The spirit of the law always trumps the letter of the law. When Jesus entered the world he experienced difficulty at every turn for following the true intent of God's law.
Our sinful nature likes simple answers. We want everything to be yes or no.
We do not want a call to wisdom. A call to judge rightly. A call to place others before ourselves.
That is why legalism delights in simple answers. Simple answers avoid responsibility because they allow for infinite outs.
This is the persons own fault so I have no need to intervene is the response of the sinful heart. Maybe it is true that something is a persons fault. And maybe we should not intervene, but maybe we should.
You see the bible does not allow us to so easily shirk our responsibility as legalism does. It calls us to view all things in light of the love for God and love for our neighbor.
What is ethical is placed in the higher light of true real love. In the face of real true love cliche easy answers are no longer possible.
That is why the biblical path of wisdom often falls out of fashion. Thinking and using discernment do not allow the easy shirking of the will of God that legalism provides.
As St. Augustine said: Love God and do what you please. If we truly love God we cannot go much wrong.
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Friday, September 11, 2015
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Focus on the Symptoms
Often in the church progress is difficult because we focus on the symptoms of sin rather than the root of sin. We focus on the problems because they are easier to notice.
Often the issue when looking at sin is that the problems can come from many sources. We often underestimate the power of the gospel in transforming issues.
Often we fail to see growth in the church because we fail to see the gospel articulated in its most full power. The gospel is the basis for all law.
Our tendency is to skip over, so the speak, the majority of the first part of Romans and then to "get into the good part" after all the groundwork is laid. The reality is the second half rests entirely upon the first.
We cannot successfully move into the second part before grasping the first part the best that we can. And this is the issue often in the church is we move too quickly past grace.
We feel we have mastered the gospel and continue to law while we have still fully not understood the gospel and grace. We must always be remind of grace. Apart from grace the law is nothing, but a series of unfulfilled standard which are too high for us to keep.
It is only sin that makes us fail to understand the depths of our transgression. And only grace that enables us to begin to keep the law.
Often the issue when looking at sin is that the problems can come from many sources. We often underestimate the power of the gospel in transforming issues.
Often we fail to see growth in the church because we fail to see the gospel articulated in its most full power. The gospel is the basis for all law.
Our tendency is to skip over, so the speak, the majority of the first part of Romans and then to "get into the good part" after all the groundwork is laid. The reality is the second half rests entirely upon the first.
We cannot successfully move into the second part before grasping the first part the best that we can. And this is the issue often in the church is we move too quickly past grace.
We feel we have mastered the gospel and continue to law while we have still fully not understood the gospel and grace. We must always be remind of grace. Apart from grace the law is nothing, but a series of unfulfilled standard which are too high for us to keep.
It is only sin that makes us fail to understand the depths of our transgression. And only grace that enables us to begin to keep the law.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Jewish Cannon
My most memorable old paper. It was memorable mailing for receiving over two pages of angry handwritten criticisms when I received the draft back.
In recent scholarship there has been a hot debate over dating the completion of the Jewish canon. Scholars have dated the Jewish canon’s completion anywhere in the range from of second century B.C., at the earliest, to the third century A.D, at the latest. This paper will argue for a completion date of the canon by the end of the first century B.C. This paper will limit itself to looking at several of the key arguments in support of this conclusion. The paper wishes to outline the basic reasonableness of holding to a pre-A.D. canon.
Due to the massive scope of the argument this paper will limit itself to four key arguments in favor of a pre-A.D. completion of the canon. The paper will consist of two main sections. The first section will give arguments for why the books now understood to be part of the Hebrew canon were understood to be part of the Hebrew canon by the end of the first century B.C. This section will use two main arguments. The first argument is based on Meredith Kline’s understanding of scripture as covenant. The second argument will be based on the Jewish concept that scriptural books make the hands impure. This section will not address that thesis’s assumption that apocryphal books were excluded from the canon by the end of the first century B.C.
The second section will continue the argument started in the first section and it will add evidence pointing toward the thesis that other books, such as the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, were no seriously being considered for entrance into the canon at the time period in question. This section will rely on the testimony of Josephus and also upon the evidence based upon the New Testament. Before this paper addresses these arguments it will begin with a short introduction to define what a canon is and what the three categories of Hebrew scripture are before moving on to the its arguments.
The word canon literal means “straight rod” or “bar.” The concept of canon implies a group of books that are a standard for worship. As Harris notes the Catholic and Protestant churches have always believed that the bible’s authority comes from its inspiration. (80) This view of inspiration causing scriptures recognition into the canon was also held by the Jews. The Jews frequently used the introductory words, “as it was written” to introduce the scriptures. These words denoted that the scriptures held decisive authority in the subjects they referred to. (Beckwith 70) It is important to distinguish that books became part of the canon because they were believed to be inspired. It appears many scholars assume that the Jews began to believe their scripture was inspired because their scripture become part of the canon. This is obviously not the thought pattern of the Jews at the time. Obviously they would have believed their scripture to inspired and then made it part of their canon.
The Jews considered their scriptures to fall into there categories. These categories were the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law consisted of the five books of the Pentateuch. What fell into the Prophets and Writings is far less clear. This distinction is still useful because the ancient Jews often referred to these three sets of books. What exactly fell into these three sections is beyond the scope of this paper and will not be crucial to its arguments. This three part distinction is useful because the Law, the Prophets and the Writings encompass all of the scriptures and covering Jewish statements about each set individually means covering statements about the integrity of the Jewish scriptures.
The Hebrew division of the bible into the Law, the prophets, and the writings in and of itself almost denotes the concept the idea that they are part of the canon. The Law was God’s word to Moses and the Prophets were God’s messengers to his people. The names law and prophets in of themselves nearly denote their place in the canon. One of the names for the writings in Hebrew is hagiographa which means sacred writings. That the three categories names nearly imply that their contents are part of the canon. These names for canon are far more ancient than the dates when scholars claim the canon came to exist in.
Meredith Kline argues for the thesis that all of the Hebrew Scriptures come in the form of a covenant between God and Israel. (35) The Pentateuch undisputedly is written in the form of a covenant in which God as sovereign makes know his will to Israel. Curses are found though ancient covenants and make them binding documents. Kline notes that these very curses are found all thought the Pentateuch and all the way thought the book of Revelation. Curses are what made ancient world covenants binding. Thus from the moment the Pentateuch was given it must have been viewed as part of the canon. (36)
Kline’s claim seems radical, but there is good evidence to support it. In the Pentateuch and rest of the Hebrew Scriptures we see Israelites cultic traditions absorbed many of the responsibilities typically assigned to the government. Typically secular institutions such as governance, legal disputes, and military were swallowed up into the cultic sphere. (49) This points toward a serious belief of the ancient Hebrews that the Pentateuch was a covenant and that their suzerain was God. Thought the bible failure to follow Pentateuch and Prophetic books failure to follow the law was an offence primarily against Yahweh. This points the Hebrew belief that the law was a covenant with Yahweh and as a covenant that it was authoritative from the moment it was given. Later in the paper I will show Josephus and the New Testament witnesses will paint a similar picture of scriptures authority from its creation.
Kline notes that the prophets, writings, and psalms all fit under this covenant scheme and thus they all are authoritative from their moment of creation. The office of prophet was a ordained position by the Pentateuch. (59) Thus the prophetic writings are an extension of the Mosaic covenant and must have entered the canon shortly after completion. The writings were interspersed with the law showing that they to were part of the covenant. (Kline 49) Kline notes that, “The central thesis of the wisdom books is that wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord, which is to say that the way of wisdom is the way of the covenant.” (63) Kline notes that psalms were like the Amen of the covenant in that they were sung in the temple which was the sphere of the covenant. (63)
As covenant all the writings have their origin in God. In covenants the suzerain draws the terms. Leiman notes that the Rabbis considered all inspired literature to be part of the canon. (111) It is well documented that the books of the Law, the prophets, and the writings all defile the hands. Leiman notes that this is due to their inspiration from God. And that they are part of the canon because of that inspiration. (114). According to Cohen the Jewish idea of a book that renders the hands impure is the same as the later Greek notion of a book that is part of the canon. (175) The rabbis, however, appear not to consider Ecclesiastes to have defiled the hands, however, they did consider it part of the canon. The book of Ester seems to have been in a similar category. (Leiman 112) There appears to be no scholarly consensus on when all the books that defile or do not defile the hands came into place, but Leiman notes that the Rabbi’s never question that sacred books defile the hands. (118) This indicates that the decree that sacred books defile the hands must therefore have been far more ancient than the earliest Talmudic discussion that happened in first half of the first century of the AD. This means the discussion and conclusions of the sacredness of the ancient books was quite and old one. Leiman notes that there is no evidence in the Talmudic literature that the Rabbi’s attempted to add a book to the biblical canon. (120) This points toward a very ancient canon.
Josephus wrote that the Israelites had only twenty-two sacred books. Scholars note that the number twenty-two probably comes from the fact that Josephus combined several of the books and this explains why he cites only twenty-two books instead of the Hebrew Scriptures twenty-four. Josephus claims that these books were considered part of the canon from the time of their birth. Note that this is exactly the same thesis Kline was arguing for with his arguments based on covenant. Josephus goes on to say that there was no addition to the canon in recent time periods.
Josephus opinion is weight, in that, as Ryle notes, “We must remember that Josephus writes as the spokesman of his people…. He does not merely express a personal opinion; he claims to represent his countryman.” (Green 39) Josephus was not only writing as a representative of his people he was also writing to a well informed and hostile historian. These facts make Josephus writing significantly more plausible because it would have been not hard to disprove Josephus if he had not been writing the common view of his people at the time. Josephus points in his writings toward a three part division in scriptures. This indicates that the three parts we have been discussing as sacred are the three parts Josephus calls canon.
A common objection to this is that Josephus sees prophetic power in John Hyrcanus who was high priest in B.C. 135. Green’s reply to this objection is that Josephus clearly view John Hyrcanus as not being equal to scripture and that he views Hyrcanus on a much lower plane of authority than scripture. (40) Green notes Welte who claims, “that raising opinion in the time was that with Malachi the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.” This departing was a departing in which the Holy Spirit closed the revelation of the canon explaining its closure in the time of Malachi. (Green 40) The point of this is that the Jews of the time did not expect new revelation that was on par with the old revelation they had been given.
Moses Stuart points out that there was significant rivalry between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essences and that these three groups disagreed on practically every issue. (Beckwith 86) Beckwith points out that since there is no record of disagreement between these three groups on the contents of the canon we can assume that the canon was well established before the first century A.D. (Beckwith 86) Further evidence of a unified canon is that the Essences made no protest when the Pharisees condemned of the Essences beloved Apocalypses as being non-scriptural. (Beckwith 86) If there was on going debate over the canon one would expect a record of it especially on an issue like this. There is, however, to be no record of intense debate on the issue of scripture between these groups, who could agree on so little.
A common objection to Beckwith is that the Sadducees rejected all law accept the Pentateuch. However, scholars commonly note that the Sadducees also rejected angles which are quite common in the Pentateuch. The Sadducees rejection of the angles is probably a rejection of the new wave of angles of the time. If the Sadducees had truly rejected angles they would also have had to reject the Pentateuch. Similarly, the Sadducees rejection of law other than the law of Moses probably refers to their rejection of the widely increasing oral traditions of the Pharisees, rather than their rejection of the prophets and writings. In fact the Sadducees must have accepted books other than the Pentateuch as part of the canon. The majority of the priests after John Hyrcanus were Sadducees. The temple during the period was under their control and clearly had scriptures other than the Pentateuch that were being used in worship. It seems difficult to rectify the Sadducees control of the temple and books not part of the canon being used in worship there. (Beckwith 90) The Sadducees are also recorded in the New Testament as resenting Jesus calling himself the son of David. It seems difficult to find a good explanation for this resentment if the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch. (Beckwith 89)
The New Testament also offers much testimony pointing toward a completed canon. The New Testament is a valid representative of what the Hebrew Scriptures consisted of before the first century A.D. because Christianity arises out of the Jewish worldview and adopted on the Jewish scriptures. The New Testament also records the debates between the early Christians and the Jews. A striking feature of this heated debate is that there is no mention of resentment of each group for the books it considers authoritative. This points toward a canon that was widely know and attested to at the time. An objection to the New Testament witness is that the early Church adopted the Apocrypha and that the closure of the Jewish canon was a reaction to this. However, Green notes that the New Testament writers quote freely from the Old Testament, but never quote from the Apocrypha. He notes that all the New Testament similarities with the Apocrypha are either very vague and nothing like citations or they are also held in common with the Old Testament. (145) The Apocrypha, also, clearly does not have the status of the other books in the early church’s canon. There are numerous disputes in the early church over the books of the Apocrypha. The protestant rejection of the Apocrypha follows in the line of Jerome and his followers on the issue. Because Christianity arose out of Judaism the Apostles would be assumed to be accepting the Jewish scriptures unless they made comments to the contrary. (Green 145) In fact Christ and the apostles never make any claim that charges the Jews with corrupting the scriptures or of excluding any of the scriptures. (Green 141) The Christ and the apostles do not hint that the Jewish choice of scriptures was lacking in any way. (Beckwith 91-92)
Christ and the Apostles used the scriptures to debate with the Jews on points of contention. The gospel of Acts points to many debates between Christians and Jews where both sides shared and used the same scriptural texts to support their positions. (Beckwith 92) The apostles in fact accused the Pharisees of making void the word of God with their traditions. The position of Christ and the Apostles was, thus, one that affirmed the scriptures as being the final authority in all debates. This dialogue between the early church and the Jewish leaders should point toward a largely unified picture of the canon. One would expect there to be much record of dispute if Christ and the Apostles affirmed a different canon than the Jews.
The New Testament directly quotes from all the Old Testament books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. The lack of quoting from these books is probably due to the fact they were not needed to prove the New Testament’s points rather than a disagreement in the canon. (Green 143) Leiman notes that the New Testament frequently bears witness to the Torah and Prophets as separate units in the canon. Leiman notes that the canonicity of the writings is assumed by the New Testament. (40)
Scholars frequently sight Jesus’ words in Luke 24:44, “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” as pointing to the complete collection of Jewish scriptures. They point toward the psalms as the completion of the Jewish scriptures and thus by the psalms Jesus is referring to the totality of the Jewish canon. Psalms is also the most quoted book of the New Testament so it seems likely that the writings were held as part of the canon by the Apostles.
The evidence presented here is a brief argument for the case for a canon set before the first century A.D. Other evidence such as the Apocryphal books could also be brought into the argument. This paper has avoided a discussion on the dating of the writing of the Jewish scriptures. Recent scholarship has tended to push the dates of authorship very close to the first century A.D. There are reasons in support of this, but this is not necessarily a correct. Until the enlightenment the date of the books authorship was considered far more ancient. This paper assumes that the canon is, likely like the church had a consensus on until the enlightenment, a more ancient canon. That discussion of course is far beyond the scope of this paper. In conclusion if one assumes that the writings of the books are more ancient than recent scholarship argues than there are many good reasons to affirm a set pre-A.D. canon. This paper has outlined four main arguments for this thesis. There is also ample evidence from the Apocrypha on the issue. This paper avoids that evidence because scholars have had much more widely ranging debates and more disunity on that subject than other issues. In summery this paper assumes that the canons completion sometime before the first century A.D. is a reasonable stance and falls better in line with the New Testament and Jewish testimony.
In recent scholarship there has been a hot debate over dating the completion of the Jewish canon. Scholars have dated the Jewish canon’s completion anywhere in the range from of second century B.C., at the earliest, to the third century A.D, at the latest. This paper will argue for a completion date of the canon by the end of the first century B.C. This paper will limit itself to looking at several of the key arguments in support of this conclusion. The paper wishes to outline the basic reasonableness of holding to a pre-A.D. canon.
Due to the massive scope of the argument this paper will limit itself to four key arguments in favor of a pre-A.D. completion of the canon. The paper will consist of two main sections. The first section will give arguments for why the books now understood to be part of the Hebrew canon were understood to be part of the Hebrew canon by the end of the first century B.C. This section will use two main arguments. The first argument is based on Meredith Kline’s understanding of scripture as covenant. The second argument will be based on the Jewish concept that scriptural books make the hands impure. This section will not address that thesis’s assumption that apocryphal books were excluded from the canon by the end of the first century B.C.
The second section will continue the argument started in the first section and it will add evidence pointing toward the thesis that other books, such as the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha, were no seriously being considered for entrance into the canon at the time period in question. This section will rely on the testimony of Josephus and also upon the evidence based upon the New Testament. Before this paper addresses these arguments it will begin with a short introduction to define what a canon is and what the three categories of Hebrew scripture are before moving on to the its arguments.
The word canon literal means “straight rod” or “bar.” The concept of canon implies a group of books that are a standard for worship. As Harris notes the Catholic and Protestant churches have always believed that the bible’s authority comes from its inspiration. (80) This view of inspiration causing scriptures recognition into the canon was also held by the Jews. The Jews frequently used the introductory words, “as it was written” to introduce the scriptures. These words denoted that the scriptures held decisive authority in the subjects they referred to. (Beckwith 70) It is important to distinguish that books became part of the canon because they were believed to be inspired. It appears many scholars assume that the Jews began to believe their scripture was inspired because their scripture become part of the canon. This is obviously not the thought pattern of the Jews at the time. Obviously they would have believed their scripture to inspired and then made it part of their canon.
The Jews considered their scriptures to fall into there categories. These categories were the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. The Law consisted of the five books of the Pentateuch. What fell into the Prophets and Writings is far less clear. This distinction is still useful because the ancient Jews often referred to these three sets of books. What exactly fell into these three sections is beyond the scope of this paper and will not be crucial to its arguments. This three part distinction is useful because the Law, the Prophets and the Writings encompass all of the scriptures and covering Jewish statements about each set individually means covering statements about the integrity of the Jewish scriptures.
The Hebrew division of the bible into the Law, the prophets, and the writings in and of itself almost denotes the concept the idea that they are part of the canon. The Law was God’s word to Moses and the Prophets were God’s messengers to his people. The names law and prophets in of themselves nearly denote their place in the canon. One of the names for the writings in Hebrew is hagiographa which means sacred writings. That the three categories names nearly imply that their contents are part of the canon. These names for canon are far more ancient than the dates when scholars claim the canon came to exist in.
Meredith Kline argues for the thesis that all of the Hebrew Scriptures come in the form of a covenant between God and Israel. (35) The Pentateuch undisputedly is written in the form of a covenant in which God as sovereign makes know his will to Israel. Curses are found though ancient covenants and make them binding documents. Kline notes that these very curses are found all thought the Pentateuch and all the way thought the book of Revelation. Curses are what made ancient world covenants binding. Thus from the moment the Pentateuch was given it must have been viewed as part of the canon. (36)
Kline’s claim seems radical, but there is good evidence to support it. In the Pentateuch and rest of the Hebrew Scriptures we see Israelites cultic traditions absorbed many of the responsibilities typically assigned to the government. Typically secular institutions such as governance, legal disputes, and military were swallowed up into the cultic sphere. (49) This points toward a serious belief of the ancient Hebrews that the Pentateuch was a covenant and that their suzerain was God. Thought the bible failure to follow Pentateuch and Prophetic books failure to follow the law was an offence primarily against Yahweh. This points the Hebrew belief that the law was a covenant with Yahweh and as a covenant that it was authoritative from the moment it was given. Later in the paper I will show Josephus and the New Testament witnesses will paint a similar picture of scriptures authority from its creation.
Kline notes that the prophets, writings, and psalms all fit under this covenant scheme and thus they all are authoritative from their moment of creation. The office of prophet was a ordained position by the Pentateuch. (59) Thus the prophetic writings are an extension of the Mosaic covenant and must have entered the canon shortly after completion. The writings were interspersed with the law showing that they to were part of the covenant. (Kline 49) Kline notes that, “The central thesis of the wisdom books is that wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord, which is to say that the way of wisdom is the way of the covenant.” (63) Kline notes that psalms were like the Amen of the covenant in that they were sung in the temple which was the sphere of the covenant. (63)
As covenant all the writings have their origin in God. In covenants the suzerain draws the terms. Leiman notes that the Rabbis considered all inspired literature to be part of the canon. (111) It is well documented that the books of the Law, the prophets, and the writings all defile the hands. Leiman notes that this is due to their inspiration from God. And that they are part of the canon because of that inspiration. (114). According to Cohen the Jewish idea of a book that renders the hands impure is the same as the later Greek notion of a book that is part of the canon. (175) The rabbis, however, appear not to consider Ecclesiastes to have defiled the hands, however, they did consider it part of the canon. The book of Ester seems to have been in a similar category. (Leiman 112) There appears to be no scholarly consensus on when all the books that defile or do not defile the hands came into place, but Leiman notes that the Rabbi’s never question that sacred books defile the hands. (118) This indicates that the decree that sacred books defile the hands must therefore have been far more ancient than the earliest Talmudic discussion that happened in first half of the first century of the AD. This means the discussion and conclusions of the sacredness of the ancient books was quite and old one. Leiman notes that there is no evidence in the Talmudic literature that the Rabbi’s attempted to add a book to the biblical canon. (120) This points toward a very ancient canon.
Josephus wrote that the Israelites had only twenty-two sacred books. Scholars note that the number twenty-two probably comes from the fact that Josephus combined several of the books and this explains why he cites only twenty-two books instead of the Hebrew Scriptures twenty-four. Josephus claims that these books were considered part of the canon from the time of their birth. Note that this is exactly the same thesis Kline was arguing for with his arguments based on covenant. Josephus goes on to say that there was no addition to the canon in recent time periods.
Josephus opinion is weight, in that, as Ryle notes, “We must remember that Josephus writes as the spokesman of his people…. He does not merely express a personal opinion; he claims to represent his countryman.” (Green 39) Josephus was not only writing as a representative of his people he was also writing to a well informed and hostile historian. These facts make Josephus writing significantly more plausible because it would have been not hard to disprove Josephus if he had not been writing the common view of his people at the time. Josephus points in his writings toward a three part division in scriptures. This indicates that the three parts we have been discussing as sacred are the three parts Josephus calls canon.
A common objection to this is that Josephus sees prophetic power in John Hyrcanus who was high priest in B.C. 135. Green’s reply to this objection is that Josephus clearly view John Hyrcanus as not being equal to scripture and that he views Hyrcanus on a much lower plane of authority than scripture. (40) Green notes Welte who claims, “that raising opinion in the time was that with Malachi the Holy Spirit departed from Israel.” This departing was a departing in which the Holy Spirit closed the revelation of the canon explaining its closure in the time of Malachi. (Green 40) The point of this is that the Jews of the time did not expect new revelation that was on par with the old revelation they had been given.
Moses Stuart points out that there was significant rivalry between the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essences and that these three groups disagreed on practically every issue. (Beckwith 86) Beckwith points out that since there is no record of disagreement between these three groups on the contents of the canon we can assume that the canon was well established before the first century A.D. (Beckwith 86) Further evidence of a unified canon is that the Essences made no protest when the Pharisees condemned of the Essences beloved Apocalypses as being non-scriptural. (Beckwith 86) If there was on going debate over the canon one would expect a record of it especially on an issue like this. There is, however, to be no record of intense debate on the issue of scripture between these groups, who could agree on so little.
A common objection to Beckwith is that the Sadducees rejected all law accept the Pentateuch. However, scholars commonly note that the Sadducees also rejected angles which are quite common in the Pentateuch. The Sadducees rejection of the angles is probably a rejection of the new wave of angles of the time. If the Sadducees had truly rejected angles they would also have had to reject the Pentateuch. Similarly, the Sadducees rejection of law other than the law of Moses probably refers to their rejection of the widely increasing oral traditions of the Pharisees, rather than their rejection of the prophets and writings. In fact the Sadducees must have accepted books other than the Pentateuch as part of the canon. The majority of the priests after John Hyrcanus were Sadducees. The temple during the period was under their control and clearly had scriptures other than the Pentateuch that were being used in worship. It seems difficult to rectify the Sadducees control of the temple and books not part of the canon being used in worship there. (Beckwith 90) The Sadducees are also recorded in the New Testament as resenting Jesus calling himself the son of David. It seems difficult to find a good explanation for this resentment if the Sadducees accepted only the Pentateuch. (Beckwith 89)
The New Testament also offers much testimony pointing toward a completed canon. The New Testament is a valid representative of what the Hebrew Scriptures consisted of before the first century A.D. because Christianity arises out of the Jewish worldview and adopted on the Jewish scriptures. The New Testament also records the debates between the early Christians and the Jews. A striking feature of this heated debate is that there is no mention of resentment of each group for the books it considers authoritative. This points toward a canon that was widely know and attested to at the time. An objection to the New Testament witness is that the early Church adopted the Apocrypha and that the closure of the Jewish canon was a reaction to this. However, Green notes that the New Testament writers quote freely from the Old Testament, but never quote from the Apocrypha. He notes that all the New Testament similarities with the Apocrypha are either very vague and nothing like citations or they are also held in common with the Old Testament. (145) The Apocrypha, also, clearly does not have the status of the other books in the early church’s canon. There are numerous disputes in the early church over the books of the Apocrypha. The protestant rejection of the Apocrypha follows in the line of Jerome and his followers on the issue. Because Christianity arose out of Judaism the Apostles would be assumed to be accepting the Jewish scriptures unless they made comments to the contrary. (Green 145) In fact Christ and the apostles never make any claim that charges the Jews with corrupting the scriptures or of excluding any of the scriptures. (Green 141) The Christ and the apostles do not hint that the Jewish choice of scriptures was lacking in any way. (Beckwith 91-92)
Christ and the Apostles used the scriptures to debate with the Jews on points of contention. The gospel of Acts points to many debates between Christians and Jews where both sides shared and used the same scriptural texts to support their positions. (Beckwith 92) The apostles in fact accused the Pharisees of making void the word of God with their traditions. The position of Christ and the Apostles was, thus, one that affirmed the scriptures as being the final authority in all debates. This dialogue between the early church and the Jewish leaders should point toward a largely unified picture of the canon. One would expect there to be much record of dispute if Christ and the Apostles affirmed a different canon than the Jews.
The New Testament directly quotes from all the Old Testament books except Ezra, Nehemiah, Ester, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon. The lack of quoting from these books is probably due to the fact they were not needed to prove the New Testament’s points rather than a disagreement in the canon. (Green 143) Leiman notes that the New Testament frequently bears witness to the Torah and Prophets as separate units in the canon. Leiman notes that the canonicity of the writings is assumed by the New Testament. (40)
Scholars frequently sight Jesus’ words in Luke 24:44, “everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” as pointing to the complete collection of Jewish scriptures. They point toward the psalms as the completion of the Jewish scriptures and thus by the psalms Jesus is referring to the totality of the Jewish canon. Psalms is also the most quoted book of the New Testament so it seems likely that the writings were held as part of the canon by the Apostles.
The evidence presented here is a brief argument for the case for a canon set before the first century A.D. Other evidence such as the Apocryphal books could also be brought into the argument. This paper has avoided a discussion on the dating of the writing of the Jewish scriptures. Recent scholarship has tended to push the dates of authorship very close to the first century A.D. There are reasons in support of this, but this is not necessarily a correct. Until the enlightenment the date of the books authorship was considered far more ancient. This paper assumes that the canon is, likely like the church had a consensus on until the enlightenment, a more ancient canon. That discussion of course is far beyond the scope of this paper. In conclusion if one assumes that the writings of the books are more ancient than recent scholarship argues than there are many good reasons to affirm a set pre-A.D. canon. This paper has outlined four main arguments for this thesis. There is also ample evidence from the Apocrypha on the issue. This paper avoids that evidence because scholars have had much more widely ranging debates and more disunity on that subject than other issues. In summery this paper assumes that the canons completion sometime before the first century A.D. is a reasonable stance and falls better in line with the New Testament and Jewish testimony.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Law Fulfilled in Christ
The ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ. The whole sacrificial system and system of ritual purity was made obsolete as Jesus perfectly kept the entirety of the law and gave himself up for us.
Jesus' perfect life, death, and resurrection marked the end of the need for the keeping of the sacrificial and ritual law. In fact the New Testament goes further saying that it is a sin to suggest others need to keep the ritual law as part of a walk of faith. It is a stumbling block which minimizes the absolute nature of Jesus' victory over death.
In Jesus we are a new creation awaiting the eternal joy of fellowship with God in heaven. We should not doubt our salvation as if our sin can keep us from God. Our righteousness is Jesus who is in heaven seated at the right hand of God.
Our works flow from faith through the world of the Spirit of God in us. Our works are acts which naturally flow from our salvation, not part of our salvation.
We can trust in Jesus' saving blood and then move to works. Focusing on works without a focus on grace is foolish. Because works flow from grace, it is our union with Christ which produces works.
Often it is easy to look at our life and try to think how we can be better followers of God. There is some truth to the approach, but often it is better simply to look to God and be transformed by his nature and grace.
Good works naturally flow from a transformed heart. Often the approach of looking at our life and thinking how we can live better has little effect because it does not change the fundamental issues in our heart. If we look to God and his nature and love, this changes us and often has more affect than simply looking at our life and asking how we might live better.
Jesus' perfect life, death, and resurrection marked the end of the need for the keeping of the sacrificial and ritual law. In fact the New Testament goes further saying that it is a sin to suggest others need to keep the ritual law as part of a walk of faith. It is a stumbling block which minimizes the absolute nature of Jesus' victory over death.
In Jesus we are a new creation awaiting the eternal joy of fellowship with God in heaven. We should not doubt our salvation as if our sin can keep us from God. Our righteousness is Jesus who is in heaven seated at the right hand of God.
Our works flow from faith through the world of the Spirit of God in us. Our works are acts which naturally flow from our salvation, not part of our salvation.
We can trust in Jesus' saving blood and then move to works. Focusing on works without a focus on grace is foolish. Because works flow from grace, it is our union with Christ which produces works.
Often it is easy to look at our life and try to think how we can be better followers of God. There is some truth to the approach, but often it is better simply to look to God and be transformed by his nature and grace.
Good works naturally flow from a transformed heart. Often the approach of looking at our life and thinking how we can live better has little effect because it does not change the fundamental issues in our heart. If we look to God and his nature and love, this changes us and often has more affect than simply looking at our life and asking how we might live better.
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Growth and Admitting Flaws
Often in the Christian life our spiritual growth is hindered because we won't admit flaws. We cannot grow in areas if we refuse to admit we need to grow in areas.
The message of the bible is that man is under the curse of sin. The biblical ethic is so high that an honest understanding of its requirements tells us that we constantly fail.
God has grace on us and counts feeble attempts as a keeping of the law through the purifying blood of Jesus. Grace covers all our transgressions. We should not seek to sin because we have grace. If we are truly saved by grace the grace of God that saves us will naturally make us desire to do good works.
Grace which saves comes from our union with Jesus through faith in his death. The same union with Jesus that comes through faith also begins to change us degree by degree to be like Jesus.
It is faith in the cross which saves us and it is also faith in the cross which is the power which pushes us to grow in grace. Often it is easy to think that salvation and sanctification are caused by two different causes. We are saved and now need to figure out how to live.
Of course there is a need to figure out what Christian life entails, but the element behind both is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The link between justification and sanctification is that both events are tied together and driven by the same element faith in the work of Jesus.
Post: Our Way
The message of the bible is that man is under the curse of sin. The biblical ethic is so high that an honest understanding of its requirements tells us that we constantly fail.
God has grace on us and counts feeble attempts as a keeping of the law through the purifying blood of Jesus. Grace covers all our transgressions. We should not seek to sin because we have grace. If we are truly saved by grace the grace of God that saves us will naturally make us desire to do good works.
Grace which saves comes from our union with Jesus through faith in his death. The same union with Jesus that comes through faith also begins to change us degree by degree to be like Jesus.
It is faith in the cross which saves us and it is also faith in the cross which is the power which pushes us to grow in grace. Often it is easy to think that salvation and sanctification are caused by two different causes. We are saved and now need to figure out how to live.
Of course there is a need to figure out what Christian life entails, but the element behind both is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The link between justification and sanctification is that both events are tied together and driven by the same element faith in the work of Jesus.
Post: Our Way
Friday, August 8, 2014
We Never Get Past Faith
The Christian life begins with faith in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Often we think now we have mastered the basics of the faith now we will move into the deeper substance.
But you see we are very forgetful and the basics of the Christian faith are everything. We do not start the Christian life by faith and continue by works. We start by faith and must continue by faith at every moment.
There is never a time when a Christian can move past the basics. We are weak. But when we are weak in Christ we are strong. If we feel we are strong we deceive ourselves and are weak.
You see all strength is found in God alone. In our weakness we can rest in grace. We were saved by grace and live each moment by grace.
If we do not see this we are blind to the depth of the law. The law is so deep and our weakness of heart so strong we are blind if we do not realize that we need grace each day.
Infinite grace flows from God. It is grace and focusing on the goodness of God by which we grow in sanctification. That is why often teaching on law and how to live well has no impact.
You see we usually know right and wrong very well and it does us little good. It is by looking to God in love that we are changed to be who we were always meant to be.
But you see we are very forgetful and the basics of the Christian faith are everything. We do not start the Christian life by faith and continue by works. We start by faith and must continue by faith at every moment.
There is never a time when a Christian can move past the basics. We are weak. But when we are weak in Christ we are strong. If we feel we are strong we deceive ourselves and are weak.
You see all strength is found in God alone. In our weakness we can rest in grace. We were saved by grace and live each moment by grace.
If we do not see this we are blind to the depth of the law. The law is so deep and our weakness of heart so strong we are blind if we do not realize that we need grace each day.
Infinite grace flows from God. It is grace and focusing on the goodness of God by which we grow in sanctification. That is why often teaching on law and how to live well has no impact.
You see we usually know right and wrong very well and it does us little good. It is by looking to God in love that we are changed to be who we were always meant to be.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Weighty Matters
Recently I heard a criticism of a head of state/theologian from the past that he sometimes neglected church because of pressing issues. To be fair I am not extremely familiar with the statesman/theologian but the criticism struck me as wrong at least without a fair degree of nuance.
You see if we make a claim that someone has erred because they failed to do this or that sometimes it is simply helpful to look at scripture to see accuracy. You see of course that Jesus was criticized in many ways for something similar that he refused to not work on the Sabbath.
Of course I do not mean to suggest that man should in general work on the Sabbath and minimize the day. Or to suggest that Jesus did not take a theology of Sabbath seriously.
You see there is a need for a priority of things in life. The bible has many commands and many principles. There can be a certain friction at times if we refuse to think.
You see this is why the bible has a constant call to wisdom. It is not that there is anything wrong with the law of God in itself. You see it is the nature of living in a fallen world.
In professional work we always hear a call to prioritize. There are many important things but not all are of the same urgency. But you see we do not see this in much of Christian religion of the current time.
You see wisdom in a sense is a prioritizing of spiritual priorities. You see Jesus understood that the keeping of the Sabbath in a specifically ridged way was not always as important as love.
It is not ideal to work on the Sabbath but often it is right in a certain circumstance. You see we need to always think and allow for a faith which allows wisdom. So much theology is in a box today.
May we have eyes to see that wisdom is needed and a desire to understand the world in a way which requires us to use wisdom. You see we often simplify religion so much that we no longer need wisdom. And we have erred in doing so.
You see if we make a claim that someone has erred because they failed to do this or that sometimes it is simply helpful to look at scripture to see accuracy. You see of course that Jesus was criticized in many ways for something similar that he refused to not work on the Sabbath.
Of course I do not mean to suggest that man should in general work on the Sabbath and minimize the day. Or to suggest that Jesus did not take a theology of Sabbath seriously.
You see there is a need for a priority of things in life. The bible has many commands and many principles. There can be a certain friction at times if we refuse to think.
You see this is why the bible has a constant call to wisdom. It is not that there is anything wrong with the law of God in itself. You see it is the nature of living in a fallen world.
In professional work we always hear a call to prioritize. There are many important things but not all are of the same urgency. But you see we do not see this in much of Christian religion of the current time.
You see wisdom in a sense is a prioritizing of spiritual priorities. You see Jesus understood that the keeping of the Sabbath in a specifically ridged way was not always as important as love.
It is not ideal to work on the Sabbath but often it is right in a certain circumstance. You see we need to always think and allow for a faith which allows wisdom. So much theology is in a box today.
May we have eyes to see that wisdom is needed and a desire to understand the world in a way which requires us to use wisdom. You see we often simplify religion so much that we no longer need wisdom. And we have erred in doing so.
Monday, February 24, 2014
The Radical Nature of Christianity
The church at the current time has lost the radical nature of Christianity. I once spoke to a sincere person who said that he was almost completely sanctified.
I am sure this person’s faith is quite sincere but it is really a loss of the law of God. His will is we are perfect as he is perfect.
If we think we are nearly perfect we are in denial about the nature of man. Paul called himself the chief of sinners. You see modern theologians wish to be clever and turn this into Paul's pre-Christian self.
Let us give them that even though they are wrong. Now we must deal with the teachings of the bible which are very clear such as 1 John 1:8-10:
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."
Really it is folly to say we are without sin. You see the need to say we are without sin is also irrelevant. We should desire to live rightly but there is more grace in God than sin in us.
You see the grace of God is infinite and we need simply to rest in grace. Resting in grace enables following the law rather than hindering it.
I recently wrote a post on my older blog on a Christian's value before God: A Christians Value Before God
I am sure this person’s faith is quite sincere but it is really a loss of the law of God. His will is we are perfect as he is perfect.
If we think we are nearly perfect we are in denial about the nature of man. Paul called himself the chief of sinners. You see modern theologians wish to be clever and turn this into Paul's pre-Christian self.
Let us give them that even though they are wrong. Now we must deal with the teachings of the bible which are very clear such as 1 John 1:8-10:
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."
Really it is folly to say we are without sin. You see the need to say we are without sin is also irrelevant. We should desire to live rightly but there is more grace in God than sin in us.
You see the grace of God is infinite and we need simply to rest in grace. Resting in grace enables following the law rather than hindering it.
I recently wrote a post on my older blog on a Christian's value before God: A Christians Value Before God
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Can a white lie be Christian
Can a white lie be Christian? I suppose most of the church would immediately say no.
I've always thought the answer can be yes. Sometimes you are meeting with a Christian brother who is limited in what they understand and they ask a question and you know they will not understand the answer.
Not only will they not understand the answer but they will often act in a why which it is difficult to maintain the relationship with the brother in Christ. I suppose people often say well it is the strong person’s obligation the weaker brother.
I suppose this is true. Maybe the strong person should tell the weaker brother the truth to the question and let the weaker brother act terribly and then forgive and move on. Or maybe the stronger brother should simply out of love side step the question.
I suppose in an extreme case you see the law come into conflict as the baby Moses is in a straw basket on the Nile. You have love and truth come in to play. Is it right to lie to save a life.
I see that when multiple aspects of the law seem to come into conflict the solution is always love. You see love is the some of the law. With evil in the world contradiction seems to occur at times and sometimes the generally unethical is ethical.
Another case is David when he was fleeing for his life was given bread from the temple and ate it. The penalty for this act is typically death. I think the priest did right.
You see such ridge law following that comes at the cost of the love is not Christian at all. Really if the law causes evil we have not understood it. If we think it is not lawful to heal or save a life on the Sabbath as the Pharisees did then we have not understood the law.
Love is the fulfillment of the law, not fulfilling the law is the fulfillment of the law.
I've always thought the answer can be yes. Sometimes you are meeting with a Christian brother who is limited in what they understand and they ask a question and you know they will not understand the answer.
Not only will they not understand the answer but they will often act in a why which it is difficult to maintain the relationship with the brother in Christ. I suppose people often say well it is the strong person’s obligation the weaker brother.
I suppose this is true. Maybe the strong person should tell the weaker brother the truth to the question and let the weaker brother act terribly and then forgive and move on. Or maybe the stronger brother should simply out of love side step the question.
I suppose in an extreme case you see the law come into conflict as the baby Moses is in a straw basket on the Nile. You have love and truth come in to play. Is it right to lie to save a life.
I see that when multiple aspects of the law seem to come into conflict the solution is always love. You see love is the some of the law. With evil in the world contradiction seems to occur at times and sometimes the generally unethical is ethical.
Another case is David when he was fleeing for his life was given bread from the temple and ate it. The penalty for this act is typically death. I think the priest did right.
You see such ridge law following that comes at the cost of the love is not Christian at all. Really if the law causes evil we have not understood it. If we think it is not lawful to heal or save a life on the Sabbath as the Pharisees did then we have not understood the law.
Love is the fulfillment of the law, not fulfilling the law is the fulfillment of the law.
Saturday, January 18, 2014
Law following verse law fulfilling
A lot of scholars are hard on Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees. He is too hard on them they say. They cannot be that bad.
You see the biggest issue is that the law is spiritual and can only be fulfilled by the heart. The law is summed in:
"Love the Lord your God with all you heart mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself."
You see the many apparently external requirements of the law are in reality internal.
We find it often in questions of if we are are required to do this or that by God. Often we find ethical discussions have reluctance built into the discussion. Can we not act and be law following?
The whole issue is that we often ask the wrong question. We ask "what is permissible" and not "what is the will of God." We ask "is this forbidden" and not "is God glorified."
Jesus tries to make this explicit when he says the inside of the bowl needs to be cleaned not simply the outside.
You see a commandments of God always have an internal aspect in nature. There is often an external or action aspect but they law always goes to a heart issue.
You see this is why there are is so much dead faith in the world which Jesus warns of. We can do all the right things and say all the right things but true faith comes down to an internal heart state of where our love for God begins to overflow into the rest of live.
You see the biggest issue is that the law is spiritual and can only be fulfilled by the heart. The law is summed in:
"Love the Lord your God with all you heart mind soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself."
You see the many apparently external requirements of the law are in reality internal.
We find it often in questions of if we are are required to do this or that by God. Often we find ethical discussions have reluctance built into the discussion. Can we not act and be law following?
The whole issue is that we often ask the wrong question. We ask "what is permissible" and not "what is the will of God." We ask "is this forbidden" and not "is God glorified."
Jesus tries to make this explicit when he says the inside of the bowl needs to be cleaned not simply the outside.
You see a commandments of God always have an internal aspect in nature. There is often an external or action aspect but they law always goes to a heart issue.
You see this is why there are is so much dead faith in the world which Jesus warns of. We can do all the right things and say all the right things but true faith comes down to an internal heart state of where our love for God begins to overflow into the rest of live.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Legalism as Antinomianism
Antinomianism is a lawlessness which is found in which faith baptizes the Christian life and no need is found for living rightly. There is a certain truth to Antinomianism in that we are saved only by Christ's work alone and not works.
You see however that the faith that justifies is never alone. Jesus' followers will be "known by their fruit." There is a sort of cheapness to Antinomianism which suggests that one has never really met or loved God.
An interesting form of Antinomianism is Legalism. Legalism expects perfection in life and multiplies rules in great excess. It looks the exact opposite of Antinomianism but it is another form of it.
You see it works like this. Living rightly is based on the way God says not on the way man says.
God says a great many things to mankind and a great deal of rules and principles to his children. But you see the specifics are left blank. We are God's children and he wants us in faith to figure out the details for ourselves.
A great many earthly parents alienate their children by trying to figure out the details of their children’s lives for them. The should often be happy their children wish to live peaceably and do this or that meaningful thing but they instead are upset that their children has chosen "this occupation" or won’t do "that" which is a small thing.
You see our heavenly father is a good father and lets us work out the details. He has commanded us to show love to our brother but has given us liberty to figure out how we should show love to our brother in this world.
Legalism takes away human liberty and is thus opposed to the will of God. It spells out parts of the law in ways God never intended. It attempts to take away human freedom on how to show love or do well.
You see since legalism moves from the personal preference of live and impose itself on others it is sin and lawlessness because it imposes an order in the world that was never meant to be.
You see too creating and teaching many rules is just as sinful and rebellious against God and ignoring all the rules. Because right living is of course based on living as God intends.
Augustine once said "love God and do what you please." This is the spirit of the bible. Of course we need to truly seek to learn from the bible what love is.
Sometimes love is unexpected and what is not loving is also unexpected. We need the structure of love to come from God but the details are left to us. The details cannot come from the church or authority.
You see it is not bad for the church to suggest details of right living in areas which are not spelled out but to absolutize them is the sin. Because the children of God are free to work many not spelled out details out for themselves.
You see however that the faith that justifies is never alone. Jesus' followers will be "known by their fruit." There is a sort of cheapness to Antinomianism which suggests that one has never really met or loved God.
An interesting form of Antinomianism is Legalism. Legalism expects perfection in life and multiplies rules in great excess. It looks the exact opposite of Antinomianism but it is another form of it.
You see it works like this. Living rightly is based on the way God says not on the way man says.
God says a great many things to mankind and a great deal of rules and principles to his children. But you see the specifics are left blank. We are God's children and he wants us in faith to figure out the details for ourselves.
A great many earthly parents alienate their children by trying to figure out the details of their children’s lives for them. The should often be happy their children wish to live peaceably and do this or that meaningful thing but they instead are upset that their children has chosen "this occupation" or won’t do "that" which is a small thing.
You see our heavenly father is a good father and lets us work out the details. He has commanded us to show love to our brother but has given us liberty to figure out how we should show love to our brother in this world.
Legalism takes away human liberty and is thus opposed to the will of God. It spells out parts of the law in ways God never intended. It attempts to take away human freedom on how to show love or do well.
You see since legalism moves from the personal preference of live and impose itself on others it is sin and lawlessness because it imposes an order in the world that was never meant to be.
You see too creating and teaching many rules is just as sinful and rebellious against God and ignoring all the rules. Because right living is of course based on living as God intends.
Augustine once said "love God and do what you please." This is the spirit of the bible. Of course we need to truly seek to learn from the bible what love is.
Sometimes love is unexpected and what is not loving is also unexpected. We need the structure of love to come from God but the details are left to us. The details cannot come from the church or authority.
You see it is not bad for the church to suggest details of right living in areas which are not spelled out but to absolutize them is the sin. Because the children of God are free to work many not spelled out details out for themselves.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Law and Happiness
I've mentioned previously that the law serves to protect human happiness. I'd like to go into some specifics today about how the law actually serves to protect human happiness in some of the less popular parts of the law today.
I'd first like to deal with money. The idea that God desires mankind to support the ministry of the church through the giving of money is something which has been particular offensive to the modern mind today.
Giving is what drove me away from religion is a frequent comment of many former church goers. The reality is that studies show overall charitable giving has a highly positive influence on people. A link to an article which is typical of many studies is
A common objection is that givers to religion are giving to an institution with little benefit to the world when the could be giving to real needs like the poor.
I would object that the church adds little value to the world, but the reality is that church goes giving exceeds non church goers giving in almost all categories of giving outside the church with the exception of the field of giving to the arts and humanities.
I cannot say why people hate the principle of giving in the bible so much. I suppose again it is man hating that God may know better for man than man knows for himself.
Another topic is the principles of marriage in the the bible. I suppose this is beaten to death at times, but no one ever wishes to deal with the research which that suggest that sexual happiness decreases for people the more partners they have.
Always there is a brokenness which remains as people move from partner to partner.
A great thinker once said "the bible is right even when it appears to be wrong." I have found this to be the case.
I have often felt the bible must be wrong, necessarily so. And later discovered it is right.
Now I simply trust if I feel the bible is wrong I must be missing something. It is more likely I am wrong and I simply have to wait and learn how I am wrong.
I'd first like to deal with money. The idea that God desires mankind to support the ministry of the church through the giving of money is something which has been particular offensive to the modern mind today.
Giving is what drove me away from religion is a frequent comment of many former church goers. The reality is that studies show overall charitable giving has a highly positive influence on people. A link to an article which is typical of many studies is
A common objection is that givers to religion are giving to an institution with little benefit to the world when the could be giving to real needs like the poor.
I would object that the church adds little value to the world, but the reality is that church goes giving exceeds non church goers giving in almost all categories of giving outside the church with the exception of the field of giving to the arts and humanities.
I cannot say why people hate the principle of giving in the bible so much. I suppose again it is man hating that God may know better for man than man knows for himself.
Another topic is the principles of marriage in the the bible. I suppose this is beaten to death at times, but no one ever wishes to deal with the research which that suggest that sexual happiness decreases for people the more partners they have.
Always there is a brokenness which remains as people move from partner to partner.
A great thinker once said "the bible is right even when it appears to be wrong." I have found this to be the case.
I have often felt the bible must be wrong, necessarily so. And later discovered it is right.
Now I simply trust if I feel the bible is wrong I must be missing something. It is more likely I am wrong and I simply have to wait and learn how I am wrong.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Moving past Systematic Theology
Systematic Theology attempts to unify scripture into a system of beliefs. A major issue is that at the core of Christianity is paradox.
Paradox is not contradiction. Paradox is difficult to understand and has a tension within but it can be seen to be potentially true.
The heart of the problem with systematic theology is the nature of God one of the studies of theology eclipses the grasp of the human mind to grasp.
Certain well known paradoxes such as the trinity and nature of Jesus as fully God and fully man are handled well in systematic theology.
Usually systematic theology tends to miss many central paradoxes of Christianity such as the freedom of man and sovereignty of God.
Typically this is a major divide in systematic and shifts theologians into a category. It is as if it could not be another paradox of scripture that man is free and God is sovereign.
The reality is that often Christianity exists in the both/and state and not the either/or. We pit the bible law against human happiness when the law is for human happiness.
Always the bible says something which is difficult to understand. Here a set of commandments and these commandments are in place to protect your happiness.
The nature of man always buckles against God. It cannot be as it is said.
The law clearly is a kill joy, but alas in the stream of broken marriages and heartbreak the comes from lawlessness if we are truthful we will find much of the bibles teaching in fact aims to protect happiness.
I suppose the bible is always terribly offensive like this. It tells us we do not know how to conduct our lives and suggests that it knows better than we do.
It is offensive to man that he does not know how to live in this world and how to be happy. I suppose we could dismiss the bible outright if it does not in fact appear that mankind has no sense of how to live well or to exist happily.
Men are often happy and yet throw it all way frequently at the drop of a hat. It is often that men meet their great demise in the midst of going against the suggested order for human happiness.
The bible always claims that it is on man’s side. God has seen the state of man and wishes to make peace with him and invite him into everlasting happiness.
God sits and looks and man and cries and wishes to reach out his hand to help and invite man into everlasting happiness.
Again it is always so offensive to ourselves. God meets us and suggest that we are not happy or not as happy as we should be and we are lost and need something.
Man always feels he is not in need and could not be in need. This is the heart of the problem. The first sin of man.
We do not need God and we suspect he is withholding something from us which is good. But always it is our search from good apart from God which is the issue. It is happiness found in God which is what is good.
Paradox is not contradiction. Paradox is difficult to understand and has a tension within but it can be seen to be potentially true.
The heart of the problem with systematic theology is the nature of God one of the studies of theology eclipses the grasp of the human mind to grasp.
Certain well known paradoxes such as the trinity and nature of Jesus as fully God and fully man are handled well in systematic theology.
Usually systematic theology tends to miss many central paradoxes of Christianity such as the freedom of man and sovereignty of God.
Typically this is a major divide in systematic and shifts theologians into a category. It is as if it could not be another paradox of scripture that man is free and God is sovereign.
The reality is that often Christianity exists in the both/and state and not the either/or. We pit the bible law against human happiness when the law is for human happiness.
Always the bible says something which is difficult to understand. Here a set of commandments and these commandments are in place to protect your happiness.
The nature of man always buckles against God. It cannot be as it is said.
The law clearly is a kill joy, but alas in the stream of broken marriages and heartbreak the comes from lawlessness if we are truthful we will find much of the bibles teaching in fact aims to protect happiness.
I suppose the bible is always terribly offensive like this. It tells us we do not know how to conduct our lives and suggests that it knows better than we do.
It is offensive to man that he does not know how to live in this world and how to be happy. I suppose we could dismiss the bible outright if it does not in fact appear that mankind has no sense of how to live well or to exist happily.
Men are often happy and yet throw it all way frequently at the drop of a hat. It is often that men meet their great demise in the midst of going against the suggested order for human happiness.
The bible always claims that it is on man’s side. God has seen the state of man and wishes to make peace with him and invite him into everlasting happiness.
God sits and looks and man and cries and wishes to reach out his hand to help and invite man into everlasting happiness.
Again it is always so offensive to ourselves. God meets us and suggest that we are not happy or not as happy as we should be and we are lost and need something.
Man always feels he is not in need and could not be in need. This is the heart of the problem. The first sin of man.
We do not need God and we suspect he is withholding something from us which is good. But always it is our search from good apart from God which is the issue. It is happiness found in God which is what is good.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Law and Grace in Cycle
Law and Grace form a cycle in the bible. Law drives us to Grace. We know we need grace because of law.
Grace teaches us to love and follow law. We cannot separate the two.
Law without grace is legalism. In fact law increases sin. It is only grace which gives the power to keep the law.
The bible mainly bases law on grace although sometimes the direction is law which drives us to grace.
The power to follow the law is grace. The law has no ability apart from grace.
We must first trust in Christ’s righteousness and then only then try to follow the works the bible has for us to do.
Grace teaches us to love and follow law. We cannot separate the two.
Law without grace is legalism. In fact law increases sin. It is only grace which gives the power to keep the law.
The bible mainly bases law on grace although sometimes the direction is law which drives us to grace.
The power to follow the law is grace. The law has no ability apart from grace.
We must first trust in Christ’s righteousness and then only then try to follow the works the bible has for us to do.
Friday, September 20, 2013
A faithful Church
A faithful church is to a degree always a critic of society. The church often confuses this with becoming a political force.
The difference is that the church is to be a critique of the way society is. A critic of what is wrong with society.
The bible deals with the problems of the heart so if offers solutions for what is wrong with the heart of humanity. Thus the church can potentially improve society by showing where society has fallen short.
The church however does not function nearly as well as a critic of politics. Often the church has fallen sort because it feels that legislation can change morality.
Possibly legislation can improve society at times, but he issue with humanity is not that there are not enough rules. In fact man lived sinlessly when he had only 1 rule – to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Actually mankind is at his best when he lives with only one thought. To follow Christ.
Augustine said that we should love God and do what we please. The reality of this is true if we do act out of love toward God we need only one rule or one thought to govern our entire existence.
All the time we see many rules get in the way of moral living. We cannot make an exception the to rules at any time. We cannot have wisdom to realize when the rules are not applicable.
In life it is important to follow God. When Satan tempted Jesus he attempted to place multiple rules in scripture against each other.
The error of course is that many rules function at time more like guideposts to direct faithful living rather than absolutes.
Some rules are more absolute than others, but most of the law in scripture has exceptions.
David when he was on the run ate of food of the temple which was forbidden and the punishment was death. He did what was right and we can see that the law was always a principle and never an absolute.
The principle was of the upmost importance but the reality is the will of God cannot be made into a absolute set of rules.
I used to be frustrated how vague the law of God was at times. But the reality is that life creates many unique situations.
A too tight set of rules produces extreme difficulties. This is why scripture has far more principles than rules.
Few people see this. Scripture is all rules, but the reality is most of the rules are more principles which are pointing directionally than absolutes.
The difference is that the church is to be a critique of the way society is. A critic of what is wrong with society.
The bible deals with the problems of the heart so if offers solutions for what is wrong with the heart of humanity. Thus the church can potentially improve society by showing where society has fallen short.
The church however does not function nearly as well as a critic of politics. Often the church has fallen sort because it feels that legislation can change morality.
Possibly legislation can improve society at times, but he issue with humanity is not that there are not enough rules. In fact man lived sinlessly when he had only 1 rule – to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Actually mankind is at his best when he lives with only one thought. To follow Christ.
Augustine said that we should love God and do what we please. The reality of this is true if we do act out of love toward God we need only one rule or one thought to govern our entire existence.
All the time we see many rules get in the way of moral living. We cannot make an exception the to rules at any time. We cannot have wisdom to realize when the rules are not applicable.
In life it is important to follow God. When Satan tempted Jesus he attempted to place multiple rules in scripture against each other.
The error of course is that many rules function at time more like guideposts to direct faithful living rather than absolutes.
Some rules are more absolute than others, but most of the law in scripture has exceptions.
David when he was on the run ate of food of the temple which was forbidden and the punishment was death. He did what was right and we can see that the law was always a principle and never an absolute.
The principle was of the upmost importance but the reality is the will of God cannot be made into a absolute set of rules.
I used to be frustrated how vague the law of God was at times. But the reality is that life creates many unique situations.
A too tight set of rules produces extreme difficulties. This is why scripture has far more principles than rules.
Few people see this. Scripture is all rules, but the reality is most of the rules are more principles which are pointing directionally than absolutes.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Tough Times
When we go through difficult times in life it is often most difficult because we realize how few people are our friends. Some people we believed to be friends simply do not care about us.
Some friends we soon realize cannot remember a single thing about us. We would not have noticed or cared much had we not realized that they could not remember our pain.
Some friends prove to be sincere but are painful themselves because they cannot figure out how to relate to us in our state.
When we pass through the difficult time we sit and look at our friends. There are those who are true gold, those who have proved to be completely worthless and those that we are unsure of.
The interesting thing is that God wishes to actively be our friend when we are his enemy. Often those who are friends often do not care about use even when we do them God.
God is different he seeks us out even when we do him harm. Some people say that God cannot forgive them for their sins.
God forgave Nineveh, Paul, The prostitute, ect… The only condition is faith which is accompanied with repentance.
That is the issue in the end. We like the idea of grace but not repentance. This is the basis for the liberal God which has no relation the Christian God.
But religion on our own terms is not as nice as it seems. Because the law always serves our joy.
Of course God who is supremely happy created the law and man knew now misery before he disobeyed the law.
I suppose it is a great lie of this age that God does not wish for us to be happy. The bible states clearly that God wishes man to be happy, but God wishes to also set man straight on what true happiness is.
Some friends we soon realize cannot remember a single thing about us. We would not have noticed or cared much had we not realized that they could not remember our pain.
Some friends prove to be sincere but are painful themselves because they cannot figure out how to relate to us in our state.
When we pass through the difficult time we sit and look at our friends. There are those who are true gold, those who have proved to be completely worthless and those that we are unsure of.
The interesting thing is that God wishes to actively be our friend when we are his enemy. Often those who are friends often do not care about use even when we do them God.
God is different he seeks us out even when we do him harm. Some people say that God cannot forgive them for their sins.
God forgave Nineveh, Paul, The prostitute, ect… The only condition is faith which is accompanied with repentance.
That is the issue in the end. We like the idea of grace but not repentance. This is the basis for the liberal God which has no relation the Christian God.
But religion on our own terms is not as nice as it seems. Because the law always serves our joy.
Of course God who is supremely happy created the law and man knew now misery before he disobeyed the law.
I suppose it is a great lie of this age that God does not wish for us to be happy. The bible states clearly that God wishes man to be happy, but God wishes to also set man straight on what true happiness is.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Good Biblical Hermeneutics
I always view that good biblical hermeneutics need to be very simple. Scripture has many complex things to say but most of the teachings of the bible are very simple.
Often it is easy to become to cleaver when we read the bible. It is easy to second guess God's wisdom.
Can that text really mean that? Was that simply a cultural context and not really the teaching of scripture? Many questions of this nature hide an element of unbelief.
We do not want to trust that God knows better than we do. It is often easy to not like the will of God. It seems our path seems more pleasant at times than God's path.
The reality is that God's plan is to make us happy in himself. The law serves to protect human happiness not attack it.
A sophisticated hermeneutical approach is often intended to explain why the bible says things which offend our culture. The reality is we do not need to make the bible suitable to our culture rather we need to make our culture learn to understand why the bible says what it does and why the bibles teaching is loving.
Often it is easy to become to cleaver when we read the bible. It is easy to second guess God's wisdom.
Can that text really mean that? Was that simply a cultural context and not really the teaching of scripture? Many questions of this nature hide an element of unbelief.
We do not want to trust that God knows better than we do. It is often easy to not like the will of God. It seems our path seems more pleasant at times than God's path.
The reality is that God's plan is to make us happy in himself. The law serves to protect human happiness not attack it.
A sophisticated hermeneutical approach is often intended to explain why the bible says things which offend our culture. The reality is we do not need to make the bible suitable to our culture rather we need to make our culture learn to understand why the bible says what it does and why the bibles teaching is loving.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Easy Morality vs. True Morality
I once spoke with a Christian who was studying to enter the pastorate who told me that he was "almost completely sanctified." I have great respect for the person, however, it is a great theological error.
The reality is that the law has often been drummed down to it's simplest form. The teachings of Jesus often cease to be hard and instead seem impossibly easy.
One will be told that texts which seem to be incredibly difficult to live up to in fact mean something completely different and in fact very easy to live by.
The funny reality of life is we often see exactly what we wish to see. The bible is full of difficult teaching from cover to cover. But humanity finds ways to interpret the difficulty in such a way that the teaching becomes very easy.
The reality of this is the fear of what will happen if we realize the degree of our sin. Of course the whole point of the bible is to teach us the degree of our sin!
The point is that grace which is infinite and free and knows know bounds is offered by accepting the live and sacrifice of Jesus. The law is impossibly difficult because our status before God was never meant to depend on our keeping of the law.
We should wish to keep the law, but it is not what saves us. It is the work and death of Jesus which saves. The law suggest who we should try to become.
Of course we cannot become in this life what the law suggests because it is too hard. This is good news, because if it was not too hard to achieve we might try to fulfill the law ourselves and not trust Jesus which would be a great error.
The reality is that the law has often been drummed down to it's simplest form. The teachings of Jesus often cease to be hard and instead seem impossibly easy.
One will be told that texts which seem to be incredibly difficult to live up to in fact mean something completely different and in fact very easy to live by.
The funny reality of life is we often see exactly what we wish to see. The bible is full of difficult teaching from cover to cover. But humanity finds ways to interpret the difficulty in such a way that the teaching becomes very easy.
The reality of this is the fear of what will happen if we realize the degree of our sin. Of course the whole point of the bible is to teach us the degree of our sin!
The point is that grace which is infinite and free and knows know bounds is offered by accepting the live and sacrifice of Jesus. The law is impossibly difficult because our status before God was never meant to depend on our keeping of the law.
We should wish to keep the law, but it is not what saves us. It is the work and death of Jesus which saves. The law suggest who we should try to become.
Of course we cannot become in this life what the law suggests because it is too hard. This is good news, because if it was not too hard to achieve we might try to fulfill the law ourselves and not trust Jesus which would be a great error.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Joy In Life Tied to Other's Joy
A lot of times I have found that my joy in life is tied to the joy of others. There is a great satisfaction that you find from helping others.
It is interesting that many people find volunteering and working with animals who have no homes to be an uplifting experience. I believe that this is part of the process of Joy that God intended for the world.
Joy is and never was something that was meant to be found in isolation. Joy is often found through service to others.
It is interesting that the law of God on the surface seems like a bunch of joyless commands. In reality when you dig into the law you begin to find that through grace the law actually protects and promotes our joy.
Sin is a force which destroys joy. It offers short term pleasures and long term darkness. Joy was really meant to always be found through living a godly life.
Acts of service and helping others are really part of God's plan for the world. God's plan is superior to our plan for the world and often surprisingly to the human mind God's plan is more full of happiness then the plans of the world.
It is interesting that many people find volunteering and working with animals who have no homes to be an uplifting experience. I believe that this is part of the process of Joy that God intended for the world.
Joy is and never was something that was meant to be found in isolation. Joy is often found through service to others.
It is interesting that the law of God on the surface seems like a bunch of joyless commands. In reality when you dig into the law you begin to find that through grace the law actually protects and promotes our joy.
Sin is a force which destroys joy. It offers short term pleasures and long term darkness. Joy was really meant to always be found through living a godly life.
Acts of service and helping others are really part of God's plan for the world. God's plan is superior to our plan for the world and often surprisingly to the human mind God's plan is more full of happiness then the plans of the world.
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Law as Joy
The law of God is perfect. Following God's law maximizes our joy not minimizes it.
Sin has a way of diminishing our happiness. A life of sin increases difficulty in life.
Sin has a way of diminishing our happiness. A life of sin increases difficulty in life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)