. His message is utterly meaningless and devoid of any merit without him being who he says he was, namely God. Claiming that Jesus was a good teacher with a good message while ignoring his claim of divinity - would be like praising Hitler for his major technological, medicinal advancements while ignoring his murdering of 6 million of your brothers and sisters.

My question to you then is - Is Jesus God or was he a blaspheming liar? How could someone speak the way he did, know Torah the way he did, have compassion on people the way he did all in the name of God and then commit the mortal sin of claiming to be God, unless he was who he claimed to be?

Does this following statement sound like a liar or a lunatic?
“And when they came to the place that is called The Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” And they cast lots to divide his garments.”
(Luke 23:33–34 ESV)

Darrell Bock in Israel

2010-03-31T15:05:00.001-05:00

Interesting thoughts on his tour here in Israel and a lecture directed at Israel's future to Palestinian Christians - see especially

My topic was the land. I was asked in because they knew I held to a future for Israel and that they had a right to the land, which I explained (although I complicated things by also noting the land also belongs to the Messiah [opening up some interesting possibilities for a solution], Israel has responsibility to behave justly [as her Exodus experience was to make her sensitive to foreigners in her midst], and that her house is "desolate" until she responds to her Messiah [secular Israel is not equal to covenant beneficiary Israel]).

That last line has been something that I have been pondering over a lot recently. I think much of the criticism laid at the feet of pre-millenialists (I don't like that "D" word so much) is because of their insistence that Israel (1948-present) is the Israel that Paul talks about in Romans 11 (especially Romans 11:25-36). While they might "potentially" be God's chosen remnant they are not necessarily a definite fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Meaning that modern Israel as we know it could be wiped clean from the face of the earth and then an ethnic Jewish remnant raised up again for God's eschatological purposes of redemption (obviously this is not something I am hoping for or suggesting will happen). Oh what a blow this loophole shoots in the bubble of "dispensation-Left-Behind-ism!"

Cheap Grace - Bay Area Fellowship

2010-03-31T08:41:00.004-05:00

Bay Area Fellowship is a a mega-church in Corpus Christi lead by Bill Cornelius. This Easter they are planning a "Ultimate Giveaway" in which they will be giving over 1 million dollars worth of prizes. This decision as you might suspect has caused quite a stir both from outside of the church (see the Corpus Christi Caller Times article on it here) and inside the church. Normally I try to stay out of stuff like this, but on this I cannot remain silent - Bay Area Fellowship has gone too far (not that this blog is going to change anything - but it makes me feel better). Below is a comment I left on BAF's blog - here is the blog post and my comment (I doubt it will make it onto the web page):

Responding to Criticism

March 30, 2010 - 8:41pm — bafadmin

It's understandable to be upset when someone knocks the church you attend. Just remember, they are not knocking you, they are knocking me, and I'm okay with it. Most of the people who are criticizing our Easter plans are not the kind of people we are trying to reach, so no worries. Although it certainly is not my desire to anger people, as long as the unchurched are being reached in a God-honoring way, then just pray for God's best and stay above the fray (the negativity). I'm so proud of our people for being so generous, in giving all the prizes and bikes that will be given away this Easter! Free gifts draw people to malls and stores, so why not God's House? In fact, the Ultimate Free Gift is what Easter is all about! -Pastor Bil

MY COMMENT

Dear Bil Cornelius,

Have you ever read the following passage?
“In the temple he (Jesus) found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.”His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.””(John 2:14–17 ESV)

Since when did the church become a car-dealership offering promotional deals to potential buyers? Is the Gospel that ugly to you that you have to trick unbelievers into buying into it? The Messiah was not a used car-salesmen the Wisdom of God told people that they had to come and die to attain eternal life you tell them you can have a free car, just like they can have free eternal life. Are we reading the same bible? Eternal life is not free, heaven is not without cost - it costs you everything - convincing unbelievers and believers that heaven is like a million-dollar give-a-way is the same as damning them to hell. You call for a grace without strings attached just like winning the lotto - Jesus calls for obedience - the two could not be more polar opposites.

Since when did the celebration of the death and resurrection of the King of Kings become a carnival raffle?

Furthermore - your contention that those who criticize the "give-away" are just criticizing you is absolutely baseless. Are you serious? Do you not claim to be a church - the bride of Christ? Not only is your local church complicit in this, but the entirety of the worldwide church as well. You bear the reputation of the murdered, resurrected Life-giver and Obedience-demander and you say "I will bear the shame." You are greatly mistaken - Christ the grave conqueror bears the shame. Congratulations you have successfully nullified the grace of Christ and caused his name to reek to the lost and dying world that you were trying to reach.

Your decision to create your church into a mockery is an abomination on so many levels.

Did you even consider the fact that this give away will cause unrelenting covetousness among your church? Some will walk away with a car some with a goody bag - do you really think that they will be focused on your message, flawed as it may be? Perhaps you are on the wrong career path - I hear Oprah is retiring - maybe you can call NBC so that you can take over her show - after all she also runs a "A few of my favorite things" promotional give-away (at least she does not compare it to the death of the Suffering Servant). Since when did someone say that Jesus was beautiful because I won a Beemer?

I pray that you will repent and that your church members will see the complete lunacy in this and practice some discernment. May every believer be reminded of the slain, yet resurrected Lord this Passion Week and the high cost of our obedience to the worthy, sacrificed Passover Lamb.

Prayerfully Yours,
Chris McKinny

Football Filosofing Part 1

2010-03-31T06:43:00.009-05:00

Context:
One of my teammates has been asking me about the New Testament (unprompted by me by the way). He has taken multiple classes on the subject of the New Testament and has formalized some ideas in his head. He tells me that he likes the New Testament, even likes Jesus, but has one big problem with the story - The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16–20) - he claims that this passage is totally against the entirety of Jesus' ministry because Jesus said to only go "to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6). The Great Commission then goes beyond the teachings of Jesus and changes the focal point of Jesus' ministry from the Jew to the Gentile. Despite this seeming contradiction, my friend, is drawn to the teaching of the Nazarene and ponders the "truthfulness" of His claims. One of the most promising statements he made was, "if it is true (the gospels' portrayal of Jesus as the Messiah) then my tradition (Jewish interpretation and traditional lifestyle) is unimportant because it is keeping me away from the truth - the truth is what is important."

My Response to this Argumentation:
Jesus ministering to Gentiles before the end of Matthew:
“When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.”But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith.I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment.”
(Matthew 8:5–13 ESV)

His Reply:
I agree with this. I myself would say that this (about the people of Israel not being so close to the kingdom) part was added on, but let's say Jesus said it if this is the case, then why Jesus didn't give the word to non-Jews during his lifetime, and only gave his word to the Jews?

My Reply:
The whole point of this story is that Jesus is giving the Gospel to a non-Jew - a centurion in fact! As Roman as you can get. Later on in the chapter Jesus heals two men with demons - who were from the Decapolis. The Decapolis "10 cities" was Gentile territory - 10 cities that were under direct Roman rule - cities like Scythopolis (Beth Shean), Hippus (Susita), Gadara (in Jordan today - but the bathhouse Hammat Gader is just inside Israel) - these cities were the frontier land for the Roman empire. In various spots in the Gospels Jesus goes to the Decapolis for ministry. When Jesus goes to the other side of Yom Kinnereth (Sea of Galilee) - he is going to the Gentiles. Now I will not dispute with you on whether or not Jesus' focus was to the Jews - that goes without saying - he claimed to be the Messiah and the King of the Jews and he lived in Judea! However, that does not mean that parts of his ministry were not directed to the Gentile world. Consider these examples:

“And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them. And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan.” (Matthew 4:23–25 ESV) - mixed followers Jews and Gentiles - Gentiles from Syria and the Decapolis bring their sick and Jesus heals them - treating them the same way he treats Jews from Judea and Jerusalem.

“And they came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, the one who had had the legion, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid. And those who had seen it described to them what had happened to the demon-possessed man and to the pigs. And they began to beg Jesus to depart from their region. As he was getting into the boat, the man who had been possessed with demons begged him that he might be with him. And he did not permit him but said to him, “Go home to your friends and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.”And he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis how much Jesus had done for him, and everyone marveled.” (Mark 5:15–20 ESV) Not only does Jesus heal a demon-possessed man - he tells him to not follow him in his ministry (predominantly to the Jew), but to go back to his country as a witness and a testimony to his healing so that his family and his town (Gentile Romans) might believe in the Lord! A clear example of Jesus wanting the Gospel of the kingdom to spread not only to the Jew but to the Greek as well (parallels nicely with Matt. 28 I might add).

My friend these are not the only examples either - they are plentiful throughout the gospels.

It is true that Jesus "primary" ministry during his lifetime was to the Jews as evidenced by this passage:
“These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans,but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’” (Matthew 10:5–7 ESV)

There are a number of reasons why Jesus' earthly ministry was predominantly to the Jew - one he was Jewish, two he lived in a Roman province (Judea) that did not look too kindly on insurrection, three his ministry only lasted three years and encompassed a very small area (Galilee, Judea, Perea, and smaller incursions to Samaria, Sidon, and the Decapolis). Which is why Jesus told his disciples in the Upper Room the following:

“Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves. “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” (John 14:11–13 ESV)

You might ask - How is it possible that the disciples would do works greater than Jesus?!? A good question - Jesus is referring to works that are greater in the sense of extent - greater in the sense of breadth. The disciples would outlive Jesus (and by that I mean abide on earth after Jesus had ascended into heaven) and their ministry would extend to all of the known world - Peter's sermon in Acts 2 produced 3,000 Jewish converts - much more than Jesus had during his earthly ministry. This was only the beginning though as the Gospel spread from Jerusalem to Judea to Samaria to the Mediterranean Coast and eventually to the heart of the Roman Empire. My point in all of this is to say that Jesus' plan was two-fold - in My life I want to build a foundation of followers (the disciples and a few hundred followers 1st part complete) which My death and resurrection will be the focal point and leaping pad by which the second part will take and proclaim my Messiahship to the Jew first and then the Greek (second part is still going and will not be completed until the Christ returns in glory and redeems His people, Israel).

Sorry for the length - but I wanted to make it clear that Matthew 28 was not an add-on to Jesus' message - it was all part of the divine plan from the beginning.

See you at practice,
Chris

Stay tuned for part two

This and That - March 24

2010-03-24T03:36:00.003-05:00

I have been loving the new Resurgence (Mars Hill Church Seattle) blog series "Know Your Heretics" - simple, accurate and relevant - read about Pelagius and Arius.

This blog gives a great breakout of the layout of America's Christendom. (HT: Todd Bolen)

(WARNING GRAPHIC - THE VIDEO IS OF AN ABORTION) Can anyone remain Pro-Death after watching this video? (This video shocked me - there are no words to describe it - it is horrifying. I recommend watching it once - that will be enough for a lifetime - the images are worse than any WWII Holocaust footage.) (HT: Chris Deluna)

(WARNING HILARIOUS VIDEO) 5 Best baby-laughing videos - my favorites are no. 5 and no. 1 (if you can watch both of these videos back to back and still remain pro-murder - May King Jesus have mercy on your soul.) (HT: Todd Bolen)

President Obama vs. Israel - Ramat Shlomo

2010-03-24T03:09:00.002-05:00

Normally I steer clear of political discussion on this blog. Main reason being I don't find typical political discussion to be all that interesting (many long hours listening to talk radio on the tractor attributed to my apathy on the matter), which means I rarely follow the debates because I try to form my opinion and then just stay out of it. However, the recent Obama vs. Netanyahu debate over Jerusalem "settlements" has tickled my interest in a great way.

In short the Biden and Clinton chiding of Israel on the matter is utterly pathetic all you have to do is look at a map. Their arguments against Israel's building project in Ramat Shlomo in no way reflects the facts on the ground. Ramat Shlomo was founded after the 1967 6-Day War in which Israel re-unified West Jerusalem (Israel) with East Jerusalem (Jordan) and laid claim. The "settlement" was built in an attempt to protect Israeli control of the land they had just conquered (by the way they conquered it after they were attacked). Since 1967 Ramat Shlomo has grown substantially along with a number of suburbs along both in Jerusalem's municipality and along its periphery. More than that Ramat Shlomo is directly connected to Jerusalem proper there is no division between it and the rest of Jerusalem, no boundary, no dividing marker, no Arab village dividing it - the "wall of separation" runs well north of the site of Ramat Shlomo. Perhaps most ludicrous of all is the building projects themselves - Ramat Shlomo sits on a hill all by itself - no building within Ramat Shlomo will affect the nearby Arab village there is a clear distinction in land between the two.

To sum up - Ramat Shlomo is a suburb of Jerusalem surrounded by Israeli suburbs both on the Israel side of the Red Line and the Arab side of the Red Line - the United States of America has demanded that its most loyal ally not build in one of its earliest suburbs, because it might hurt peace talks with the Palestinians (peace talks that have historically been extremely one-sided by the way). This is politics pure and simple there is no possible way that Israel will ever abandon Ramat Shlomo it has been part of Jerusalem the capital of Israel since 1967 and no one on either side expects that to change. For Netanyahu's thoughts on the subject watch this video.

Free Audio Books from Christian Audio: The Cost of Discipleship

2010-03-17T14:17:00.000-05:00

Currently reading "The Cost of Discipleship" by Dietrich Bonhoeffer - he was a Lutheran pastor in Germany who was murdered by the Nazi regime - this month the audio book from Christian audio is free - I highly recommend it. Just type in MAR2010 when it asks for the promotional code and you will be able to download the full version. John Piper's book "50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die" is also available for free download on the same website.

The Effect of Tim Tebow's Ad and "St." Patrick

2010-03-17T11:23:00.002-05:00

Read this testimony about a pregnant girl who watched the Tim Tebow ad...here. (HT: Tim Challies)

Mark Driscoll summarizes the life and ministry of St. Patrick - utterly fascinating stuff - see here.