Peter's instruction to get rid of malice always makes me think of Lincoln's second inaugural address. If you would like to see the actual document which contains the Christian testimony of Abraham Lincoln as published in the Freeport Weekly Journal on December 7, 1864, simply click on this link to another blog I did:
http://thefaithofabrahamlincoln.blogspot.com
or
read the selected text which I typed here:
Excerpt from the Freeport Weekly Journal, Freeport, Illinois. Wednesday, December 7, 1864.
THE VICTORY OF TRUTH
A Discourse Preached on the day of National Thanksgiving, November 24th, 1864, in the First Presbyterian Church of Freeport, Ills., by ISAAC E. CAREY
“A gentleman, having recently visited Washington on business with the President, was, on leaving home, requested by a friend to ask Mr. Lincoln whether he loved Jesus. The business being completed, the question was kindly asked. The President buried his face in his handkerchief, turned away and wept. He then turned and said, ‘..(Unreadable).. left home to take this Chair of State, I requested..(unreadable)..pray for me, I was not then a Christian. When my son died, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg, and looked upon the graves of our dead heroes who had fallen in defense of their country, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ; I do love Jesus’” (1).
(1) Isaac E. Carey, “The Victory of Truth,” Freeport Weekly Journal, December 7, 1864, 1.
I give my gratitude to Ms. Dillard, a librarian at Hewes Library at Monmouth College, who made a copy of the article for me. It is challenging to read because the microfilm is old.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
1 Peter 2:1-3
1 Peter 2:1-3 Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind. Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation, now that you have tasted that the Lord is good.
Today was a reading day for me, and I continued with the book I have talked about in my commentary of the two previous passages: Learning Theology with the Church Fathers, which is a book I recommend. Compared with some of the stuff I had to read in my last semester for Contemporary Approaches to Theology, it is like going from a diet of burnt toast to strawberries. Covering chapters seven and eight today, I read of John Chrysostom’s teachings on the providence of God, a needed discourse on that subject since many teachings in western culture are in the shadow of the popular Augustine on the subject. Dr. Hall even notes the variance: “The problem, as Chrysostom presents matters, is that human disposition and choice are corrupted by sin. Chrysostom, however, like most Eastern fathers, does not see this corruption as completely debilitating human freedom. He is convinced, in a manner that would perhaps cause problems for a Latin father such as Augustine, that human choice remains free” (1).
I bring this book up again, because after the reading today, which included discussion on the suffering, I considered how malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all slander always have the same consequences: hurt. People who chose to engage in any or many of these practices hurt themselves and often other people every time. Such actions have been done within church communities, which I have experienced such in a church, and I have been hurt by such. And such actions have been done in places of work, families, schools, sports teams, and countless other social contexts. The result is always the same: people get hurt. Yet it continues.
A longtime hero for me is Abraham Lincoln. Why? Because even though he had flaws, Lincoln remained steadfast over a period of many years in the face of fierce opposition that slavery is wrong. He acted accordingly and never wavered in that conviction. That is why he is a hero for me. I bring Lincoln up here for one reason. In a world that is full of malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all slander, Lincoln’s plea not to have malice rings in my heart as I read this passage from I Peter.
Having the privilege to sit in the pew Lincoln worshiped in at New York Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C. was the pinnacle of a personal tour of that church in the summer of 2009. Despite his attendance at that church, and despite the fact that his speeches made a number of references to God, a debate has continued all of these years about whether Lincoln was a Christian. This started soon after his death when it was stated in some books that he was not a Christian.
I personally was blessed to enter into the consideration of the faith of Abraham Lincoln upon reading a book in the fall of 2005, More Than Conquerors; Portraits of Believers from All Walks of Life (2). The author of Lincoln’s piece, Willard Davis, presented the Christian testimony of Lincoln, however, he gave no sources! I wanted to know where in the world he got his information regarding the testimony! Then on President’s Day, in February of 2009, I was was given a gift: a lecture. A lecture may not sound like a exciting gift from the top, but the lecturer was Dr. Ronald Rietveld, who had been a longtime professor at California State Fullerton. And his talk was on the faith of Abraham Lincoln. His thesis was the statement that faith is something which may not be in full bloom from the beginning, and he exposed a Lincoln who went through a long maturing process to the point where he “consecrated” his life to Christ in the wake of the battle of Gettysburg, before penning his Gettysburg address. The quote of Abraham Lincoln consecrating his life to Christ given by Dr. Rietveld was similar to the quote that was in the book with no citation. This led me into a search for the source of the quote, which resulted in finding one source of the quote, which was a sermon published in the Freeport Weekly Journal on December 7, 1864. You can read more about this if you are interested at
http://thefaithofAbrahamLincoln.blogspot.com
{Also, I will post the excerpt containing the testimony of Abraham Lincoln in a blog post immediately following this one for anyone who is interested.}
And to close with our starting subject, I give the phrase from the last paragraph of Lincoln’s second inaugural address, which has been a phrase that has blessed Americans for generations. “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in…” (3).
I am grateful to God for my conviction of how bad racism is even in this day and age, and my willingness is to speak and act against such as I would speak and act against slavery if it were an American institution today. Likewise I am committed to proclaiming the teachings of Jesus regarding other sins that are rampant in our culture today. And both John Chrysostom and Abraham Lincoln spoke of God who does punish for wrong doings, and we Christians should be committed to explaining the consequences of turning away from Jesus and His will, telling the truth in love. Yet what is not healthy is any malice against anyone. There continues to be a need of personal forgiveness of individuals, just as we have been forgiven by Christ. As someone who use to have an anger problem, I have been influenced to be rid of malice a number of times thanks to Abraham Lincoln, and we all should be influenced by the apostle Peter who is preaching God’s word, instructing us all not engage in malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, or slander. The Holy Spirit can enable. Carrying out such sins always results in people get hurt. God does not want anyone getting hurt.
Hunter Irvine
(1) Christopher Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers
(Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002) 163.
(2) John Woodbridge, ed., More Than Conquerors; Portraits of Believers from All Walks of Life
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 14-21.
(3) Stanley Appelbaum, ed., Great Speeches : Abraham Lincoln
(New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1991), 107-108.
Today was a reading day for me, and I continued with the book I have talked about in my commentary of the two previous passages: Learning Theology with the Church Fathers, which is a book I recommend. Compared with some of the stuff I had to read in my last semester for Contemporary Approaches to Theology, it is like going from a diet of burnt toast to strawberries. Covering chapters seven and eight today, I read of John Chrysostom’s teachings on the providence of God, a needed discourse on that subject since many teachings in western culture are in the shadow of the popular Augustine on the subject. Dr. Hall even notes the variance: “The problem, as Chrysostom presents matters, is that human disposition and choice are corrupted by sin. Chrysostom, however, like most Eastern fathers, does not see this corruption as completely debilitating human freedom. He is convinced, in a manner that would perhaps cause problems for a Latin father such as Augustine, that human choice remains free” (1).
I bring this book up again, because after the reading today, which included discussion on the suffering, I considered how malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all slander always have the same consequences: hurt. People who chose to engage in any or many of these practices hurt themselves and often other people every time. Such actions have been done within church communities, which I have experienced such in a church, and I have been hurt by such. And such actions have been done in places of work, families, schools, sports teams, and countless other social contexts. The result is always the same: people get hurt. Yet it continues.
A longtime hero for me is Abraham Lincoln. Why? Because even though he had flaws, Lincoln remained steadfast over a period of many years in the face of fierce opposition that slavery is wrong. He acted accordingly and never wavered in that conviction. That is why he is a hero for me. I bring Lincoln up here for one reason. In a world that is full of malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all slander, Lincoln’s plea not to have malice rings in my heart as I read this passage from I Peter.
Having the privilege to sit in the pew Lincoln worshiped in at New York Presbyterian Church in Washington D.C. was the pinnacle of a personal tour of that church in the summer of 2009. Despite his attendance at that church, and despite the fact that his speeches made a number of references to God, a debate has continued all of these years about whether Lincoln was a Christian. This started soon after his death when it was stated in some books that he was not a Christian.
I personally was blessed to enter into the consideration of the faith of Abraham Lincoln upon reading a book in the fall of 2005, More Than Conquerors; Portraits of Believers from All Walks of Life (2). The author of Lincoln’s piece, Willard Davis, presented the Christian testimony of Lincoln, however, he gave no sources! I wanted to know where in the world he got his information regarding the testimony! Then on President’s Day, in February of 2009, I was was given a gift: a lecture. A lecture may not sound like a exciting gift from the top, but the lecturer was Dr. Ronald Rietveld, who had been a longtime professor at California State Fullerton. And his talk was on the faith of Abraham Lincoln. His thesis was the statement that faith is something which may not be in full bloom from the beginning, and he exposed a Lincoln who went through a long maturing process to the point where he “consecrated” his life to Christ in the wake of the battle of Gettysburg, before penning his Gettysburg address. The quote of Abraham Lincoln consecrating his life to Christ given by Dr. Rietveld was similar to the quote that was in the book with no citation. This led me into a search for the source of the quote, which resulted in finding one source of the quote, which was a sermon published in the Freeport Weekly Journal on December 7, 1864. You can read more about this if you are interested at
http://thefaithofAbrahamLincoln.blogspot.com
{Also, I will post the excerpt containing the testimony of Abraham Lincoln in a blog post immediately following this one for anyone who is interested.}
And to close with our starting subject, I give the phrase from the last paragraph of Lincoln’s second inaugural address, which has been a phrase that has blessed Americans for generations. “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in…” (3).
I am grateful to God for my conviction of how bad racism is even in this day and age, and my willingness is to speak and act against such as I would speak and act against slavery if it were an American institution today. Likewise I am committed to proclaiming the teachings of Jesus regarding other sins that are rampant in our culture today. And both John Chrysostom and Abraham Lincoln spoke of God who does punish for wrong doings, and we Christians should be committed to explaining the consequences of turning away from Jesus and His will, telling the truth in love. Yet what is not healthy is any malice against anyone. There continues to be a need of personal forgiveness of individuals, just as we have been forgiven by Christ. As someone who use to have an anger problem, I have been influenced to be rid of malice a number of times thanks to Abraham Lincoln, and we all should be influenced by the apostle Peter who is preaching God’s word, instructing us all not engage in malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, or slander. The Holy Spirit can enable. Carrying out such sins always results in people get hurt. God does not want anyone getting hurt.
Hunter Irvine
(1) Christopher Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers
(Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002) 163.
(2) John Woodbridge, ed., More Than Conquerors; Portraits of Believers from All Walks of Life
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 14-21.
(3) Stanley Appelbaum, ed., Great Speeches : Abraham Lincoln
(New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1991), 107-108.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
1 Peter 1:22-25
1 Peter 1:22-25 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God. For, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you (NIV).
Peter definitely packed much into the first chapter of this book! I think we can take a deep breath now that we are concluding the first chapter, I think the commentary will get even more concise for the following chapters, and I know we can say a prayer of thanks to God for His revelations within the first chapter of the book of 1 Peter.
I have to begin by sharing a beautiful story my dad told me this past Sunday on this phone. He was talking with someone in the hall near the children’s Sunday school rooms that morning. Looking down the hall, he saw a group of about ten children who were only three years old at the most. They were each holding her or his respected edge of a blanket, and slowly making their way down the hall. Of course there was a Sunday school teacher right behind them. When they reached my dad, he asked them why they were carrying a blanket. One of the young girls said they were carrying a guy who could not walk. My dad showed much interest, and he asked if he could see the “guy” who was on their blanket, who was wrapped in another small blanket. They unraveled the blanket revealing a doll. Some of the children told my dad he could not walk, so they were looking for Jesus since they were going to bring him to Jesus so he could walk. So my dad encouraged them to keep looking for Jesus, and they said they would because they wanted the guy to walk. Then they continued trekking down the hall.
All I can write in this moment in response to that is: God bless the children.
I was in a church for a number of years, where there was a liturgical response by the congregation following Scripture reading. The reader would conclude by saying “The Word of the Lord.” Then people would say, "Thanks be to God."
Yet a question arose for me. At the beginning of John, he speaks of the Word, which is a metaphor for Jesus. Yet people in church often refer to the Bible as the Word. Does this mean that the terms have two different meanings, thus there is the need to discern which definition is used in each context? The answer is yes. The big difference is that when Jesus is referred to as the Word, “Word” is capitalized. Whereas when the word is used to describe Scripture within Scripture, it is not capitalized, and it is often part of a phrase such as “the word of God,” of which you can find an example in 2 Corinthians 2:17. Or “the word of Christ” is another phrase, an example of which can be found in Colossians 3:16. In this passage, in verse 24 and 25, Peter is quoting a verse from Isaiah 40:6 and from Isaiah 40:8!
Even though these two terms, “word” and “Word” are distinct, they are on intersecting paths, because the word of God, Scripture, testifies to the Word, Jesus. That is why Peter can say that the word of God, which was preached to his readers, contributed to their state of being born again.
Dr. Karl Barth and Dr. John Stott are two men who have been discussed previously in this commentary, and two men who have both passed on to heaven. Having read about eight John Stott books, I can say Dr. Stott had a great reverence for Scripture being inspired by God, and I have read that Barth did also. Now both advocated a view of Scripture being the Word of God and the word of humans, but this is wrong as phrased, because a word is given to convey a message, and the messages of Scripture are from God. It cannot be both! I do not think it is getting caught up in semantics to say I agree God allowed people to use their wording, and even their own style which reflected their selves. And of course they were writing by their own free will. However, just because Scripture contains the wording of people, it cannot be the “word” of people, like Barth (1) and Stott (2) said, otherwise Scripture messages would be flawed, because people are not perfect. God is perfect, and His messages have been perfectly contained in Scripture, which would require intervention to ensure that His message was conveyed.
On the flip side, Scripture was not dictated by God. Folks who believe this are wrong, because there is no indication of this within Scripture, plus there is evidence to the contrary. In my Evangelical Theology class at CCU, I did not see how advocates of plenary, verbal inspiration could claim they were advocating anything less than dictation. For example, you can read what I read in one of my textbooks for that class (3). Regarding that textbook, I add I was interested in the collaboration of an Arminian author writing for a Calvinist publisher. I was not slacking with my reading assignments at CCU, and I caught the self identification of Roger Olson within the listing of Arminians in that same textbook (4).
Now sometimes Biblical writers did quote God, and it often specifies this in the Old Testament. And hey, Jesus was God with us, and his words are in red ink in my NIV Bible. Yet there is more than God quotes in the Bible, and rather than being dictated, Scripture was inspired by God, and people conveyed his messages in human language. Language does have an innate aspect. Did you ever notice that Adam and Eve were created being able to talk? But even innate human abilities have been marred due to the Fall of human beings. This subject calls for great humility, because God’s exact methods of inspiring all of the various authors of Scripture is known only by God! I think we simply need to recognize that Scripture authors were people who were submitting to God, listening to God, and inspired by God to write His message.
Now those messages need to being properly extracted, just as any writing needs to be interpreted. All reading requires understanding the definition of words, including if words are being used as metaphors or such. And all reading requires an understanding of the context for which the material is being presented. And reasoning must be applied to gain the messages. In other words, in order to learn from what you have read, you must think.
Take one of my favorite books, Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss. I love this book. Yet I would not enjoy it at all if I failed to properly interpret the book. That starts first with knowing that it is a fictional book. I hope I am not offending anyone, but Sam is not real. The literary genre must be further understood, and this particular book was written for children. Children light up when you ask them if they want to read this book! If I failed to get the literary genre of this book, I would never be able to enjoy this book. My diet contains numerous eggs, and even after I have read that book countless times, I in all honesty think green eggs are disgusting. I would never have even gotten through the book the first time if I did not accept the fact that the book is for fun.
Different Scripture books have different literary genres, and you have to recognize that, and you have to apply reasoning in order to gain God’s message. However, people who come to any historical book of the Bible thinking that historical writings are mythology are going to miss God’s messages. Any person who comes to the Bible thinking the Bible is the product merely of men, and not inspired by the Holy Spirit, are going to see no need for assistance from God for interpretation, and they are going to miss God’s messages. In fact I would argue that you need the assistance of the Holy Spirit to gain the messages of Scripture!
The word of God being preached which Peter is talking about contained the message of Jesus. Jesus is the central message of Scripture. Any person who claims that the central message of Scripture is anything else distorts the Bible.
Once I was reading a commentary on the book of John by J. Vernon McGee. He was discussing John 5:45-57; “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”(NIV). J. Vernon McGee stated, “Friend, that is so important. Back in the books of the Pentateuch which I have recently taught, I have attempted to point out the Lord Jesus. Although I don’t find Him on every page, I believe He is on every page of the Pentateuch. He says, ‘Moses….wrote of me.’ I think He is on every page of the Bible” (5). I always liked how Pastor McGee would say “friends” in that nasal voice.
When I read this, I thought of the fact that Jesus did not say that He was on every page of Scripture, rather, Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him. But then I pondered, where did Moses write about Jesus?! I searched for the answered, and I was given the answer, and that answer can be given in one word: sacrifice.
Memories come back of being a young Christian sitting on a subway train riding on the track above ground heading into Alexandria, Virginia as I was on my way to work at the National Rehabilitation Association, an association that advocated and supported vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. I was in the midst of daily morning reading of Exodus through Deuteronomy, and I was finding the reading rather cumbersome. What I would come to learn was that the reading was actually a blessing, since God’s patient work was leading to the sacrifice that Jesus would make on the Cross. The animal sacrifices that God so diligently made a part of the Mosaic Law were truly foreshadowing the sacrifice by Jesus on the Cross that was mandatory so people could be permanently united with God.
In taking Contemporary Approaches to Theology at Colorado Christian University, I learned the methodology that many German theologians applied in the wake of the teachings of Friedrich Schleiermacher, which began what is now known as “modern theology.” The German theologian Schleiermacher trashed the Old Testament. Following suit, “modern theology” methodology was to give little attention or to ignore altogether the Old Testament. By such neglect of the Old Testament, many German theologians following Schleiermacher’s lead, and then eventually a number of theologians worldwide, were able to slyly distort the New Testament. You see, the foundation of the New Testament is the Old Testament. This is precisely what J. Vernon McGee continues to say there on page 94. Thus if a person disregards the Old Testament, or if he or she makes it into mythology, which became more common in the 20th century, then that person can easily extract from the New Testament whatever messages he or she wants, because it is like a house without a foundation which can be slid onto a trailer and carted to another state.
Peter was no “modern theologian.” In one sentence Peter is talking about the teaching of Jesus regarding being “born again,” and in the next sentence he is quoting Isaiah. Regard the Old Testament as containing the word of God, just as Peter did, and you will find the intended core of the sacred writings: Messiah.
So, how do we respond to this core message of Christ? (Christ is the Greek equivalent of Messiah I add.) Believe in Him! That is how you are born again! So Peter was going in reverse chronological order. To take what he said in chronological order, when the word of God is preached, the messages of Scripture, then a person can know that she or he needs to believe in Jesus, and when she or he does, she or he will be born again. And the result of being born again is that a person will have his or her heart indwelled by the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, thus that person will become more and more loving, since she or he is now capable of living by the love of God. The love of a born again Christian is the true love of God.
Whew.
+ : This first chapter has been much to digest. Thank You Holy God for enabling me to persevere with the commentary through it. Thank You.
Hunter Irvine
(1) Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson, 20th Century Theology; God and the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1992), 71-72.
(2) John Stott, Evangelical Truth; A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity and Faithfulness (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 49-50.
(3) Roger Olson, The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 215-219.
(4) Roger Olson, The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 169.
(5) J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible commentary series; John Chapters 1-10 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), 94.
Peter definitely packed much into the first chapter of this book! I think we can take a deep breath now that we are concluding the first chapter, I think the commentary will get even more concise for the following chapters, and I know we can say a prayer of thanks to God for His revelations within the first chapter of the book of 1 Peter.
I have to begin by sharing a beautiful story my dad told me this past Sunday on this phone. He was talking with someone in the hall near the children’s Sunday school rooms that morning. Looking down the hall, he saw a group of about ten children who were only three years old at the most. They were each holding her or his respected edge of a blanket, and slowly making their way down the hall. Of course there was a Sunday school teacher right behind them. When they reached my dad, he asked them why they were carrying a blanket. One of the young girls said they were carrying a guy who could not walk. My dad showed much interest, and he asked if he could see the “guy” who was on their blanket, who was wrapped in another small blanket. They unraveled the blanket revealing a doll. Some of the children told my dad he could not walk, so they were looking for Jesus since they were going to bring him to Jesus so he could walk. So my dad encouraged them to keep looking for Jesus, and they said they would because they wanted the guy to walk. Then they continued trekking down the hall.
All I can write in this moment in response to that is: God bless the children.
I was in a church for a number of years, where there was a liturgical response by the congregation following Scripture reading. The reader would conclude by saying “The Word of the Lord.” Then people would say, "Thanks be to God."
Yet a question arose for me. At the beginning of John, he speaks of the Word, which is a metaphor for Jesus. Yet people in church often refer to the Bible as the Word. Does this mean that the terms have two different meanings, thus there is the need to discern which definition is used in each context? The answer is yes. The big difference is that when Jesus is referred to as the Word, “Word” is capitalized. Whereas when the word is used to describe Scripture within Scripture, it is not capitalized, and it is often part of a phrase such as “the word of God,” of which you can find an example in 2 Corinthians 2:17. Or “the word of Christ” is another phrase, an example of which can be found in Colossians 3:16. In this passage, in verse 24 and 25, Peter is quoting a verse from Isaiah 40:6 and from Isaiah 40:8!
Even though these two terms, “word” and “Word” are distinct, they are on intersecting paths, because the word of God, Scripture, testifies to the Word, Jesus. That is why Peter can say that the word of God, which was preached to his readers, contributed to their state of being born again.
Dr. Karl Barth and Dr. John Stott are two men who have been discussed previously in this commentary, and two men who have both passed on to heaven. Having read about eight John Stott books, I can say Dr. Stott had a great reverence for Scripture being inspired by God, and I have read that Barth did also. Now both advocated a view of Scripture being the Word of God and the word of humans, but this is wrong as phrased, because a word is given to convey a message, and the messages of Scripture are from God. It cannot be both! I do not think it is getting caught up in semantics to say I agree God allowed people to use their wording, and even their own style which reflected their selves. And of course they were writing by their own free will. However, just because Scripture contains the wording of people, it cannot be the “word” of people, like Barth (1) and Stott (2) said, otherwise Scripture messages would be flawed, because people are not perfect. God is perfect, and His messages have been perfectly contained in Scripture, which would require intervention to ensure that His message was conveyed.
On the flip side, Scripture was not dictated by God. Folks who believe this are wrong, because there is no indication of this within Scripture, plus there is evidence to the contrary. In my Evangelical Theology class at CCU, I did not see how advocates of plenary, verbal inspiration could claim they were advocating anything less than dictation. For example, you can read what I read in one of my textbooks for that class (3). Regarding that textbook, I add I was interested in the collaboration of an Arminian author writing for a Calvinist publisher. I was not slacking with my reading assignments at CCU, and I caught the self identification of Roger Olson within the listing of Arminians in that same textbook (4).
Now sometimes Biblical writers did quote God, and it often specifies this in the Old Testament. And hey, Jesus was God with us, and his words are in red ink in my NIV Bible. Yet there is more than God quotes in the Bible, and rather than being dictated, Scripture was inspired by God, and people conveyed his messages in human language. Language does have an innate aspect. Did you ever notice that Adam and Eve were created being able to talk? But even innate human abilities have been marred due to the Fall of human beings. This subject calls for great humility, because God’s exact methods of inspiring all of the various authors of Scripture is known only by God! I think we simply need to recognize that Scripture authors were people who were submitting to God, listening to God, and inspired by God to write His message.
Now those messages need to being properly extracted, just as any writing needs to be interpreted. All reading requires understanding the definition of words, including if words are being used as metaphors or such. And all reading requires an understanding of the context for which the material is being presented. And reasoning must be applied to gain the messages. In other words, in order to learn from what you have read, you must think.
Take one of my favorite books, Green Eggs and Ham by Dr. Seuss. I love this book. Yet I would not enjoy it at all if I failed to properly interpret the book. That starts first with knowing that it is a fictional book. I hope I am not offending anyone, but Sam is not real. The literary genre must be further understood, and this particular book was written for children. Children light up when you ask them if they want to read this book! If I failed to get the literary genre of this book, I would never be able to enjoy this book. My diet contains numerous eggs, and even after I have read that book countless times, I in all honesty think green eggs are disgusting. I would never have even gotten through the book the first time if I did not accept the fact that the book is for fun.
Different Scripture books have different literary genres, and you have to recognize that, and you have to apply reasoning in order to gain God’s message. However, people who come to any historical book of the Bible thinking that historical writings are mythology are going to miss God’s messages. Any person who comes to the Bible thinking the Bible is the product merely of men, and not inspired by the Holy Spirit, are going to see no need for assistance from God for interpretation, and they are going to miss God’s messages. In fact I would argue that you need the assistance of the Holy Spirit to gain the messages of Scripture!
The word of God being preached which Peter is talking about contained the message of Jesus. Jesus is the central message of Scripture. Any person who claims that the central message of Scripture is anything else distorts the Bible.
Once I was reading a commentary on the book of John by J. Vernon McGee. He was discussing John 5:45-57; “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”(NIV). J. Vernon McGee stated, “Friend, that is so important. Back in the books of the Pentateuch which I have recently taught, I have attempted to point out the Lord Jesus. Although I don’t find Him on every page, I believe He is on every page of the Pentateuch. He says, ‘Moses….wrote of me.’ I think He is on every page of the Bible” (5). I always liked how Pastor McGee would say “friends” in that nasal voice.
When I read this, I thought of the fact that Jesus did not say that He was on every page of Scripture, rather, Jesus said that Moses wrote about Him. But then I pondered, where did Moses write about Jesus?! I searched for the answered, and I was given the answer, and that answer can be given in one word: sacrifice.
Memories come back of being a young Christian sitting on a subway train riding on the track above ground heading into Alexandria, Virginia as I was on my way to work at the National Rehabilitation Association, an association that advocated and supported vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. I was in the midst of daily morning reading of Exodus through Deuteronomy, and I was finding the reading rather cumbersome. What I would come to learn was that the reading was actually a blessing, since God’s patient work was leading to the sacrifice that Jesus would make on the Cross. The animal sacrifices that God so diligently made a part of the Mosaic Law were truly foreshadowing the sacrifice by Jesus on the Cross that was mandatory so people could be permanently united with God.
In taking Contemporary Approaches to Theology at Colorado Christian University, I learned the methodology that many German theologians applied in the wake of the teachings of Friedrich Schleiermacher, which began what is now known as “modern theology.” The German theologian Schleiermacher trashed the Old Testament. Following suit, “modern theology” methodology was to give little attention or to ignore altogether the Old Testament. By such neglect of the Old Testament, many German theologians following Schleiermacher’s lead, and then eventually a number of theologians worldwide, were able to slyly distort the New Testament. You see, the foundation of the New Testament is the Old Testament. This is precisely what J. Vernon McGee continues to say there on page 94. Thus if a person disregards the Old Testament, or if he or she makes it into mythology, which became more common in the 20th century, then that person can easily extract from the New Testament whatever messages he or she wants, because it is like a house without a foundation which can be slid onto a trailer and carted to another state.
Peter was no “modern theologian.” In one sentence Peter is talking about the teaching of Jesus regarding being “born again,” and in the next sentence he is quoting Isaiah. Regard the Old Testament as containing the word of God, just as Peter did, and you will find the intended core of the sacred writings: Messiah.
So, how do we respond to this core message of Christ? (Christ is the Greek equivalent of Messiah I add.) Believe in Him! That is how you are born again! So Peter was going in reverse chronological order. To take what he said in chronological order, when the word of God is preached, the messages of Scripture, then a person can know that she or he needs to believe in Jesus, and when she or he does, she or he will be born again. And the result of being born again is that a person will have his or her heart indwelled by the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, thus that person will become more and more loving, since she or he is now capable of living by the love of God. The love of a born again Christian is the true love of God.
Whew.
+ : This first chapter has been much to digest. Thank You Holy God for enabling me to persevere with the commentary through it. Thank You.
Hunter Irvine
(1) Stanley Grenz and Roger Olson, 20th Century Theology; God and the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1992), 71-72.
(2) John Stott, Evangelical Truth; A Personal Plea for Unity, Integrity and Faithfulness (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 49-50.
(3) Roger Olson, The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 215-219.
(4) Roger Olson, The Westminster Handbook to Evangelical Theology (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 169.
(5) J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible commentary series; John Chapters 1-10 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1991), 94.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
1 Peter 1:20-21
1 Peter 1:20-21 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God (NIV).
Twenty verses into this epistle by the Apostle Peter and suddenly there is revelation that gives insight into that whole election issue that came up at the beginning of this epistle when Peter addressed “God’s elect.” If Jesus was the One chosen before the creation of the world, whereas people were “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” (1 Peter 1:2 NIV), then taking this Scripture in the context of the epistle supports Karl Barth’s explanation of Jesus being both the Elector and the Elected, which I discussed in the commentary writing on 1 Peter 1:1-2. And I reiterate that going with this doctrine does not mean you need to accept universalism which Barth seemed to slide into.
Concerning the use of the term “last times” by Peter, that is a term which is often misinterpreted as a synonym with “end times,” but that is not accurate. The “last days” is the normally the period between the time of Jesus being on this earth and the glorious return of Christ which will take place. The “end times” are the period between the second coming of Christ and the final judgment. Last times seems to be similar with the term “last days.”
Currently I am reading a book called Learning Theology with the Church Fathers by Christopher Hall (1), who is the Chancellor of Eastern University. I think the book is superb. He presents the material in an extremely clear manner, which is quite the accomplishment considering he deals with some folks who often wrote in a different style so long ago. I strongly recommend this book.
In reading this book, I have made what I consider to be an important deduction which includes other reading of early Christian writings. Early Christian church leaders had their disputes, there were Christians whose teachings went across certain boundaries and thus were not approved by institutional church leaders, and then there were also “Christians” who had doctrines which a majority of church leaders considered heresy. Yet overall, the resurrection seemed to be broadly accepted. The subject was included in the Nicene Creed; “On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures…” This is support of the early acceptance of the Biblical revelation of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
And going back to the time of the Apostles, many Apostles died as martyrs because they were proclaiming and staying steadfast in the Gospel. When I was a young Christian, at the age of around twenty-six, either the second or third Christian book I read was More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell. Riding the subway into Washington, D.C. on my way to work one morning, I read the chapter where Josh McDowell made the argument for the legitimacy of the resurrection based on this fact that the Apostles, people who saw the resurrection, were willing to die for being a follower of Jesus. If they had made up the resurrection, they would be dying for a lie. I was convicted by that excellent logic.
Swinging back to the post-apostolic period, regarding people refuting certain Biblical revelations, one example was a certain Menander, who said he was the Savior. You would think that folks like Menander would not adhere to the resurrection of Jesus if he was claiming that people needed to follow him for salvation, so this might be an example of someone refuting the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet Eusebius, who is the writer from whom I learned about Menander, even tells of the Ebionites who stated that Jesus was simply a man, not deity, and that His birth was not of the Holy Spirit. Yet even these Ebionites “…celebrated the Lord’s days very much like us in commemoration of his resurrection” (2). Even the Ebionites believed Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead!
Today, Christians have plenty of disputes. In an Introduction to Theology course, there are Christians who take different views. Do not take my word for it. Go to a library and read some of the books that are popular now on theology. In recent years when I was working in the CCU library, we kept getting books with the first two words of the title being two views, three views, or four views, and whose second phrase of the title was on baptism, on the Lord’s Supper, on woman as clergy, on the rapture, or on some other theological topic. Debate on Biblical doctrines; such was a part of the discussions in many of my theology classes as CCU. Disagreement is a reality if you have Christians from a variety of denominations or a variety of communities, since they are interpreting the Bible differently, or in some cases ignoring the Bible. I think it is important to discuss such matters, so we can keep learning more about these critical theological subjects. Yet the resurrection is still a staple!
Common among Christians on Easter is for a person to say, “The Lord is risen,” and for another Christian to respond, “The Lord is risen indeed.” And many add on, “Alleluia.” Now there are some people in this day and age who claim to be Christians who do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the academic area has a number of folks with such convictions. And the resurrection is probably refuted by more people who are active in churches at this time than at any other time in the past two thousand years. Yet the resurrection of Jesus remains a foundation of the Christian faith.
I close by saying if you want to read a superb explanation on the validity of the resurrection of Jesus, read the classic book Basic Christianity (3). I add that though John Stott is my favorite author, I have some serious doctrinal disagreements with him, yet we have many agreements. John Stott answers theories which dispute the resurrection in chapter four. The clear yet encompassing writing of John Stott is great, and if I could only chose one book in addition to the Bible to use as a textbook to teach people about the Bible, that single short book would be my choice.
One time I recommended Basic Christianity to someone in the CCU library who was a student at a local seminary who had never read a book by John Stott. Wanting more information about the book and author before accepting my recommendation, she asked me to summarize the theme of the book in one sentence. I responded, “Christ.” And Peter is saying here our hope and faith are in God because of Christ.
+: Thank You Jesus for giving us reason for hope and faith!!!
Hunter Irvine
(1) Christopher Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers
(Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002).
(2) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. C.F. Cruse
(Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 93.
(3) John Stott, Basic Christianity
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1958).
Twenty verses into this epistle by the Apostle Peter and suddenly there is revelation that gives insight into that whole election issue that came up at the beginning of this epistle when Peter addressed “God’s elect.” If Jesus was the One chosen before the creation of the world, whereas people were “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” (1 Peter 1:2 NIV), then taking this Scripture in the context of the epistle supports Karl Barth’s explanation of Jesus being both the Elector and the Elected, which I discussed in the commentary writing on 1 Peter 1:1-2. And I reiterate that going with this doctrine does not mean you need to accept universalism which Barth seemed to slide into.
Concerning the use of the term “last times” by Peter, that is a term which is often misinterpreted as a synonym with “end times,” but that is not accurate. The “last days” is the normally the period between the time of Jesus being on this earth and the glorious return of Christ which will take place. The “end times” are the period between the second coming of Christ and the final judgment. Last times seems to be similar with the term “last days.”
Currently I am reading a book called Learning Theology with the Church Fathers by Christopher Hall (1), who is the Chancellor of Eastern University. I think the book is superb. He presents the material in an extremely clear manner, which is quite the accomplishment considering he deals with some folks who often wrote in a different style so long ago. I strongly recommend this book.
In reading this book, I have made what I consider to be an important deduction which includes other reading of early Christian writings. Early Christian church leaders had their disputes, there were Christians whose teachings went across certain boundaries and thus were not approved by institutional church leaders, and then there were also “Christians” who had doctrines which a majority of church leaders considered heresy. Yet overall, the resurrection seemed to be broadly accepted. The subject was included in the Nicene Creed; “On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures…” This is support of the early acceptance of the Biblical revelation of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
And going back to the time of the Apostles, many Apostles died as martyrs because they were proclaiming and staying steadfast in the Gospel. When I was a young Christian, at the age of around twenty-six, either the second or third Christian book I read was More Than A Carpenter by Josh McDowell. Riding the subway into Washington, D.C. on my way to work one morning, I read the chapter where Josh McDowell made the argument for the legitimacy of the resurrection based on this fact that the Apostles, people who saw the resurrection, were willing to die for being a follower of Jesus. If they had made up the resurrection, they would be dying for a lie. I was convicted by that excellent logic.
Swinging back to the post-apostolic period, regarding people refuting certain Biblical revelations, one example was a certain Menander, who said he was the Savior. You would think that folks like Menander would not adhere to the resurrection of Jesus if he was claiming that people needed to follow him for salvation, so this might be an example of someone refuting the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Yet Eusebius, who is the writer from whom I learned about Menander, even tells of the Ebionites who stated that Jesus was simply a man, not deity, and that His birth was not of the Holy Spirit. Yet even these Ebionites “…celebrated the Lord’s days very much like us in commemoration of his resurrection” (2). Even the Ebionites believed Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead!
Today, Christians have plenty of disputes. In an Introduction to Theology course, there are Christians who take different views. Do not take my word for it. Go to a library and read some of the books that are popular now on theology. In recent years when I was working in the CCU library, we kept getting books with the first two words of the title being two views, three views, or four views, and whose second phrase of the title was on baptism, on the Lord’s Supper, on woman as clergy, on the rapture, or on some other theological topic. Debate on Biblical doctrines; such was a part of the discussions in many of my theology classes as CCU. Disagreement is a reality if you have Christians from a variety of denominations or a variety of communities, since they are interpreting the Bible differently, or in some cases ignoring the Bible. I think it is important to discuss such matters, so we can keep learning more about these critical theological subjects. Yet the resurrection is still a staple!
Common among Christians on Easter is for a person to say, “The Lord is risen,” and for another Christian to respond, “The Lord is risen indeed.” And many add on, “Alleluia.” Now there are some people in this day and age who claim to be Christians who do not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the academic area has a number of folks with such convictions. And the resurrection is probably refuted by more people who are active in churches at this time than at any other time in the past two thousand years. Yet the resurrection of Jesus remains a foundation of the Christian faith.
I close by saying if you want to read a superb explanation on the validity of the resurrection of Jesus, read the classic book Basic Christianity (3). I add that though John Stott is my favorite author, I have some serious doctrinal disagreements with him, yet we have many agreements. John Stott answers theories which dispute the resurrection in chapter four. The clear yet encompassing writing of John Stott is great, and if I could only chose one book in addition to the Bible to use as a textbook to teach people about the Bible, that single short book would be my choice.
One time I recommended Basic Christianity to someone in the CCU library who was a student at a local seminary who had never read a book by John Stott. Wanting more information about the book and author before accepting my recommendation, she asked me to summarize the theme of the book in one sentence. I responded, “Christ.” And Peter is saying here our hope and faith are in God because of Christ.
+: Thank You Jesus for giving us reason for hope and faith!!!
Hunter Irvine
(1) Christopher Hall, Learning Theology with the Church Fathers
(Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002).
(2) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, trans. C.F. Cruse
(Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 93.
(3) John Stott, Basic Christianity
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1958).
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
1 Peter 1:17-19
1 Peter 1:17-19 Since you call on a Father who judges each man’s work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear. For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect (NIV).
One of my great professors in college at Virginia Tech was Dr. J.W. Tubbs. He was such a unique and special professor that rumors were common about the gentleman. One rumor was that he had earned a perfect score on the LSAT. Another rumor was how he had been a rich tax attorney before becoming a professor. I never found out whether either rumor was true or false. Yet I did verify the big rumor from the man himself. Dr. Tubbs had indeed read every Supreme Court case opinion ever written. Dr. Tubbs had grown up on a dairy farm. Not wanting to pursue that as a career, he pursued education. Dr. Tubbs graduated from law school at the University of Indiana. I did not ask what he did straight out of law school. Whatever he did, he suffered from a muscle disease, so sometimes he would lose control of some muscles. There was one occasion in his life where the disease hit him hard, and he was confined to his bed for an entire year! Being bed ridden for that whole time, he did two things: he read Supreme Court opinions, majority and dissenting, and he watched “Western” movies.
Having him for two quarters for Constitutional Law was a privilege. The method he taught for studying the Constitution is a method I use all of these years later for studying the Bible! Yet as I reflect now on my study of many Supreme Court decisions, I consider how often various Supreme Court Justices disagreed with one another. On the “landmark cases,” there were usually Justices on both sides of the decision. In their “opinions,” they would adamantly argue for their decision, all using serious logic. Disagreement was standard by Supreme Court Justices of the United States in “landmark” decisions.
When we consider God as Judge, we should have reverent fear as we realize that on Judgment Day, He is not going to judge by human standards, rather He is going to judge by His Holy standards, and His judgment will be righteous
Years ago when I lived in Grand Junction, Colorado, I had recently resigned as the youth pastor at a church. A popular hard core Christian rock band, Plankeye, was performing in a theater in downtown G.J. one Saturday evening, so as someone with a youth ministry calling, I thought it would be a good opportunity to go an investigate this hard rock Christian scene which I was unfamiliar with. Fortunately I had earplugs, because it was far too loud for me. I went more for the opening band, Morella’s Forest, and I got to talk with the drummer of that band after the concert who was a nice and down to earth young guy.
At that time, a fad called moshing was at its’ peak. Young people would stand in the area between a stage and the first row of seats, and then during the music they would bash into each other. That area was known as the mosh pit. I have to say that personally I think moshing was a stupid hobby. Though not active at that moment as a youth pastor, I was still active at the church where I had served in G.J., and at the concert was a student from my church, who on a rare occasion had come to youth group. He was in the mosh pit, and he was harshly ramming into girls. It made me nervous, and distracted me from the concert. But I was in charge of nothing that evening, fortunately, so I simply prayed for those students who were trying to have a good time getting their young bodies smacked.
Now I have to add that besides the teenager from my church, the moshing was on the light side. I would have left had it been any worse. Before the concert started, the youth pastor of the church sponsoring the concert gave an introduction. The youth pastor told everyone that they were permitted to have a mosh pit, but that they needed to mosh gently. Then he said, “Mosh as Jesus would mosh.” Yet then he qualified himself, and said that they needed to mosh only as Jesus would normally mosh, not as Jesus would mosh in the temple when He was overturning tables.
I tell this story as an introduction to the common misperception regarding why Jesus unleashed anger when He was in the temple driving out animals and flipping over tables. Read John 2:12-16. A key is that in the temple courts, part of the temple grounds, people were making a profit selling animals to be sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins.
In verse 16, Jesus specifically drives out those people selling doves. Why? Leviticus chapter five has our answer. There are the regulations of sacrifice for certain sins. For example: “’If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible’” (Leviticus 5:1 NIV). Yet punishment could be avoided by bringing an animal to be sacrificed as a substitute. What animal would we have to bring? “’When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin’” (Leviticus 5:5-6 NIV). And there is even a provision if the individual is in a different income bracket. “’If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering’” (Leviticus 5:7 NIV). I add that in Leviticus chapter four, there are some regulations calling for the sacrifice of a young bull without defect.
So, we have the insight here that doves could be the offering for a person who had sinned. And that is why Jesus was angry! The people selling doves and the other animals in the courts of the temple where not selling animals so that Israelites who had traveled from all over the place could go back to their tents and have a scrumptious lunch or dinner. They were selling animals to be used in sacrifice. They were making the atonement from God into a business! Evil.
Finally, after getting the background, we can understand what Peter is talking about here. Redemption from God cannot be bought. Redemption from God can only come from the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made on the Cross. Jesus died on a cross for the forgiveness of sins of anyone. He was the substitute, the perfect Lamb, who physically and spiritually died, offering Himself as the atonement for sins in the place of people. He was the substitute, dying for you and me. If you receive His atonement, which can be done by simply believing in Jesus, then you are forgiven of your sins, and you will have eternal life!
Disasters have come in Christian church history when leaders have wrong added something needed for salvation in addition to the free gift of mercy and grace which is available thanks to Jesus’s death on a cross. If you are saved by Jesus, you will want to do good works, and that will involve giving some money to your church or giving a gift of various sorts to individuals in the love of Christ. But there is no regulation within the New Covenant about animal sacrifices or giving money. (Churches which demand a tithe are following Old Testament requirements. This is not a stipulation of the New Covenant. I am not saying tithing is bad, rather I am saying it is not a requirement under the New Covenant, just like worshiping on the Sabbath, which is a Saturday, is not a requirement.)
It is an honor for me to boldly proclaim what Peter is saying here: Redemption is the free gift of God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.
Hunter Irvine
It is an honor for me to boldly proclaim what Peter is saying here: Redemption is the free gift of God through the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.
Hunter Irvine
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)