For those of you who, like me, have decided to read through the Bible this year, I just want to give you some encouragement. At this point in your reading, depending on what plan you're following, you've probably gotten through one of the toughest stretches of reading in Leviticus and Numbers. If you made it through, congratulations! Once Moses finishes that loooong sermon in Deuteronomy, you get to start on what I think is one of the most exciting stretches of the Bible-the history of Israel, from the conquest of Canaan to the return from the Exile.
If you're doing OT and NT together, you spend much of the early part of the year with the Gospels. I doubt that I need to encourage you much in reading those books, since the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus is not only the core of our faith, but an amazing, riveting read in its own right.
If you have fallen behind a bit, don't get discouraged and quit! You can catch up by adding a chapter or so a day to your reading, without placing a severe burden on myself. (You don't think I never miss a day, do you? I shouldn't, but it does happen.) The value of reading through the Word of God is worth the effort it takes to keep up with your reading.
So congratulations! You've made it this far, so I'll give you a rousing "Ebenezer!" Keep up the good work, and let God speak to you through His divine Word. If you want to let me know how you're doing, you can comment on Facebook under the post for this blog entry. May the Lord richly bless us all as we allow His Word to transform us throughout this year.
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
The book of Daniel and a supernatural God
Now that I no longer preach every week, when I do get the chance to preach, I often take my text from the Old Testament. I've always been a bit more OT oriented than my classmates and colleagues. (Maybe it's my Jewish blood-my great-great grandfather was a Jewish convert to Christianity who became a Baptist minister.) This morning I started a short, spread-out series of messages from the book of Daniel.
As part of my study, I read the usual discussion on the historicity of the events in Daniel and the date of its writing. There are a few technical issues that are raised by some scholars, but much of the rejection of the historicity of the book revolves around two major issues: the presence of the miraculous and the uncanny accuracy of the prophetic visions. So the miracle stories are written off as legends (or sometimes fiction), while the prophecies are posited to have been written after the events they predict.
Many scholars have dealt with these issues in far more depth than I can go into here. There is another way to deal with these objections, however. These two issues reveal the philosophical inclinations of the student by the way they begin their investigation into them. While the two positions I note here aren't necessarily the entire spectrum of belief, they do break scholarship into two broad camps.
The skeptical camp, which denies the historicity of Daniel and gives it a late date, finds belief in miracles and prophetic prophecy to be problematic. Both of these lie outside the realm of our normal experience, and because they are not subject to "scientific" study they are rejected out of hand. Given a commitment to a purely natural worldview, the ideas that the stories are legends and the prophecies were composed after the facts are really the only solutions to the problems.
I think this view has a serious theological flaw. I don't deny that some who hold to this position are genuine believers in God. (I have an evangelical commentary on Daniel on my shelf that takes a view similar to this.) But if I were to have the chance to speak with them, I might ask them what kind of a God they believe in. If God isn't capable of performing miracles or providing visions that accurately address the future, is He really an omnipotent, omniscient God? If He can't save Daniel from a den of lions, how could He raise Jesus from the dead?
I would put myself into the supernatural camp. I believe in a God who can perform miracles, and who clearly sees and can reveal the future. If you accept the premise that God is like this, there's nothing in the book of Daniel that should give you any pause. The events recorded in the book are quite possible, so there is no insurmountable objection to its historicity. (As I noted above, there are a few other issues, but they can be discussed and answered fairly well.) The accuracy of Daniel's visions is also perfectly in line with what God can do.
When you read Daniel, I believe you can have confidence that what you are reading is an accurate account of events that really happened, and that Daniel's visions, while perplexing to him, can be seen as actual predictions of what God planned to do in the future. That doesn't mean that we find them easy to understand or interpret, even after the fact, but that we can be sure that they came the way the book recounts them.
As part of my study, I read the usual discussion on the historicity of the events in Daniel and the date of its writing. There are a few technical issues that are raised by some scholars, but much of the rejection of the historicity of the book revolves around two major issues: the presence of the miraculous and the uncanny accuracy of the prophetic visions. So the miracle stories are written off as legends (or sometimes fiction), while the prophecies are posited to have been written after the events they predict.
Many scholars have dealt with these issues in far more depth than I can go into here. There is another way to deal with these objections, however. These two issues reveal the philosophical inclinations of the student by the way they begin their investigation into them. While the two positions I note here aren't necessarily the entire spectrum of belief, they do break scholarship into two broad camps.
The skeptical camp, which denies the historicity of Daniel and gives it a late date, finds belief in miracles and prophetic prophecy to be problematic. Both of these lie outside the realm of our normal experience, and because they are not subject to "scientific" study they are rejected out of hand. Given a commitment to a purely natural worldview, the ideas that the stories are legends and the prophecies were composed after the facts are really the only solutions to the problems.
I think this view has a serious theological flaw. I don't deny that some who hold to this position are genuine believers in God. (I have an evangelical commentary on Daniel on my shelf that takes a view similar to this.) But if I were to have the chance to speak with them, I might ask them what kind of a God they believe in. If God isn't capable of performing miracles or providing visions that accurately address the future, is He really an omnipotent, omniscient God? If He can't save Daniel from a den of lions, how could He raise Jesus from the dead?
I would put myself into the supernatural camp. I believe in a God who can perform miracles, and who clearly sees and can reveal the future. If you accept the premise that God is like this, there's nothing in the book of Daniel that should give you any pause. The events recorded in the book are quite possible, so there is no insurmountable objection to its historicity. (As I noted above, there are a few other issues, but they can be discussed and answered fairly well.) The accuracy of Daniel's visions is also perfectly in line with what God can do.
When you read Daniel, I believe you can have confidence that what you are reading is an accurate account of events that really happened, and that Daniel's visions, while perplexing to him, can be seen as actual predictions of what God planned to do in the future. That doesn't mean that we find them easy to understand or interpret, even after the fact, but that we can be sure that they came the way the book recounts them.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Ebenezer
I recently attended a church music conference. One of the subjects that came up during a seminar was the question of updating archaic language in hymns. Some brought up the updating of archaic usages like "thee" and "thou," while others noted that their denominational hymnals occasionally changed lyrics to match the theology they espoused. There was a spirited discussion as to how far you can go in changing lyrics without doing an injustice to the original intent of the lyricist.
One example brought up came from a different perspective. The questioner asked about the term "Ebenezer" in "Come Thou Fount." This is a bit different, since the changes that are made to this term are designed to bring out a meaning that may not be evident to the singer. The original line is, "Here I raise mine Ebenezer, hither by Thy help I've come." One example of change I have seen is "This my glad commemoration that 'til now I've safely come." The desire of the editor is to make sense of the original line for the modern Christian.
However, I would argue in this case, and in some others, the effort is a failure on two fronts. First, it may be simply catering to the Biblical ignorance of those in the church, when what is needed is further teaching on the Biblical imagery. This issue may be a little more sensitive for me, since I happen to love to teach on the Old Testament. I don' think it's an exaggeration to say that many contemporary Christians are much less conversant with the Old Testament than the New. What we need to do in the church is to use occasions such as the singing of a hymn (or even a worship chorus!) to elevate the Biblical understanding of the congregation.
Once I was on the worship team of a church that wanted to use this hymn for worship. The pastor insisted that before we sing it, we explain the meaning of "Ebenezer" to the congregation so that they understood what they were singing. We did so, and several people commented that they had not understood the line before and appreciated learning what it really meant. This is one way we can use music to advance the teaching ministry of the church (which is another very large topic I won't get into right now).
The second way this effort to rewrite lyrics fails is that often the Biblical imagery is much richer than the modernized lyrics. Take the example I wrote above. While it catches part of the meaning of the phrase, it leaves out some important concepts. The background of the name "Ebenezer" is found in 1 Sanuel 7, where Samuel sets up the "stone of remembrance" (which is what the Hebrew name means). What is he commemorating? Ebenezer is a reminder that the Lord has helped Israel "thus far," following a rousing victory over the Philistines when they attacked during a ceremony of repentance before the Lord. It was to remind Israel that it is only by God's help that they had the victory, and that remaining in a proper relationship to Him was critical to their future. The change made above leaves out the entire idea of arriving safely only through the help of God. (And I double-checked the context of that version; the idea doesn't come up in the next line, which only refers to the future, not the past.) I think that eliminates a very significant point Robert Robinson, the original lyricist, wanted to make.
I'm not opposed to modern editing of hymn lyrics in general. I do think that we need to be careful that we do make every effort to retain the original meaning of the writer, which makes me cautious about changing lyrics for theological reasons. I also believe that we need to let the Biblical imagery of the song speak for itself, and if that means we need to teach people about that meaning then let us teach.
One example brought up came from a different perspective. The questioner asked about the term "Ebenezer" in "Come Thou Fount." This is a bit different, since the changes that are made to this term are designed to bring out a meaning that may not be evident to the singer. The original line is, "Here I raise mine Ebenezer, hither by Thy help I've come." One example of change I have seen is "This my glad commemoration that 'til now I've safely come." The desire of the editor is to make sense of the original line for the modern Christian.
However, I would argue in this case, and in some others, the effort is a failure on two fronts. First, it may be simply catering to the Biblical ignorance of those in the church, when what is needed is further teaching on the Biblical imagery. This issue may be a little more sensitive for me, since I happen to love to teach on the Old Testament. I don' think it's an exaggeration to say that many contemporary Christians are much less conversant with the Old Testament than the New. What we need to do in the church is to use occasions such as the singing of a hymn (or even a worship chorus!) to elevate the Biblical understanding of the congregation.
Once I was on the worship team of a church that wanted to use this hymn for worship. The pastor insisted that before we sing it, we explain the meaning of "Ebenezer" to the congregation so that they understood what they were singing. We did so, and several people commented that they had not understood the line before and appreciated learning what it really meant. This is one way we can use music to advance the teaching ministry of the church (which is another very large topic I won't get into right now).
The second way this effort to rewrite lyrics fails is that often the Biblical imagery is much richer than the modernized lyrics. Take the example I wrote above. While it catches part of the meaning of the phrase, it leaves out some important concepts. The background of the name "Ebenezer" is found in 1 Sanuel 7, where Samuel sets up the "stone of remembrance" (which is what the Hebrew name means). What is he commemorating? Ebenezer is a reminder that the Lord has helped Israel "thus far," following a rousing victory over the Philistines when they attacked during a ceremony of repentance before the Lord. It was to remind Israel that it is only by God's help that they had the victory, and that remaining in a proper relationship to Him was critical to their future. The change made above leaves out the entire idea of arriving safely only through the help of God. (And I double-checked the context of that version; the idea doesn't come up in the next line, which only refers to the future, not the past.) I think that eliminates a very significant point Robert Robinson, the original lyricist, wanted to make.
I'm not opposed to modern editing of hymn lyrics in general. I do think that we need to be careful that we do make every effort to retain the original meaning of the writer, which makes me cautious about changing lyrics for theological reasons. I also believe that we need to let the Biblical imagery of the song speak for itself, and if that means we need to teach people about that meaning then let us teach.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
The joys of used books
I own a Nook, and I use it fairly regularly. In fact, for the past three years I've done the bulk of my daily Bible reading on it. It's convenient, and takes up less space than a paper Bible in my briefcase. I also like the ability to carry a small library with me in its memory. I do a lot of my studying on the computer, and I just finished doing some Sunday school preparation using Bible study software. I leave a couple of my Bibles at the church because I don't use them during the week for study.
That said, I'm still more partial to "real" books in general. I"m still a little leery about the permanence of my e-book files. I do have backups and all that, but I guess I'm just a little paranoid. It is true that paper books aren't permanent either (I've lost a number of volumes in basement floods), but there is a sense of ownership you just don't get with an e-book. I like the aesthetics of books-the way they look on the shelf, the feel of a book, the ability to flip easily back and forth. (I know e-books have search features, and in some ways that can be quicker, but there are times when finding a specific location isn't as easy as the PR makes it sound.)
I went to a church music conference today at my son's school, Cairn University. One of the side pleasures of attending events at the school is visiting the bookstore, which maintains a decent selection of used books. I love to search through the shelves for book on specific subjects, and occasionally find one on a subject I hadn't thought about but sounds interesting. All of those were true today. I picked up several books on the patristic period, a couple of commentaries, and a book on a subject I hadn't really thought about lately. At the prices I paid, it was a bargain!
Now I have lots of material to read. Not that I didn't before- the number of books on my shelves crying out for reading is pretty staggering. It's just that the trip to the bookstore stocked me up and gave me some incentive to pursue some lines of reading I wasn't engaged in at present.
I like book stores in general, but books do tend to be fairly expensive in general. (I find a lot of e-book bargains, but my biggest disappointment with my Nook is that many more recent books aren't much cheaper than their paper counterparts, and I have nothing but pixels to show for that price.) Used books enable me, and bibliophiles like me, the enhance our collections and our horizons for much less. That's why I enjoy my visits to the used book section, or, when I can find one, a used book store.
I hope you don't mind this little excursus off of Biblical and theological topics. I hope you also can find pleasure in diving in to a good used book, gaining knowledge and enjoyment for a bargain price.
That said, I'm still more partial to "real" books in general. I"m still a little leery about the permanence of my e-book files. I do have backups and all that, but I guess I'm just a little paranoid. It is true that paper books aren't permanent either (I've lost a number of volumes in basement floods), but there is a sense of ownership you just don't get with an e-book. I like the aesthetics of books-the way they look on the shelf, the feel of a book, the ability to flip easily back and forth. (I know e-books have search features, and in some ways that can be quicker, but there are times when finding a specific location isn't as easy as the PR makes it sound.)
I went to a church music conference today at my son's school, Cairn University. One of the side pleasures of attending events at the school is visiting the bookstore, which maintains a decent selection of used books. I love to search through the shelves for book on specific subjects, and occasionally find one on a subject I hadn't thought about but sounds interesting. All of those were true today. I picked up several books on the patristic period, a couple of commentaries, and a book on a subject I hadn't really thought about lately. At the prices I paid, it was a bargain!
Now I have lots of material to read. Not that I didn't before- the number of books on my shelves crying out for reading is pretty staggering. It's just that the trip to the bookstore stocked me up and gave me some incentive to pursue some lines of reading I wasn't engaged in at present.
I like book stores in general, but books do tend to be fairly expensive in general. (I find a lot of e-book bargains, but my biggest disappointment with my Nook is that many more recent books aren't much cheaper than their paper counterparts, and I have nothing but pixels to show for that price.) Used books enable me, and bibliophiles like me, the enhance our collections and our horizons for much less. That's why I enjoy my visits to the used book section, or, when I can find one, a used book store.
I hope you don't mind this little excursus off of Biblical and theological topics. I hope you also can find pleasure in diving in to a good used book, gaining knowledge and enjoyment for a bargain price.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)