Random Theological Thought Patterns

During my recent mental excursions I was pondering Genesis 2:15-3:22, specifically the first and last verses, and how to relate this theological account to a contemporary (careful not to confuse that adjective with the less specific 'modern') audience. My circuitous route took me from Genesis to the Gospel of John and its strongly characterized relationship in chapter 1 with Genesis 1. The punishment for Adam and Eve's failure to adhere to the gardener's instruction was to be removed from the presence of a single tree.

The tree under consideration is called the "tree of life" whereby the fruit when consumed gives life. It then became clear to me that Jesus, as presented in the Gospel of John, provides life, appearing a mere 36 times in 32 different verses. Of greater consideration is that it appears 32 times in the first 12 chapters.

The result of Genesis 2 is denial of access to the tree of life, the result of Jesus' coming is access to life, not in the form of a tree, but in the form of Jesus. The reason for the removal of Adam and Eve from the garden was to prevent them from "eating" the fruit that gives life and living forever, the invitation of John 6:41 is to eat and live forever.

I find it irrational that a contemporary reader of John's Gospel can seek to find meaning, true meaning, fulfilling meaning, in the Gospel without also becoming aware of the Old Testament messages. The two walk hand in hand.

Interpretation

What goes into the process of interpretation? Today as I got out of the car I almost uttered the words "Thanks for waiting for me!" Fortunately I did not. As some of you might know, those words by themselves do not indicate whether my companions waited for me or not. They could easily indicate that they had already headed for the store and the bargains waiting inside. They could just as easily express my genuine satisfaction at seeing them waiting for me to get out of the car to walk inside together. Interpretation is not merely a series of words, but a series of words within a greater context of words.

What does this have to do with the Bible? Well as I begin to prepare for a message on January 3, 2010 I am convinced that the context is incredibly important. What is the passage? It is the Haustafeln or Household Code found in Ephesians 5.22-6:9. Historically it has been looked at as a unit that is derived from other ancient instructions on how a household should run, specifically in this case a Christian household. So what is the problem?

The problem is that the section seems out of place. It follows a segment that discusses "evil days", "drunkenness", "foolishness", and singing songs of thankfulness. Either "Paul" is able to spin his audience's heads on a dime or there is some connection. But how often is this passage, especially "wives to your own men" interpreted outside of a context, usually modern, that limits its understanding to behavior within a household???

As I have been studying Paul in other writings, I am more impressed with the rhetorical method used than the actual words. It is common to find a general statement (sometimes called a principle) followed by specific statements (referred to as applications). I find it more helpful to think of it in terms of a point and an example or series of examples. If this is the case, then the passage becomes exceedingly clear.

Ephesians 5.21 states "Submit yourselves to each other in the fear of Christ." While the verb "submit" is technically a participle (a verbal noun) and not an imperative (verbal command) it is generally translated as a command. The problem follows because 5.22 quoted above as "wives to your own men" doesn't possess a verb.

What if Paul is using the household code as the example for how to actually submit to one another? It would be simple to explain to the members of society accustomed to submission: wives, children, slaves. But how would one explain this Christian (in the fear of Christ) submission to those accustomed to lording it over others: husband, father, master?

What if Paul's language of love is actually the example of how a husband submits to a wife? What if it is in dying that submission is actually seen? Is it really possible that a Christian husband, father, master could actually demonstrate his life in Christ by imitating Christ? Is Christ's death submission to the will of God? Is our male death submission to the will of God?

Would an appropriate interpretation of this passage within the context of Ephesians matter to the world in which we live today? It gives one room to ponder.

Minor Prophets and Life: Do they matter? pt. 2

Six down and six to go! we have discussed four prophets associated with the 8th century BC and two with the 7th, all the while wondering, "Does context matter?" Do Nahum and Habakkuk have anything new to add to what the 8th century prophets already proclaimed? Where is the focus on harlotry, the chasing after other gods? Where is the doom, the gloom, and the denial of hope for those who for 200 years have avoided the real question, "Why should I care about a deity who delivered my ancestors?"

It is interesting in reading the 7th century prophets to see how the context changes the approach. No longer does the "other kingdom" dominate the discussion, no longer is there an ability to place comparative blame on someone else, no longer can the responsibility of life be easily excused. Now the finger points directly at the one kingdom who has something visible to associate with covenant, a city on a hill with a once magnificent building.

Yet, rather than point the finger and proclaiming doom and gloom, Habakkuk says, in essence, God show us who you really are. Demonstrate your reality in the midst of our trials. Be true to your identity and change how we view the world around us.

Is there anything to learn from the Minor Prophets?

Minor Prophets and Life: Do they matter?

I really enjoy teaching the class on the Minor Prophets. I REALLY enjoy teaching the class on the Minor Prophets. Do you get it?? The Minor Prophets, so far Hosea, Amos, and Micah, are extremely relevant to the world we live in. If the Church read them and took their message to heart she would either be a) really ticked off or b) ready to repent and take God seriously. Take Micah for example. in 6.6 the prophet says "With what shall I come to the LORD And bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, With yearling calves?" The prophets continually challenge the ancient Judahites and Israelites who thought that proper religious activity was sufficient to please their God. But God is more concerned with how they are treating others.

What would the world be like if the Church took option b?

How's YOUR eyesight?

Thanks for asking! Mine is a bit confused. I have had the pleasure of sitting under the eye drop giving hands on nurses, nurse anesthetists, and MD's who shine bright lights in my eye and remove the lens that permits the light to refract and bounce upon my retina. One eye sees very well and the other is not quite as advertised, (yet). So what does this have to say about the Bible?

I'm glad you asked! Having worn glasses since 2nd grade (spring of 1968 for those asking) I would often compare the transformation that God makes in us as "corrective lenses" because that was the only kind of vision illustration I could muster. But I was soooo very wrooong!

My nearsightedness (myopia) permitted me to examine things up close without any correction lenses so that I could read pill bottles, food ingredients, calorie counts and the like even without my glasses--no I never wore contact lenses because I also had severe astigmatism. However, I could not look at my wife across the table (actually a foot away!) and see her clearly without my glasses. I would think about God's changes in my life as "corrective" enabling me to see clearly what I previously could not.

But having the recent cataract removals and lens implants in my eyes has changed my opinion. Now I am farsighted (hyperopic) and my entire life has changed. I can no longer bring a newspaper closer to my face to read the small print on the comic page. I can no longer expect that a drawing near will result in a seeing clear. My eyesight has been turned upside down!

The positive advantage is that I can now look at my wife across the table and see her beauty clearly without glasses. I can work around the house or yard and not have the perspiration of my brow drip down over the corrective lenses and create blurred vision. My perspective on the world is entirely different.

So the Bible works not as a corrective to how we see the world--I'm certain there is a theological term for this kind of thought--but to completely alter our way of seeing in an entirely unimaginable way. I could never have mentally comprehended what it was like to see objects clearly at great distances prior to my surgery. Not only does the Bible alter our way of seeing it also changes our way of acting. I could never imagine that I could not read the comics by putting my face closer to them.

The challenge comes now in changing my actions that help me see. The challenge of the Bible comes in changing my actions that help me believe!

More on "I-sight" next time.

Realizing Limitations

What should one do when one comes to a point where one recognizes one's human limitations? That is a profound question! Since we recognize ourselves as human, mortal, finite beings, there is a point (or many points) when we come to realize our limitations. The question then becomes, "What now?"

I came to a moment this week where I recognized my limitations. As a result of having cataract surgery on my left eye, resulting in limited activities, limited eyesight, and limited clarity, I turned to an old project that had been sitting so far back on the back burner that it was almost icy cold: Podcasting.

I have used Podcasting over the past several years as an opportunity to put some resources on the World Wide Web, although usually with a much more limited audience, that would assist my students in their learning ventures. I also began podcasting a series of 10 minute devotional style talks on Ephesians. I had initially completed podcasts on the first three chapters of Ephesians, which every student of my NT Survey class realizes is the end of the "body" of the letter. So it was now time to discuss the Paranesis, the ethical teaching section. Chapter Four was quite simple to address and the first two sections are easily recognized as 1-16 and 17-24, discussing Church Unity and New Humanity. I was progressing through 4.25-5.2 when I ran out of time at 4.32. With a new podcast arranged in GarageBand I began to look at completing the third section. But, it didn't make sense!

Had I been incorrect when I first outlined the passage 40 months hence? Could I have made a mistake???!!! Well, yes. I came to recognize my own limitations. So, the question is "What now?" How do I approach Ephesians with this new enlightenment? How do I reshape my understanding of Paul's method to assist my own exegesis and interpretation? Is it possible to view his Paranesis section in varying ways?

The answer is "of course." There are nearly as many ways to understand the outline of Ephesians as there are commentators who have written on it. In fact, I am still struggling with conflicting accounts for the famous 5.22-6.9 section. So what do I do when faced with human mortality and finiteness?

I go on! I go on trusting God to grant me wisdom, I go on trusting God to give me insight, I go on trusting God to reveal himself through the Sacred Scriptures. I go on trusting God to provide me with meaningful ways to communicate truth.

Isn't that what our life is about after all? Aren't we to trust God?