OT Background to the Narrow Road

I was preaching on Sunday on the narrow road bit of the sermon on the mount, Matt 7:13-14,

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

There is more here than meets the first glance. Long before Jesus' time choosing the right road/path was a well worn scriptural metaphor, e.g. Psalm 23:3, 86:11, Prov 2:20, to name but a few.   Now I think this whole section of the sermon, 7:13-27 echoes strongly Deuteronomy 30:11-20 where Moses puts "the decision" before Israel, but there are a further two passages from the prophets which I think should be seen a background to Jesus' words and applied when understanding the extent of Jesus' claims about his teaching and himself.

Theological Method 101: Analogy is a One Way Street

1. Theological language must use analogy.  We can only comprehend the unknown in terms of the known. 

2. Theological analogy only works in one direction.  If I should say "God is my rock" (2 Sam 22:3), I am suggesting that certain characteristics of a rock (perhaps dependability, solidity, immovability, etc) correspond with similar characteristics of God.  I can look at a large rock, a known object, and get some sense of what God is in some ways like.

3. There are no rules as to which characteristics of the rock I should attribute to God, although sometimes a particular text will give us some guidance, e.g. in 2 Sam 22:3 it is as a place of refuge that God is like a rock.  However, by using other anologies I will notice areas of overlap and difference which will help me, usually intuitively, to understand what characteristics the analogy is intended to convey.  For example, if God is my rock but also my shepherd (Psalm 23) or a mother bird (Deut 32:11), I know that the cold uncaring nature of rocks is not to be attributed to God because other biblical analogies would contradict this.

4. In no way can I then suggest that I can discern information about rocks by looking at God, just because "God is my rock."  I cannot look directly at God, hence the need to use analogy to describe what God is like.  But even if I could the analogy is only intended to work in one direction, it is not made to inform me about rocks but about God, the assumption of the analogy is that rocks are known and God is not. Just because "God is my rock" it does not mean a rock is divine or merciful. 

5. This may all seem very obvious but you would be surprised how often peope who should know better try to drive the analogy train down the street the wrong way.  This post will provide a handy link next time I need to point such misdemeanors out.

Let me know what you think. :-)

Pentateuch = Galatians?? So says Sailhamer,

Sailhamer's massive book has received glowing endorsments from John Piper.  I will be slowly working my way through it.  It is far too long, and even the introduction is heavy going, but there are some fascinating ideas here.  Sailhamer makes the assertion that "The law given at Sinai neither had the same purpose nor carried the same message as the faith taught by the Pentateuch." (p13)  Instead the argument of the Pentateuch is a contrasting of two covenants, "Mosaic and Abrahamic, or law and gospel." (p14)  The meaning of the Pentateuch is thus not found in the laws within, which represent the broken covenant, but in the way that it "looks beyond the law to God's grace" and "to teach its readers about faith and hope in the new covenant (Deut 30:6)." (p26)  Thus, "the Pentateuch's view of the law is simailar to that of Paul in the book of Galatians." (p28)

It will be interesting to see what he does when he finally comes to dealing with the law and its meaning for us (Christians).  But my initial concern, although I do think he is on to something, is how Pauline, even admittedly Pauline, this approach is.  He is also arguing for a messianic consciousness to the Pentateuch which so far I'm not overwhelmed by, but that will have to wait for another post anyway.  So I hope he doesn't just show how compatible his reading of the Pentateuch is with Paul but also goes beyond that to show how it points to Jesus Christ, with more than just some strained references to a possibly messianic figure.

For those of you interested in redaction critical matters, Sailhamer considers the Pentateuch to be a 2nd edition work, with Moses being responsible for the first edition, but the final edition being produced late in the piece, after the prophetic canon was completed.  The Pentateuch is thus chronologically both the first and last book of the OT!   Annoying he refers to the Pentateuch as book, singular, when surely it is only book as Torah, but as Pentateuch (i.e. five books) should be books, plural, right?  Otherwise, this is shaping up to be an interesting read for anyone who think it would be fun to read 600 ages of thoughtful evangelical interpretation of the first five books of the Bible.

What say you? :-)

Deut 23:18, Rentboy or Dog?, Abuse of Nature or Insult to God?

[Warning: what follows is a little esoteric, but maybe useful as NT background?]

I know many of you have been staying up at night reading Deut 23:18 (v.19 LXX) and the footnote in your NRSV, NIV, or NLT, and wondering whether it is the wages of a dog or a male prostitute which you are disallowed from bringing into the house of God.  Well while I cannot answer for Moses, a slightly less ancient Jew gives an unequivocal interpretation:

Josephus, Antiquities, 4.8.9/§206: 

You are not to offer sacrifices out of the hire of a woman who is a harlot, for the Deity is not pleased with anything that arises from such abuses of nature; of which sort none can be worse than this prostitution of the body. In like manner no one may take the price of the covering of a bitch, either of one that is used in hunting, or in keeping of sheep, and thence sacrifice to God. (Trans. Whiston)

Ἐκ μισθοῦ γυναικὸς ἡταιρημένης θυσίας μὴ τελεῖν• ἥδεσθαι γὰρ μηδενὶ τῶν ἀφ’ ὕβρεως τὸ θεῖον, χείρων δ’ οὐκ ἂν εἴη τῆς ἐπὶ τοῖς σώμασιν αἰσχύνης• ὁμοίως μηδ’ ἂν ἐπ’ ὀχεύσει κυνὸς ἤτοι θηρευτικοῦ ἢ ποιμνίων φύλακος λάβῃ τις μισθόν, ἐκ τούτου θύειν τῷ θεῷ.

Pic of Canaan Dog from here

The wages of a prostitute are compared to the price given for the servicing of a bitch, and both are deemed unsuitable for offering sacrifices to God.  The profits from selling sexual intercourse, whether human or canine, are tainted with the shame of that intercourse.

Whiston’s translation does, however, mislead a little.  His translation, “abuses of nature,” suggests that Josephus is referring here to the idea of things being according to or against nature (φύσις), a common enough way of arguing (cf. Rom 1:26; 1 Cor 11:14; Atemidorus, Oneirocritica, 1.78, 60; etc).  The text, ἥδεσθαι γὰρ μηδενὶ τῶν ἀφ’ ὕβρεως τὸ θεῖον, might be bettered rendered “for the Deity is not pleased with anything that arises from such an insult [to the Deity].”  The idea is not that nature (φύσις) is being contravened but that God is insulted by anything bought with income from such a source.  This insult stems from the fact that prostitution involves the shaming of the body (τοῖς σώμασιν αἰσχύνης).  Apart from the significant (to my study) use of σῶμα in this context, it is interesting that Josephus does not condemn the owning or use of prostitutes or dogs, only the use of profits from their sexual activities for sacrifices.  The uncleanness of the sex act somehow attaches itself to the money made through it.  In the case of the dogs, the shame does not spread to the sheep they keep or the game they catch.  In the same way, Josephus gives no indication that the shame of prostitution affects those who own or use prostitutes.

#300! A best of blog . . .

This is my 300th post on Xenos. Too celebrate this milestone I have collected one of the better posts from each lot of 50.  It's interesting to see how the blog has changed over time.  It started of when I thought I knew a lot, having just finished my undergrad studies.  Now I know a lot less, coming to the end of my research degree. :-) Thanks to everyone who has contributed, interacted, and read it.  As I come to the end of my MTh degree it will be interesting to see how the blog develops, whether it gets more attention (due to no looming deadlines) or less (due to no dealines causing procrastination reflex).  Eitherway, I'm looking forward to the next 300 and hope you'll join me on the journey.  :-)

A reflection on 1 Samuel from Dec 2008 
I used to do more of these kind of devotional readings of the OT.  Will have to get back into the habit.
As sermon about the ethiopian eunuch from March 2009
This sermon works best delivered whilst holding two rocks suitable for crushing testicles and grinding them together whenever you talk about the eunuch's experience (but not on any actual testicles).
A critique of Charles Stanley's preaching from June 2009
This was a cheap shot, an easy target, but gets heaps of hits, and got me called "a muslim."  Whoever wrote that was probably misguided enought to think it was an insult.  I would like to do some more critiques of TV preachers, but really life is too short to sit through that drivel. Maybe one day...
A reflection on why bad music is good from Sept 2009
One of the regretably few anecdotes I have about my missionary/pastor grandfather inspired these thoughts about music.
Some biblical contradictions explored in Nov 2009
This was the first post linked to by one of the mega-blogs, whch saw a massive spike in hits to the blog . . . for that post only.  Then I learned, getting people to come to your blog once was no guarantee that they would return.
A first stab at a theology of scripture in Dec 2009
A subject dear to my heart and something I still feel contemporary Christians are all at sea about.  This post is hardly a life boat, but it is perhaps a first lesson in doggy paddle?
An coversation about vengeance and the gospel in March 2010
Sometimes my dander just gets up and I have to stick my oar in.  This was one of those times.It doesn't mean I think i'm right, it just means i'm agitated.

Enjoy, and let me know what you think!

Perseverance and Apostasy in 1 Cor 10

We may notice in this context that Paul’s language moves from ’all’ (10.1-4) and ’some’ (10.5-10) to third person singulars in 10.12. . . [I]t is precisely the individual who is in danger of falling away. Israel as an elect people (’all’) were not destroyed, only ’some’. As such, Paul affirms the election and final perseverance of the people of God as a collective whole similar to the wilderness and prophetic traditions that maintain that God preserves a remnant of God’s people (e.g., Num. 14.23-24, 29-32; Deut. 4.25-31; Isa. 1.9). If Paul’s theology on this issue is consistent throughout his letters, then it is plausible to suggest that individual Christians could take comfort in final perseverance only as they remain identified as members of God’s elect community. If such is the case, then there is really no contradiction between final perseverance and genuine apostasy. The tension is between individuals and the collective community. Regarding final perseverance, Paul may not believe that everything that is true of the whole community (or body of Christ) is necessarily true of every genuine member of that community-genuine members could fall away. 

B.J. Oropeza 

"Apostasy in the Wilderness: 

Paul's Message To the Corinthians in a State of Eschatological Liminality" 

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2000; 22; 69-86

Contradictions in the Bible

I find it very amusing when people think they have somehow achieved something when they find contradictions in the narratives of the Bible. E.g. that somehow the fact that the gospel writers cannot agree on the number of angels present at the resurrection tomb somehow proves it couldn't have happened. Almost as (tragically) amusing as the literalistic Christians who try and create "harmonized" versions to "reconcile" the different narratives. Well, I am sure God appreciates your efforts to correct his mistakes! But that is not what I am posting about here.

The real contradictions in the Bible are the source of its most beautiful theology. When you contradict something your speak (dict) against (contra) it. In Deuteronomy 10:14-19 we have two wonderful examples of Biblical contradictions that result in meaningful practical theology.

14. To the Lord you God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.

So here we have a clear statement that God is in sole possession of the whole universe both seen and unseen. This is a clear affirmation of God's universality (i.e. he is no provincial deity belonging to a local people group) and of his transcendence (i.e. otherness and difference from the concerns and world of humanity).

15 Yet the Lord set his affection on your forefathers and loved them, and he chose you, their descendants, above all the nations, as it is today.

Yet in the very next verse this picture of a universal transcendent almighty God is contradicted by the statement that God had chosen Israel (i.e. was behaving not universally but particularly) and loved them (was allowing himself to be concerned and affected by their actions and well being). And so the Israelites are being presented with a tension that this contradiction has created. They believe both statements even though there appears to be an incompatibility between them. This tension creates an energy that pushes Israel to respond in a certain way.

16. Circumcise your hearts therefore, and do not be stiff necked any longer.

Because the universal God has chosen to be God to Israel in particular they must do two things: maintain a purity and holiness of "heart" (i.e. the inner person), and must be humble and teachable (because they will be the ones to teach the rest of the world about God).

The pattern is then repeated in 17-19:

17. For the lord you God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

Once again God's transcendence is asserted and this time also his great power. Of course, God accepts no bribes, not only because he already owns everything (vs 14), but because of his totally incorruptible character.

18. He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien [foreigner], giving him food and clothing.

Wait a minute, if God is impartial, how can he take sides and defend the cause of these? Wait a minute, if God is powerful why does he have any interest in the powerless of society? Once again this contradiction creates a tension that requires action of those who know God.

19 And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens [foreigners] in Egypt.

And so the people of Israel are not to behave like some super race, feeling superior that God has chosen them. Instead they are to love (!!!) those who are different and vulnerable in their society reflecting the fact that their God contradicts his universality and unlimited power with a particular concern for the powerless.

Now some of you will be thinking that those contradictions are nothing of the sort. But that is only because you are used to thinking about God from the end of 2000 years of Christianity, 2000 years after God was revealed in and through Jesus Christ. From the point of view of the ancient near east when these text were given to Israel, many centuries before Christ, these contradictions are both blatant and highly surprising.

Let me know what you think :-)

[Thanks to Chris Wright, The Mission of God, p79, for this structural analysis of Deut 10:14-19!]