Exegesis-How do we proceed?

Exegesis then is the drawing out of meaning, wisdom, concepts, advice, conclusions, from the Bible as the Word of God.

Both a tenacious clinging to orthodoxy and an excessive need for novelty have their dangers.

The doctrine of God as Trinity is a reasonable conclusion adopted from the Bible, as is the Rapture of the Saints. Neither word is present in the text, but both are reliable inferences. To get these concepts from the Bible we have to read the New Testament thoroughly and think a little. Creeds like the Nicene and the Westminster Catechisms are further examples of distillations of Biblical concepts. Both are widely respected and useful. 

Now there is a danger of making unreliable inferences from the information we have. But if we don't try, we won't discover anything new. In the case of Biblical exegesis, the information we have is...the Bible....of course....plus our experiences, direct, here-say, or reading we have done.

In the secular field I would say that the theory of evolution is a 'discovery' based on existing evidence. I believe it to be incorrect for explaining our origins.(see my blog www.creationandlogic.blogspot) Returning to Scripture, it is clear that some historic statements by church leaders are based on unbalanced inference from the Biblical text. Pope Gregory VII supposedly used scripture to justify 'articles of faith' such as the following;

'It may be permitted (to the Pope) to depose emperors'

'(The Pope) himself may be judged by no-one'

'The (Roman) Church has never erred, nor will it, to all eternity....'

There is also a danger in sticking too doggedly to existing orthodoxy. For one thing, the sort of stuff above, once seen as new Biblically-based thought, can become unchallenged orthodoxy.

Another example about orthodoxy from the secular field. I hear that the recent financial crash was at least partially due to bankers slavishly using a formula called the Black-Scholes equation to evaluate the value of financial products called derivatives. This was orthodoxy. The inventors of the formula got a Nobel prize. It was accurate enough when used within certain constraints, but became highly inaccurate in extreme conditions of trading. Traders could defend themselves by saying the used the accepted formula. This was an appeal to orthodoxy.

Now in the last post I said there is room for orthodoxy. There are certain things that are so clear in Scripture that they must be accepted. It is clearly perverse and evasive to try and deny them, yet there are those who do, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. But there are a lot of other areas where opinions are subjective. We need to be selective about what we take on board. There are some conclusions I have come to where I am keen to state that what I am saying is my opinion for you to consider, and no more than that.

In any case, we will never reduce God to a formula that fits in our head. If we could, we would not need to consult and submit to a living Being. We would not have to learn by engaging with others. We would know what God wanted from our clever formula.

Questions arise in our minds and we like to search Scripture, and read existing opinions, in order to get an answer. If you are like me and do this a lot, I think it can be helpful. God is not against us asking questions if we really want the answers.

People who like to see something new in the Scriptures are good for the Body provided we do not take their opinions as automatically authoritative, like the Pope wanted his followers to in the examples above. Preachers and teachers are likely to make mistakes at times. God can use them to bring new revelation and understanding. But we must test what is said and hold to the good.

Teaching on healing, prosperity and positive confession has blessed the Body. However, often it has been presented in a simplistic, formulaic way. But don't throw it out altogether because of that.

Martin Luther was a man who challenged orthodoxy. Most of his conclusions were valid. His starting point was Scripture. He questioned orthodoxy of the day and went to the source material.

A Point or two about Bible Interpretation (Exegesis)

I will step out on a limb a bit in an attempt to answer a theological point arising in my mind. Before I discuss the point, in the next post or two, I want to make another point about exegesis. Exegesis is the discipline of analysis of the Biblical text. The Greek word means 'to lead out', i.e. to bring out meaning form the text. The term is increasingly used when texts other than the Bible are being analyzed, but it is the Bible I am concerned with here.

A brief Google search of any well known Christian teacher past or present will bring up numerous 'heresy hunter' websites. Most of these sites seem a tad acrimonious and blinkered to me. I have met one leader written off as a bad job by one of these sites that I had read just days before. I feel it would be very helpful for some of these heresy hunters to talk to their 'victims' before writing. That is not to say they sometimes don't have a point.

Now the meaning of the word 'exegesis' was, as I said, 'to lead out' or 'to draw out'. We are looking for underlying meaning; what is not necessarily spelled out verbatim in the text or set of texts. There is going to be an element of speculation at times. There is going to be an element of opinion. 

To interpret scripture, to form a worldview based on it, we are going to have to experiment with our thinking, meditating on various verses and ideas. If we don't do this, there is no need for preaching. Just reading the Bible out will do. There is certainly a place for that. But most areas of knowledge rely on this type of 'thought experiment' in order for them to develop.

That said, there is a balance between orthodoxy and controversy. We can stay in the safe orthodoxy, or try to. We can look for what everyone agrees on in Christian belief. That is a good thing to do at times, so we can decide on what is unshakable common ground. Things like the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. Something like the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Second Coming. Also the full and sufficient sacrifice for sins made on his cross. Things like this should distinguish the true church. However, we should let fundamentals be fundamentals, and details, details, and be aware and wise concerning the shades of gray in between too.

The Body of Christ includes people from all sorts of diverse denominations who truly believe; some very ancient and traditional. I recently read about a Russian Orthodox couple who showed great faith and compassion in the way they took in orphans. However, we cannot include people from groups like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who deny the deity of Christ, or plainly distort or add to the Scriptures. We cannot include, obviously, faiths which rest primarily on personalities other than Christ, such as Islam or Rastafarianism. We can see these people best as potential members of God's family, rather than enemies.

In my next post I want to get back to exegesis within the Body of Christ and make a point about how revelation from Scripture develops.




  

The Purpose of the Law

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.    (John 1:17 KJV)

John saw a fundamental difference between the Law of Moses and the coming of Jesus Christ. You cannot get round that fact. Try any Bible version that is not forcing a prejudiced interpretation on you. I have just read a set of rhetorical questions in a Christian periodical about 'Biblical Worldview'. For some, it seems, Christianity is largely concerned with conforming the laws and behaviours of the land (in this case South Africa) to the Ten Commandments. Now I am not against people living in line with the Ten Commandments. If we really did, any country would be a safer and more prosperous place. In a place like South Africa, morality and integrity in government and business need all the help they can get, for sure.

However this is not really the prime thrust of Jesus. He did not come to transform a society and it's institutions of Government by forcing them to follow a written code, albeit a supremely excellent one.. Instead he called individuals to turn to God for the remission of their sins.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.    (Acts 2:38 KJV)

What does this mean? It means turn from living life out of fellowship with God. Receive new life from God. Be baptised as a sign that a new life has begun in you, a new life which will cause your sins to remit, i.e. die out.

You will look in vain in an accurate translation for the common evangelical concept of turning from your sins, or repenting of your sins, as a precondition or preliminary to coming to Christ. if by this we mean, 'are you willing to let go of your sins', fine. If we mean, 'are you by your own efforts putting away your sins', that is not fine. We cannot. The important thing is coming to Christ. Sure, tell people he will deal with your sins more and more as time goes on, and if you are not prepared for that, don't come. But you cannot deal with sin without him. We are here to help people love Jesus passionately from the heart, to partake of and abide in his righteous life, not to make them solid legalists trying to reform themselves. i believe this is not detail. it is vitally important that we realize our only sufficiency (adequacy, competence) is in Christ.

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;    (2 Cor 3:5 KJV)

Look at the Acts verse about repentance in the New Living Translation. This version has been rendered according to a common strand of evangelical 'culture'. the text is a distorted interpretation of the original.

Peter replied, 'Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' (Acts 2v38 NLT)

This sounds like evangelical orthodoxy, but it does not represent the original text.  

The same article mentioned above implied that the death penalty be enforced. I am sure many prosperous South Africans would like this as a deterrent to high rates of often violent crime. However, David effectively committed pre-meditated murder. Unless you are seriously saying he should be let off the hook because he didn't actually do the deed, merely arranged it, then he should have been executed because his violation of the sixth commandment.

We are not to burden people by telling them they must scoop the darkness out of their lives. We are here to show them that Christ wants to fill them with life. Sure, when we have done that, we can exhort them to live according to what they have received.

Paul spends the bulk of Colossians chapters 1 and 2 explaining what Christ has done for believers. Look at it yourself. But he interjects with the odd comment telling us how we should live.

That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;    (Col 1:10 KJV)

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:    (Col 2:6 KJV)


So yes we are to walk right. But we walk right having been made aware the impartations of glorious loving acceptance God has made to us. To live under the Law is death. We are living a life of onerous duty and constant 'no's. To live with Christ is fulness of life. Emotional riches. Pleasures at His right hand. The fullness of Christ in us. David loved God passionately. He yearned for more of His presence above all. He understood the emotional life of God. He sinned seriously, and repented. And a few verses from the end of the Bible, Jesus is bold to call himself the root and offspring of David. David and not Moses. Interesting!


  

Ruth, Ezra and Law

I have been listening to teaching on the Book of Ruth (Thanks Malcolm). This is a nice story about faith and redemption. It is not a story about perfect people. Ruth was a Moabite and Moabites were considered second rate people under the Law, see Deuteronomy 23v3. Moabites were not to be included in the assemblies of Israel. They were descended from Abraham's nephew Lot by incest. Despite this shame, they were therefore however, close blood relatives to the Israelites. Unlike Canaanites, Moabites were not beyond the pail for intermarriage, Deuteronomy 7. Yet Ruth, marriageable for an Israelite but not to be accepted as a full Israelite under the Law, was included in the natural bloodline of David and therefore of Christ.

Ruth was the great grandmother of David. In the book, we see that Ruth married Boaz. Now Boaz's mother was Rahab, see Matthew 1v5. Rahab is spoken of in the Book of Joshua. Assuming it is the same Rahab in both cases (which is widely assumed; see for example the Spirit Filled Life Bible or the Wikipedia article on Rahab), this again shows that David had a dodgy family line in terms of legalistic purity according to the Law of Moses. Rahab was a prostitute, and also presumably a Canaanite, and therefore, according to the letter of the Law, unlike a Moabitess, not to be married, see Deuteronomy chapter 7.

Naomi the Israelite seized the opportunity when her daughter-in-law was shown unusual kindness by Boaz when they first met. The advice given by Naomi could also be seen as less than morally ideal. Ruth was told maximize her attractiveness and make her romantic intentions known to Boaz in a way which could be seen as seductive.

And so there were dodgy goings-on in the ancestry of David and therefore in the natural line of ancestry of Jesus himself.

It is notable that David himself had serious problems with sexual morality, which is not good ( 2 Sam 11,12). He did not get away with it. It is also notable that David did not adhere to the letter of the Law (1 Sam  21) and he did get away with it. Why? I believe that anyone who looks for the heart of God, the underlying kindness and mercy, finds that He does not hold them to the letter of the Law. That does not mean He overlooks all misdemeanors as David also found. We see these truths even in the time when the Law was deemed to reign over Israel. It also does not detract from the Law as being a broad indication of God's standards, even today. It just means, under grace, that we are not held to it in a pedantic way. God prefers growing intimacy to rigorous adherence to procedure. It means grace was available even during the dispensation of the Old Covenant for those who truly sought God as a friend and not just for a contract.

We see that Jesus had no definitive moral advantage in his human ancestry; what we would now probably call his 'DNA' or 'breeding'.

Ruth as we have pointed out, also did not have the right stuff when it came to ancestry. However, when confronted with people who knew of the God of Israel, she displayed a humble and contrite heart. She left her people for those who worshiped YAHWEH. She was willing to take a lowly role and a lowly future with those who were the people of God at that time. David too seemed to realize at at least one point in his life that God was not after rigorous Law-keepers, see Psalm 51v17-18. He was looking for those who were looking desperately, loyally, to Him, and those who walked with Him, or at least tried to, and acknowledged His Name.   

Contrast this grace seen in the life of Ruth and Rahab with the rigorous and ruthless (interesting word) enforcement of legalistic righteousness seen in Ezra 10. Pagan wives are summarily put away without mercy. It is not clear whether any of these wives had, as Rahab did, a heart after God. If so, the Israelites were displaying an unnecessary, 'legalistic' cruelty to these, technically pagan, wives and their children. 

The Law of Moses is a shadow of realities found in Christ. It is inadequate and insufficient. God is really looking for faith working through love (Galatians 5v6), not legalistic adherence to Law.*

Strict ritual (exemplified by the Law) absolves the heart of responsibility to forgive and love. Righteousness is reduced to ritual, procedure and checklist. This provokes us to self-justification and judgment of others. Faith alone however steers us into the arms of God, into adoration and surrender. The new life which comes forth from intimacy will start to keep the righteous requirements of the Law quite naturally, see Romans 8v1-4.

Attempting to keep the letter of the Law will very often make us miss God's heart. God was happy for His Son to be descended, humanly speaking, from people who, under the Law, would be rejected from the assembly of God.

And so Jesus was descended from an imperfect human line; imperfect in faith, imperfect legally speaking. However, His spiritual descent was perfect, the Holy Spirit was His Father, and this factor over-rode the natural factors completely. 

The same is true for us; the Holy Spirit within us can over-ride the natural disadvantages and setbacks in our lives.

*However, it is possible to exhibit a degree of faith even in one's pursuit of God through the Law. I believe Ezra was doing just this. Primary theme; Ezra and the Israelites were looking to revive their worship of God after exile. Secondary theme; they did so by resurrecting the Law. But since this was all they understood, God accepted their efforts.

Flowing in Mercy

... judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!    (James 2:13 NIV)

We were discussing the need for us to abide in God, to walk in the Spirit. They are essentially the same thing. What are the attitudes which remove us from this flow? Rolland Baker from Iris Ministries said that God will discipline us regarding anything which moves us out of Love, Joy and Peace. I agree. I also think failure to exhibit mercy will have the same effect. This verse from James makes that clear. It will move us out from under the mercy of God.

Until we put on the resurrection body, we are living in a body disposed toward sin, under the power of temptation. Our every encounter with God, infact our ongoing fellowship, needs to be tempered by His mercy. He has provided for that need for mercy in Jesus, our High Priest and Mediator.

For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.    (Heb 2:17 NIV)
 

He is constantly overlooking a multitude of sins in us all, even as believers. He calls us to do the same;

Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.    (1 Pet 4:8 NIV)

Our basic attitude in coming to God needs to be like the tax collector:

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'  "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."    (Luke 18:13-14 NIV)

We can come to God confidently when we have learned and accepted the lesson that we need mercy, that He is merciful, and He is overlooking our sins for the most part in the interests of our confidence, happiness and fellowship. I say for the most part, because He will progressively deal with specifics from time to time. However He does not intend for us to be under a generalized, vague sense of accusation and condemnation. That comes from, and belongs to, the devil.

Now we can block this flow of mercy by failing to exhibit it to others. 

 ...because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!    (James 2:13 NIV)

Judgment and mercy are opposite and exclusive. I mean judgment in the sense of writing a person off as a bad job and therefore unworthy of mercy. Anyone, the verse says, who does not show mercy will be shown judgment. So mercy is absolutely key in God's scheme of things. If we start to look for excuses not to show it, we will come under judgment. 

Mercy and forgiveness are two sides of the same coin. If we fail to show them as an ongoing and deepening attitude, we will get into spiritual difficulties, as Jesus makes clear in Matthew 18v21-end.

Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.    (Mat 5:7 NIV)

He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.    (Micah 6:8 NIV)

God is angry with those who consistently refuse to show mercy. They become vindictive, spiteful, and show hate.

Forgive even your parents and ancestors if they have sown problems in you.

"In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.'    (Jer 31:29 NIV)

Your parents and relatives may have neglected you, abused you, abandoned you, led you in a bad way, or put you under a curse by making an ungodly vow. Forgive them and set yourself free. It is only unforgiveness that ties you to curses, generational or otherwise.

Let us follow Jesus. On the cross, Jesus showed mercy even to those who were showing him no mercy at all!

True Freedom

When we were trying to think of a name for our ministry, I was reminded of a prophetic dream in which I (being single then) appeared in the form of an aircraft! (I spent some time working in aviation-related industries and have been interested in aircraft for as long as I can remember). The aircraft was a US military plane nicknamed 'Freedom Fighter' during the stand against communism (the Northrop F5). The aircraft in my dream was dropping benign weapons (if there is such a thing) on various establishments including schools. I had this dream in 1992 so it has been a while in realization. Later, at the time when we were seeking to name the ministry, we were attending a church called 'River of Life'. So we decided (Julia's suggestion) to call ourselves 'Flow of Freedom' Ministries. A couple of people said it was too political in the South African context, so I called our website 'Live in the Liberty'. This is a similar ethos, but then it seems to also be a slogan for some gay rights group! Anyway, hopefully you know what we are getting at with the names.

All this is preamble to the fact that I want to understand, and for others to understand, how we live in the freedom Christ paid for on our behalf. More of that later.

A question. What does freedom really look like?

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.    (Gal 5:1 NIV)

Now freedom really means freedom, especially if it is God's idea of freedom. When we are truly, fully, in the Spirit, we are free.

Free to do what we want? Yes!!! 

Hang on a minute, you say. Please bear with me.

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.    (Gal 5:16 KJV)


The lust of the flesh is the stuff we sometimes want to do but know we should not. However, if we walk fully in the Spirit, we won't do that stuff. The more we walk in the Spirit, the less we will do that stuff.

Think of someone you know who really seems full of Jesus. Do they seem free? Are they doing what they want to do or are they laboring hard to do the right thing? The two people I am thinking of are generally free and doing what they want to do. They seem harmonious and happy. I can think of some seemingly very worthy and earnest, disciplined people in ministry. I may admire them but I do not really want to be like them. I want to be free! We are new creations in Christ. I do not believe we are called to live in a turmoil of inner confusion, fighting our desires all the time. We are called to a willing, loving overflow, surely!

If we are sons and daughters of the King, we share His nature. It is natural for us to show forth the fruits of His life.

The fruits of His life in us are the same as the fruits of the Spirit. God is One; Father, Son and Holy Spirit (see Galatians 5v22-24 for what the fruit of the Spirit looks like).

This harmony between will and action is where we are headed. The Kingdom of God will be a place of complete harmony, inward and outward. However we cannot continue to love things like conflict and oppression and expect to enter the Kingdom of God in that state.*

I am not saying that there will be no temptations while we are on earth. I am not saying that there will not be times when we will have to yield to the guidance of God against our inclinations (again only while we are living in this fallen world order, and even then He will help us). Recently I had zero inclination to return from a nice break, but I knew God wanted me to return. In the end He let us stay on a little longer, during which time He graced me to return.now I am happy to be back.

What I am saying is that the more we learn to abide in His life, His love, the more we will find we are doing what we really want to do. A servant does what he does not want to do in order to be able to finish work and do what he wants for a while. A true son or daughter does what they want. What they want is good. What they want is for the family of God to be Happy. does this smack of 'Happy Clappy' Christianity? Well provided it is inward 'happy' and not just outward 'happy', then yes, why not? (The clapping is optional). We are new creations; our new creation self is in inward harmony.

Why do we not always experience this? Maybe we only experience it rarely; a tantalizing taste. Well, I think there are attitudes which keep us out, or bump us out, of this peaceful, fulfilled place of abiding in the Spirit. I want to look at one in my next post.

*All this has an effect on whether we can believe the Theory of Evolution for the Origin of Species: see my Logic and Creation blog if this interests you!

Child then Disciple

Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.    (Isa 49:15 KJV)

As a mother comforts her child, so will I comfort you; and you will be comforted over Jerusalem."    (Isa 66:13 NIV)


Well I've been getting to one of those places of burnout and lack of motivation! I have been getting ratty, irritable and unpleasant to put it mildly. Ask my wife. Actually, don't on second thoughts. I have come to see that this is because life makes demands I feel unable to meet, or I make demands on life and others they cannot meet. I therefore need to go to God in a deeper way for grace and love.

Anyway, I bought 2 books at Faith Camp held in Peterborough in the UK recently just before we returned to South Africa and both have helped.

Both are recommendable and have been helpful for very different reasons. The first is called 'Sarah' by Sarah Shaw. I will discuss the other later. 'Sarah' chronicles recovery from ongoing childhood sexual abuse which occurred between the ages of 3 and 18. The recovery followed emotional breakdown as an adult. It is moving for it's honesty and insight.

One lesson from the book is that God accepts us before he seeks change in us. I have been saying that for a while from a theological perspective but this book seems to confirm it. To attempt to make demands from someone like Sarah before she was ready would have been cruel. She was abused from age 3 by her father and rejected by her mother who blamed her for the abuse. Abuse, especially sexual, and rejection are extremely destructive, the more so the earlier it happens. She needed ongoing, committed tender love and acceptance. It needed demonstrating and not just saying. Thankfully, Sarah was led to an organization which specialized in this.

Sarah had learned, it seems to me, to abandon parts of herself. She learned to see parts of herself as unacceptable. Now it is true that we are unacceptable to God in our natural state. However, because of Christ, we are made acceptable. We are clothed in his righteousness until we learn to live in that righteousness. In other words, God can still love a mess, provided the mess (you and me) is willing to acknowledge his or her need of him.  

God is the supreme Father and actually the supreme Mother, as the Isaiah verses make clear. The verses quoted above tells us that the mothering compassion, comfort and commitment of God exceed that of a human mother. Although Sarah initially needed a human channel to display this, God was the source of the love and acceptance shown to her.

Sarah makes clear that her greatest need and desire was for maternal comfort following abuse. That was not forthcoming at the time from her human mother who merely treated her as a serious problem. However as she was willing to forgive and look to God instead, healing was received.

The point of contact with God is relational, through the God-Man Jesus Christ, and through contact with his people. Once we know him by the Spirit we can receive much of this restorative and nurturing motherly love directly by prayer and faith.

Lest us men are overtaken by need denial, machismo and bravado, we should remember Peter and John. The first appears to be Mr Macho, the second much more tender. However it seems John was the one keenest to stay near Jesus the longest when things got nasty. (John 18, if the 'other disciple' is indeed John as is often assumed). I also remember hearing that dying soldiers will commonly call for their mothers.

I feel as if sometimes we are trying to make people disciples before they have become children and friends. In so doing we demonstrate slavery and not sonship. Some of our harsher attitudes as Christians can be inappropriate, and some of these attitudes can produce a lot of damage and condemnation if the recipient is not ready for the discipling we are offering. Paul was caustic at times but he could also be warm and gentle. May we learn which is required and when, and may we honour ministries which specialize in different approaches, seeing the place of our own contribution in the bigger picture of the Body of Christ.

So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.    (Gal 4:7 NIV)

Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.    (John 8:35 NIV)