On the Road to Emmaus » Bible

Can I Understand the Bible Without Knowing Greek???

Richard — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 18:30:25 +0000

I intend to give a brief and fairly unnuanced answered to this question, by way of analogy. I have often heard the question, “Can I be saved (or alternately phrased, “Can I go heaven”) without speaking in tongues?” By this it is meant, is one able to be a true member of the family of God which participates in the resurrected life of the renewed creation, without having a devotional prayer language (often called glossalalia)? To this, the answer is “yes…but why would you want to?” In other words, why would you simply settle for “making it in?” In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul evidently perceives a great value to the personal practice of speaking in tongues and wishes all the Corinthians would do it. Thus, why not aim for everything we can have in this life? Why not set our vision higher, rather than acquiesce to the least common denominator?

Thus when someone asks me, “Can I understand the Bible without knowing Greek?,” I reply, “Yes…but why would you want to?” If you are able to learn Greek, in other words,

if you are able to learn another language (which is true of the overwhelming majority of people in the world, since outside of America it is normal to speak two, three or even four languages),

and if you have some time (which most Americans do since they spend 5 hours a day on average watching television [1]; it only takes 3-5 hours a week, plus or minus a few, to learn Greek in less than a year)

then why would you not aim for the highest level of comprehension and understanding through the steady process of learning the languages in which the Bible itself was breathed forth by the Holy Spirit? God deemed fit in the fullness of time to send forth his Son to redeem humanity from the curse of Sin and Death. He also deemed fit that the account, exposition and implementation of this glorious redemption would be breathed by the Holy Spirit in the Greek language. The thirsting soul in pursuit of God is often led by love to learn this very language in order to know the Scriptures more profoundly, and through them, to know the God of the Scriptures with increasing clarity. Pastors, teachers, reformers, mystics and revivalists throughout history have turned to language as both an expression of love and a means to deepen love. John Wesley would spend his mornings meditating on the Greek New Testament before preaching from that very text on horseback. George Whitfield would spend two hours a night, after long days of ministry, often on his knees, doing the same. At age 24, George Muller would spend 10 hours a day studying the Bible in the original languages.

You can surely learn and understand the basic truths of the Bible without knowing Greek, but why would you want to?

[1] http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/americans-watching-more-tv-than-ever/

Practical Suggestions for Celebrating the Church Year

Richard — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 08:14:08 +0000

If you’re like me, celebrating Advent may conjure up childhood memories of those peculiar “Advent Calendars” where you pop out a piece of chocolate each day as Christmas nears. Suffice to say, not all approaches to celebrating the Church Year are equally inspiring. Nevertheless, as I have come to seriously celebrate the Church Year, it has been one of the most compelling, inspiring and moving aspects of my spiritual life, both individual and communally.

As I have given an albeit brief explanation of the Church Year (I’ll use the terms “Church Calendar”, “Church Year” and “Christian Year” essentially interchangeably) elsewhere, I would like here to turn to practical suggestions on how to implement anywhere from a relatively simple to a full dress commemoration of the Church Year. My suggestions will be concerned with marking the primary seasons and principal feasts of the Church Year because there are many other commemorations which we need not get bogged down with at this point.

I should further note, that when I speak of “celebrating the Church Year,” I am mostly referring to means by which the formative themes of each Season and Feast can be shaped into our lives. In other words, I am primarily discussing the Church Year as spiritual formation and spiritual discipline. I am sure there is lots of advice that could be given for holiday-coordinated decorating, baking, party ideas, etc. I am not concerned with that here (though by all means – bring on the baked goods!!). The advice which follows centers on how our spiritual lives can be given definitive shape through the Church Year, and thus formed around and transformed by the unfolding story of God’s redemptive acts in and through the Messiah. It follows that my suggestions will generally draw from the Church’s liturgical tradition, which has always centered around the Church Year, and has developed quite a wealth of material over the centuries. Additionally, the suggestions which follow are not specific to Advent or any one season, but are general in nature, applicable to all seasons of the Year.

I will also attempt to make each suggestion applicable for both individual and communal use.

1) Determine to follow the Church Year through to the end. This of course hardly seems like a practical suggestion for my first point. However, I would like to begin by advising a long term though strategy rather than short term. The power of the Church Year is in the entire sequence of Advent through Pentecost and commemorating the entire sequence of the central redemptive acts of God in the Messiah. So while “celebrating Advent” or “keeping Lent” can’t hurt, the full power of the Church Year is its unity, rather than parts in abstraction. Its further power is the cumulative effect of celebrating the entire cycle over a course of years such that the redemptive acts of God in the Messiah become the central overarching rhythm of our lives.

2) Follow the Readings in the Daily Office Lectionary (from the Book of Common Prayer). The lectionary has one OT reading, one NT epistle and one Gospel reading for each day. They generally follow entire books is sequence that have themes corresponding to the Church Year. Use them in your personal Bible reading or meditation times. They are generally short (10-12 verses) and could form the basis of prayer-reading (lectio-divina). Read them with others and discuss them. Discuss a whole weeks worth of readings and reflection with others once per week. I have made Daily Office Readings booklets by compiling the assigned texts for each season. They can be downloaded here. Alternately you can download just the Daily Office Lectionary and look up the passages in your own Bible - booklet / standard.

3) Sing hymns and songs that correspond to the season. Contrary to popular belief, Advent songs and Christmas songs are not the same. Christmas songs/carols are sung during the twelve days of Christmas. Advent songs and carols are sung during Advent. Hymnals of churches that don’t keep the Christian year may not make this distinction. However, if you pick up a hymnal from a more liturgical tradition, such as Anglican, Lutheran or Catholic, there will be a wealth of material for each season. Should you not happen to know many of the hymns, do a search on the internet and you can often find at least midi files that will play the song for you so you can learn it. Check out these sites for starters: http://hymnal.oremus.org; http://www.smallchurchmusic.com; http://hymntime.com/tch/

4) Pray the Book of Common Prayer “Collect” for each week. “Collect” is a fancy word for a prayer which frequently draws together (“collects”) themes of a given season or day in the Church Calendar. Use it daily either upon waking or before going to bed. Pray it with others before a meal. Pray it for people on your prayer list. For the Collects of the Church Year click here.

5) Pray/Sing the Psalms on a monthly (or bi-monthly) schedule using seasonal antiphons. “Antiphons” are short sentences of Scripture or traditional material that are used with Psalms or Canticles in order to give them a specific (often seasonal or Calendar-related) emphasis. To use them, they are simply prayed (sung) before and after the Psalm, or alternately as a refrain periodically throughout the Psalm, every few verses or so. I have compiled a set of seasonal antiphons from various sources (including the Prayer Book Office, the Catholic Liturgy of the Hours, the Roman Breviary and elsewhere) for the entire book of Psalms that can be used with the Psalms in your BCP or Bible. They are arranged by season – so throughout Advent, each psalms will use the antiphon labeled “Advent,” during the 12 days of Christmas, the antiphon labeled “Christmas,” during the entire season of Easter, the antiphon labeled “Easter,” etc.

Seasonal Psalm Antiphon download links: booklet / standard.

Click here to download the monthly Psalm schedule.

6) Use a seasonal order for Midday Prayer or Compline (night-time prayer before bed). These are orders for prayer that are more simple than those for Morning and Evening Prayer. They are self-contained and require no flipping back and forth through different places in the prayer book. Unfortunately, the BCP orders for Midday Prayer and Compline have almost no seasonal variation, so I have borrowed from the liturgy of the Church of England and elsewhere to form these adaptations of the BCP orders with strong seasonal emphasis. These work well prayed alone or in groups. Download links:

Midday Prayer booklet – booklet / standard

Compline – booklet / standard

7) Begin praying the Daily Office, or at least Morning or Evening Prayer. Full details on how to do so can be found here. The office can be prayed alone or in groups. Consider praying it daily on your own and at one set time per week with others. I pray the Office daily on my own and once a week do a full sung Morning Prayer with some friends before the Sunday morning Eucharist.

8 ) If you already have been praying the Daily Office, consider using seasonal propers that add further seasonal emphasis to the flow of the Church Year. The “Proper” is the part of the liturgy which varies according to the day and/or season. These propers propose various hymns, psalms, canticles and antiphons for every Sunday of the year and for each feast. A seasonal propers booklet, largely gleaned from the unfortunately out-of-print Prayer Book Office can be downloaded here - booklet / standard

9) The Church of England has produced a book available on-line as a series of pamphlets titled “Times and Seasons” with various material for each season which could be used either as part of the Daily Office, or in other ways. They can be downloaded for free here.

10) Begin visiting a liturgical Church in the “catholic” tradition (i.e., Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Anglican), which follows the Church Year and incorporates its emphases into the liturgy. A directory of orthodox Anglican churches in North America can be found here. If not on a weekly basis, perhaps attend for special services throughout the year, like Christmas Eve, Epiphany, Good Friday, Easter Vigil, etc.

11) Organize a gathering of friends and family on either the day of or the eve of major feasts for a simple meal and an order for Evening Prayer, using seasonal material from some of the previous suggestions.

12) Pick up a copy of Robert Webber’s book “Ancient-Future Time.” It discusses each season and principle feast of the Church Year, highlighting the various themes for each.

—————

** Photo credit: tome213

————–

Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 4) – The Overarching Story of Scripture

Richard — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:08:55 +0000

If you were to summarize the overarching story-line of the Bible, what would you say? What if you had to do it in only one sentence? I will attempt to do exactly this in only seven words and I have a hunch my conclusion will be somewhat surprising to many.

But before I divulge my answer, I should note that this post is part 4 in a larger series concerning what I am calling “Reading the Bible in the Right Direction.” By this I am referring to the narrative order given in the Bible, most basically, Old Testament first, New Testament second. The ideas, stories, concepts, and expectations formulated in the Old Testament must be the primary base from which we interpret and understand the New Testament, rather than vice versa. More can be read on this in the previous posts, but now I am concentrating on concisely explaining the overarching storyline of Scripture. Understanding and interpreting the New Testament in light of this narratival framework causes the Scripture to first of all, make much more coherent sense, and second, to come alive in its intended dynamic vigor. This approach is critical because the early apostolic community, the original hearers of the New Testament, indeed, the people who wrote the New Testament, would have approached and understood the Bible in this way. They would have come to the New Testament writings living within the story of Israel, deeply entrenched in its expectations, animated with its hopes yet vexed with longing for this yet unfinished drama to come to its appointed consummation.

I will first give my seven word summary of the Bible’s story and then explain it. Here it is: God sends humanity to rule the earth. Surprising, eh? Yet if we read the Bible’s opening and closing remarks, we see that this is the original intent for God’s creation, and this intent comes to pass. Everything else that happens in the Bible is a subplot to seeing this overarching plot line find fulfillment.

When approaching a story and attempting to summarize its plot, a simple system has been developed to diagram the plot by identifying the six main components of the story:

1) The Sender, who commissions an

2) Agent, who is sent by the sender to accomplish a

3) Task, for the benefit of the

4) Receiver

5) An Impediment attempts to block the accomplishment of the task and only through the aid of the

6) Helper, is the agent able to accomplish the task.

This can be illustrated with a diagram, using the story of Little Red Riding Hood as an example.

Now what happens if we apply this type of plot analysis to the Bible? We would have to start at the very beginning – in Genesis 1. In verses 26-28, we are told that the original commission of humanity is to rule over the earth. This of course does not mean that they should function as exploitative tyrants. In Genesis 2:15 humans are told to cultivate, expand and grow the Garden of Eden. Rather than tyrannical domination, these verses mean the original purpose of human beings was to be the co-regents of God’s gracious, loving and life-giving rule, expanding both the Garden of Eden and their habitation (through having children and a family) to fill the earth with the glory of God. We often think of both the original creation and the Garden of Eden as being perfect and then subsequently getting spoiled. The texts more so tell us about something that, though perhaps not having particular flaws, was an unfinished project. The earth needed to be subdued. The garden needed to be cultivated. The ground needed to be worked. The earth needed to be inhabited. In other words, human culture, in all areas, needed to be developed and matured as part of God’s unfolding purpose for the earth. The task of humans was then, in cooperation with God, to work on this creation project and ultimately bring it to completion (i.e., “fill the earth”).

Under our schema from above this would make the main components of our plot:

Sender – God

Agent – Humanity

Task – rule

Receiver – the earth

Hence my summary, “God sends humanity to rule the earth.” Now, it doesn’t take long to realize that this plot gets at least somewhat derailed rather quickly. However, we know this plan does not come to an end, not in Genesis 3, and not anywhere else in history. We can be assured of this because the final narrative sequence in the Bible, in Revelation 22, immediately before the concluding epilogue, says of redeemed humanity on the renewed earth, “and there will be no more night; they need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever” (Rev. 22:5). The original plot succeeds! Humanity is sent to rule the earth, and apparently, whatever happened between Genesis 4 and Revelation 21 succeeded in restoring this original storyline and bringing it to fulfillment (although perhaps, it is arguable that Revelation 22 still does not yet show a complete “fulfillment” but that humanity’s gracious rulership of the earth will continue into the ages to come).

So far we’ve only named four of the main six components of our plot. The impediment is readily identifiable. Genesis 3-11 documents the downward spiral of humanity, not in the gracious expansion of God’s life giving presence, but in the exploitative, pernicious and cancerous expansion of violence, sin, hatred, alienation and death. In a word the impediment, is sin. But note in our storyline what sin is the impediment to. It is not the impediment to getting into heaven, but rather it is what blocks, even destroys the development and expansion of a communal cultural life on earth infused with God’s goodness, truth and beauty.

So who is the helper? Enter Abraham in Genesis 12. It seems easy to completely disconnect Genesis 12 from Genesis 3-11, as if perhaps it was just the next event in history. But Genesis 12 is a dramatic turning point in the book, both in terms of its content and the overall biblical plot. Genesis 1-11 covers a very long period of time and many generations in rapid succession. Genesis 12-25 covers the life span of one person. We also notice the issues that arise in Genesis 12 parallel those in Genesis 1. Abraham is unable to have children yet God promises he will be the father of many nations, akin to the original command to be fruitful and multiply. Abraham is told he will be a blessing to all the peoples of the earth. This parallels the blessing humanity received in Genesis 1, and the curse that came upon the earth in Genesis 3. Abraham’s promise concerns “the land.” Interestingly enough, this is the same Hebrew word as “earth,” thus forming at least a intriguing linguistic connection. All in all, Abraham (and thus his progeny, the nation of Israel) are God’s response to Genesis 3-11. God’s plan to reestablish the original plot and purpose for humanity is to be executed through God’s covenant people. God’s answer to the problem of sin is the covenant.

It also doesn’t take long to realize that this new plot line (Plot Level 2) was riddled with difficulty, whether it be family dysfunction, political conflicts, military engagement, or agricultural disaster, only to find the family of Abraham, God’s agents of reconciliation and restoration, to be held captive as slaves in the nation of Egypt. Enter “Plot Level 3″ – God sends a helper to bring deliverance to his people, in this case Moses. But as the story of the Old Testament progresses, the people of Israel get into one mess after another, usually related to wide-scale national sin. The people who God raised up to be his answer to the problem of sin, themselves became part of the problem. So God sends helper after helper, whether they be judges, prophets, kings (the epitome of which was David), to preach repentance to God’s people and to bring them deliverance from their enemies. The function of this “Plot Level 3″ however, was always to restore “Plot Level 2″ – Israel being a “light to the nations” and bringing “blessing to all peoples of the earth.” The purpose of this “Plot Level 2″ was always to restore “Plot Level 1″ – God sends humanity to rule the earth.

The final helper in this sequence (Plot Level 3) was none other than Jesus himself. This can be seen in Jesus’ resoluteness that he came only to help the “lost sheep of Israel” (Matt. 10:6; 15:24), as well as the emphasis that Jesus had come to save Israel (Matt. 1:21; Luke 1:68; 2:25). Through the death and resurrection of Jesus, “Plot Level 2″ has been restored because Jesus then sends out his company of 12 Jewish young men with a task to “make disciples of all the Gentiles/nations” (Matt. 28:19). Interestingly enough, in Acts 1, the apostles ask Jesus, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus answers in his usually interesting fashion, here by giving neither a clear yes or no answer and then continues, “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Many people assume that Jesus’ answer is “no,” as in “you are stuck on thinking about politics, but I am going to have you go around and preach a new spiritual, inward reality.” It seems rather, if we compare the second half of his answer with our plot diagram, if twelve representatives of Israel are being sent out to “disciple the Gentiles” through preaching to “the remotest parts of the earth,” then the answer to their question is more like “yes, but not in the way you are thinking.”

So then, Jesus, through his death and resurrection, restores Plot Level 2. The ultimate goal of redemptive history however, is the recovery of Plot Level 1 – and human beings restored to gracious rulership over the earth. Rather than develop this here, in what is already a too-long blog-post, I will quote four passages that demonstrate this cosmic aspect of redemption’s goal. These passages are often enigmatic when the Bible is read in context to overarching stories that are in fact foreign to the Bible (i.e., the stories of Western affluence, escapism, rationalism, secular hedonism, etc.). However, when read starting with the narrative framework of the Old Testament as the foundation, these passages make perfect sense:

Acts 3:19-21 – Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, that is, Jesus, who must remain in heaven until the time of the restoration of all things that God announced long ago through his holy prophets.

Ephesians 1:9-10 – he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Colossians 1:19-20 – For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

Romans 8:19‐23 – For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies.

Links to earlier parts in the series Reading the Bible in the Right Direction: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Readings for the Daily Office of the Book of Common Prayer

Richard — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:11:22 +0000

The following is an aid to help make praying the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) easier. Rather than navigating through the lectionary and then flipping through your Bible to find the daily readings, I copied them out of my Bible program and put them all together in a format you can print out either as a sheet or a booklet. For each day there are two OT readings, a NT Epistle reading and a Gospel reading. Most days also have a non-biblical reading from the Catholic version of the Daily Office, most of which are from the early Church Fathers.

To make the booklets, print double sided along the short end and staple down the middle.

This is a work in progress, so over time I’ll be adding what I have done.

Year One starts in the Advent before on ODD numbered year (i.e., 2011, Year one starts in December of 2010-Novemeber 2011)

Year Two starts in the Advent before an EVEN numbered year (i.e., 2010 – Year two starts in December of 2009-November 2010)

For help figuring out where we are in the calendar check here

Year One

Advent and Christmas – booklet standard

Epiphany Part 1 – booklet standard

Epiphany Part 2 – booklet standard

Lent Part 1 – booklet standard

Lent Part 2 – booklet standard

Easter Part 1 – booklet standard

Easter Part 2 – booklet standard

Proper 1-5 – booklet / standard

Proper 6-9 – booklet / standard

Proper 10-13 – booklet / standard

Proper 14-17 – booklet / standard

Proper 18-21 – booklet / standard

Proper 22-25 – booklet / standard

Proper 26-29 – booklet / standard

Year Two

Advent and Christmas – booklet / standard

Epiphany Part 1 – booklet / standard

Epiphany Part 2 – booklet / standard

Lent Part 1 – booklet / standard

Lent Part 2 – booklet / standard

Easter Part 1 – booklet / standard

Easter Part 2 – booklet / standard

Proper 1-5 – booklet / standard

Proper 6-10 – booklet / standard

Proper 11-14 – booklet / standard

Proper 15-18 – booklet / standard

Proper 19-22 – booklet / standard

Proper 23-25 – booklet / standard

Proper 26-29 – booklet / standard

How to Pray the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer (Part 5) – The Readings

Richard — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 19:58:11 +0000

The Word of God does not simply give us information about religious truths. Rather the Word of God is the central medium through which we come to know and experience God (cf. Lk. 24:32). It is furthermore the central agency through which God accomplishes justice on earth in and through his people (cf. Isa. 55:7-13). The Word of God is unmistakably worthy of being thoroughly and ardently heard, read, marked, learned, inwardly digested and passionately “incarnated” through our lives. The “Readings” portion of the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer is one way in which this can happen in the life of a believer.

I am continuing today in my series in guiding you step-by-step in how to pray the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer. To review, the Daily Office from the BCP has four main sections, two of which we have already covered:

1) The Opening

2) The Psalms

3) The Readings

4) The Prayers

This page should look familiar from last time. We’ve already covered the Phos Hilaron and the Psalms.

Now we turn our attention to what is listed as “The Lessons.” This means a passage from the Bible (or other Christian literature) which is read out loud in a service. If you are praying the Office by yourself, you can read it silently or aloud.

While of course, every time Scripture is read, we garner new information, it is good to remember that this is first and foremost a time of prayer. I like to think of the Readings as mostly a time to hear from God. Studying the Bible is great, but that is done at a different time. Here, we primarily allow the Spirit of God to address us and speak to us through the Scripture Reading.

We saw this page briefly during the last section on the Psalms. It is a page from the Daily Office Lectionary. A Lectionary is a list of portions of the Bible to be read at appointed times, according to the Church Calendar. The Daily Office Lectionary lists the readings for the Daily Office as there is a different lectionary for use during the Eucharist.

It is arranged according to a two year cycle. Year One begins at Advent before an odd numbered year and Year Two begins at Advent before an even numbered year. The current year (2009) is Year One and began last December. This December we will move into Year Two.

During the two year cycle most of the Old Testament is read and the entire New Testament is covered each year.

Since the Church Calendar (for the most part) does not have fixed dates, neither does the Lectionary. This necessitates that you know where we are in the Christian Year (check here for some guidance).

Three readings are listed for each day, one from the OT, one from the NT epistles and one from the Gospels. The rubrics mention that one or two lessons are read at Morning and Evening Prayer, but all of them may be read at one office. It is intended that all three are read each day, no matter how they are split up. Additionally, the OT lesson from the alternate year may be used for an additional OT lesson, if an OT lesson is desired at each office, or if you just want more readings in one office. In a section called “Additional Directions” (p. 142), rubrics explain that a reading from “non-biblical Christian literature” may follow the Scripture readings. Traditionally, the Daily Office contained readings from Christian writers in the earliest centuries of the Church.

I personally enjoy the practice of reading from each major section of the Bible every day. Even if in my study times I am focused in one area, it keeps me grounded in in regular direct contact with the words of Jesus, the apostles and the OT narrative. It also gets me reading passages of Scripture I wouldn’t necessarily gravitate towards, or haven’t ever been on my study plans.

To make completing the Readings section of the Office easier, I’ve developed a resource with all the readings for a given day collected together to be printed out in a booklet. Click here to download them.

The rubrics here explain that silence may be kept after each Reading. I like to use this time to offer a simple spontaneous prayer in response to the passage, usually along the lines of 1) thanking God for something mentioned in the text; 2) asking him to give me deeper revelation of something mentioned in the text; or 3) asking for grace to be faithful to an exhortation in the text.

After the silence, a “Canticle” is sung or said. A Canticle is a song or song-like passage from somewhere in the Bible other than the Psalms. These are sung as prayer-responses to the readings.

The two standard canticles sung at Evening Prayer are the “Magnificat” (Song of Mary) and the “Nunc Dimittis” (Song of Simeon), both of which are taken from Luke’s Gospel. Traditionally, the Magnificat is used at every Evening Prayer and the Nunc Dimittis is used daily at Compline. If you don’t say Compline, you can pray the Nunc Dimittis nightly at Evensong.

On page 145, there is a schedule you can use to rotate the canticles. The numbered canticles are found on pp. 85-95. They are part of the order for Morning Prayer, so the publishers opted not to reprint them in Evening Prayer.

I personally find it easier just to place a marker in the canticles section and proceed in number order while doing the Magnificat as the last canticle each night. On page 85, the first canticle is #8 (1-7 are in “King James” English). So I would do #8 after the first Reading, #9 after the second Reading and then the Magnificat after the third Reading. The next day I would do #10 after the first reading, and so forth. Upon reaching the last of the Canticles, I would start over again at #8 and cycle them.

The final response to the Readings is the recitation of the Apostle’s Creed. This summary of the Christian Faith is of great antiquity, being attested to in extant writings from the 4th century. From at least that time, it was ascribed to the 12 apostles themselves (though, of course, we have no way of knowing such with any certainty).

It is likely of an origin older than the Nicene Creed, which was first written in conjunction with the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. At that time, the central heresy being confronted was Arianism – the notion that Jesus was not truly God. While the Nicene Creed thoroughly asserts the truth of Jesus’ divinity, the Apostle’s Creed seems to focus on an earlier concern – that of Gnosticism. It upholds that Jesus himself was bodily born, suffered, crucified, died, buried and was raised. It also affirms the “resurrection of the body.”

By prayerfully reciting the creed, we unite with all Christians throughout the world and throughout history in affirming the central truths of the Christian faith.

Okay – only one more part left to go and we’ll have worked our way entirely through the BCP order for Evening Prayer!

Opposition to Pre-Written Prayers Comes From the Spirit of the Age (Developing a Consistent Prayer Life Part 2)

Richard — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:12:41 +0000

In my experience, whether talking to evangelicals or charismatics (or evangelical-charismatics), there seems to be a fairly strong opposition to using pre-written forms in either corporate or personal prayer. By this I am mostly referring to using prayers written by someone else. Even more specifically, I am speaking of using something akin to the historic structured liturgies of daily prayer that have been used in religious communities from time immemorial. It is my contention that this opposition is based both on faulty logic and presuppositions that have much more to do with the spirit of the age (zeitgeist) than apostolic Christianity. Since for the most part the “proof of the pudding is in the eating,” seeing how simple it is to acquire the twelve benefits I laid out in the last post (easy, consistent, diverse, deep, rich in content, broadly-biblical, non-idiosyncratic, Christ-centered, historically-rooted, well-rounded, manageable and profoundly moving) will ultimately be the best reason for someone to use pre-written prayers and forms to aid their prayer life. However, I want to briefly deal with the primary objection I’ve heard over the years (and I myself once espoused) to using written prayers. The objection essentially goes something like one of the following:

“If I use a pre-written prayer, it couldn’t be authentic…”

“It’s not something that is really from my heart…”

“It wouldn’t be a personal relationship between me and God anymore…”

The assumption here is that the central criterion for “good prayer” is that it must be an authentic expression of my innermost self. Indeed, this criterion has been so exalted that it overpowers all the criteria I laid out in my previous post rendering them inconsequential. Thus expressing your innermost self (or your perception of your innermost self) trumps prayer that is consistent, deep, rich in content, broadly-biblical, Christ-centered, historically-rooted, etc. The notion that this is the paramount criterion for “real/good prayer” and is thus incompatible with pre-written forms is flawed in at least two ways.

1) LOGIC – The notion that pre-written forms cannot be authentic is an idea that almost no Christian actually believes, so it is a marvel to me that this argument is even employed. Let me explain. This past Sunday, in every church around the world, whether they were the most traditional, or the most charismatic, people used pre-written prayers to “express their hearts” to God. They were, however, in songs. Although I have regularly enjoyed and still do enjoy singing songs in both corporate and private settings that either I personally wrote in advance or made up on the spot, I have never been in a worship setting where all the songs the congregation sang were spontaneous. Even if that does happen somewhere, the congregation would still be using a form written by someone else.

I have never heard someone attempt to argue that they cannot sing worship songs or hymns written by someone else because they cannot possibly use them to give an “authentic expression of their innermost self” to God. This is because we all know that it is more than possible to express ourselves to God using someone else’s words. In fact, we do it all the time. More so, we frequently find that someone else can put into words, what our innermost self has been wanting to say but has not been able to express.

We also express ourselves to God through another’s words every time we agree with someone else’s prayer. We didn’t come up with those words, someone else did. They were not a spontaneous eruption from our hearts, yet when we say “Amen” we all acknowledge that the other’s words can be an authentic and meaningful way for us to pray to God. If they were not, then we would eschew all corporate prayer, an abstention that no one in the early apostolic community maintained.

2) BIBLICAL/HISTORICAL – Now that I’ve shown nearly all people do in fact believe it is possible to “authentically express your innermost self” to God through texts written by someone else, I would now like to go further by questioning this notion as a central criterion for judging quality prayer. Pause for a second and ask yourself if you ever remember Jesus, the apostles, the prophets, or anyone else in Scripture ever talk about the necessity for the “authentic expression of my innermost self.” It probably won’t take you long to realize that none of them ever do. (Even when there is gut-wrenching heart expression (for example, say, in the Psalms or Lamentations), it is WRITTEN down and intended for others to use as their own form).

If the Bible does not hold up the supreme necessity of “authentic self-expression” then why is this almost a universal, immediate response to the notion of using pre-written prayers in contemporary North-American Evangelical Protestantism? Where is this value and its priority coming from? I guess I already gave it away in the title of this post – it comes from the spirit of the age, to be more precise, the spirit of the age from 1800-1950ish. I am particularly meaning two specific movements of late modern culture: Romanticism and Existentialism.

The Romantic movement of the early 19th century responded to the extreme rationalism of the Enlightenment (late 17th and 18th century), and indeed they were right to do so. Rather they said, the “heart” was the central concern. Notice how such talk could easily be crowded into the same room with Isaiah, Amos and Deuteronomy’s emphasis on the “heart” and opposition to “outward forms” lacking internal reality. To risk oversimplifying an entire cultural movement, the Romantics encouraged one to look inward, to discover the feelings that are inside of you and make them the center of your life, not least your self-expression. This was codified in Christian thought by F.D.E. Schleiermacher who said that “Christian doctrines are accounts of the Christian religious affections set forth in speech” (The Christian Faith). Notice the subtle difference between Romanticism and the Scripture. Deuteronomy says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart…” while Romanticism says “have loving feelings” and Romantic-inspired theology says “let us describe our loving feelings about God.” In Biblical religion, the object of the love is central, whereas in romanticism-inspired theology, the feeling is central and the object ancillary (In his lengthy treatment of Christian theology, Schleiermacher said “this Other [meaning God] is not objectively presented in the immediate self-consciousness with which alone we are here concerned,” i.e., we’re mostly concerned with the feelings in our self-consciousness, not God).

This brings us to the largely 20th century phenomenon of existentialism (although its harbinger Kierkegaard appeared on the scene in the mid-19th century). Amongst other things, existentialism sought to highlight that each person has a “true self” of authentic existence which must be searched for, found, freed and given full expression. Like romanticism, there are ways this language can be layered within and around the Biblical text (As R. Bultmann aptly demonstrated, for better or for worse). Again, it is subtly different than what the Scripture is in fact saying. Rather than being confronted by and conformed to something larger than and external to ourselves, we must “discover who we really are” and then be true to that authentic self. Growth is not as much a process of conversion and transformation as it is discovery and realization of what was always there within me. Akin to Romanticism, Biblical faith emphasizes an external relationship, the zeitgeist, an inward journey.

From this brief historical lesson, I think it becomes clear where a lot of this talk about “authentic expression from my heart” derives its modern origins. At least in the ways it is often used, it is not coming from the Bible. Sure, Biblical verses are employed, but Romanticist and Existentialist interpretations and applications of those verses. If these passages are in fact explaining how the center of prayer is discovering what is really in my heart and then authentically expressing it to God in my own personally unique way, it is funny how nearly the entire tradition of Jewish and Christian prayer missed that, including the earliest records we have of the church immediately following the writing of the New Testament. When the apostles asked Jesus how to pray, he didn’t give them instructions on how to focus or how to tune into the Spirit really hard. Nor did he tell them to divide up into groups and discuss their personal story and emote what is bubbling up from their inner recesses. He did not lead them in a journey of inward discovery and affirmation. He certainly did not encourage them to abandon forms and structures of spirituality, since his answer was to give them a set of words they can say, which is now known as “The Lord’s Prayer.” It is commonly asserted that the Lord’s Prayer was not a “form,” (predicated on the assumption we already know religious forms are bad!) but a suggestion of the topics one can pray about. It’s fine to use it that way, but that is not what Jesus was doing. Luke’s text is very clear in this manner. It says quite literally, “whenever you pray, SAY: ‘Father…’” (Luke 11:2). Jesus’ central advice on prayer is to have a specific pattern and form of words to “say” “whenever you pray.” Whatever we make of this, it certainly was miles away from what a Romanticist/Existentialist might recommend.

Now don’t get me wrong. As a good product of my time I think “expressing what’s really in my heart” is important and I personally cherish the numerous times I have been able to do so. But it is not central, and it is certainty not the starting place of prayer. If prayer begins with and finds its locus in “expressing my heart,” it would seem to be right on track to transmogrify from a noble and beautiful practice into an ugly and horrid introspective navel-gazing. I know plenty of this from my personal experience. On the contrary, Christian prayer begins with our eyes fixed on God (rather than our emotions) and the Scripture (rather than our own creativity/authenticity), while rooted in Church history (rather than our own idiosyncrasy). What I’ve found is this type of heart-posture, coupled with the method of prayer that I’ll outline in my next post, has led to a significant increase in the regularity of profoundly moving and authentically expressive experiences with the Lord, over the whole gamut of emotions.

While my personal experience is not your own, for me it illustrates the futility and lack of credibility contained within Romanticist and Existentialist applications of Scripture. The difference is stark. When Isaiah rebukes Israel using words like “I hate your festivals,” etc., or Jesus speaks of the Pharisees’ honoring God with their words, but their hearts being far away, or Paul might speak of the liberty of the Spirit, the Existentialist or Romanticist might condemn the use of forms, structures or patterns in worship and prayer. The solution to a dull spiritual experience is the inward search and liberation from “religious forms.” In reality, this analysis is incredibly shallow. Isaiah makes clear the issue is not forms but faithfulness to Yahweh (Isa. 1:12-17). Paul transparently states the law is good and spiritual (Rom. 7:12, 14). I also find it hard to believe that Jesus specifically condemned the forms of Jewish liturgy considering the early church continued to take part in this worship after the Ascension and even after Pentecost (Luke 24:53; Acts 2:42, 46; 3:1). The Existentialist would tell me I need to prioritize authenticity, self-expression and freedom from forms, but I have found that concerted faithfulness to God, attentiveness to his Word and commitment to structured rhythms of prayer is the context within which I have experienced more acute self-awareness, greater freedom in self-expression and deeper religious affections than I have at any previous time in my life. Using pre-written structures and liturgies have dramatically transformed my prayer life for the better, and enabled me to obtain a spirituality that is “easy, consistent, diverse, deep, rich in content, broadly-biblical, non-idiosyncratic, Christ-centered, historically-rooted, well-rounded, manageable and profoundly moving” (see the previous post for an explanation of all these components).

In my next post I will outline what this specifically looks like for me in my practice of daily prayer.

The Relationship of Christianity to Other Religions

Richard — Sun, 03 May 2009 00:34:08 +0000

Any discussion of how Christianity relates to other religions must first begin with a clear and concrete articulation of what Christianity is centrally about. Much discussion on religious pluralism assumes or posits a universal notion of what is “central” to religions (a norm to which Christianity conforms) or that the content of Christianity is flexible (that which does not conform to the “center” is shed). For example, Paul Knitter explains that, “Every religion, it would seem, seeks to place its followers in contact with a Reality, or to provide them with an exercise, whereby they can break the bonds of ego-clinging in order to embrace and be part of and so be transformed by that which is other.”[1] John Hick, similarly, would locate this soteriological locus “as an actual change in men and women from natural self-centredness to, in theistic terms, God-centredness, or in more general terms, a new orientation centered in the Ultimate, the Real.”[2] Hick also points to the universality of something akin to the “Golden Rule” amongst the major traditions as indicative of this shared soteriological emphasis.[3] Once this center has been determined, Hick believes it is possible (indeed, necessary) to postulate a Christianity without a trinity of unique persons, a de facto incarnation of God in the flesh, or a substitutionary atonement (of any kind).[4] Perhaps if one is seeking to arrive at a general theory of religion, such abstract and vague generalizing is a necessary starting place. However, to address the relationship of Christianity to the other world religions, one must first begin with an adequate expression of what Christianity is, in its own right, before determining potential areas of coherence and/or incoherence with the other great traditions.

The Biblical text begins (Genesis 1-2) with an account of God creating the world (which is oddly enough, a polemic against the leading, and of course the non-leading, accounts of cosmology and theology in the surrounding cultural milieu). This confession of God as creator finds expression repeatedly throughout the Bible.[5] The fact that Yhwh was recognized as the sole creator of the cosmos, means that at least four other religious options cannot be true: (1) henotheism (confession of Yhwh as creator affirms God’s ontological, not merely practical, superiority over the so-called “gods” of the nations); (2) pantheism (confession of Yhwh as creator affirms that God is ontologically distinct from the creation, having an existence both separate and prior); (3) deism (confession of Yhwh as the creator-God was frequently the basis for Israel’s belief that God would intervene in history, not that God was untouchable beyond it); and (4) Gnosticism (the world is the good creation of the one true God, not the bad creation of a foolish lower demiurge).[6] Chapters 3-11 recount the devastating downward spiral the creation takes directly on account of human decisions and behavior. In the opening chapters of the Bible themes are established which are maintained and serve as foundational throughout the rest of the corpus of Scripture: (1) Yhwh is the one true God; (2) the world is affirmed as the good creation of the creator God; (3) the pristine (though not necessarily perfect) created order is corrupted by human sin; and (4) human action repeatedly and progressively destroys the created order. As for this final point, David Clines aptly summarizes Genesis 1-11 in saying, “Humankind tends to destroy what God has made good. Even when God forgives human sin and mitigates the punishment, sin continues to spread, to the point where the world suffers uncreation. And even when God makes a fresh start, turning his back on uncreation forever, humanity’s tendency to sin immediately becomes manifest.”[7]

In chapter twelve of Genesis, God makes a covenant with Abraham and his descendents. They are to be the people through whom the blessing originally granted in Genesis 1, deconstructed in chapters three through eleven, would be mediated to the entire earth. “Abraham emerges within the structure of Genesis as the answer to the plight of all humankind…Abraham and his progeny inherit the role of Adam and Eve…[they] are to be the means of undoing primeval sin and its consequences.”[8] They will be God’s agents in restoring the corrupted and decaying earth.

Thus the nation of Israel is born. Nearly immediately however, and such becomes a recurrent theme throughout the Old Testament, the covenant people themselves are in peril, either through unelected circumstances (the barrenness of the matriarchs, oppression in Egypt, captivity in Babylon, etc.), interpersonal strife, or national sin which elicits God’s judgment. However, the calling to be the mediator of God’s blessing to the earth and the means by which the problem of sin would be dealt with was not rescinded. Even in the midst of the Babylonian captivity, the Book of the Prophet Isaiah calls Israel, “my servant [who] will bring forth justice to the nations” (Isa. 42:1), the “light to the nations” (Isa. 42:6), those by whom Yhwh’s “salvation may reach to the ends of the earth” (Isa. 49:6), and those who are appointed to “restore the earth” (49:8).

To the prophets, who stood in the theological, emotional, intellectual and pastoral chasm between the unabashed calling of Israel to be God’s means of dealing with the sin of the world and the ever-precarious status of that same covenant people, it became understood that Israel’s calling would only be fulfilled by a dramatic intervention of God in history. Indeed, it would be history’s climactic moment, in which God would “bare his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” (Isa. 52:9). This redemptive, restorative justice-effecting salvation would be a decisive act of God, through his people within the world, yet very much so from beyond the world. Within the Old Testmanent itself (Isa. 25:6-8; Daniel 12) but increasingly so in the intertestimental period, this expectation became understood in terms of resurrection, the post-mortem revivification of bodily life.[9]

It was as these expectations for God’s justice to break in upon the world reached, in many quarters, a feverish pitch, that Jesus, the one hailed Messiah, entered the world scene, announcing the Reign of God. This kingdom was understood by his Jewish followers to be in direct continuity with kingdom expectations flowing from the Jewish prophetic writings about God’s justice and salvation coming to earth.[10] Though this has been the subject of numerous entire monographs, the life, message, ministry and actions of Jesus were meant, by him, to be understood in continuity with these messianic expectations. Of particular note are his actions at the temple (Mt. 21:12ff; Mk 11:15ff.; Lk. 19:45ff.) where he announced that it would be torn down and he would rebuild it, therein declaring himself to be Israel’s (and the world’s) messiah and king; and the Last Supper (Mt. 26:20ff; Mark 14:12ff.; Lk. 22:7ff.), where he interprets his impending death through the lens of the Passover, in which God will work to effect a New Exodus of freedom and liberation in fulfillment of his covenant with Abraham.[11] Jesus’ announcement of the nearness of the Kingdom, in conjunction with these “prophetic parables” indicate his belief that the long awaited time when God would decisively act to deal with the problem of sin and restore the entire creation in God’s salvific justice was happening through him. This great restoration was in fact inaugurated when God raised Jesus bodily from the dead as the firstfruits of the resurrection of the entire creation (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20). After his resurrection, he affirms that “all authority in heaven and on earth” had been given to him as the world’s true Lord and that the apostles were to go, in the spirit of Psalm 96 and Isaiah 52, announcing to all nations that God was bringing salvation, righteousness and wholeness near, putting the world to rights, and was simultaneously demanding their allegiance to Jesus as Lord and their submission to his kingdom proclamations (teachings).

The other New Testament writings, of Paul in particular, continue to implement the message and work of Jesus, in continuity with the story of Israel’s history.[12] They herald both the dawning new day of God’s kingdom of salvific justice upon the world,[13] yet at the same time acknowledging the lingering realities of the “present evil age,” including evil (Rom. 8:35-36), sickness (Phil. 2:26-27), suffering (1 Cor. 12:26), death (Rom. 8:10), decay (Rom. 8:20-21), and demonic powers (Eph. 6:12). Though God had decisively acted in and through Jesus, and makes his people agents of restoration, the earth still awaits a future moment of final salvation which will be brought by God to the earth (Rom. 8:18ff; 1 Cor. 15:23ff; Phil 3:20-21; 1 Thess. 4:13ff; 2 Thess. 1:6-8; 2:7-8; Rev. 21-22). This salvation, both its present downpayment and future fulfillment, is the possession of those who participate in the death and resurrection of the Messiah (1 Cor. 6:15, 10:16; 12:27; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6:3-11; 8:1; 12:4-6; Gal. 2:19f; 5:24; 6:14; Phil 3:8f; Eph. 2:5; Col. 2:20; 3:1-4). Those who have given their allegiance to Jesus as Lord will participate in the full life of the Age to Come, while those who are not “in the Messiah” will perish (1 Cor. 1:18; 6:9ff; 2 Cor. 2:15; 4:3; Phil. 3:19). [14]

This articulation of Christian faith is, albeit, extremely abbreviated. What it hopefully makes clear is that Biblical Christianity, when expressed in concrete terms, cannot accept the soteriological proposals made by Hick and others. Of note is that the preceding articulation of Christianity did not even mention the common stumbling blocks of Trinity, Incarnation and Substitutionary Atonement, but focused on the Biblical framework in which a historically situated understanding of Christian salvation emerges. Christian salvation is not about a personalistic and moralistic attempt to move from “ego-centeredness” to “reality-centeredness.” Rather, Christianity affirms that existent reality is itself in need of salvation, both the constituent members and the greater whole. Although this salvation will certainly affect the internal orientation of individuals, its paramount feature is that it comes from God to the entire cosmos, for those who are of the faithfulness of Jesus (Rom. 3:26), those who have given believing allegiance to the world’s true Lord, Jesus (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). Christianity is thus incompatible with the major world religions, not because of certain distinctive doctrines, but because if its concepts of God, humanity, the earth and its salvation are true, then by nature, it does not allow for the truth claims of other religions in as much as they conflict with its own.

[1] Paul Knitter, “Christian Theology of Liberation and Interfaith Dialogue,” in Christianity and Other Religions, ed. John HIck (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2001), 151-2.

[2] John Hick, “The Theological Challenge of Religious Pluralism,” ibid, 164.

[3] ibid.

[4] John Hick, “The Non-Absoluteness of Christianity” in The Myth of Christian Uniqueness: Towards a Pluralistic Theology of Religions, ed. John Hick and Paul Knitter (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987), 30-33.

[5] Genesis 1:1-28, 31; 2:1-25; 5:1, 2; 9:6; Exodus 20:11; 1 Samuel 2:8; 2 Kings 19:15; 1 Chronicles 16:26; Nehemiah 9:6; Job 9:8, 9; 10:3, 8; 12:7-9; 26:7-13; 28:23-26; 37:16, 18; 38:4-38; Psalm 8:3; 19:1, 4; 24:1, 2; 33:6, 7, 9; 65:6; 74:16, 17; 78:69; 89:11, 12, 47; 90:2; 95:4, 5; 96:5; 102:25; 103:22; 104:2, 3, 5, 6, 24, 30, 31; 119:90, 91; 121:2; 124:8; 136:5-9; 146:5, 6; 148:5, 6; Proverbs 3:19; 8:26-29; 16:4; 22:2; 26:10; 30:4; Ecclesiastes 3:11; 7:29; 11:5; Isaiah 17:7; 37:16; 40:12, 26, 28; 42:5; 44:24; 45:7, 12, 18; 48:13; 51:13, 16; 66:2; Jeremiah 5:22; 10:12, 13, 16; 27:5; 31:35; 32:17; 33:2; 51:15, 16, 19; Amos 4:13; 5:8; 9:6; Jonah 1:9; Zechariah 12:1; Mark 10:6; 13:19; Acts 4:24; 7:50; 14:15; 17:24-26; Romans 1:20; 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 11:12; 2 Corinthians 4:6; 5:5, 18; Ephesians 3:9; 1 Timothy 6:13; Hebrews 1:1, 2; 2:10; 3:4; 11:3; Revelation 4:11; 10:6; 14:7

[6] Nicholas Thomas Wright, New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 249.

[7] David J.A. Clines, The Theme of the Pentatuech (Sheffield: The University of Sheffield Press, 1978), 76.

[8] Nicholas Thomas Wright, New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 252, 262-3.

[9] Nicholas Thomas Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 146-206.

[10] Nicholas Thomas Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 202ff.

[11] Ibid, 406-428; 554-563.

[12] cf. Romans 1:2; 3:21; 16:26

[13] Acts 2:16-17; 26:16-18; Rom. 3:21; 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:19-20; 10:11; 2 Cor. 5:16-17; 6:1-2; Col. 1:12-14; 4:11; Heb. 1:1-2; 6:4-5; 9:25-26; 12:28; 1 Pet. 1:18-20; 1 John 2:7-8; Rev. 1:9.

[14] E.P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1977), 453ff., 473.

Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 3) – Practical Suggestions

Richard — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:36:38 +0000

In response to my previous posts on “Reading the Bible in the Right Direction,” one reader asked, “so where does one begin on this journey of rediscovering the full context of the bible through the old testament?” I think this is a great question. So in departure from my standard conceptual model of discussion, I purpose here to tease out a few practical suggestions in following the line of biblical interpretation I laid out previously.

First it would be appropriate to say that understanding the Bible in this manner (i.e., interpreting the NT through its OT context) is not only for scholars. We have to remember that the Jews in Jesus’ day were mostly illiterate, but were able to interpret his actions in their OT, Jewish context. While granted, they were living in that context, it at least tells us it is possible without a PhD in Jewish studies.

However, it also tells us that this is not something that will be fully grasped in a day or a week. The Jews in Jesus’ day had a lifetime of formation in the Hebrew Scriptures and in the story of God’s dealings with Israel. If we want to take Jesus life, words and actions seriously in their Jewish context we have to be willing to expend the effort to reorient ourselves from whatever story we have been living in (i.e., the Modern Progress Myth, the American Dream, the American Apathy, the MLB schedule, etc.) to the story of God’s dealings with his creation through the Jewish people. While not requiring post-graduate work, it does require that we immerse ourselves (this takes time and effort) in narrative thought world of the Old Testament.

And now for being practical…

1) Make reading the OT a regular part of your “spiritual diet.” Many Christians spend all their time in either the gospels or Paul (both of which I love!) but very little time elsewhere. Don’t be afraid to spend a few months reading and studying a section of the OT. Don’t worry – you won’t “get into law” and lose grace. When at a later time you come back to focus in the NT it will be richer and fuller, not diminished.

One easy way to do this is follow the OT readings in the Daily Office Lectionary, which gives two digestible portions of the OT each day, which covers most of the OT in a given year.

2) Don’t get bogged down in details. If your goal is to memorize the entire king list of Israel and Judah so be it. If your goal is to understand who Jesus is in his Jewish context and what God did in and through him, it is not critical to memorize every detail of every story in the OT. Neither is it necessary to glean every possible “principle” that can be squeezed out of each story. I think this is one of the reasons people avoid the OT – they think they need to master all the content – THIS IS NOT TRUE. What is critical is to notice the reoccurring themes and motifs and how they are functioning in the narrative. Some themes and motifs to pay attention to are: creation, covenant, exodus, promise, land, inheritance, children (progeny, childbirth, pregnancy), obedience/faithfulness, sin/idolatry, justice/injustice, forgiveness, exile, return from exile, restoration/redemption, king/kingship, life/death, temple, nations/foreigners. I’m sure there could be many others, but I think you get the point.

3) Though I may get shot for saying such, I do believe that certain parts of the OT are (a lot) more important than others. This is a corollary of the previous point. Memorizing every detail in the historical books is not essential for grasping the overall flow of the OT narrative and its primary messages. If you don’t remember who every king is and what they did, but do remember that king after king after king violated the covenant, led the people in sin and idolatry, promoting grave injustice, which was the ultimate reason for them being removed from the land, for the temple being destroyed and for them being sent into exile to be ruled over by foreign nations, you would not be far from the Kingdom of God. With that said, it is not necessary to spend months memorizing all the details unless you want to be a scholar whose expertise is in the historical books of the OT.

My humble (and open to change) opinion is that some of the more significant sections of the Bible (that bear the greatest weight in shaping first century Judaism and the NT) are Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms and Isaiah 40-55(or 66). I know these are long and scary books. Read them anyway! If you read them over and over they will in due time become familiar. As for the Psalms – I do not mean thirty selected verses in your favorite eight psalms – I mean ALL of them. There’s some weird stuff in those psalms, but they are the recorded prayer life of Israel. It is how Israel understood, interpreted and responded to the events described in the other books of the OT. I am really passionate about the book of Psalms in its entire. I am very tempted to digress, but will make a note to write an entire post on the Psalms in at a later date.

Spend time in these books attempting to grasp their key messages. If you memorize details but cannot say what the main themes are you are missing the point. Chill out with the memorization, read the books in long chunks and then reflect on what stands out as thematic.

4) Read the Bible in long chunks. I know I just said that, but it bears repeating. Do not content yourself with reading a list of isolated verses. Single verses are great for meditation and reflection, but that is not Bible study. Let there be frequent times when you read five or ten chapters of the Bible in a row. Read short books in one sitting. Find a Bible without chapter and verse divisions so to avoid artificial segmentation of sections of the Bible that need to go together (check out http://thebooksofthebible.info for a great new Bible like this).

It used to be assumed that the central unit of meaning was the smaller unit like the sentence, the word, or even parts of words. However, it is more and more being asserted that the primary unit of meaning are the larger units (paragraph, groups of paragraphs). Each individual unit only has its meaning with the whole. Apart from the whole the smaller units do not mean the same thing. For this reason it is essential that all the parts are incorporated into the larger whole. Reading verses one by one in isolation will not communicate the full meaning, because the meaning is likely in the larger unit (this approach is called discourse-analysis, in case you are interested).

5) When you see a quotation from the OT in the NT, go back and read the larger context of the quotation. I often hear remarks that the authors of the NT took OT scriptures out of context. Before you come to that conclusion, go back and read the entire passage. Then bring those ideas into the NT passage and see how interpretation may be impacted. The authors of the NT are much more subtle and their meaning is much more profound then simple proof-texting.

6) When reading the NT, regularly ask what concepts mean in the OT. What does sin and forgiveness mean in the OT? How does its connection with the exile and return in the OT impact our understanding its meaning in the NT? What does redemption mean in the OT? How does its connection with the exodus in the OT impact our understanding of it in the NT? What is a “soul” in the OT? How does this bear on our understanding of NT anthropology?

7) Stop treating the OT like a second-class member of the Bible. Last night I was talking with some people about the OT and interpreting a specific passage and someone said in jest (because they know what I think about these kind of things): “oh, its just the Old Testament,” as in, “we let weird things slide in the OT because now that we have the NT we can forget about all those other things we don’t understand.”
Let’s treat the Old Testament as real inspired and authoritative scripture. When we find things that don’t line up to our preconceived ideas, lets allow ourselves to be challenged by them rather than dismissing them as being “in the Old Testament.” The Bible is a book that refuses to be tamed by our contrived theological systems. The Bible does not need the sedatives of eisegesis to make it palatable to the modern Christian ethos. Much of what is in the OT can, will and should challenge our pre-existing ideas when we too-confidently have our concepts and ideology neatly arranged, cleaned, packaged and trimmed.

Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 2)

Richard — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 21:54:50 +0000

In my last post I proposed a manner of biblical interpretation in which the ideas, concepts, world-view, etc. of the Old Testament must be the foundation for understanding the New Testament, rather than vice versa. The thought must flow from an informed Old Testament understanding into the New Testament, rather than reinterpreting the Old Testament by what is assumed the New Testament means.

One illustration will suffice for now, although I will elucidate this principle in a number of subsequent posts. In Matthew 2:15, Matthew describes how after the birth of Jesus, his parents took him to Egypt to avoid the threat of Herod. After Herod died, they came back to Judea. Matthew says, “This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.” On first glance, this may look like a fulfillment of prophesy “proving” that Jesus is the Messiah. It seems that way until one looks at the context surrounding the verse quoted in Hosea 11. Instead of being a prophecy foretelling the future, it is the recollection of God’s past faithfulness to Israel in bringing them out of Egypt in the Exodus. The “son” is Israel, who in the Exodus accounts is called Yahweh’s “firstborn son” (Ex. 4:22). Does Matthew 2 thereby “prove” that Jesus is the Messiah on the basis of Hosea 11? Is that what Matthew means by “fulfillment?”

It seems like we have two interpretive options. We can read the Bible backwards – inserting the NT idea into the OT. This would leave us with a Hosea 11 which is maybe a little bit about Israel, but is really about Jesus, predicting his departure from Egypt when he was young so we could conclusively prove that Jesus came to die for our sins and bring our souls with him to heaven. The other possibility is to read the Bible in the other direction. Hosea 11 really is about Israel. It really is about the covenant. It really is about the history of promises given to an earthling (i.e., Abraham) about the future of life on earth. History does not become irrelevant in the light of eternity. Earth does not become irrelevant in light of heaven. Humanity does not become irrelevant in the light of God. Instead of Hosea 11 becoming about Jesus (which would make Hosea 11 pretty incomprehensible, especially to its original audience), Matthew is telling us that the birth and life of Jesus and the story he is recounting is in direct continuity with the OT history of promise, covenant and exodus.

This gets all the more interesting when we consider more of the surrounding context in Matthew:

1:23 – the angel Gabriel announces that a “savior” is going to be born (the word “savior” and “deliverer” are the same concept in Hebrew – think a deliverer, i.e. MOSES)
2:13 – Herod attempts to kill Jesus by killing all the children in Bethlehem (think Pharaoh killing all the Hebrew children in Exodus)
2:15 – “Out of Egypt I called my Son” – think the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt
3:6 – Jesus is baptized by John in the Jordan River, which in Jewish tradition is often seen in parallel with the Red Sea (compare, for example, Psalm 114) – here we are seeing Jesus “cross the Red Sea” after leaving Egypt
4:1ff – Jesus enters the wilderness for 40 days – think Israel wandering in the wilderness for forty years – they failed in their time of temptation, but Jesus triumphed.
4:12 – Jesus “enters the land” and begins his ministry proclaiming the Gospel.

Matthew 2:15 is not a proof-text for the Messiah-ship of Jesus. It is part of a larger drama where Matthew is implicitly retelling (indeed, with these passages, in chronological order) the story of Israel, specifically their central, paradigmatic story, the Exodus. Rather than being a Messianic proof-text, it tells us that Jesus is embodying the history of Israel and is indeed re-enacting it, to prepare us to understand that Jesus is the true representative of Israel, the one who will go into exile for their sins and burst through the bonds of the exile of death to herald the restoration, indeed the resurrection of Israel and all humanity. Jesus fulfills what was written in the prophets, in that he is the climax, the consummation, the fulfillment of the story of Israel. All of Israel’s hopes had been looking back to the covenant promises and forward to the nation’s restoration. They were looking for a new exodus, a final, eschatological exodus in which all things would be made new. This story of promise and expectation finds its fulfillment in Jesus. In Him, the Pharaoh of history, death itself, has been defeated and the way is opened for all to enter into the perpetual existence of resurrection life on earth.

Reading the Bible in the Right Direction

Richard — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 23:23:37 +0000

Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son… (Romans 1:1-3)

Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith… (Roman 16:25-26)

What the previous posts about the flesh/spirit conflict bring out is my conviction that the order of the Bible must necessarily be heeded. By this, I do not refer to the order of the books, as there has been a variety of such orders throughout the history of Biblical usage. I simply mean the order Old Testament first, New Testament second. Far from being derogatory, the term “old” in Old Testament refers to its being foundational to the New Testament rather than something that is replaced or superseded. The Bible must be read in the right direction.

In the above quoted passages, which form a bracket around the book of Romans, both mention the dependence of Paul’s gospel on the previous testimony of the Old Testament scriptures. This does not simply mean that the Old Testament is a repository of predictions awaiting proof which have now been provided in the New Testament. Rather, Paul’s gospel is based on the entire Old Testament narrative, which although taking some surprising turns, still remains intact as its foundational element. Paul, and all the other authors of the New Testament, understand that what happened in and through Jesus was in dynamic continuity with the OT narrative, beginning with the creation of the world, through Abraham and the covenant made to him, Moses, David and the covenant made to him, and the proclamations of the prophets before, during and after the exile. All of these elements are clearly drawn upon specifically in the book of Romans (Rom. 1:20; 4:1ff; 1:3-4; 9:14-17; 9:25; 15:9-12) and throughout the New Testament writings.

We should not expect the New Testament (hereafter NT) authors to repeat the entire content of the Old Testament (hereafter OT). Not only would this make the NT three times longer, it would be redundant. The respective aspects of the OT narrative did not need to be and were not repeated in the NT, because they were already developed in the OT and first-century Jews were well acquainted with them. The NT authors built on this already assumed understanding. They start from this foundation (i.e., formidable acquaintance with the literature of the Old Testament) and then explicate the new developments and difficulties that are brought about by the decisive action of God in and through Jesus the Messiah.

If this is the case, then in order to understand the NT, one must understand the OT first. Then, the direction of interpretation must flow from the OT into the NT. After being acquainted with the framework of thought in the OT, that then forms how we understand and interpret the NT. The narrative of the OT and the meaning it gives various concepts sets what is normative for interpreting the NT. We must remember that before anything else, the Bible is a story and the gospel is an announcement of good news, i.e., events have occurred whereby God has been faithful to his covenant people and fulfilled his promises to them. In order for stories to make sense, the beginning and middle must be read (not necessarily before reading the end, but at least at some point). True, the fulfillment of the promise can give illuminative insight into the original promises (just as reading the end of a story can clarify some nuances of the story’s beginning), but how can we adequately understand the fulfillment in abstraction from the originating history of promise? How does the conclusion of the story make any sense apart from it being the consummation of something that has long since begun? It often seems as though what God did in the NT is completely new and bears no relation to the OT. If this is the case, we have not understood the Bible aright.

It strikes me that there is a widespread avoidance of the OT, possibly due to its large amount of content, or to its seeming opacity, or the seeming discontinuity between the vision of God and life between the two testaments. We then settle in the more comfortable world of the NT, which is “more easily understood” and is relatively more tame. This then cultivates the opposite approach of interpretation, where our “understanding” of the NT becomes normative for our interpretation of the OT. Suddenly, nothing in the OT is about Israel, creation, the covenants, the land, the exodus, and the exile, but is now about Jesus, and the spiritual life of the soul on its journey to heaven. The former are simply external trappings for the “deeper” “spiritual” message of the OT, which often enough winds up being identical to the OT-free interpretation of the NT.

I would like to suggest naming this phenomenon “quasi-Marcionism.” Marcion was a man decisively denounced as a heretic in the second century. He taught that the god of the OT (Yahweh) was a different god than the god of the NT (Jesus). The god of the OT was a god of wrath, while Jesus was a god of love. He developed an alternate canon of Scripture which included only ten of Paul’s letters and one gospel (a chopped up version of the Gospel of Luke) and eliminated everything else (including the entire Old Testament). It seemed to him that Paul’s gospel was radically different than that declared in the OT. The early church refused to accept such an idea.

If we find it difficult to reconcile the “god” of the OT with the god of the “NT” as well as their respective themes and world-views, then I would contend that we are quite possibly, sorely misunderstanding the NT, and falling prey to quasi-Marcionism. I call the phenomenon described earlier quasi-Marcionism because it does not outright reject the OT, it simply reinterprets it as the NT in slightly more allegoric fashion (i.e., the OT is simply stories that illustrate NT principles). Instead of reinterpreting the Old Testament as being about Jesus and the salvation of souls, it is better and more consistent with the NT itself, to see the NT — i.e., our understanding of Jesus and the “salvation of souls” as being precisely about Israel, creation, the covenants, the land, the exodus, the exile and the Jewish hope for the future of life on earth. These are not merely the external trappings the NT sheds, they are central to the message of the entire Bible. In my opinion, we need to become less familiar with the NT, less comfortable in its soil which is truly more foreign to us then we imagine. As long as the OT, its story, world-view, themes, expectations and hopes, are confounding to us (or overly familiar to as affluent 21st century Westerners), we do not have a comfortable resting place in the NT, for it is a profoundly Jewish book embedded in the thought of the former.

In my next post I will illustrate this principle briefly…but first – I must mention that my intention is not to be down on this or that interpretation of Scripture. My hope is that many Christians will be captured by the Old Testament. These books invite us to be caught up in the drama of a story that is so much bigger than ourselves, the conclusion of which is magnificent far beyond our wildest imaginations. Rather than mechanize the Old Testament as a repository of proof-texts and principles, we are beckoned to become pilgrims on the way of promise, hope and expectation. We are freed to embrace and acknowledge the concrete realities of our lived lives, celebrating its joys, mourning its sorrows, and by faith in God’s future, to gather together those joys and sorrows, lifting up our eyes with hope, eagerly looking towards the yet outstanding future where God will wipe away tears from all faces and renew the face of the earth (Is. 25:8; Ps. 104:30).

On the Road to Emmaus » Bible

Can I Understand the Bible Without Knowing Greek???

Related posts

Practical Suggestions for Celebrating the Church Year

Related posts

Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 4) – The Overarching Story of Scripture

Related posts

Readings for the Daily Office of the Book of Common Prayer

Related posts

How to Pray the Daily Office from the Book of Common Prayer (Part 5) – The Readings

Related posts

Opposition to Pre-Written Prayers Comes From the Spirit of the Age (Developing a Consistent Prayer Life Part 2)

Related posts

The Relationship of Christianity to Other Religions

Related posts

Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 3) – Practical Suggestions

Related posts

Reading the Bible in the Right Direction (Part 2)

Related posts

Reading the Bible in the Right Direction

Related posts