Christian Preaching from the Old Testament #3

[This is the second in a serialisation and slight revision of an old essay of mine, in the hope of getting some interaction from others and also making it more accessible. (Part 1 here, Part 2 here)]

Four Evangelical Approaches to Preaching from the Old Testament

John Bright rightly states, ‘as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so the proof of hermeneutical principles must be in the preaching.’[1]  The focus of this series is therefore not the cutting edge of academic debate but present homiletical practice.  I have chosen four works which are written by recognised evangelicals who teach in evangelical institutions and whose works on Old Testament Preaching are recommended by other evangelical homileticians.  I will briefly summarise each work before bringing them into conversation with each other on specific issues in the following posts.

Sermon on 2 Kings 5, "Don't Put a Price on God's Grace"

A sermon by yours truly can be listened to here, or downloaded from here.  About 40 mins long, preached at Greenlane Christian Centre on the 5th September.

Keywords: Naaman, Gehazi, Elisha, God, Grace, Jesus Christ, manners, compassion for others

David and Elijah for today

2 very different sermons which have in common that they are both excellently imaginative readings of OT narratives:

Steve Taylor on Elijah and the Widow (1 Kings 17)

Sam Wells on David and Goliath (1 Sam 17)

Please note that being imaginative does not entail ignoring the text but noticing the details that a less imaginative reading might consider irrelevant!

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

Some more of other people's blogs

Marriage is under attack in the UK by those promoting adultery as entertainment, am I really a reactinoary old prude for thinking that should be stopped quickly?  Loren argues that Paul was converted rather than called which is interesting and I thiknk depends largely on how you understand conversion and religion.  Meanwhile the decade of the Atheists is over, but what will come next?  i would like a decade of really really good pie shops opening in my local neighbourhood.  Steve asks how true do we need the Bible to be?  But I wonder how much we can rely on history to make some of those decisions given how much of the data is still underground and how little survives in any form.  But in case it never occured to you, it didn't me, Goliath's helmet was an important historical clue.  And it should be noted that even the most happening lively active church can be lonely and we need to make the effort to spend time in each other's homes, but that would be hard if you go to "commuter" church.  Bon appetit!

What's the drama and who's the snake?

Thanks to James McGrath for lovely quote which inspires me to make two observations about Gen 2-3.

1. The suspense of Gen 2:18-20 relies on the reader not having read Gen 1:26-28.  The way the story is being told the audience are expected not to know what partner might be found for the man.  But Gen 1:26-28 has already given it away, man goes with woman and the two of them are supposed to "go forth and multiply."  Thus the suspense and resolution of Gen 2:18-25, which arrives at essentially the same answers by a different route makes no sense if treated as part of a continuous narrative with Gen 1.  The two creation accounts should not be harmonized but read as alternative accounts.  This is not because I feel the need to do this to satisfy some modernist need to justify my enjoyment of and adherence to these ancient myths, but because the text (which I believe is God's word) actually demands it. 


2. The serpent is introduced in 3:1 as being "more crafty than any other wild animal that God had made."  Because of this, and the resultant loss of limb for said serpent in 2:14, I have never understood the ease with which this chatty little reptile is conflated with Satan and the Devil.  To do so takes the story out of the category of myth and into allegory.  If it is allegorical then why do we need to get so excited about whether or not it is historical?  This also makes it hard for me to accept that in Gen 3:15 we find the proto-euangelion.  To me 3:15 is simply a folksy explanation of why snakes are nasty.  The true proto-euangelion is, IMHO at least, Gen 12:1-3 and it would seem that here the Apostle Paul agrees with me (cf. Gal 3:8, which might count for something with some people).


Let me know what you think :-)

Wright on Story, Worldviews and Theology

Telling stories was (according to the synoptic gospels) one of Jesus' most characteristic modes of teaching. And . . . it would clearly be quite wrong to see these stories as mere illustrations of truths that could in principle have been articulated in a purer more abstract form. They were ways of breaking open the worldview of Jesus' hearers, so that it could be remoulded into the worldview which he, Jesus, was commending. His stories, like all stories in principle, invited his hearers into a new world, making the implicit suggestion that the new worldview be tried on for size with a view to permanent purchase. . .

If it is true that all worldviews are at the deepest level shorthand formulae to express stories, this is particularly clear in the case of Judaism. Belief in one god, who called Israeli to be his people, is the very foundation of Judaism. The only proper way of talking about a god like this, who makes the world and then acts within it, is through narration. To 'boil off' an abstract set of propositions as though one were thereby getting to a more foundational statement would actually be to falsify this worldview at a basic point.

NT Wright, NTPG, p77

The first word of the Bible

Thanks to Tim for this link to a fascinating Jewish commentary on the first word of the Bible.

In short the Hebrew word often translated "in the beggining" (B'reishit)has a number of unusual gramattical features. The commentary argues that probably the most accurate translation is not "in the beggining God created" but actually reading it as the first of a long series of subordinate clauses, e.g. "When God began to create heaven and earth—the earth being unformed and void, with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the water—God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." (JPS trans). Thus grammatically, "God said..." is in fact the first proper sentence of the Bible.

However, the gramatical peculiarities have also opened up the possibility for some Rabbinic interpreters to find quite different meanings for that first word. Suggesting instead of "in the beggining" we could actually read "For the sake of Torah" or "For the sake of Israel."

So, my thought is, if we understand God created the heavens and the earth for the sake of his word (Torah) and the sake of his elect (Israel), the Christian could equally well say, "For the sake of Christ," who is the fulfillment and antitype of both!

Interpreting Narrative

"It is a general maxim of hermeneutics that God's Word is to be found in the intent of scripture. This is an especially crucial matter to the hermeneutics of historical narratives. It is one thing for the historian to include an event because it serves the greater purpose of his work and yet another to thing for the interpreter to take that incident as having teaching value apart from the historian's larger intent... This does not mean that what is incidental is false, nor that it has no theological value; it does mean that God's Word for us for us in that narrative is primarily related to what it was intended to teach."

[From the oldie but goodie How to read the Bible for all it's worth by Fee and Stuart, 1982, p98-99. Although I see on Amazon there is now a 2003 edition available]

A couple of thoughts on the Temple in 1 Chronicles

So, I am reading through Chronicles this month and have (as tends to happen) spotted some things I hadn't seen before. here's a couple around the theme of the Temple:

1 Chronicles 17. David decides to build a 'house' (i.e. temple) for God because he feels it is wrong that he lives in 'a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant lives in a tent.' But God stops him and instead promises to build a 'house' (i.e. family line) that will last forever. This is one more example of how this God, in contrast to the other gods of the ancient world, needs nothing from human hands but yet gives abundantly, not in return for favours done, but because it is God's pleasure/will to show love.

1 Chronicles 21:28-22:1. God's wrath comes against Israel for Davids sin in taking a census of all the fighting males. I've not yet figured out exactly what the problem was, but that is a question for later. God's wrath here takes the form of a 'pestilence' and a 'destroying angel'. God himself stops the destroying angel from destroying Jerusalem and the angel comes to a halt at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. David then builds an altar and offers a sacrifice. Afterwards David decides that this is the spot where the Temple should eventually be built. First it is worth pointing out that God's wrath relents not because of the sacrifice but before it happens. Again, this is a radical reversal of the way ancient people tended to think gods operated. Instead, the sacrifice, David's act of worship, is a response to God's action - not a cause of it. And so this is the significant thing about the location of the Temple, it is put where God's anger stopped and his mercy began. It is put at the point where God's mercy has already taken place and our only task is to respond to what God has already done.

I think perhaps for Christians both things point (especially the second) towards the cross of Christ as our primary topos (place) of worship. When we worship 'at the cross' we are not worshipping to influence God actions towards us but in recognition of what God has already done through Christ.

1 Samuel 1-4: Biblical family values?

One of the great ironies of the present day is the use of the phrase 'Biblical family values' to champion the cause of Western (American?) style nuclear families with authoritarian patriarchal leadership and neat polite children. I don't know what Bible those 'values' are found in, but it's not a translation I've ever come across. Incest, polygamy, wife swapping, rape, prostitution and rebellion seem to be some of the 'family values' protrayed in the Bible. But I'll get to most of those another time. here's 1 Samuel chapter 1-4 in brief.

Chapter 1
A man has two wives, one is fertile (Peninnah) one is barren (Hannah).Hannah promises God that if God gives her a boy she will dedicate the boy to God (no alchohol and no hair cuts).God gives Hannah a boy, Hannah gives the boy (Samuel) to the high priest (Eli) the moment he is weaned, and leaves Samuel at the temple as a servant.

Chapter 2
Eli (the hight priest) raises Samuel (who gets to see his mum and dad once a year). Eli also has two sons (Hophni and Phinehas). They abuse their position as priests and exploit those who comes to worship.Eli makes a half hearted attempt to discipline his sons, it fails because God has already decided they have to die.A prophet turns up and tells Eli that because he honoured his sons more than God that he and his sons are going to die.

Chapter 3
Samuel, while still a boy, hears God's voice and becomes a prophet. Samuels first message is to Eli: 'you and your sons are going to die.'

Chapter 4
Hophni and Phinehas take the Ark of the Covenant into battle and die, losing the Ark. Eli gets the news and falls off his chair and dies.

Now is it just me but, does the boy who only sees his parents once a year and never gets a haircut not turn out better than the ones who take on the family business and get spoilt rotten by their indulgent dad?

You have to look hard to find the 'family values' there but I think these chapters do have a subtle (and subversive) message about parenthood. Children are a gift from God (as God grants Hannah's prayer) but are not to be allowed to compete with God for our devotion (as Eli compromises his duties towards God for Hophni and Phinehas).

Western evangelicalism is often in danger of idolising 'the family'. This is seen in some of our organisations (see focus on the family, family first, etc) our politics (can I take that as read?) and in day to day church life (e.g. only going to a church with a good 'childrens ministry', or taking kids out of Bible study groups so they can concentrate on school work). But nowhere in the Bible is the nuclear family modeled, let alone advocated, and we need to ask ourselves how much are our 'family values' truly Christian/Biblical and how much is mere western middle class respectability?

Let me know what you think :)

Preaching the Gospel

Over the summer I hope to revisit on the blog some talks I did earlier this year on 'how to read the Bible' and 'why preaching?' But till then, and continuing the theme of 'what is the Gospel?', there are some insightful thoughts from Paul Windsor's blog about lessons from Acts for preaching here. Enjoy :)

[updated 16/12/08] And here is a second post on a series Paul did on whole books of the Old Testament and linking them in different ways to Jesus of Nazareth.

God Doesn't Need Your Help: 1 Samuel 4:1-6:18

So, back in the day, when Israel was still a new kid on the block, a loose alliance of tribes with the same religion and ancestors, the Philistines, a rather more sophsticated group, go out to war to ensure the Israelites know their place (4:9). On the first day of fighting the Israelites get wooped (4:2) so they decide to bring in the artilery, i.e. God. The Israelites are confused, they think God lives in a box, so they get this (very special box called the Ark of the Covenant) and take it with them to the battle the next day. The Philistines hear about this and are terrified, but decide to man-up and try their luck anyway. The Israelites get wooped (again) and the Philistines get the box (4:10-11) and take it home as a souvenir and put in in the temple of their god Dagon. So much for the Israelites having God on their side.

Now God doesn't live in the box, but it represents the covenant God has with the Israelites, so, if you like, it's a bit like a wedding ring represents a marriage between two folks. So God feels pretty strongly about this box and the way people treat it, because God feels strongly about God's relationship to Israel. The next day the Philistines get out of bed, go to the temple of Dagon and find the statue of Dagon on his face before the box (5:3). Now this can't be right because they beat the Israelites, so their god must be stronger. So they pick Dagon up and go about their business. The next morning Dagon is eating dust again, but this time his head and hands have fallen off (5:4). As if to prove the point there is then an outbreak of tumors in the town and surrounding area. The locals are pretty fed up with this so pass the 'victory spoils' on to the next town, who are similarly aflicted (5:8-9). So it goes on (5:10). Eventually they realise that, although they wooped Israel, Israel's God has got them wooped. They are going to have to give the box back (5:11). So they do, complete with a special 'sorry' note in the form of 5 golden tumors and 5 golden mice (representing the rulers of the Philistines, 6:2-6).

Now I love this story because it is very funny. But also because it is loaded with theological content. First, the Israelites try to use God's ark like a magic charm to force God to help them when their own relationship with God is in tatters. They treat God like a slot machine: 'if we carry the Ark, we will win.' God doesn't turn up to help because to do so would only compound the problem. The Israelites think their great need is to win in battle, God thinks their great need is to sort out their relationship with God. Remember this, God is not to be manipulated by religious formulas, God demands a real relationship from God's people. Sort that out first and then let God worry about your circumstances.

Second, the Philistines think that because they have defeated Israel they have defeated God. But God and God's people are not the same thing. The Israelites are defeated, not because God is weak, but because they were being unfaithful to God. God shows God's-self to be so overwhelmingly great that even the statues of the Philistine god has to bow down to the Ark of the Covenant. Remember this, a crappy church, or crappy Christians do not mean a crappy god. Even when God's people are way off course God is still great, and God is still good. Don't use the behaviour of others to justify your unbelief, look at God to make that decision, not people.

Third, it is the pagan Philistines who are the first to start behaving respectfully towards the box. They soon realise that God was not wooped along with his people, and presumably also that if God had been on the Israelite's side they would never have won (see 7:10). After the box is returned to Israel it takes decades for God's own people to learn the same lesson (see 2 Sam 6). Remember this, those who are outside of the church are often showing those of us in it the way to go when it comes to justice and righteousness and honouring God. Don't refuse to learn lessons from people just because they have a different creed to you (or no creed at all).

Fourth, despite the unfaithfulness of Israel, God still cares about the covenant God has with them, and shows it, not by disguising the fact that the relationship is dysfunctional but by demonstrating the supreme holiness (special-to-God-ness) of the box that represented that relationship. Israel is unfaithful, but God remains faithful and works to bring Israel back into right relationship with God. Remember this, when you fail or fall away, God is not defeated, when you make mistakes or are stymied, God is still greater. The answer is not to question whether you followed the right formula or not but to seek to show (in grateful response) the same faithfulness towards God that God continues to show to you.