I've started a new blog aimed specifically at providing food for thought, and resources for youth workers and youth ministers particularly in the Christian world.
Find it here
http://timgough.wordpress.com
Thanks so much for all of you who have spent time here! However I won't be posting any longer on blogger.com. Instead check out my wordpress site.
http://timgough.wordpress.com
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Paul's Wilderness Experience. A theory based on Gal. 1:18
It appears to me that all great men in the Bible who are chosen by God have some sort of ‘wilderness’ experience or time of testing prior to beginning ‘full-time’ ministry. Jacob was led into the wilderness to ‘wrestle with God,’ John the Baptist also, and of course Jesus, by the Spirit, was led to defeat Satan’s tempting. Paul I believe is no exception.
There are many interpretations of Galatians 1:18 were Paul spends 2-3 years in Arabia. I believe that this was Paul’s wilderness experience. I believe this for three reasons, first the ‘pilgrimage shape’ to his journey as described in 1:13-18, second because of where he spent the bulk of His time, and third, because of His Jerusalem destination.
So first, Paul’s description of his journey is very similar to many Pilgrimage journeys where one reconnects with oneself, with the world, and with God. Paul starts in his dark, confused, cornered life as a Pharisee persecuting the church (vv.13-14) then goes through His spiritual ‘eye-opening,’ physical blinding experience in Damascus. Paul then travels through wilderness to digest this and reflect on it and build a personal relationship with Jesus, and then returns to ‘the scene of the crime’ in Damascus to close the experience and launch his ministry (v.17). His first journey to Damascus was bathed in darkness, blindness of heart, and then blindness of eye. He then repeats the journey to Damascus, this time with both his heart and his eyes open.
Second, Paul did not go straight to Jerusalem, or the other Apostles, or (I believe) straight into ministry. He instead went where the ways of the world are different to his experience. Away from both Jewish culture, and Roman culture, Paul goes into Arabia. He spends three years here, as did Jesus spend three days in a tomb, or Jonah in the belly of a fish. And then at the end of this experience he went on to Jerusalem to receive counsel, advice, and validation from the other Apostles.
Third, and finally, we must consider the journey significance of Jerusalem. Throughout the Scriptures chosen men of God ascend mountains, meet with God, receive instructions, then go on to fulfil their calling. Moses for instance, ascended Mt. Sinai, met with God, received the 10 commandments, and then delivered the Law to Israel. Jerusalem is considered Mt. Zion, the Holy Hill (Micah 4), and Jerusalem is of course also where God’s glory dwells. So Jesus in Mark 1-8 ascends the mountain, Mark 9 meets with God (with the disciples), accepts validation ‘this is my Son’ then goes down to Jerusalem to fulfil His work on the cross. So too, Paul goes up to Jerusalem, meets with God’s chosen, receives instruction, then moves on to the ministry that will occupy the rest of His life.
It is therefore likely that Paul, a man of deep spiritual fever, contemplation, Pastoralness, and a deep relationship with God, foundered this on His own 3 year, wilderness experience in Arabia.
There are many interpretations of Galatians 1:18 were Paul spends 2-3 years in Arabia. I believe that this was Paul’s wilderness experience. I believe this for three reasons, first the ‘pilgrimage shape’ to his journey as described in 1:13-18, second because of where he spent the bulk of His time, and third, because of His Jerusalem destination.
So first, Paul’s description of his journey is very similar to many Pilgrimage journeys where one reconnects with oneself, with the world, and with God. Paul starts in his dark, confused, cornered life as a Pharisee persecuting the church (vv.13-14) then goes through His spiritual ‘eye-opening,’ physical blinding experience in Damascus. Paul then travels through wilderness to digest this and reflect on it and build a personal relationship with Jesus, and then returns to ‘the scene of the crime’ in Damascus to close the experience and launch his ministry (v.17). His first journey to Damascus was bathed in darkness, blindness of heart, and then blindness of eye. He then repeats the journey to Damascus, this time with both his heart and his eyes open.
Second, Paul did not go straight to Jerusalem, or the other Apostles, or (I believe) straight into ministry. He instead went where the ways of the world are different to his experience. Away from both Jewish culture, and Roman culture, Paul goes into Arabia. He spends three years here, as did Jesus spend three days in a tomb, or Jonah in the belly of a fish. And then at the end of this experience he went on to Jerusalem to receive counsel, advice, and validation from the other Apostles.
Third, and finally, we must consider the journey significance of Jerusalem. Throughout the Scriptures chosen men of God ascend mountains, meet with God, receive instructions, then go on to fulfil their calling. Moses for instance, ascended Mt. Sinai, met with God, received the 10 commandments, and then delivered the Law to Israel. Jerusalem is considered Mt. Zion, the Holy Hill (Micah 4), and Jerusalem is of course also where God’s glory dwells. So Jesus in Mark 1-8 ascends the mountain, Mark 9 meets with God (with the disciples), accepts validation ‘this is my Son’ then goes down to Jerusalem to fulfil His work on the cross. So too, Paul goes up to Jerusalem, meets with God’s chosen, receives instruction, then moves on to the ministry that will occupy the rest of His life.
It is therefore likely that Paul, a man of deep spiritual fever, contemplation, Pastoralness, and a deep relationship with God, foundered this on His own 3 year, wilderness experience in Arabia.
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Unlearning of the Will
Don’t you think we spend copious (ridiculous?) amounts of time debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will without hardly ever mentioning the sinful mess of our own wills? It appears to me that if the mind really is fallen and sin permeates every part of our wills (Rom. 7:21-25), it’s at very least rather handy and comforting to know that there is an exhaustively sovereign God who ‘works all things together for the good of those who love him’ (Rom. 8:28). I mean, doesn’t falleness necessitate sovereignty in a system of unconditional grace?
Rom. 12:2 tells us not to conform to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. THEN you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will, [emphasis mine]. Thus in the renewing of our minds to become more like the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) we are transformed to a place where we can truly understand God’s will. Further, becoming Christlike in our minds is shaping our minds like the eternal sovereign mind of God, making our pilgrimage of Christlike holiness an eternal, inexhaustible path… i.e. there’s always more way to go!
In fact, the way in which Paul qualifies the quote from Isaiah 40 in 1 Cor 2:16 seems to suggest that to know the mind of the Lord necessitates having the mind of Christ. This is strengthened by the parallel immediately preceding this. Paul there tells us that no-one can know the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God, then goes on to tell us that we have the Spirit of God within us, thus our words are God’s words flowing from His thoughts/will (vv.10-14).
So it’s possible that the reason we’re so stuck in debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will is because we’re not discussing, sharpening, and encouraging each other to submit our wills/minds to God for his sanctifying. This is of course a process of grace.
Grace is unconditional, and entirely unmerited. We cannot earn God’s favour, we in fact are totally blind (2 Cor. 4:4) and dead (Eph. 2:1-5) before we meet God, and then when we meet Him we are His far off enemies (Luke 15:11-31; Rom. 5:10). However, in contrast to blind we have sight, to death we have life, and to our blind, dead will we a have God’s completely seeing, alive will. If God’s will was not all sovereign, then the renewing, transforming of my own will through grace alone and not by any effort of mine, would be impossible.
If we believe in Grace, then let’s begin by submitting our minds to God, becoming holy and blameless through Him in our cognitive self. If we seek to understand the will of God, and be driven by God-glorifying motives, then let’s begin with our sinful state and the work of Christ and submit our minds to Him. God’s exhaustive sovereignty is a sweet taste when it’s not viewed in a test tube but instead experienced as a need, and a cure to our sinful selves. When we view God’s character in a test tube, we approach it with a false objectivity. Lets observe ourselves, and submit to God; not the other way around.
Rom. 12:2 tells us not to conform to the patterns of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our minds. THEN you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing, and perfect will, [emphasis mine]. Thus in the renewing of our minds to become more like the mind of Christ (1 Cor. 2:16) we are transformed to a place where we can truly understand God’s will. Further, becoming Christlike in our minds is shaping our minds like the eternal sovereign mind of God, making our pilgrimage of Christlike holiness an eternal, inexhaustible path… i.e. there’s always more way to go!
In fact, the way in which Paul qualifies the quote from Isaiah 40 in 1 Cor 2:16 seems to suggest that to know the mind of the Lord necessitates having the mind of Christ. This is strengthened by the parallel immediately preceding this. Paul there tells us that no-one can know the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God, then goes on to tell us that we have the Spirit of God within us, thus our words are God’s words flowing from His thoughts/will (vv.10-14).
So it’s possible that the reason we’re so stuck in debating the nature and extent of God’s sovereign will is because we’re not discussing, sharpening, and encouraging each other to submit our wills/minds to God for his sanctifying. This is of course a process of grace.
Grace is unconditional, and entirely unmerited. We cannot earn God’s favour, we in fact are totally blind (2 Cor. 4:4) and dead (Eph. 2:1-5) before we meet God, and then when we meet Him we are His far off enemies (Luke 15:11-31; Rom. 5:10). However, in contrast to blind we have sight, to death we have life, and to our blind, dead will we a have God’s completely seeing, alive will. If God’s will was not all sovereign, then the renewing, transforming of my own will through grace alone and not by any effort of mine, would be impossible.
If we believe in Grace, then let’s begin by submitting our minds to God, becoming holy and blameless through Him in our cognitive self. If we seek to understand the will of God, and be driven by God-glorifying motives, then let’s begin with our sinful state and the work of Christ and submit our minds to Him. God’s exhaustive sovereignty is a sweet taste when it’s not viewed in a test tube but instead experienced as a need, and a cure to our sinful selves. When we view God’s character in a test tube, we approach it with a false objectivity. Lets observe ourselves, and submit to God; not the other way around.
Aggression and John 2.
So I’ve been working a lot recently with my youth groups on the place of ‘aggression’ in the hearts of young men, and what the Bible may have to say about it. A passage that keeps coming up is John 2:13-16 where Jesus cleanses the Temple. (Also see Matthew 21:12-16; Mark 11:12-19; Luke 19:4-47).
A key feature of this passage is it stands in dramatic contrast to the classic, westernised picture of Jesus as the ‘meek and mild, lamb-on-the-shoulder, socks and sandals’ kind of guy. Instead we have a picture of Jesus who makes a weapon, a whip of chords, and drives out those who were buying and selling in the Temple.
One member of my youth group responded to this passage by saying, ‘Well, He didn’t actually hit anybody though did he?’ It’s true, nothing is technically said about him physically ‘attacking’ anyone, however he has a weapon, he is driving people out, turning over tables, and scattering money. Thus it takes a lot for us to think Jesus was being careful not to hit anyone.
This represents much of what is taught to youth and children in churches these days. For instance, if a young person in a Sunday School (particularly a boy) shows any sign of aggression, immediately this young person is told off. Even if this aggression was defence from subtle and more worrying manipulation from another child, the aggression must be immediately snuffed out; rather than contextualised, replaced, corrected, or disciplined.
So because of this, when we get to the Temple cleansing, we need to first say, however obvious it may seem, that weapons making and using, table turning, and money scattering is an act of aggression.
Next we need to affirm that Jesus was totally without sin, never disobeyed the law, and only did what He saw His Father doing. Thus this act of aggression and its origins were not wrong or sinful.
So finally we need to think through the origins/motives of this aggression. Where did it come from, what did it spark? Lets start with what Jesus says…
This we know is zeal for His Father’s house consuming Jesus (John 2:17), but His choice of quotation is very important. The Temple was a whole load of things; it was a house of prayer, but perhaps more clearly it was a house of worship, of sacrifice, of meeting, of teaching; it was the house where God’s glory dwelled, etc.; so why does Jesus pinpoint on a house of prayer for all nations?
Jesus focus is on clear communication with God. This is what the Temple was, a place of communication with God. In fact, when you really think about it, all the Temple was was a place of communication with God. Sacrifices, worship, fellowship, teaching, were all used for the purpose of opening the people up to hear God's voice clearly, and then respond to Him appropriately.
In the same way now, Jesus, our Temple, is our place of communication with God. Godward Communication is clear, open, and not cluttered by hidden things. A ‘den’ of ‘robbers’ in contrast to this is a hiding place for people who wish to hide themselves, and hide their loot.
Thus, Jesus’ aggression is driven by responding to a cluttering of the means of communication with God. Its origins are to open up the communication channels.
This is especially important in light of the latter part of the first quote, ‘for all nations.’ All nations includes those outside Jewish nations who understand the Temple, the law, and the language of communication with God. The house of prayer should be so clear a communication space so all nations can find God accessible.
Furthermore, Jesus creates space in the Temple. He doesn’t just drive out the people; he drives out the animals, and turns the tables. He makes space. The aggression in Jesus made space; space for clear communication with God.
This seems to me to be a good parable of and test for Godly aggression. Is aggression always wrong, and where can it be right? Jesus used aggression here; it was motivated by responding to a cluttering of a means of prayer/communication with God. Put another way, it was motivated by seeing a lot of hidden things in a place where everything should be clear; the prayer space.
Jesus aggression came from and concluded with a longing to be close to, talk to, and hear from God clearly. Thus aggression can glorify God if it seeks to make space for God to be God, and to speak clearly. This can probably be applied in a variety of ways; I believe it should validate those who feel guilty because they know that should someone attack their wife/children, they would aggressively respond in order to protect. If it creates space for God’s love of justice, leadership, care, and self-sacrifice, then defending a loved one can be a righteous aggression.
However there is one far more accessible application from the passage and that is aggressively defend your prayer space. This doesn’t mean set booby traps around your bedroom; however it does mean passionately guard your heart and its space. Satan is a robber that desires your heart to be His den, and he will try to clutter up the space in your heart which should be used for prayer. Defend your prayer space. Spend time actively creating -space- to pray; go for walks so you can talk with God, get up the hour early, spend time looking at and mediating on God’s Word and God’s creation. Ask God to talk to you more clearly and show you hindering clutter. Meditate on the God you’re praying to, allow that to fill you up, and believe in the majestic privilege of prayer. Defend your prayer space.
Just one more application linked to this; defend your Jesus. In the same passage (John 2:19-20) Jesus refers to Himself as the Temple. Our house of prayer now is Jesus Christ. He is the Temple, the only way to the Father. It is through Him we come to God. Spend time with Jesus and you will spend time in the perfectly clear house of prayer. So read His word, meditate on His life, and think deeply about His last days on earth.
A key feature of this passage is it stands in dramatic contrast to the classic, westernised picture of Jesus as the ‘meek and mild, lamb-on-the-shoulder, socks and sandals’ kind of guy. Instead we have a picture of Jesus who makes a weapon, a whip of chords, and drives out those who were buying and selling in the Temple.
One member of my youth group responded to this passage by saying, ‘Well, He didn’t actually hit anybody though did he?’ It’s true, nothing is technically said about him physically ‘attacking’ anyone, however he has a weapon, he is driving people out, turning over tables, and scattering money. Thus it takes a lot for us to think Jesus was being careful not to hit anyone.
This represents much of what is taught to youth and children in churches these days. For instance, if a young person in a Sunday School (particularly a boy) shows any sign of aggression, immediately this young person is told off. Even if this aggression was defence from subtle and more worrying manipulation from another child, the aggression must be immediately snuffed out; rather than contextualised, replaced, corrected, or disciplined.
So because of this, when we get to the Temple cleansing, we need to first say, however obvious it may seem, that weapons making and using, table turning, and money scattering is an act of aggression.
Next we need to affirm that Jesus was totally without sin, never disobeyed the law, and only did what He saw His Father doing. Thus this act of aggression and its origins were not wrong or sinful.
So finally we need to think through the origins/motives of this aggression. Where did it come from, what did it spark? Lets start with what Jesus says…
“My house will be called ‘a house of prayer for all nations’, but you are making it a ‘den of robbers.’” [Mark 11:17].
This we know is zeal for His Father’s house consuming Jesus (John 2:17), but His choice of quotation is very important. The Temple was a whole load of things; it was a house of prayer, but perhaps more clearly it was a house of worship, of sacrifice, of meeting, of teaching; it was the house where God’s glory dwelled, etc.; so why does Jesus pinpoint on a house of prayer for all nations?
Jesus focus is on clear communication with God. This is what the Temple was, a place of communication with God. In fact, when you really think about it, all the Temple was was a place of communication with God. Sacrifices, worship, fellowship, teaching, were all used for the purpose of opening the people up to hear God's voice clearly, and then respond to Him appropriately.
In the same way now, Jesus, our Temple, is our place of communication with God. Godward Communication is clear, open, and not cluttered by hidden things. A ‘den’ of ‘robbers’ in contrast to this is a hiding place for people who wish to hide themselves, and hide their loot.
Thus, Jesus’ aggression is driven by responding to a cluttering of the means of communication with God. Its origins are to open up the communication channels.
This is especially important in light of the latter part of the first quote, ‘for all nations.’ All nations includes those outside Jewish nations who understand the Temple, the law, and the language of communication with God. The house of prayer should be so clear a communication space so all nations can find God accessible.
Furthermore, Jesus creates space in the Temple. He doesn’t just drive out the people; he drives out the animals, and turns the tables. He makes space. The aggression in Jesus made space; space for clear communication with God.
This seems to me to be a good parable of and test for Godly aggression. Is aggression always wrong, and where can it be right? Jesus used aggression here; it was motivated by responding to a cluttering of a means of prayer/communication with God. Put another way, it was motivated by seeing a lot of hidden things in a place where everything should be clear; the prayer space.
Jesus aggression came from and concluded with a longing to be close to, talk to, and hear from God clearly. Thus aggression can glorify God if it seeks to make space for God to be God, and to speak clearly. This can probably be applied in a variety of ways; I believe it should validate those who feel guilty because they know that should someone attack their wife/children, they would aggressively respond in order to protect. If it creates space for God’s love of justice, leadership, care, and self-sacrifice, then defending a loved one can be a righteous aggression.
However there is one far more accessible application from the passage and that is aggressively defend your prayer space. This doesn’t mean set booby traps around your bedroom; however it does mean passionately guard your heart and its space. Satan is a robber that desires your heart to be His den, and he will try to clutter up the space in your heart which should be used for prayer. Defend your prayer space. Spend time actively creating -space- to pray; go for walks so you can talk with God, get up the hour early, spend time looking at and mediating on God’s Word and God’s creation. Ask God to talk to you more clearly and show you hindering clutter. Meditate on the God you’re praying to, allow that to fill you up, and believe in the majestic privilege of prayer. Defend your prayer space.
Just one more application linked to this; defend your Jesus. In the same passage (John 2:19-20) Jesus refers to Himself as the Temple. Our house of prayer now is Jesus Christ. He is the Temple, the only way to the Father. It is through Him we come to God. Spend time with Jesus and you will spend time in the perfectly clear house of prayer. So read His word, meditate on His life, and think deeply about His last days on earth.
This deep thinking, meditating, getting up and hour early, forcing our minds on the Bible etc., takes a good deal of heart, and dare I say a deal of aggression also. Godly aggression creates space and that space is space to talk to and hear from God. So don’t simply snuff out aggression, instead ask yourself, ‘does this aggression make things hidden, or create space for God.’ The beauty of this question is it takes a lifetime to work with and grow with; so start with God. Why don’t you pray now that God will teach you about all the areas and reflexes of your heart so you can more fully and completely know Him.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
My Fav. Bubblegum Greetings Card Company Poem
' When sometimes things don't go too well
You're the butt of people's rants
But don't get down or even frown
just smile and then shout "pants!" '
Monday, March 31, 2008
The mystery of God found in the fathomability of Creation.
A popular apologetic idea is that creation is not-fathomable, but mysterious. Thus there must be a God. - The easy response to this is 'we'll figure it out' thus God-of-the-gaps philosophy comes in, academia fills in the gaps and squeezes God out of the picture. Needless to say its not a very good apologetic to start with. The apologetic should run, creation is fathomable, thus God is not, therefore God *is* God.
The very mystery of life itself is not that its mysterious, but that it is fathomable. Its fathomable because it is revealed. A revelation from the divine creator. In every hum and whistle, branch and bark there is the imprint of the eternal attributes of God. Mystery does not stop with creation (nor ideally should it start there), the magni-finitude of creation all bears the fingerprints of the magni-infinitude of another, and thats where mystery exists in its true form; the being, nature, person, and character of God.
Creation (contra to popular belief) is exhaustible, because its exists in time and space, it has bounds and contexts. It of course is not exhaustible or even attainable apart from revelation, but the fact remains that all is revelation. God however is not created, all things were made through him, thus, He is not made.
This is what sets Christianity apart from all other eastern religion, and new-age westernism. We don't stop at creation. As much as life, and essence flows through all things and connects all things, that is not an impersonal 'Soul of the World.' The very essence is not creation itself - it is creator. Behind every finite piece, there is infinite person. The eternal God.
The very mystery of life itself is not that its mysterious, but that it is fathomable. Its fathomable because it is revealed. A revelation from the divine creator. In every hum and whistle, branch and bark there is the imprint of the eternal attributes of God. Mystery does not stop with creation (nor ideally should it start there), the magni-finitude of creation all bears the fingerprints of the magni-infinitude of another, and thats where mystery exists in its true form; the being, nature, person, and character of God.
Creation (contra to popular belief) is exhaustible, because its exists in time and space, it has bounds and contexts. It of course is not exhaustible or even attainable apart from revelation, but the fact remains that all is revelation. God however is not created, all things were made through him, thus, He is not made.
This is what sets Christianity apart from all other eastern religion, and new-age westernism. We don't stop at creation. As much as life, and essence flows through all things and connects all things, that is not an impersonal 'Soul of the World.' The very essence is not creation itself - it is creator. Behind every finite piece, there is infinite person. The eternal God.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Eugene Peterson on the Nature of Language + Creation (Forming)
This is a quick quote from the intro to Ch.3 of 'Eat this book' (found HERE) by Eugene Peterson, the Author of The Message. The quote happens to happily agree with my last post. :)
So it just goes to show... theres always someone who says it first, and they normally say it better. ;) Praise God for Eugene Peterson!
"It is the very nature of language to form rather than inform. When language is personal, which it is at best, it reveals; and revelation is always formative - we don't know more, we become more. Our best users of language, poets and lovers and children and saints, use words to make - make intimacies, make character, make beauty, make goodness, make truth."
So it just goes to show... theres always someone who says it first, and they normally say it better. ;) Praise God for Eugene Peterson!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Language In Its Purity: Creational/Communicative?
As a believer in Sola Scriptura, I love Words, the Word of God is indeed infallible and the final uncompromising revelation of God. However as a musician and a poet I believe Words are not black and white, in fact as a note can sing a thousand songs, a word can progressively colour and create God's true revelation.
Sometimes it seems, Reformed writers talk about the Sola Scriptura as the 'exegetically exhausted doctrines of God' rather than the living, breathing, fluid, inspired, universally-and-intergenerationally-applicable, creational, double-edged (s)word it actually is. Or, another way, if we apply all our exegetical techniques to verses x, y, and z, and derive at a premise or two in those verses, that is the meaning of this portion of God's Word. Now there are 31,103 verses in the Bible, and if we apply this principle to all of them we will have exhausted God's revelation; and perhaps therefore the finality of God-revealed also in no time at all, a couple of gifted exegete's lifes work perhaps. There is obviously a problem with this.
The first words spoken were God's words, and they were creational, i.e. they created. Every time God spoke, something was made, light - stars - earth - plants - people - laws. When man spoke however, he named things so as to communicate. God's language was creational, it was man who made it communicative. Thus when man overdoes communication (Genesis 11) God disrupts what? ... their Language! Their abilities of communication.
God's language however is creational. This creational language is profoundly metaphoric. A metaphor can be thought of as an illustrative, poetic use of language which gives substance to something which isn't readily seen without the metaphor. Thus everytime God spoke in creation it was a metaphor, for the true form of the words did not exist until they were uttered.
Metaphor, Poetry, and sometimes even Parable is often viewed in evangelicalism as a form of lesser language, at best fluffy, and at worse dangerously-misinterpreting. However, responsibly embrace, the language of metaphor is far closer to the language of God than the language of communication. It still sends shudders down my spine to see how some exegetees exhaust meaning and prose and doctrine from lamentations, and the psalms, and parts of Isaiah, without ever mention the movement in the language, the meter, the rhyme, the allegory, the illustrations, the metaphor; the poetry.
Language in its purity is pre-Babel, it is creational, it is Godlike, it is focally-metaphoric. Do read God's word as creational language, seek to understand the poetic as more than just poems, and do speak to God from the metaphoric-language center of your heart.
Sometimes it seems, Reformed writers talk about the Sola Scriptura as the 'exegetically exhausted doctrines of God' rather than the living, breathing, fluid, inspired, universally-and-intergenerationally-applicable, creational, double-edged (s)word it actually is. Or, another way, if we apply all our exegetical techniques to verses x, y, and z, and derive at a premise or two in those verses, that is the meaning of this portion of God's Word. Now there are 31,103 verses in the Bible, and if we apply this principle to all of them we will have exhausted God's revelation; and perhaps therefore the finality of God-revealed also in no time at all, a couple of gifted exegete's lifes work perhaps. There is obviously a problem with this.
The first words spoken were God's words, and they were creational, i.e. they created. Every time God spoke, something was made, light - stars - earth - plants - people - laws. When man spoke however, he named things so as to communicate. God's language was creational, it was man who made it communicative. Thus when man overdoes communication (Genesis 11) God disrupts what? ... their Language! Their abilities of communication.
God's language however is creational. This creational language is profoundly metaphoric. A metaphor can be thought of as an illustrative, poetic use of language which gives substance to something which isn't readily seen without the metaphor. Thus everytime God spoke in creation it was a metaphor, for the true form of the words did not exist until they were uttered.
Metaphor, Poetry, and sometimes even Parable is often viewed in evangelicalism as a form of lesser language, at best fluffy, and at worse dangerously-misinterpreting. However, responsibly embrace, the language of metaphor is far closer to the language of God than the language of communication. It still sends shudders down my spine to see how some exegetees exhaust meaning and prose and doctrine from lamentations, and the psalms, and parts of Isaiah, without ever mention the movement in the language, the meter, the rhyme, the allegory, the illustrations, the metaphor; the poetry.
Language in its purity is pre-Babel, it is creational, it is Godlike, it is focally-metaphoric. Do read God's word as creational language, seek to understand the poetic as more than just poems, and do speak to God from the metaphoric-language center of your heart.
The Pentatonic Scale and Godly Communication
Godly communication; that is communication to and from God, not communication about God, can be perhaps likened much more readily with music than with words, the latter in submission to the former.
The pentatonic scale is the mother of all blues and rock and roll, it is the Guitar-Soloists dream, and the Celtics heartbeat. In its most basic form a pentatonic is a scale with five pitches per octave. For instance a G pentatonic would have the following notes: G (root), Bb, C, D, F. During mastery of this scale the notes would be played in order at a certain tempo over, and over, and over. This gets the musician to recognise and retain the scale though logic, sound, and physical habit.
But this is not the end, and not the music, because once the scale is mastered and its forms/boundaries are submitted to, there is no end to its musicality. The notes can be played in any order, with any eventuality of tempo, over any timing and chord structure. Techniques can be added, and 'feel' can be introduced. The more a piece of music is 'felt' the more the music communicates. Heart - owns - this scale. Notice that the notes themselves are not changed, in fact in order for the music to be felt, the individual notes must ring out all the more clearly.
God's eternal attributes are clearly seen since the creation of the world, not in communicative-words, but in nature and image and sound and sense and experience (Rom. 1:19-20). Thus deep truths of God, enough to know Him, are revealed in means of communicate expressed in ways other than words. These things stir and communicate not just to our reason, but deep to our hearts. Do we 'understand' God in a sunset, or do we 'experience' His assurance (as taught in His word) in our hearts? God supports His truths with our hearts. Our heart/feelings are not the context for truth, they are the truths (or notes), themselves, 'played with feeling.'
The difference between dry truths and heartfelt truths is how they exist in our beings, how they are played. Are they static and repeated, or moving and dynamic? Scales are never meant to remain in order, they are meant to backbone music, to colour and create music, to be ordered and move in ways which makes us 'feel each note.' If the notes are the truths, then we must hold them, interweave them, resound, resonate and sustain them to create the music that holds our heart. Only then will we retain and love these individual truths.
The pentatonic scale as a scale of heart, teaches us this. Our heart when filled with truths (notes in the scale) and Spirit (playing the notes) breathes sounds to God, it sings and colours our words, it makes sentences real and not simply recited, it makes works worship and not duty.
At what level do we communicate with God? Do we pray/act out of a legalistic exegetically-exhausted thesaurus of words/actions (a repeated and ordered scale), and expect them to move us? Or does our moved, Spirit-filled and steered heart submit to, take, offer, sacrifice, bless, hold, and play the words and actions as creational-musical-living-language to God? Do we embrace God in prayer as we embrace the movement and melody of our favourite song? Do we caress the heart of God like our fingers caress the fretboard of our guitars? - Does he communicate to us through static scale, -or- dynamic solo? How do we feel when God reveals himself to us? Static?... or moved?
Submit your heart, your life, your circumstances, and your realities to God. Let Him stir your heart where it is meant to be stirred. Don't let His truths remain static, allow them to penetrate your heart, and allow you heart to be stirred up within your life, circumstances, and realities.
The pentatonic scale is the mother of all blues and rock and roll, it is the Guitar-Soloists dream, and the Celtics heartbeat. In its most basic form a pentatonic is a scale with five pitches per octave. For instance a G pentatonic would have the following notes: G (root), Bb, C, D, F. During mastery of this scale the notes would be played in order at a certain tempo over, and over, and over. This gets the musician to recognise and retain the scale though logic, sound, and physical habit.
But this is not the end, and not the music, because once the scale is mastered and its forms/boundaries are submitted to, there is no end to its musicality. The notes can be played in any order, with any eventuality of tempo, over any timing and chord structure. Techniques can be added, and 'feel' can be introduced. The more a piece of music is 'felt' the more the music communicates. Heart - owns - this scale. Notice that the notes themselves are not changed, in fact in order for the music to be felt, the individual notes must ring out all the more clearly.
God's eternal attributes are clearly seen since the creation of the world, not in communicative-words, but in nature and image and sound and sense and experience (Rom. 1:19-20). Thus deep truths of God, enough to know Him, are revealed in means of communicate expressed in ways other than words. These things stir and communicate not just to our reason, but deep to our hearts. Do we 'understand' God in a sunset, or do we 'experience' His assurance (as taught in His word) in our hearts? God supports His truths with our hearts. Our heart/feelings are not the context for truth, they are the truths (or notes), themselves, 'played with feeling.'
The difference between dry truths and heartfelt truths is how they exist in our beings, how they are played. Are they static and repeated, or moving and dynamic? Scales are never meant to remain in order, they are meant to backbone music, to colour and create music, to be ordered and move in ways which makes us 'feel each note.' If the notes are the truths, then we must hold them, interweave them, resound, resonate and sustain them to create the music that holds our heart. Only then will we retain and love these individual truths.
The pentatonic scale as a scale of heart, teaches us this. Our heart when filled with truths (notes in the scale) and Spirit (playing the notes) breathes sounds to God, it sings and colours our words, it makes sentences real and not simply recited, it makes works worship and not duty.
At what level do we communicate with God? Do we pray/act out of a legalistic exegetically-exhausted thesaurus of words/actions (a repeated and ordered scale), and expect them to move us? Or does our moved, Spirit-filled and steered heart submit to, take, offer, sacrifice, bless, hold, and play the words and actions as creational-musical-living-language to God? Do we embrace God in prayer as we embrace the movement and melody of our favourite song? Do we caress the heart of God like our fingers caress the fretboard of our guitars? - Does he communicate to us through static scale, -or- dynamic solo? How do we feel when God reveals himself to us? Static?... or moved?
Submit your heart, your life, your circumstances, and your realities to God. Let Him stir your heart where it is meant to be stirred. Don't let His truths remain static, allow them to penetrate your heart, and allow you heart to be stirred up within your life, circumstances, and realities.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Preliminary reflections on the Psalms.
Everytime I sit down at my blog I feel a twinge to write something about my view of the psalms... frustratingly however I still feel hugely unprepared to do so. The emotional spectrum paletted throughout the grace+spirit-meeting-humanity+dependency sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and touches of the psalter is universally unique. So unique in fact that it not only gives us an inspired song book, but also a reflection on how we are to live and breathe our very lives in full open-handed worship. The psalter is where we learn the majesty of lament, the legitimacy of the metaphor, the power of Spirit-warfare, the soul-longing for justice, the presence of God in His songs, and the place and power of full,powerful,artistic expression in Worship. The psalms are a river of doctrine flowing as doctrine should out of and through and towards a heart of praise. Sing the psalms, chant them, breathe them out, memorise them, read them again and again, love them, pray them, need them, search through them, ... reflect them.
These are obvious random expressions of my thoughts...but the papers met the pen now, I've committed myself, so watch this space.
t.
These are obvious random expressions of my thoughts...but the papers met the pen now, I've committed myself, so watch this space.
t.
Teenagers on the edge of the Kingdom
'Can I buy a fag off yer?'
I shrug, and exhale slowly with my mouth closed, as if I wanted nothing better than to sell this young man a cigarette.
'Sorry mate I don't smoke.'
He turns away, I walk on around the corner and past the familiar old house which I recently discovered was where my mother grew up. Coming back around the house I see another 13 or 14 year old boy, on a bike, a Liverpool shirt on sporting 'Gerard' on his back. He spares me a glance and turns away.
'Vicky!' He shouts, a booming, possibly taunting, whisper affect in his voice. Then he disappears into the adjacent alley. I continue, now walking back towards the park I just came from. The boys are still there, possibly approaching me.
'Thought you didn't smoke,' mocked one as the others grinned.
'Just saw you with a fag' another joined, although he was cut off mid sentence from the lad that approached me before I rounded the corner just before,
'Where'd you get that lighter'?
I grinned what I thought was a charitable grin, then continued on my way into the park as the lads continued on their way. I of course don't smoke, they didn't see me smoking, and I wasn't carrying a lighter.
Going further a teenage girl is trying to squeeze through the children's playpark boundary bars but getting stuck in the process. A similar aged lad, possibly older, in a spurt of misplaced or distorted chivalry jumps over them just next to her. A third girl walks away from behind them. There's a makeshift rope swing hanging from a tree on my path just past the young 'gymnasts,' I push it and listen to it swing on the tree as I pass by. I continue, out of the back exit of the park and onto a main road where yet more, and slightly older, teenagers are parading.
I'm sure many would find this pastime a little odd, perhaps even offensive. But watching young people is life to me. Not so much that they inspire me, or make me envy what they have. I don't. I don't even want to watch their culture so I can learn to become more of a part of it in order to reach them. No. Placing myself among them renews in me the burden for them, as people who should be inheriting the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the savior. Being around them, behind them, in their 'natural habitat' makes the burden in my mind, not more fresh, but more raw. Some burdens are not meant to remain fresh. Some burdens are meant to sting, to bite, to grip, and to cling. This is, for me, one of those burdens.
Another thing I observe and 'catalogue' so to speak in these times, is the similarities and differences; between me and them, them and me, them and Christ, me in Christ and the world, Christ and the world. When it comes to me and them, the differences flow too easy, whereas the similarities are so much harder to process and deal with. 'God make me strong.'
I love these young people, and a yearn for God to keep them close to His heart, I will battle them into His kingdom, and tear Satan from them with my teeth if I must. But I feel God needs me to be more 'me' with them. To be the counter culture -with- them. Not of their culture, not an imitation of their culture either. I've seen 14 year old lads crumble under the piercing stare and wise words of an 80 year old, and I've seen 16 year old girls sit riveted at the feet of a 50 year old professor. I long to be the real, firmly gentle, Christ-like presence in their life. To be an arm and a shoulder, to share footsteps with, and to counter their world with Christ...and see who stands. It is Jesus in these young people that attracts me so tenderly, and Jesus who calls from them. And it is to Him who I must respond.
I shrug, and exhale slowly with my mouth closed, as if I wanted nothing better than to sell this young man a cigarette.
'Sorry mate I don't smoke.'
He turns away, I walk on around the corner and past the familiar old house which I recently discovered was where my mother grew up. Coming back around the house I see another 13 or 14 year old boy, on a bike, a Liverpool shirt on sporting 'Gerard' on his back. He spares me a glance and turns away.
'Vicky!' He shouts, a booming, possibly taunting, whisper affect in his voice. Then he disappears into the adjacent alley. I continue, now walking back towards the park I just came from. The boys are still there, possibly approaching me.
'Thought you didn't smoke,' mocked one as the others grinned.
'Just saw you with a fag' another joined, although he was cut off mid sentence from the lad that approached me before I rounded the corner just before,
'Where'd you get that lighter'?
I grinned what I thought was a charitable grin, then continued on my way into the park as the lads continued on their way. I of course don't smoke, they didn't see me smoking, and I wasn't carrying a lighter.
Going further a teenage girl is trying to squeeze through the children's playpark boundary bars but getting stuck in the process. A similar aged lad, possibly older, in a spurt of misplaced or distorted chivalry jumps over them just next to her. A third girl walks away from behind them. There's a makeshift rope swing hanging from a tree on my path just past the young 'gymnasts,' I push it and listen to it swing on the tree as I pass by. I continue, out of the back exit of the park and onto a main road where yet more, and slightly older, teenagers are parading.
I'm sure many would find this pastime a little odd, perhaps even offensive. But watching young people is life to me. Not so much that they inspire me, or make me envy what they have. I don't. I don't even want to watch their culture so I can learn to become more of a part of it in order to reach them. No. Placing myself among them renews in me the burden for them, as people who should be inheriting the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, the savior. Being around them, behind them, in their 'natural habitat' makes the burden in my mind, not more fresh, but more raw. Some burdens are not meant to remain fresh. Some burdens are meant to sting, to bite, to grip, and to cling. This is, for me, one of those burdens.
Another thing I observe and 'catalogue' so to speak in these times, is the similarities and differences; between me and them, them and me, them and Christ, me in Christ and the world, Christ and the world. When it comes to me and them, the differences flow too easy, whereas the similarities are so much harder to process and deal with. 'God make me strong.'
I love these young people, and a yearn for God to keep them close to His heart, I will battle them into His kingdom, and tear Satan from them with my teeth if I must. But I feel God needs me to be more 'me' with them. To be the counter culture -with- them. Not of their culture, not an imitation of their culture either. I've seen 14 year old lads crumble under the piercing stare and wise words of an 80 year old, and I've seen 16 year old girls sit riveted at the feet of a 50 year old professor. I long to be the real, firmly gentle, Christ-like presence in their life. To be an arm and a shoulder, to share footsteps with, and to counter their world with Christ...and see who stands. It is Jesus in these young people that attracts me so tenderly, and Jesus who calls from them. And it is to Him who I must respond.
Reflections on the absence of borrowed words as thought stimuli. The Glory of God's Spirit-Fuelled mind.
I find myself in an odd place of present; for the first time in some years I have no access to my books. After graduating from seminary, my books were packed and remain packed as I'm now awaiting another move to London to start a new job. I find the absence of littered bookshelves, and smoulden-used books daunting and slightly intimidating. The places in which I found solitude, wisdom, and general grace-empowered fuzziness are sitting in boxes in lockup 273 behind an old Hammond organ and several cases of clothes.
But God is good. My Spirit-owned mind is having to solidify its allegiance to God on its own prayer-fuelled searching. I need to stretch it not only through written gifts of inspired implications, but to the first pieces and causes provided usually by the big volumes of Jonathan Edwards, or the pencil-littered pages of John Piper. And I must tell you - the mind, devoid of borrowed words to be used as thought stimuli can be a real treasure chest of goodness and grace.
Now hear me right, I'm not saying the mind of tim gough or of any other human (other than Jesus) is especially gifted or movable...no, far from it; but the mind that is created by, filled with, and depending on God for sustenance is like a showering avalanche of admonishment and edification. Not just thought stimuli, but building and creating and life-changing grace.
So a word to all, who like me, love their books for Spiritual-encouragement. Use them with discretion as tools to receive understanding to more of the promises of life indeed... but do not neglect the power and gentle-grace contained in its own extensions. Sit. Walk. Be quiet. Think prayerfully. Love the prayers of a broad-thought mind. Worship God with all your mind.
Blessings.
t.
But God is good. My Spirit-owned mind is having to solidify its allegiance to God on its own prayer-fuelled searching. I need to stretch it not only through written gifts of inspired implications, but to the first pieces and causes provided usually by the big volumes of Jonathan Edwards, or the pencil-littered pages of John Piper. And I must tell you - the mind, devoid of borrowed words to be used as thought stimuli can be a real treasure chest of goodness and grace.
Now hear me right, I'm not saying the mind of tim gough or of any other human (other than Jesus) is especially gifted or movable...no, far from it; but the mind that is created by, filled with, and depending on God for sustenance is like a showering avalanche of admonishment and edification. Not just thought stimuli, but building and creating and life-changing grace.
So a word to all, who like me, love their books for Spiritual-encouragement. Use them with discretion as tools to receive understanding to more of the promises of life indeed... but do not neglect the power and gentle-grace contained in its own extensions. Sit. Walk. Be quiet. Think prayerfully. Love the prayers of a broad-thought mind. Worship God with all your mind.
Blessings.
t.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Summary of 1 Corinthians 14
Paul now moves to the specifics of the discussion began in Ch.12 regarding tongues in worship. Ch.14 builds on two contrasts; practically between prophecy and tongues and spiritually between their individual and corporate devotions. vv.1-25 focus on the issue of intelligibility and vv.26-40 the regulation of orderly worship.
vv.1-5 Paul highlights the central themes of the section; tongues which builds the individual and ‘the greater gift,’(v.5) prophecy the community.(*1)
vv.6-12 Intelligible speech communally is preferable to unintelligible. Paul builds on his music metaphor from Ch.13.(v.7) However the instruments here are able to make a precise pitch.(*2) The trumpet metaphor (v.8) shows that intelligible messages should encourage hearers to act.
vv.13-19 Paul applies these metaphors directly to the Church (see also v.9) to encourage mature worship. Further he renews emphasis on the Spirit (vv.15-16) focuses again on God and takes focus off the individual. (*3)
vv.20-25 Encouraging them onto maturity Paul continues with his contrasts emphasising the church-building nature of Prophecy over uninterpreted-tongues. The unbelievers material (v.22ff.) is most likely another plea at intelligibility. (*4)
vv.26-40(*5) Both tongues and prophecy must be discerned and regulated in the assembly (vv.27-32). Orderly worship is key to mature worship (v.33). Gender distinctions is again part of this ordering and must be regulated in worship (vv.34-35).
________
Notes.
vv.1-5 Paul highlights the central themes of the section; tongues which builds the individual and ‘the greater gift,’(v.5) prophecy the community.(*1)
vv.6-12 Intelligible speech communally is preferable to unintelligible. Paul builds on his music metaphor from Ch.13.(v.7) However the instruments here are able to make a precise pitch.(*2) The trumpet metaphor (v.8) shows that intelligible messages should encourage hearers to act.
vv.13-19 Paul applies these metaphors directly to the Church (see also v.9) to encourage mature worship. Further he renews emphasis on the Spirit (vv.15-16) focuses again on God and takes focus off the individual. (*3)
vv.20-25 Encouraging them onto maturity Paul continues with his contrasts emphasising the church-building nature of Prophecy over uninterpreted-tongues. The unbelievers material (v.22ff.) is most likely another plea at intelligibility. (*4)
vv.26-40(*5) Both tongues and prophecy must be discerned and regulated in the assembly (vv.27-32). Orderly worship is key to mature worship (v.33). Gender distinctions is again part of this ordering and must be regulated in worship (vv.34-35).
________
Notes.
(*1) It is not (contrary to popular opinion) greater and tongues lesser in and of themselves, but in what best builds the community.
(*2) Unlike ‘gongs’ or ‘cymbals’ – the issue here is how they are played.
(*3) This section is about tongues, prophecy is not mentioned .
(*4) However v.22 is considerably difficult to exegete; a chiastic structure of vv.20-25 (with v.22 central) may make things clearer with focus on intelligibility.
(*5) Key manuscript issue with vv.34-35, that they are excluded from many manuscripts.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Pauline Theology is Primarily -Theological- not Primarily -Christological-
Nearly all modern mainstream scholarship has claimed Paul to be primarily Christological above all else; which, although in some regards is true and vitally important its missed something quite substantial: Paul is not primarily Christological...he is primarily theological! Paul's focus is not Christ at the expense of the Trinity, but Christ to the extent that he operates in and expounds the Trinity...Paul's focus is God, three in one....working inseparably together, mutually indwelling eachother...this has got to be Paul's focus...not just Christ.
In nearly all of Paul's introductions to theologies, prayers, prologues, epilogues, grace givings, and doxologies there is a huge intertwining of the work and glory of the Trinity. So in Rom. 1:1-7 The Gospel of God is of the raising of Jesus ( v.3) by His Father (vv.2,4,7) through the Spirit (v.4). Or Rom. 5:1-5 - we are justified through faith in Jesus (v.1) sealed in the Spirit (v.5) so we have peace with God (v.1). Or Rom. 8:1-4 - God sent His own Son (v.3) so that through Jesus ( vv.1-2) the Spirit sets us free (v.2). <- Note, all this is simply going through Romans...but its all the way through Paul! Its not just that Paul teaches the Trinity, but its that Pauls theology is profoundly Trinitarian over and above all else and all His theology falls under the governance of the three in God.
I guess a lot of people would agree with that until you start to apply it; I've been studying 1 Corinthians 12 for the past few weeks and if you take thiis particular section into play with this Trinitarian reading in mind: 1 Cor. 12 - The unity of the body and giving of the gifts and ordering of the church is done by who? The Spirit, in order to Build the Body of Christ is the classic view... and in some ways this is right, but its oh so much deeper than this...the Spirit gives -> what he gives builds the body of Christ....that just seems to imply a very distinct separation between Spirit and Son...and the emphasis ends up with the Son ( i.e. primarily Christological). However, lets read with a little more emphasis on some unfortunately neglected verses:
vv.4-6:
'There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.'
(The Lord is of course the Lord Jesus)...So the gifts which edify come through the Spirit; cool, but the services which edify the church and build it come through the Son too (i.e. not just the Spirit)...and all this is worked together by God...and he arranged all the parts just as he wanted them to be ( v.18) and He too has combined the members to order their honour (v.24). So all three members of the Trinity are involved in the equipping of the Church...not just the Spirit.
But what about the Second part? Is the equipping for edification just for the honour of the Son like the classic interpretation suggests? Well no it can't be...v.7 says that the manifestation of The Spirit is given ...not the Son...but the Spirit....the Spirit is to be manifested, to be seen...and when God (in Spirit in this case) reveals himself he must be responded to appropriately! The Spirit is to be seen, to be honored, to be glorified as the divine, Christ-exalting, gift-giving, grace-sustaining, church-loving, sovereign ( v.11) God that He is! And so to is the first member of the Trinity, for God arranged just as he wanted (v.18), so the church is a reflection of His desired will for His worshippers...therefore its set up for His praise and glory!
This is profound! All the members of the Trinity are distinct, they all have the subtleties of their tasks...but yet they are all worthy of direct Glory an Adoration together as the one perfect spotless divine God. King of kings and majesty on high! Christ indeed is to be highly exalted, and I do believe that is the primary role of the Spirit, but oh to make this Paul's primary focus at the expense of the holistic worship of our Triune salvation-effective God is just madness! But this is what so many people do! Its incredible. God is God! God as Trinity is to be magnified together in Trinity as such, and that makes life in His church incredible! The threefold focus is a beautiful aim...and a lot more actuate than a single point.
Paul is primarily THEO-logical, not Christological
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Jephthah’s Tragic Vow (Based on Judges 11:29-40)
Oh LORD, little did I know when I made my vow, the tragedy that would befall my heart. Little did I know when I exclaimed in my piety that death would be the reward, death from my family. My heart burns, my mind has turned, anguish grips me like a mother her new born babe; like a sparrow the meat it craves. As a babe is plucked from the breast, and a sparrow taken from its rest, so now, my child, my life, torn from me. Little did I know when I made my vow.
It has been six weeks since my little girl arrived home. Six weeks since she tumbled through my door; hop, skip, jump, buoyant smile upon her face. My child, my only child. Radiant joy upon her face, lights within her eyes unlike anything this world has seen. She opened my world and rested my mind in the contentness of this galaxy, the momentum of time and space, of truth and peace. Mine. My own little girl. My only child.
Six weeks since my little girl appeared at my door; light in her eyes as always, two blinking cherishing reflective lights only for me. Its daddy! ‘Daddy, I’m home, I’m come. Daddy take me in your arms and hold me, Daddy. Daddy? Why do you stand there still? Why, you look so frail, Daddy, what’s wrong Daddy; aren’t you glad to see me daddy? Don’t taunt me Daddy, don’t forsake me Daddy, I’m home. I’m your little girl.’
So brave my little girl, so true, so open; so penetrable her gaze. Her eyes like daggers tore right through me. Her dance ceased, the tambourine died. ‘Speak to me daddy.’ I broke. ‘Oh my daughter, my little girl, see what famine you have bought upon my heart! See what fulfilment you have bought to my vow, oh death and pain and tearing loss! But I cannot shun my LORD, I cannot pronounce judgement upon Him. What can I do? My only child.’
So brave my little girl. ‘Daddy. Father. You must do as you vowed to do. You must pour this wrath upon my soul, I am a big girl. I am your only begotten child. I am. But give me leave Daddy, let me walk and wail, for I am untouched, unknown. I am as one barren, cursed by God and afflicted. Let me mourn, two months. I will return. I must return. I am your little girl. I am your only child. And little did you know when you made your vow.’ Six weeks now since my little girl arrived home.
Six weeks since she left, and she is to return in two. Little did I know when I made my vow that the LORD would take my little girl? Little did I know when the last Ammonite fell that I would be left alone. Oh LORD, my only child. My brave, willing, little girl. That she should prepare herself for sacrifice, so willingly, so brave my little girl. That I, that Daddy must give the last blow, see the last sparkle fade from her eyes, I wonder if it’s there now?
Daddy should not have to outlive his own child. Daddy must keep His vow, from it deliverance has come, from it we are saved, from it have we inherited. I must appease. But my only little girl, so much harder is her willingness. Her piety. Her trust for Daddy. My brave little girl. She opened my world and rested my mind in the contentness of this galaxy, the momentum of time and space, of truth and peace. Mine. My own little girl. My only child.
Oh LORD, little did I know when I made my vow, the tragedy that would befall my heart. Little did I know when I exclaimed in my piety that death would be the reward, death from my family. My heart burns, my mind has turned, anguish grips me like a mother her new born babe; like a sparrow the meat it craves. As a babe is plucked from the breast, and a sparrow taken from its rest, so now, my child, my life, torn from me. Little did I know when I made my vow.
It has been six weeks since my little girl arrived home. Six weeks since she tumbled through my door; hop, skip, jump, buoyant smile upon her face. My child, my only child. Radiant joy upon her face, lights within her eyes unlike anything this world has seen. She opened my world and rested my mind in the contentness of this galaxy, the momentum of time and space, of truth and peace. Mine. My own little girl. My only child.
Six weeks since my little girl appeared at my door; light in her eyes as always, two blinking cherishing reflective lights only for me. Its daddy! ‘Daddy, I’m home, I’m come. Daddy take me in your arms and hold me, Daddy. Daddy? Why do you stand there still? Why, you look so frail, Daddy, what’s wrong Daddy; aren’t you glad to see me daddy? Don’t taunt me Daddy, don’t forsake me Daddy, I’m home. I’m your little girl.’
So brave my little girl, so true, so open; so penetrable her gaze. Her eyes like daggers tore right through me. Her dance ceased, the tambourine died. ‘Speak to me daddy.’ I broke. ‘Oh my daughter, my little girl, see what famine you have bought upon my heart! See what fulfilment you have bought to my vow, oh death and pain and tearing loss! But I cannot shun my LORD, I cannot pronounce judgement upon Him. What can I do? My only child.’
So brave my little girl. ‘Daddy. Father. You must do as you vowed to do. You must pour this wrath upon my soul, I am a big girl. I am your only begotten child. I am. But give me leave Daddy, let me walk and wail, for I am untouched, unknown. I am as one barren, cursed by God and afflicted. Let me mourn, two months. I will return. I must return. I am your little girl. I am your only child. And little did you know when you made your vow.’ Six weeks now since my little girl arrived home.
Six weeks since she left, and she is to return in two. Little did I know when I made my vow that the LORD would take my little girl? Little did I know when the last Ammonite fell that I would be left alone. Oh LORD, my only child. My brave, willing, little girl. That she should prepare herself for sacrifice, so willingly, so brave my little girl. That I, that Daddy must give the last blow, see the last sparkle fade from her eyes, I wonder if it’s there now?
Daddy should not have to outlive his own child. Daddy must keep His vow, from it deliverance has come, from it we are saved, from it have we inherited. I must appease. But my only little girl, so much harder is her willingness. Her piety. Her trust for Daddy. My brave little girl. She opened my world and rested my mind in the contentness of this galaxy, the momentum of time and space, of truth and peace. Mine. My own little girl. My only child.
Oh LORD, little did I know when I made my vow, the tragedy that would befall my heart. Little did I know when I exclaimed in my piety that death would be the reward, death from my family. My heart burns, my mind has turned, anguish grips me like a mother her new born babe; like a sparrow the meat it craves. As a babe is plucked from the breast, and a sparrow taken from its rest, so now, my child, my life, torn from me. Little did I know when I made my vow.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Some Final Remarks about God Fearers
God-fearers covers a spectrum of Jewish-sympathizers who were attracted to Judaism, mainly for it’s morality and monotheism but were not willing to become a proselyte, who would be circumcised, would attend Jewish feasts, would have made a public statement of faith and for all intents and purposes were considered in the covenant. God-fearer faith is more of a pick-and-choose faith in that it is merged paganism with Judaism. For instance, Cornelius, being a centurion was probably a member of the imperial-cult. Some God-Fearers may have been more institutionalised, for instance the Aphrodisias inscription includes them as an official group of people, and traces of ‘rules’ can be found. However, these wouldn’t cover the whole spectrum of who God-Fearers were.
God-Fearers were invaluable to Judaism for two reasons: First, among God-Fearers were some very prominent members of the community who were encouraged to give financially and ‘have for a long time.’ Second, Judaism is an anti-Roman oppression religion. Jews stand against idolatry, polytheism, therefore against the imperial-cult, and worship one God who would free them. Some Jews believed that God would use men directly and stood in open hostility to Rome. Therefore, its my belief that God-fearers would act as a lens for Rome to view Judaism; members of the community who expressed a healthy interest in Judaism, but were not fanatical or anti-Rome. When the Gospel spread to the God-Fearers, not only was financial aid redirected from the synagogues to the Churches, but the lens was being removed from Judaism, leaving it more exposed.
--
In many ways the God-fearers were ideally ‘suited’ for the Gospel, being attracted by Jewish monotheism but not liking all the law. The Gospel Paul preached was justification by faith alone, and not by the law, so; ‘the Jews have been telling you that you’re not saved unless you’re circumcised and I’m telling you’re that your saved through believing in Jesus and not by the bondage of the law.’ ‘It was as natural for God-fearing Gentiles to embrace the blessings of the Gospel…as it was for the Jews to decline them.’
Geographically, in Pisidian Antioch, God-fearers greatly responded yet this was seemingly where God-fearers were most attached to the Jews, starting the persecution. In Philippi and Corinth, prominent God-fearers were converted allowing churches to be established. In Berea and Thessalonica, many God-fearers responded but possibly with the greatest hostility.
The significance of ‘God-fearers’ in the book of Acts is that they served as a dominant people for Paul to bring the Gospel to, being naturally affiliated with the Jews allowing sometimes a backdoor. They had a natural ideology that fit the gospel message, they sometimes provided rich resources and they redirected attention from Judaism. This makes them imperative in the spread of the Gospel and shows the sovereignty of God at work through the apostolic era. The God fearers were a legitimate people and we all too often minimalise their importance in the early church.
God-Fearers were invaluable to Judaism for two reasons: First, among God-Fearers were some very prominent members of the community who were encouraged to give financially and ‘have for a long time.’ Second, Judaism is an anti-Roman oppression religion. Jews stand against idolatry, polytheism, therefore against the imperial-cult, and worship one God who would free them. Some Jews believed that God would use men directly and stood in open hostility to Rome. Therefore, its my belief that God-fearers would act as a lens for Rome to view Judaism; members of the community who expressed a healthy interest in Judaism, but were not fanatical or anti-Rome. When the Gospel spread to the God-Fearers, not only was financial aid redirected from the synagogues to the Churches, but the lens was being removed from Judaism, leaving it more exposed.
--
In many ways the God-fearers were ideally ‘suited’ for the Gospel, being attracted by Jewish monotheism but not liking all the law. The Gospel Paul preached was justification by faith alone, and not by the law, so; ‘the Jews have been telling you that you’re not saved unless you’re circumcised and I’m telling you’re that your saved through believing in Jesus and not by the bondage of the law.’ ‘It was as natural for God-fearing Gentiles to embrace the blessings of the Gospel…as it was for the Jews to decline them.’
Geographically, in Pisidian Antioch, God-fearers greatly responded yet this was seemingly where God-fearers were most attached to the Jews, starting the persecution. In Philippi and Corinth, prominent God-fearers were converted allowing churches to be established. In Berea and Thessalonica, many God-fearers responded but possibly with the greatest hostility.
The significance of ‘God-fearers’ in the book of Acts is that they served as a dominant people for Paul to bring the Gospel to, being naturally affiliated with the Jews allowing sometimes a backdoor. They had a natural ideology that fit the gospel message, they sometimes provided rich resources and they redirected attention from Judaism. This makes them imperative in the spread of the Gospel and shows the sovereignty of God at work through the apostolic era. The God fearers were a legitimate people and we all too often minimalise their importance in the early church.
Extra-Biblical Evidence for God Fearers
‘Its important to remember that archaeology by its very nature is not able to produce a complete picture of cultural and religious life…Only the combination of the information received from the different sources, and the careful cross-checking of them, can produce reliable results’(Levinskaya, p.58). Inscriptions have been found around the Diaspora, which include the word θεοσεβης, many of these are identities. The most important, the ‘Aphrodisias’ inscription, contains lists of synagogue people. What’s interesting is the God-fearers are separate; making them different from the Jews, yet still members of the synagogue. Some of the inscriptions appear to give the title God-fearer’ to a Jew however the evidence to support this is minimal. Kraabel ‘suggests that the inscription from Aphrodisias refers simply to pious Gentiles who contributed to synagogues.’ This again doesn’t fit the evidence.
‘The Cult of the Most High God’ (ϋψιστος). Many believe that ϋψιστος is simply a name given to many pagan-deities. Trebilco argues that in Acts16:16-18, the girl was talking about a pagan-god, not the true God. However, ϋψιστος implies monotheism and its Jewish use is overwhelming, Jews addressed God as Theos Hypsistos (LXX). Acts 16, θεου του ύψιστου, when cross-referenced with the sayings of the demons in Marks Gospel, is the Jewish God, not Pagan. Its likely ϋψιστος is a mergence of Jewish and Pagan beliefs where some Gentiles would be a part of, a group of people within the pagan/proselyte spectrum: God-fearers.
Jewish Historian, Josephus also mentions persons attached to synagogues:
I therefore believe that we can legitimately speak of ‘God-fearers’ as a category of people in the first century AD.
‘The Cult of the Most High God’ (ϋψιστος). Many believe that ϋψιστος is simply a name given to many pagan-deities. Trebilco argues that in Acts16:16-18, the girl was talking about a pagan-god, not the true God. However, ϋψιστος implies monotheism and its Jewish use is overwhelming, Jews addressed God as Theos Hypsistos (LXX). Acts 16, θεου του ύψιστου, when cross-referenced with the sayings of the demons in Marks Gospel, is the Jewish God, not Pagan. Its likely ϋψιστος is a mergence of Jewish and Pagan beliefs where some Gentiles would be a part of, a group of people within the pagan/proselyte spectrum: God-fearers.
Jewish Historian, Josephus also mentions persons attached to synagogues:
‘[Jews] were constantly attracting to their religious ceremonies multitudes of Greeks, and these they had in some measure incorporated with themselves.’
‘But no one need wonder that there was so much wealth in our temple, for all the Jews throughout the habitable world, and fearers of God…had been contributing...’
I therefore believe that we can legitimately speak of ‘God-fearers’ as a category of people in the first century AD.
See
L.H. Feldman Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (Yamamoto, Tokyo, 1987)
L.H. Feldman Josephus, the Bible and History (Yamamoto, Tokyo, 1988)
L.H. Feldman The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers (Biblical Archeological Review 12, no.5, 1986)
E. M. Smallwood The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1981)
Robert S. MacLennan and A. Thomas Kraabel, The God-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention,(BAR 12, no.5, September – October 1986)
I. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Vol 5, Diaspora Setting (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996)
God Fearers in Acts.
Within Acts we see the most explicit reference to God-fearers (Acts 10; 13:16; 13:26; 13:43; 13:50; 16:14; 17:4; 17:17; 18:6-7). Some say this is Luke writing as a theologian who needed God-fearers for his narrative. I believe the reason we have the most references to God-fearers within Acts is because it gives us historical details not necessary in the rest of the New-Testament narratives.
God Fearers in Acts depends much on the geography and situation in question (The references to God-fearers cover a large area, including Caesarea, Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth). God-fearers are mentioned several times in Acts, sometimes they heartily welcome the gospel, whereas at otehr times they begin the persecution.
Acts 10
Cornelius is a ‘model God-fearer,’ with almsgiving, prayer (v.2) and a good reputation among Jews (v.22). Therefore, ‘he had some preparation for the Gospel he was soon to hear.’ He was not a Jew/proselyte (shown by the Jewish Christians who came with Peter who were amazed by the fact he had received the Holy Spirit). Furthermore, he was a Roman Centurion who would be expected to participate in the imperial-cult. ‘Because of his official duties and despite his beliefs in one God, has to demonstrate publicly his polytheism.’ Cornelius was not the first Gentile convert (See Acts 8), however from him the mission to the Gentiles began (Acts. 11:1), his household also becomes a Christian base as all his household were filled with the Spirit and baptised.
Acts 13:16-50
Here Paul is in Pisidian Antioch, and as was his custom he goes first to the synagogue where Jews and God-fearers responded. This ‘is the first time the mission to the Gentiles is proclaimed as a recognized aim.’ This is also the first step of persecution. Prominent women drove Paul and Barnabas out from their borders. These women are unlikely to be Jewish as it is unlikely that they possessed a higher status than the males or that they initiated the persecution before the males. They are very likely God-fearers, which makes sense when cross-referenced later in Luke’s narrative (Acts 17:4, 17).
From these passages we see the beginnings of the Gentile mission, which posed a serious problem for the Jews as their status quo was suddenly challenged. The Jews generally had better success because of the long relationship they had enjoyed with God-fearers, owing to the hostility to the Gospel in Ch13. This is an important development in the spread of the Gospel and the accompanying persecution, which as we see here and throughout Acts, God-fearers play an important role in this.
Acts 16:14
This passage is crucial in understanding the success of the Gospel. Paul goes to a ‘place of prayer,’ presumably the area didn’t have a synagogue and meets Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. This makes Lydia an extremely wealthy member of the community, and she is at the meeting; a God-fearer (v.14). This makes a base for Christians to meet in Philippi, the household of a God-fearer provides a huge resource for the spread of the Gospel.
Acts 17:4,17
Again Paul’s begins in the synagogue and God-fearers who are there respond. Here they are called ‘worshipping (σεβομενων) Greeks’ with prominent women. And again this leads to an uproar from the Jews and Paul and Silas are accused of ‘turning the world upside-down,’ which, for the Jews, by evangelising God-fearers, that is exactly what they are doing. This happens again after God-fearers respond in v12 and again in v17 the same way.
Acts 18:6-7
Much the same way as Lydia, prominent God-fearer; Titus Justus is converted with his whole household next door to the synagogue providing a base for the Gospel and a back door into the synagogue, as we see Crispus, the leader of the synagogue is converted.
These passages teach us not only of the persecution that follows the mission to the God-fearers but also of the God-fearers necessity to the Gospel’s spread, particularly the resources of Lydia and Titus. This gives us much insight into the nature of Paul’s missionary techniques in reaching the Gentiles, via Judaism and the sovereign plan of God.
• The Gentile mission was began and was made public through God-fearers
• The mission to the God-fearers was drenched with Jewish Persecution
• This persecution was sometimes started by the Jewish-faithful God-fearers
• The spread of the Gentile mission was made possible by the resources of God-fearers
God Fearers in Acts depends much on the geography and situation in question (The references to God-fearers cover a large area, including Caesarea, Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens and Corinth). God-fearers are mentioned several times in Acts, sometimes they heartily welcome the gospel, whereas at otehr times they begin the persecution.
Acts 10
Cornelius is a ‘model God-fearer,’ with almsgiving, prayer (v.2) and a good reputation among Jews (v.22). Therefore, ‘he had some preparation for the Gospel he was soon to hear.’ He was not a Jew/proselyte (shown by the Jewish Christians who came with Peter who were amazed by the fact he had received the Holy Spirit). Furthermore, he was a Roman Centurion who would be expected to participate in the imperial-cult. ‘Because of his official duties and despite his beliefs in one God, has to demonstrate publicly his polytheism.’ Cornelius was not the first Gentile convert (See Acts 8), however from him the mission to the Gentiles began (Acts. 11:1), his household also becomes a Christian base as all his household were filled with the Spirit and baptised.
Acts 13:16-50
Here Paul is in Pisidian Antioch, and as was his custom he goes first to the synagogue where Jews and God-fearers responded. This ‘is the first time the mission to the Gentiles is proclaimed as a recognized aim.’ This is also the first step of persecution. Prominent women drove Paul and Barnabas out from their borders. These women are unlikely to be Jewish as it is unlikely that they possessed a higher status than the males or that they initiated the persecution before the males. They are very likely God-fearers, which makes sense when cross-referenced later in Luke’s narrative (Acts 17:4, 17).
From these passages we see the beginnings of the Gentile mission, which posed a serious problem for the Jews as their status quo was suddenly challenged. The Jews generally had better success because of the long relationship they had enjoyed with God-fearers, owing to the hostility to the Gospel in Ch13. This is an important development in the spread of the Gospel and the accompanying persecution, which as we see here and throughout Acts, God-fearers play an important role in this.
Acts 16:14
This passage is crucial in understanding the success of the Gospel. Paul goes to a ‘place of prayer,’ presumably the area didn’t have a synagogue and meets Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. This makes Lydia an extremely wealthy member of the community, and she is at the meeting; a God-fearer (v.14). This makes a base for Christians to meet in Philippi, the household of a God-fearer provides a huge resource for the spread of the Gospel.
Acts 17:4,17
Again Paul’s begins in the synagogue and God-fearers who are there respond. Here they are called ‘worshipping (σεβομενων) Greeks’ with prominent women. And again this leads to an uproar from the Jews and Paul and Silas are accused of ‘turning the world upside-down,’ which, for the Jews, by evangelising God-fearers, that is exactly what they are doing. This happens again after God-fearers respond in v12 and again in v17 the same way.
Acts 18:6-7
Much the same way as Lydia, prominent God-fearer; Titus Justus is converted with his whole household next door to the synagogue providing a base for the Gospel and a back door into the synagogue, as we see Crispus, the leader of the synagogue is converted.
These passages teach us not only of the persecution that follows the mission to the God-fearers but also of the God-fearers necessity to the Gospel’s spread, particularly the resources of Lydia and Titus. This gives us much insight into the nature of Paul’s missionary techniques in reaching the Gentiles, via Judaism and the sovereign plan of God.
• The Gentile mission was began and was made public through God-fearers
• The mission to the God-fearers was drenched with Jewish Persecution
• This persecution was sometimes started by the Jewish-faithful God-fearers
• The spread of the Gentile mission was made possible by the resources of God-fearers
See:
L.H. Feldman The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers (Biblical Archeological Review 12, no.5, 1986)
E. M. Smallwood The Jews Under Roman Rule (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1981)
Robert S. MacLennan and A. Thomas Kraabel, The God-Fearers – A Literary and Theological Invention,(BAR 12, no.5, September – October 1986)
**I. Levinskaya, The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting. Vol 5, Diaspora Setting (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1996)
I. H. Marshall Acts (Tyndale Grand Rapids, 1992) p.183-184
J. B. Polhill The New American Commentary: Acts (Broadman Press, Nashville, 1992)
C. K. Barrett Acts, A Shorter Commentary (T & T Clark, New York, 2002)
C. Evans at al Dictionary of New Testament Background (IVP, Leicester, 2000)
G. Hawthorne et al Dictionary of Paul and his Letters (IVP, Leicester, 1993)
New Testament Evidence for God Fearers outside of Acts
My hypothesis begins with this conviction; that not only can we speak legitimately of the first century AD people known sometimes as ‘God-fearers’ but also that their role was invaluable, to the success or failure in the spread of the gospel as recorded in the book of Acts.
For the purpose of analysing the evidence, we can, for now be satisfied with the definition of God-fearers being members of the gentile-community who affiliate themselves to some degree with Jewish worship, who are interested in Jewish-morality and monotheism yet are not in obedience to some aspects of the Jewish Law (often circumcision) as a proselyte would be. I believe also that a God-fearer may still be involved with activities from paganism. The spectrum of ‘God-fearers’ would travel between polytheistic-paganism and proselyte-Judaism.
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
The difficulty in finding passages which mention ‘God-fearers’ is one of terminology. Luke in his two-volume narrative gives us at least five terms (φοβουμενοι τον θεον (Acts 10:1-2; 10:22; 13:16; 13:26), σεβομενοι τον θεον (Acts 13:50; 16:14; 18:6-7), σεβομενοι προσηλυτοι (13:43), σεβομενοι Έλληνες (17:17)). It’s my belief however, that they are one and the same people and that we can find peoples, not necessarily under the name ‘God-fearers,’ who can be categorised as God-fearers. Because of terminological issues, some believe that ‘God-fearers’ are ‘pious’ or ‘devout’ Jews. Its my aim through examining the texts, to show why this is an incorrect understanding. Some from this will give them too vague a description; others would go to the other extreme and over-institutionalise them.
Throughout the Old-Testament we see ‘God-fearer’ types; strangers who dwell with you. These dwelt with the Israelites and were given some basic laws to follow. Such as in Leviticus 17:12-13, Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
The Gospels give no explicit mentions of ‘God-fearers’ however there are places we might infer this, the most obvious is John 12:20ff
The Greeks were not Jews as they were among Jews. They’re still known by their Hellenistic name and they were worshipping at a Jewish feast, so could be God-fearers. But what makes this more likely is by cross-referencing this with Acts 17:4,12
The Greeks in Thessalonica and Berea are God-fearers, making it likely that the Greeks at Jerusalem were also God-fearers.
J.D.Crossam believes that Paul in his epistles was writing to God-fearers. Paul writes to Churches he founded, comprising many God-fearers. We also know that the Jews placed a lot of emphasis on the God-fearers , which might explain the constant difficulty with Judaizers trying to bring converts under the Law, and possibly the synagogues. God-fearers would be taught in the synagogues that circumcision was the way into the covenant, yet Paul taught it by faith alone. (Which was, by its very nature, more attractive to God-fearers who were suspicious of commitment to the Law.) This seems to be the specific debate in Galatians 2:16ff
It could be that Paul, when dealing with the Jewish law was addressing God-fearers who were susceptible to the Jewish mission to keep God-fearers in their circles.
For the purpose of analysing the evidence, we can, for now be satisfied with the definition of God-fearers being members of the gentile-community who affiliate themselves to some degree with Jewish worship, who are interested in Jewish-morality and monotheism yet are not in obedience to some aspects of the Jewish Law (often circumcision) as a proselyte would be. I believe also that a God-fearer may still be involved with activities from paganism. The spectrum of ‘God-fearers’ would travel between polytheistic-paganism and proselyte-Judaism.
BIBLICAL EVIDENCE
The difficulty in finding passages which mention ‘God-fearers’ is one of terminology. Luke in his two-volume narrative gives us at least five terms (φοβουμενοι τον θεον (Acts 10:1-2; 10:22; 13:16; 13:26), σεβομενοι τον θεον (Acts 13:50; 16:14; 18:6-7), σεβομενοι προσηλυτοι (13:43), σεβομενοι Έλληνες (17:17)). It’s my belief however, that they are one and the same people and that we can find peoples, not necessarily under the name ‘God-fearers,’ who can be categorised as God-fearers. Because of terminological issues, some believe that ‘God-fearers’ are ‘pious’ or ‘devout’ Jews. Its my aim through examining the texts, to show why this is an incorrect understanding. Some from this will give them too vague a description; others would go to the other extreme and over-institutionalise them.
Throughout the Old-Testament we see ‘God-fearer’ types; strangers who dwell with you. These dwelt with the Israelites and were given some basic laws to follow. Such as in Leviticus 17:12-13, Therefore I have said to the people of Israel, No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.
The Gospels give no explicit mentions of ‘God-fearers’ however there are places we might infer this, the most obvious is John 12:20ff
The Greeks were not Jews as they were among Jews. They’re still known by their Hellenistic name and they were worshipping at a Jewish feast, so could be God-fearers. But what makes this more likely is by cross-referencing this with Acts 17:4,12
The Greeks in Thessalonica and Berea are God-fearers, making it likely that the Greeks at Jerusalem were also God-fearers.
J.D.Crossam believes that Paul in his epistles was writing to God-fearers. Paul writes to Churches he founded, comprising many God-fearers. We also know that the Jews placed a lot of emphasis on the God-fearers , which might explain the constant difficulty with Judaizers trying to bring converts under the Law, and possibly the synagogues. God-fearers would be taught in the synagogues that circumcision was the way into the covenant, yet Paul taught it by faith alone. (Which was, by its very nature, more attractive to God-fearers who were suspicious of commitment to the Law.) This seems to be the specific debate in Galatians 2:16ff
It could be that Paul, when dealing with the Jewish law was addressing God-fearers who were susceptible to the Jewish mission to keep God-fearers in their circles.
>>>God Fearers<<<
If you haven't already heard me rant at length about modern scholarships underestimating/botching the first centaury AD people known as God-fearers then these next posts are for you! Namely, if you see me begin to talk about it you can simply say 'I've read your blog' and I'll shut up. All this began with some research for a New Testament essay in my second year at Theological College, and has since grown into somewhat of an obsession.
My basic beliefs are:
> God Fearers were a much more clearly defined people in the first centaury than we often give them credit for.
> God Fearers still however cover a spectrum of people who were sensitive to Jewish morality and monotheism but had not/were not able to for social confliction, been circumcised. (Social - such as being in the Roman army, or socially upper class, etc).
> God Fearers presented a diluted version/bridge/lens/stepping stone between the Jewish and the Roman communities. This gave Judaism a nuanced approach and allowed their continuance as an official religion within the Roman world.
> The Christian mission to the God Fearers (after the Jews) meant this lens was taken away exposing Judaism for what it really was; doctrinally anti-Rome. (N.b. this accounts for the evidence we see for the Jewish mission to the 'fringe believers' in the 1st centaury.
> As God Fearers became fewer (through becoming Christian) and the lens was further taken away, the Roman authorities got more suspicious about the Jewish continuance.
> This (+ a host of other factors) led to the open conflict between the Jews and the Romans, and the inevitable destruction of the temple in AD70.
-
> God Fearers exist today, we may call them sensitive agnostics, and they may be in our churches as 'fringe believers.' This again may be one of the reasons that the Church appears nuanced. God Fearers form a lens and dilute the true essence of the Church. We must seek to have their hearts convicted from being on the edge to into the fold.
I.e. I believe God Fearers were much more important to the success of the Christian mission, the judgement on the Jews, and the social-economic make-up of 1st century palatine. Further, we can learn from Acts etc, the effective ways to minister to such a spectrum of people who still exist today.
My basic beliefs are:
> God Fearers were a much more clearly defined people in the first centaury than we often give them credit for.
> God Fearers still however cover a spectrum of people who were sensitive to Jewish morality and monotheism but had not/were not able to for social confliction, been circumcised. (Social - such as being in the Roman army, or socially upper class, etc).
> God Fearers presented a diluted version/bridge/lens/stepping stone between the Jewish and the Roman communities. This gave Judaism a nuanced approach and allowed their continuance as an official religion within the Roman world.
> The Christian mission to the God Fearers (after the Jews) meant this lens was taken away exposing Judaism for what it really was; doctrinally anti-Rome. (N.b. this accounts for the evidence we see for the Jewish mission to the 'fringe believers' in the 1st centaury.
> As God Fearers became fewer (through becoming Christian) and the lens was further taken away, the Roman authorities got more suspicious about the Jewish continuance.
> This (+ a host of other factors) led to the open conflict between the Jews and the Romans, and the inevitable destruction of the temple in AD70.
-
> God Fearers exist today, we may call them sensitive agnostics, and they may be in our churches as 'fringe believers.' This again may be one of the reasons that the Church appears nuanced. God Fearers form a lens and dilute the true essence of the Church. We must seek to have their hearts convicted from being on the edge to into the fold.
I.e. I believe God Fearers were much more important to the success of the Christian mission, the judgement on the Jews, and the social-economic make-up of 1st century palatine. Further, we can learn from Acts etc, the effective ways to minister to such a spectrum of people who still exist today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)