Useful Resource for OT Background

As my students will know, I am frequently drawing attention to the context within which the Old Testament was written, particularly its literary context. The genres, the imagery, the idioms, even the vocabulary of OT narrative, poetry and prophecy need to be considered in the light of Egyptian, Mesopotamian and other Western Asian and Meditterranean sources. For decades the most accessible compilation of relevant documents was J. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET). More recently, the 3 vol. Context of Scripture (COS), ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (which I have electronically in a searchable form): has more recently provided a more up-to-date and more comprehensive collection, with helpful Bible index. What has been lacking is an index from COS to ANET, for the newer anthology doesn’t make the older redundant (not everything is reproduced in COS for a start). This is now remedied by this useful online COS/ANET index.

AACC - Queensland Theological College Conference - AACC 2010 definitely worth diarising

I was with John Davies at the AACC this week and I heartily agree that it was a worthwhile week. I am planning to return next year.
Most of the sessions were excellent - but for me there were three highlights, all because of their direct practical relevance to my own ministry and life.
First, there was Richard Bauckham's three plenary sessions on the Gospels as Testimony (a summary of his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and then further reflections in the light of critical responses). As a Christian, I found Richard's exploration of the nature of Ancient biography (or 'testimony') very fortifying: I definitely need to get the book and digest his case more thoroughly.
Next there was Greg Clarke's (of Sydney's Centre for Public Christianity) 'after' dinner speech, Taming Your Tongue in Academia. As a teacher at PTC, I was challenged to renew efforts to make my speech and silence at PTC true ministry. I hope this gets published somewhere as it will be worth chewing over more.
Finally, I really 'enjoyed' (if that is the word for it - Ezekiel 16 is very difficult material) seeing Andrew Sloane (who teaches OT and Systematics at Morling College) in full flight as he considered The office of the prophets: Ezekiel 16 in the pulpit. Apart from the excellent content in this paper, Andrew challenged me in three ways. First, to keep on using my Hebrew (his study of Ezekiel 16 just would not have been possible without access to the Masoretic Text as the English versions all excessively sanitise Ezekiel's rhetoric to make it 'readable in Church'). Second, the value of passion in the academy. Andrew is a wonderful communicator and passion is at the heart of his style. This seems very apt for a paper about God's holy passion for an Israel whose very unholy passion had so disgusted God. It seems the sleeve of an academic gown is not such a bad place to wear your heart after all. Thirdly, his paper was pastorally accessible and had immediate practical value for the ordinary preacher. This is something I must work harder at in my papers as I develop my own style in writing and delivering conference papers in coming years.
Two minor beefs about the conference. First I find it objectionable that St Lucia, and QTC are so much prettier than Burwood. What a wonderful site for a theological college!
Second: how does 'Annual Australasian Conference for the Academy and the Church' produce the initials 'AACC'? This drove me just a little bit crazy all week!

AACC Conference in Brisbane

This post comes from Brisbane where a couple of us from the PTC staff in Sydney are giving papers this week at the grandly titled Annual Australasian Christian Conference for the Academy and the Church. The “Annual” bit is somewhat prophetic, this being the first. It is good to see some increasing opportunities for those teaching Biblical studies (they even let theologians and other Christian scholars into this one) having an opportunity in the antipodes for professional exchange of ideas and stimulus to scholarship and research as well as ministry focused sessions. The keynote speakers at this conference are Richard Bauckham and David Baker. I testify to the fact that I am an eyewitness to Richard’s presentations on the Gospels (and rather daunted by having him in the front row of my NT presentation!) David Baker is speaking about the portrayal of women in the OT and in the background literature.

My paper was on the Greeks who desired to see Jesus in John 12. I ask the question, are these Greeks (unwittingly) following a script laid down for them in the OT and fulfilling second temple expectations? Can we narrow down the text or texts which provide the substructure to John’s narrative? Why does their appearance have such a profound effect upon Jesus? Does this pericope shed light on the Gospel as a whole? 

Defining the Gospel

There is continuing discussion in Reformed circles about the definition of “gospel” (see e.g. Mike Bird’s useful comments here in the context of a discussion on Piper and Wright). Should such a definition be based narrowly on Rom. 1:3-4? Or should it be broadened to incorporate 1 Cor. 15.3-5?  Should it include the person as well as the work of Christ?

My comment is that the discussion is wrongly framed if we are expecting a virtual definition to be located somewhere in Scripture. Definitions are a linguistic construct based on our knowledge of (in theory) every occurrence of a term. Words mean what they are used by speakers to mean in a range of contexts. The word “gospel” (euangelion) occurs some 76 times in the NT, while the related verb occurs some 54 times, and of course the LXX and early Christian writings provide additional linguistic data. When a given passage says “the gospel is …” or some other formula giving content to the word (as in Romans 1), it does not follow that we have a “definition” or that the nuance in one passage is applicable to others.

I tire of those who want to reduce the gospel to a neat formula, a set of words to be asserted and assented to as though this will cover the rich tapestry that is the Biblical gospel. We suffer from a truncated and impoverished gospel if it ends up looking simply like a get-out-of-jail-free card. I encourage a good concordance study for starters. Even that will not suffice, for a linguistic definition is not the same as a doctrinal formulation. Aspects of the content of what the NT writers meant by their gospel might be found in places where the word is not used.

Popular Christianity tends to work with a “gloss” (different from a definition) on the word gospel = “good news”. While this looks like it has etymological justification, and may appear to fit in some contexts, it is hardly appropriate, e.g. for Rev. 14:6-7 where the “eternal gospel” is one of judgment — not particularly good news for those who experience the judgment. To base a meaning on an apparent etymology is a fallacy which would result in us believing that anthology is the study of flowers.

To understand the word translated “gospel” we need some background in Roman imperial terminology, where a “euangelion” was an official proclamation of the emperor, requiring a response. What the Christian euangelion does is proclaim the rightful lordship of God’s appointed messiah as the one whose appearance and entire ministry, in fulfilment of the script laid down in the Old Testament, demonstrates him to be worthy of our total allegiance, and calls for repentance and a commitment of wholisitic faith. How then is any aspect of the proclamation of the person or work of Christ, or what that should evoke, to be excluded?

Holiness

We all know that ‘holy’ means ‘separate’, right? Well hang on a minute! Despite this being the gloss given in countless sermons, Bible studies, popular Christian writing, and even some heavy dictionaries, where is the evidence for this? I have no doubt that it does have this as an implication, but is this its fundamental meaning? What holiness is really about is ... No, why should I reiterate here what you can read in the latest Reformed Theological Review?
Congratulations, by the way, to the editors of RTR for the new look and expanded journal with four or five articles plus reviews from mainly Australian biblical scholars and theologians.

James Le Fanu, Why Us?

James Le Fanu
Why us? : how science rediscovered the mystery of ourselves
Hammersmith, London. Harper Press, 2009
xv + 303 pp. ; ISBN 9780007120277; Hardcover RRP $45.00

James Le Fanu is a London based medical practitioner (since 1974), a published author (since 1986), and a regular journalist (since 1992).

He has written an excellent work here, not so much entering the already over-stocked field of “Christianity v. Science” or “Creation v. Evolution” type of book, but actually penning a fact-filled exploration of what science has NOT been able to answer, despite all of its advances. In fact, this is not a “Christian” book at all, but rather an exploration of the power and limits of science to penetrate the deep mysteries of existence, challenging the certainty that Darwin’s Origin of Species seemed to provide, that we are no more than the fortuitous consequence of a materialist, evolutionary, process.

Le Fanu sees the challenge arising, unexpectedly, from the two major projects that promised to provide definitive proof for this most influential of theories: the astonishing achievement of the Human Genome Project which, it was anticipated, would identify the genetic basis of all human distinguishing characteristics; and, the phenomenal advance in brain imaging that now permits neuro-scientists to observe the brain ‘in action’ and thus account for the remarkable properties of the human mind.

But that, he says, is not how it has turned out! It is simply not possible, he states, to get from the monotonous sequence of genes in the Double Helix to the near infinite diversity of the living world. Nor to translate the electrical firing of the brain into the creativity of the human mind.

This is not a matter, he assures us, of not knowing all the facts, but rather science has inadvertently discovered that its theories are insufficient to conjure the wonder of the human experience from the bare bones of our genes and brains. The brain, it seems, may now be thought to not actually contain the mind, so much as the ‘mind’ may contain the brain.

He finishes with a prediction of a major shift in our understanding of ourselves that will witness the eclipse of Darwin’s materialist evolutionary theory and the rediscovery of the idea that there ‘is more than we can know’.

Hopefully good Christian apologists will be at hand when science gets to this point, and can introduce Christian truths of our God and His creation into their debate.

An excellent and very honest overview of scientific advances and the claims that can no longer (and, possibly, never could) be explained by the available facts.

More on the church of Scotland

In my last post I asked what happens next in the Church of Scotland after the decision to uphold the induction of minister who is a practicing homosexual? What will the evangelicals do?

Here are some hints.

Willie Philips of the Tron Glasgow announced the decision to his congregation the next morning. He speaks with impressive calm and resolve and then leads the congregation in prayer. He deplores the precedent which the Church of Scotland has set. He says that they will not recognise the authority of a church court to call holy that which God has called sin. He affirms his love for Christians who struggle with homosexuality.

He also explains why they are not going to leave the Church of Scotland and gives two reasons. One reason is that they would lose an opportunity to proclaim the gospel from the building in the centre of the Glasgow. That is a claim that has some merit. I can understand that their ministry would be impaired by losing their building and their status as a congregation of the Church of Scotland. Though I wonder if it is already impaired by being part of a denomination which has moved so far from the truth.

More interesting is his claim that "the denomination is not the church". That is a theological issue which the evangelicals in the Church of Scotland will have to wrestle with. It is certainly not a classic Presbyterian view. I'd agree with him that the visible church is fundamentally congregational, but I don't think that the questions they face can be resolved simply by saying that wider denominational structures are not the church. Later on in the statement he asks the congregation to pray for the churches in the Presbytery of Aberdeen whose position is more difficult than that of the church in Glasgow. Perhaps he means that their problem is simply 'political', but it sounds as if he thinks they have a 'theological' problem. I am not sure why the problem arises at Presbytery level but not at the level of the whole church of Scotland.

He announces that there will not be an offering that Sunday since that would be an expression of fellowship with churches with which they can no longer be in fellowship. He says that the central church authorities take a percentage and I'm sure he said 80%! He says that the session will be considering further steps in the next few weeks. I assume that withholding funds is going to be a major way of protesting.

He also warns the congregation that they can expect to be criticised and mocked in the media. In the Scotsman article reporting the decision the Equality and Human Rights Commission Scotland was quoted as being "delighted" with the decision. Alyson Thomson, head of communications for the Commission described the Church of Scotland as "a modern church for a modern Scotland" which had "decided that the values of fairness, equality, dignity and respect are of more worth than those of ignorance and intolerance." So the evangelicals know where they stand in the public discourse, they are committed to "ignorance and intolerance". It underlines how out of step the evangelicals are with their socety (or at least the elites) over this issue. I'm sure there will be more to come along these lines. (I have trouble imagining an Australian government authority making a statement like this about a church decision, but perhaps I am being naieve!)

David Meredith suggests that the way forward would be for evangelicals to join the Free Church and for the Free Church to make accommodation in its worship for that.

The position in which the evangelicals in the Church of Scotland find themselves is very difficult. Let's keep praying for them and asking the Lord to give them immense wisdom and courage.