Dancing Like David Danced

The History Channel is releasing “The Bible” (by Mark Burnett) tonight as part of a five part, 10 hours series. Its being promoted everywhere. There is plenty of excitement about this series. The problem is…I’m guessing it will be a let-down like so many other “Bible-esque” specials on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, etc. These folks just can’t seem to get things right (nor Hollywood for that matter). Sensational: Yes! Accurate: Not so much.*

So why did I choose THIS picture? Because it is based on the VERY inaccuracy I was sharing in my lectures this last Wednesday from 2 Samuel 6. The photo shows King David  leading the cheerful throng before the ark of the LORD up to Jerusalem. So what is wrong with the photo, you ask? David is exposed (and I’m guessing wearing a sort of loin-cloth) as he leads the procession (others have shown the same). What’s wrong with that (I mean I’ve heard a TON of preachers say as much…and there’s several songs about how we want to “dance like David danced“)?
The text of Scripture actually says he was wearing a “linen ephod” (אֵפוֹד בָּד Sam.6:14) and doing so among the priests made him to be like the priests who carried the ark (1 Chron.15:27). This is the very same term as 1 Samuel 2:18 where Samuel wears a “linen ephod” as he ministers before the LORD. Its the same as the “linen ephod” that the priests at Nob were wearing when they were put to death by King Saul (1 Sam.22:18). In fact, the Hebrew “ephod” (which is just a transliteration into English) has cognates in other ancient languages with reference to priestly garments (most notably in Ugaritic).
It was not a sort of underwear. It was priestly and intended to be worn in public view. So why in the world is David depicted in this photo this way, and why have so many said as much? Quite simply because no care is taken in interpreting Scripture. Too many have taken the derisive words of David’s wife, Michal, as if they are the truth (“How the king of Israel has distinguished himself this day! He has exposed himself today before his servants’ slave girls the way a vulgar fool might do!”- 2 Sam.6:20 NET). The narrator has told us otherwise (it was a linen ephod – 2 Sam.6:14). So should we take the word of Michal, or the word of the narrator? Was he looking priestly as he led the procession, or was he dancing in his tighty-whiteys. The text is clear…are we?
_____________________
* As much as I don’t want to admit this Jim West is right. 😉

Posted in 2 Samuel | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Emerging Homiletics

ImageI just realized that while my paper “Emerging Homiletics: A Pentecostal Response” was accepted for presentation at the Society for Pentecostal Studies annual meeting (March 20-22, 2013) in Seattle, WA, I had failed to post it to this blog. So feel free to follow the link above and select the paper from the limited number I’ve already posted on several other topics.
And while you are at it, here was my proposal to the Practical Theology study group:

It is hoped that through a study of one leading voice (Doug Pagitt‘s) in the Emerging Church Movement (ECM) that there might be a more well-rounded perspective of what ECM may be offering for homiletics as well as the potential impact specifically upon the field of homiletics. While Pagitt’s voice will not be the only voice, it will be the primary one as he has written several volumes on the question of homiletics from the ECM perspective.
Pagitt’s own model for homiletics will be discussed in its relation to Pentecostal homiletical thinking and practice as a model which might better exemplify what Pagitt is aiming to accomplish, but perhaps without many of the pitfalls. In order to facilitate this study, questions of worldview, hermeneutic and homiletic will be briefly presented from a post-modern perspective with particular attention to such matters as proposed by Pagitt. The notion of “story,” and “community” will be discussed as it relates to the Pentecostal experience of preaching in response to the post-modern perspective proposed by Pagitt.
The Pentecostal response which is offered as a conclusion is tentatively intended to both utilize the strengths of Pagitt’s proposal as well as critique it in hopes of proposing a more thoroughly Biblical and Pneumatic approach to homiletics within the broader ECM.

So what are your thoughts on the homiletic proposals of ECM (particularly Pagitt) and/or Pentecostalism as I’ve briefly described them?

Posted in Hermeneutics, Pentecostal, preaching | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Evil Spirits in the Old Testament

ImagePrepping for lectures this coming week on the books of Samuel, I returned again to an article by Robin Routledge (Academic Dean of Mattersey Hall; Author of the well-received Old Testament Theology: A Thematic Approach) entitled, “‘An Evil Spirit from the Lord’ — Demonic Influence or Divine Instrument?” (Ev.Q. 70.1 [Jan-Mar 1998]: 3-22). His discussion of the connections (and disjuncture) between the Testaments concerning “evil” spirits offers potential direction in the development of a biblical demonology (or perhaps a more broadly conceived pneumatology).
I find his own proposal at least more satisfactory than Hermann Gunkel’s proposal about there really only being “spirit” (whether good or “evil” being regarded as secondary) in the OT.* Though, the distinguish-ability of  רוּחַ (ruach) in the Hebrew Scriptures is certainly not always an easy task. Nor is it made more simple by the descriptive  רָעָה  (ra’ah) often rendered “evil” or “troubling” in connection with the S/spirit (1 Sam.16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9; cf. Judges 9:23; 1 Kings 22:22).
I can appreciate Dr. Routledge’s proposal to read the NT “against the background of the Old” in order to potentially gain a “proper understanding of the Biblical whole” (3). Essentially, his argumentation boils down to ANE perspectives on the “divine assembly” in relation to the Israelite appropriation of such and thus allows for a multiplicity of “spirits” in the realm of the God of Israel. He extrapolates that this line of reasoning may in fact be conducive to a better understanding of the the inter-relation of Old and New Testaments on the issue of the “evil” and “unclean” spirit/s.
Here’s the Abstract on Routledge’s article:

This article considers two important questions raised by 1 Sa. 16:14, namely what does the OT understand by the term ‘evil spirit’, and, what is the relationship between such spirits and Yahweh? Although demons come to prominence in later Rabbinic writings, the OT accepts the existence of supernatural beings, good and evil and of a heavenly assembly, presided over by Yahweh, to which all such beings may have access. This suggestion, that the scope of the divine assembly is much more comprehensive than is sometimes envisaged, points to Yahweh’s control over evil spiritual beings and their instrumentality in the fulfilment of the divine purpose. The moral question this raises is given some consideration, and the consistency between Old and New Testaments is noted.

What are your thoughts on Routledge’s article? Is this helpful for a biblical theology of “spirit/s”?
_______________
* The Influence of the Holy Spirit: The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul (Reprint of English translation by Roy A. Harrisville and Philip A. Quanbeck II; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008), 5-6.

Posted in Old Testament | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Addicted to Ecstasy

Image“Spiritual dryness is the cure for spiritual ecstasy.” *

Are you addicted to the highs of your spiritual life? Do you run from church to church, conference to camp, looking for another hit? Do you find yourself longing for those surreal experiences again? Does your quest for spiritual ecstasy drive you to reject friends and close out the world around you, even your own family?
If so, then the cure for you is spiritual dryness. It is the mundane disciplines of the spiritual life: prayer and fasting, the study and meditation of Scripture, faith-filled day-in-day-out (mundane) obedience. This is the only way to properly detox and get back into life as a disciple of (and not just a junkie for) Jesus. The ecstasies of life in Christ were never intended as the day-to-day (who can endure a life of highs in ANYTHING). The day-to-day is where one learns the genuine life of following Christ (even as occasional moments of ecstasy occur). So join the greats of spiritual dryness in a life of discipline.
___________________
* Daryl Climenhaga (Associate Professor of Global Studies at Providence Theological Seminary) credits Ed Neufeld (Professor of Biblical Studies – Providence Theological Seminary) and the desert fathers for the thought.  Ed and Daryl always seems to offer the best quotes. 🙂

Posted in humor, Spiritual Disciplines | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Jesus Led Israel Out of Egypt?

Manuscript of JudeIn a phone conversation with a friend today, we were discussing grammatical-historical methods of interpretation and how the NT writers simply did not appear to observe this modern system for interpretation (which claims, in my opinion, an overly “scientific” approach to Scripture that fails to grapple with the full complexities of language, inspiration, and later interpretations, but all that aside [if you want a glimpse at my own brief forays in my quest for better methods read HERE, HERE, and HERE]).
He mentioned Jude 5 which reads:

“Now I desire to remind you (even though you have been fully informed of these facts once for all) that Jesus, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, later destroyed those who did not believe.” (NET -bolding added)

Talk about a strange reading of the Exodus account! (Origen would be proud 😉 ). So I went to look it up in my NA27 and discovered an overwhelming manuscript support for the reading “Jesus” (A B 33. 81. 322. 323. 424c. 665. 1241. 1739. 1881. 2298. 2344. Vulgate, Coptic (Bohairic, Sahidic), Ethiopic. Origen, Cyril, Jerome, Bede; “the Jesus” 88. 915) over “[the] Lord” (K Maj.).* Not only is the textual support overwhelmingly in support of such a reading, but the probability is overwhelmingly in favor of an original “Jesus” being changed to “Lord” (rather than vice versa). Who would think of changing “Lord” to “Jesus”?  It would seem to make things more defensible (for reading the OT as it was intended by its original human author) with reading  “Lord” in light of the OT, but “Jesus” offers a sharply Christological reading of the Hebrew scriptures (which fits Jude’s overall agenda). Even Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (ABS, 1994, p.657) has an extended bracketed discussion of this issue suggesting that the reading “Lord” really does not appear original in any sense. And yet, the UBS4 and NA27 texts maintained κύριος (“Lord”) in the main text. I don’t have access to NA28, but I would be curious to know if they’ve continued this strange tradition.
Incidentally, some English translations actually have “Jesus” (ESV, NET, NLT; and the Latin Vulgate)** in their primary text despite the preference for “Lord” in these two critical Greek texts (which are knowingly nearly identical) which typically form the basis for English translations (not that there aren’t plenty of times where the translators chose a different variant, but this one is rather fascinating).***
To me, the most significant (and fascinating) thing I was reminded of in my searching through the evidence and the translations, was that it appears issues of congruity for English readers often drives translations against where the textual evidence may actually point (one of the reasons I quite like the NET for boldly trying to follow the original text closely…at least at times).
So what are your thoughts on a variant like this and the need to translate what is considered the “best” (or most appropriate?) text?
_________________
* To be fair there are a number of other lesser attested readings which are not supported well by either internal or external criteria.
** The ESV footnotes “some manuscripts” having “Lord”; the NLT says: “As in the best manuscripts; various other manuscripts read the Lord, or God, or Christ; one reads God Christ.” The NET reads:

“tc ‡ The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iesous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel. However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or1739mg), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (theos, “God”) for ᾿Ιησοῦς (though Ì72 has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Cristos, “God Christ”] for ᾿Ιησοῦς). In addition to the evidence supplied in NA27 for this reading, note also {88 322 323 424c 665 915 2298 eth Cyr Hier Bede}. As difficult as the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate.”

*** Those translations offering “Lord” are KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV(1984, 2010), NJB, NKJV, NRSV, TNIV. The NAB footnotes that “manuscripts vary”; the NASB only mentions “two early mss” mentioning “Jesus”; the NIV tradition has “some early manuscripts” reading “Jesus”; and the NRSV has “Other ancient authorities read though you were once for all fully informed, that Jesus (or Joshua) who saved.”

Posted in NET Bible, NIV, Scripture, translation | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Cambria: The Hebrew Poet

Image

חבקני אם (Mom hugs me)
שקני אם (Mom kisses me)
שקני אב (Dad kisses me)
חבקני אב (Dad hugs me)
כי בי אהבו רב מאד (And they love me very much)
Note the chiastic structure of the first four lines where the verb in line one matches line four,* and line two matches line three. And the subjects of line one and two are coordinate, like the lines of lines three and four. And the final line climaxes (though lying outside the chiasm) the whole poem with a lively summation of the whole as an epexegetical crescendo.
Okay, so Cambria (my eight year old daughter who is very intelligent — I’m obviously not biased) never wrote this poem in Hebrew, but the English is all hers. I added the Hebrew, because, well, it just seemed like fun (sick, I know). I thought it was fascinating how she chose to write these lines of hers with this sort of structure (and all without training as a scholar of Hebrew poetry…fascinating isn’t it??? 🙂 ). I may be spending a bit too much  time thinking about such things.
My wife’s rhetorical response to me about the poem was, “I wonder what her love language is?” I’ll give you one guess…
_________________
* A curiosity is the energic nun in the verbs of lines one and four. 🙂

Posted in Hebrew Poetry, humor | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Prayers and Psalms (for Ash Wednesday)

ImageMay the Lord hear our cries! May the Lord grant redemption to the ends of the earth! May every tongue, tribe, people, and nation praise the Lord! He has forgiven us and we are forgiven! He calls to life…and we live! He is coming again and He is preparing His Bride! Prepare your people to enter into the rest which alone is found in your enduring mercy and grace! Love us with your everlasting love!

O Lord, who hast mercy upon all,
take away from me my sins,
and mercifully kindle in me
the fire of thy Holy Spirit.
Take away from me the heart of stone,
and give me a heart of flesh,
a heart to love and adore Thee,
a heart to delight in Thee,
to follow and enjoy Thee, for Christ’s sake, Amen
St. Ambrose of Milan (AD 339-397)
PSALM 103 (NLT)
Let all that I am praise the LORD; with my whole heart, I will praise his holy name.
Let all that I am praise the LORD; may I never forget the good things he does for me.
He forgives all my sins and heals all my diseases.
He redeems me from death and crowns me with love and tender mercies.
He fills my life with good things. My youth is renewed like the eagle’s!
The LORD gives righteousness and justice to all who are treated unfairly.
He revealed his character to Moses and his deeds to the people of Israel.
The LORD is compassionate and merciful, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love.
He will not constantly accuse us, nor remain angry forever.
He does not punish us for all our sins; he does not deal harshly with us, as we deserve.
For his unfailing love toward those who fear him is as great as the height of the heavens above the earth.
He has removed our sins as far from us as the east is from the west.
The LORD is like a father to his children, tender and compassionate to those who fear him.
For he knows how weak we are; he remembers we are only dust.
Our days on earth are like grass; like wildflowers, we bloom and die.
The wind blows, and we are gone — as though we had never been here.
But the love of the LORD remains forever with those who fear him. His salvation extends to the children’s children of those who are faithful to his covenant, of those who obey his commandments!
The LORD has made the heavens his throne; from there he rules over everything.
 Praise the LORD, you angels, you mighty ones who carry out his plans,listening for each of his commands.

Father, forgive us as we forgive others. Grant us mercy this day to live in a manner pleasing to the glory of your Name. We fall in your presence as those who must give the labor of our hands to your praise. Cleanse our hands that they might be clean. We are those who must surely declare your praise. Give us pure hearts that we might know the joy of your presence.  Keep us in the time of our temptation that we may cling to you. Wash us and we will be clean. Pour out your Spirit and we will live. Let your Son’s judgment be our own and receive us into your glory as well-pleasing sons and daughters. To you alone be all praise, glory, and honor, forever and ever. Amen.

Posted in Prayer, Psalms | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Hermann Gunkel on the Holy Spirit

German theologian Hermann Gunkel

German theologian Hermann Gunkel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


I have been reading Hermann Gunkel‘s first book Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauungen der apostolischen Zeit und der Lehre des Apostels Paulus (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1888) as part of my thesis research.*  It is a brief, but altogether striking volume that was an unexpected gem by the hand of this Old Testament scholarly father of form criticism.
According to Gunkel, “Almost without exception, only those events that impinge on human existence are described as activities of the Spirit” (15). His argument is essentially that Paul was a thorough-going pneumatic, not to be confused as inferring that the Spirit was simply some inward ethical conscience or propulsion. In fact, he argues that there must be a distinction maintained between theologizing about the Spirit for doctrinal formulations and pneumatic experiences as such (8). The pneumatic experience of life is regarded as central (particularly to Pauline practice and congregations).
It was the pneumatic experiences of the Early Church which offered the evidence of God’s Spirit. Such evidence (particularly glossolalia, according to Gunkel) functioned to testify to possession and indwelling by God’s Spirit. Ethical behavior was the manifested proper use of such gifts of the Spirit. But Paul never made a move to a simply ethical/moral S/spirit as so many others of the Second Temple period (eg, Wisdom of Solomon, Philo, etc.). Paul could not conceive of the Spirit as less than enabling powerful manifestations, but that the ethical belonged still to the supernatural working of God’s Spirit.
While he admits (even requires) that the OT understanding of the Spirit of God was powerfully demonstrative, he likens such activities of the Spirit to insanity (5). And his understanding of Paul does not seem to reach much further. Gunkel almost seems to regard Paul as someone who has sadly embraced the pneumatic, when he seems so reasonable elsewhere in discerning other matters of faith.
All in all, I am struck by Gunkel’s emphasis upon the demonstrative pneumatic activities of the OT and NT despite his reluctance to accept such for our own day (at least as a supposed “reasonable” person might know better).**
___________
* Translated by Roy A. Harrisville and Philip A. Quanbeck II as, The Influence of the Holy Spirit: The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1979, 2008). The citations in this post follow this English translation and pagination.
** He does actually state that such phenomena have simply “retreated” rather than actually disappearing altogether, and that they are indeed still “present…among us” (4).

Posted in Holy Spirit | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

When the Bible Comes Alive

ImageThe first assignment of the semester for my Former Prophets class was to read Joshua, Judges, 1-2 Samuel, and 1-2 Kings in two different translations and give me several pages of questions, comments, and insights about the texts. They could also include things which stood out to them in comparing/contrasting the translations they chose.
I must say I’m impressed with their work. There are wonderful questions and comments on the theology, literary insights, historical intention, and culture of Israel. I think one of the most exhilarating things for me is noting all of the things which were noticed by those who had never read these books or never taken time to pay attention when they heard the stories in the past. I LOVE being able to teach when folks are just hearing these stories for the first time (even if its the “first time” again).
That’s also something I LOVE about pastoring…when I get to share stories which folks haven’t heard or have not heard in the way they are shared. It opens new vistas into the wonder of God’s revelation in Scripture and the unfolding of God’s work in the world. I LOVE what I do!!!
And I actually learn more and love the LORD more as a result!

Posted in Former Prophets, preaching, translation | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Daniel Diet, Ezekiel Bread, and Other Drivel

Image“Biblical” diets seem to be the fad of late (or maybe I’m just late to this news).  There are those who are promoting the Daniel’s Diet, or perhaps enjoy a loaf of some Ezekiel Bread (I’m not even making this stuff up). The question is…were such accounts intended for “healthy diets” or as signs of God’s blessing against the natural outcome (Daniel) and dietary judgment on those in Jerusalem for disobedience (Ezekiel)?
I noticed a friend of mine (and OT professor at Evangel University in Springfield, MO) Bill Griffin (Harvard – M.Div; Emory – PhD) was just writing on Facebook about so-called “biblical” diets. I thought his comment rather poignant:

For those who think the book of Daniel is a cookbook for healthy living: (1) Daniel objected to eating food which was ceremonially unclean. This is rarely an issue for Christians. (2) Daniel & friends became FATTER (ובריאי בשר) of flesh than their non-Jewish compatriots. The NIV gets it wrong when it says “better nourished”, unless you wish to translate Judges 3:18, “Now Eglon king of Moab was a very nourished man.” (3) As Dr. Dwight Sheets has noted, it took a miracle of God for Daniel to grow fatter on that diet, and it is parallel to the other episodes of miraculous deliverance in the book. The change of diet had nothing to do with losing weight!

I think Bill has gotten this correct. Such accounts were NEVER intended to be duplicated as if they were precedent setting patterns for health. They are intended as signs of God’s intervention in a very particular circumstance. It is quite disgusting to see such things marketed. 1 cup of poor interpretation + a spoonful of dietary research + 2 teaspoons of marketing + a sprinkling of spirituality and Biblical texts = BIG PROFIT (not to be confused with the prophets) that church-folk will go bonkers over.
I sure hope the Ezekiel bread has been baked over coals of dung…otherwise, how can I expect to keep my girlish figure. And while I’m at it, I’m still waiting for the John the Baptist diet (or better yet, clothing line)….hmmm…now that I think of it…perhaps I should get that idea copyrighted before anyone reads this blog…

Posted in Daniel, Ezekiel | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments