Lukan Authorship of Hebrews

I just finished David Allen's monograph, Lukan Authorship of Hebrews [B&H Academic, 2010]. The book is a companion to his commentary on Hebrews, also released this year in the NAC series. His fascination with the authorship of Hebrews began in 1976 in a class ironically taught by Paige Patterson. He is one of the few advocating Lukan authorship today (though there has always been a few in that camp). The book, part of the NAC Studies in Bible and Theology series, is interesting and in parts persuasive. Certainly one will have to deal with it and the arguments presented in future studies on Hebrews.

Allen begins with a historical survey on the authorship question. Chapter 2 evaluates evidence for Barnabas, Apollos, and Paul as authorial candidates. Both chapters are important to the foundation Allen is laying. He comes to the conclusion that there is early evidence for Lukan authorship of Hebrews. He rules out both Barnabas and Apollos fairly easily. While the Patristic evidence for Pauline authorship cannot be easily dismissed, Allen falls on the side of the majority of modern scholars who believe there are no disagreements with Paul in Hebrews, but the many style differences particularly make Pauline authorship less likely.

The strongest arguments for Lukan authorship of Hebews are found in chapters 3 -5. The linguistic argument is first to bat and is by far the strongest hitter. Allen amasses a great deal of lexical, stylistic, and textlinguistic evidence to build his case. The lexical similarities between Luke/Acts and Hebrews are very impressive. However, I found his stylistic section very persuasive. The cumulative effect of the similarities "provide a forceful argument for Lukan authorship of Hebrews" [123]. In my opinion this is by far the strongest arguments presented in the book.

Second up is Allen's comparison of the purposes of Luke/Acts and Hebrews. He presents lexical/semantic evidence found in the prologues of the books and well as the hortatory sections. To Allen these similarities link the works closely. I am not so sure.

Third to the plate is Allen's discussion of the theological similarities between the three books. I personally found his discussion of the High Priesthood of Jesus in Luke/Acts the most interesting. Obviously that is a major topic in Hebrews. If it can be seen in Luke/Acts then Lukan authorship is at least possible. Allen sees Luke's view of Jesus as High Priest shown in three ways. First, Jesus prays for Peter in Luke 22:31-32. The intercessory ministry of Jesus is obviously in Hebrews. Second, Jesus' prayer at the cross for those who are placing Him there [Luke 22:34] is compared to Hebrews 5:2. Third, in the account of the ascension [Luke 24:50-51], Jesus lifts up his hands and blesses the disciples, reminiscent of the high priest. Allen writes, "Throughout Luke's Gospel, Jesus is characterized by the priestly attributes of sympathy, compassion, and mercy." While one may admit the above, Allen seems to stretch a bit. For example, in the account of the ten lepers cleansed by Jesus in Luke 17, the fact that one came back and showed himself to Jesus does not lend itself to proving Luke's view that Jesus is "God's High Priest" [213]. However, I believe Allen has at least shown that Luke is concerned about the priestly ministry of Jesus. A major roadblock to viewing Luke as authorship of Hebrews has at last been moved a bit.

I found Chapter 6 the most interesting. Luke has been assumed by scholars as Gentile. Thus there is no way he could have authored a work like Hebrews. Of course, even though a Gentile, he could have authored the work. That said if it can be proven that Luke is a Jew another major stumbling block has been removed. I believe Allen has done us a great service in this chapter, showing that Luke is likely a Jew. The Birth Narratives alone in Luke 1-2 seem to indicate this as I have believed for a long time. Luke's concern for OT prophecy, the priesthood, the Temple, and his use of Scripture all point to this conclusion. Luke/Acts is shown to be very "Jewish" in nature and one has to ask, If Luke were a Gentile or if he were writing for Gentiles, why do we find so many Jewish features in the two works? Allen's evidence, although a stretch in places, has its intended cumulative effect.

The rest of the book is certainly more subjective as Allen admits. His historical reconstruction, although interesting, is less compelling. He believes Luke wrote to a former High Priest, Theophilus, from Rome in the late 60s. Theophilus is in Antioch among a group of converted priests who are thinking about reverting to Judaism. While it is certainly possible that Luke wrote Hebrews from Rome after the death of Paul and before the destruction of the Jerusalem, the hard evidence is lacking and perhaps always will be.

Allen writes in his introduction that the book "is an attempt to prosecute the case for Lukan authorship by presenting a preponderance of evidence, the cumulative effect of which becomes difficult to deny" [5]. There is no doubt that there is a preponderance of evidence. Some of it stretches the limits of credibility, but there is a good deal in this book that should be digested, pondered, and perhaps even admitted at the very least possible. While his historical reconstruction may not be strong, the other evidence presented is. Particularly, if Luke can be seen as Jewish writing to Jews, then the primary obstacle to Lukan authorship of Hebrews is at least moved. I believe Allen has done this. It must be admitted that Luke could very possibly be (and I believe probably was) a Jew. Thus he certainly could be the author of Hebrews. If the author is not Paul, and it probably isn't, then Luke should be seen as a primary candidate. Certainly there is more evidence for him then Apollos or Barnabas.

I am not 100% persuaded by Allen's book, but I have gravitated closer to his position. "Almost thou persuadest me!."

"One Anothers" of the New Testament

THE 'ONE-ANOTHERS' OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

I promised the folks at Fairview this list:

John 13:34        Love one another

Mark 9:50        Live at peace with one another

Romans 12:10        Devote yourselves to one another

            Give preference to one another

Romans 12:16        Have the same mind toward one another [Rom 15:5]

Romans 14:13        Do not judge one another

Romans 14:19        Live at peace and build up one another

Romans 15:7        Accept one another

Romans 15:14        Admonish one another [Col 3:16]

1 Cor 11:33        Wait for one another

1 Cor 12:25        Have the same care for one another

1 Cor 16:20        Greet one another [2 Cor 13:12; 1 Pter 5:14]

Gal 5:13        Serve one another [1 Peter 4:10]

Eph 4:2         Show tolerance toward one another

Eph 4:25        Speak the truth to one another

Eph 4:32        Be kind, compassionate, and forgiving toward one another

Eph 5:19        Speak to one another in a spiritual way

Eph 5:21        Be subject to one another

Phil 2:3         Regard one another as more important

Col 3:9            Do not lie to one another

Col 3:13        Bear with one another

1 Thess 4:18        Comfort one another

1 Thess 5:11        Encourage one another [Heb 3:13; 10:25]

            Build up one another

Heb 10:24        Stimulate one another to good deeds

James 4:11        Do not speak against one another

James 5:9        Do not complain against one another

James 5:16        Confess your sins to one another

1 Peter 4:9        Be hospitable to one another

1 Peter 5:5        Clothe yourselves with humility toward one another

1 John 1:7        If we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another

 

 

         

WHY CHURCHES DON'T COOPERATE

Last fall over 1000 people gathered at our church from across Greer Baptist Association to celebrate our 50^th anniversary. It was a great night of worship, but I wondered while the service was going on why we couldn't cooperate like that more often. For the last several years I've wondered why, for all the talk we do about cooperation, the Southern Baptist churches and association of churches I've been part of don't really cooperate.

After quite a bit of thinking about this subject, I've come up with two conclusions. First, there is the obvious problem of competition. To be quite frank we're all primarily concerned with our own churches and their growth (both in numbers and financially). Publicly we rejoice when we hear great things happening elsewhere, but privately too often we wince in pain and jealousy (sad to say but too often true). The business model of doing church, counting numbers and money and allowing those to determine success, contributes greatly to the spirit of competition.

Everyone talks about the problem of competition, but there is a second reason that is not so obvious. In fact this one is not discussed at all as far as I know. It is the problem of the ever increasing number of disgruntled members who populate other churches. People become upset where they are, move to another church, but remain upset with their previous place of worship. Churches are made up of everybody else's members who are still smarting over the various reasons they left. Usually that means a less than cordial relationship with the people with which they once attended church. Cooperation becomes difficult at best because they are very hesitant to rub elbows with those folks on any project. Church splits, which always bring acrimony, make cooperation even more difficult to impossible.

Of course the bottom line is that we've lost biblical fellowship. We've relegated that to fellowship meals or ice-cream socials. The NT teaches that fellowship is loving others Christians as much as you love God. Until we get back to that we won't cooperate much, and the world will see a splintered Christian witness. That of course sends the wrong message and gives unbelievers another reason to stay home on Sunday.

Moore on Glenn Beck

Russell Moore has an insightful blog entry on Glenn Beck's rally in Washington this weekend. Read it carefully and thoughtfully.

Who Grows The Church?

"Preacher it is your job to grow the church?" Is that true? It seems that many in the church today believe that, even pastors. But it that true? For a good deal of the years of my ministry I believed that it was my job to grow the church. I would be asked by pastor search committees how I intended to lead the church to grow. I attended conferences and other meetings in which sure-fire ways of church growth were introduced and each time I was told that if I (the pastor) was behind this it would work. The church would grow. Of course, I am for church growth, so I would use those tools and apply the so-called church growth principles. And they would sometimes work. But often they would not. I would go home after a Sunday in which there were no decisions and seemingly nothing happened and beat myself up. I really thought that if I had worked harder or if I had been more faithful that week something would have happened. Try to carry around that kind of guilt!

One night a few years ago I was having one of those Sunday nights. Pastors know what I'm talking about. No decisions had been made for the umpteenth week in a row. The people just sort of look at you and are polite when they leave, but that's about it. I was blaming myself again. If I work harder and apply some principles smarter the church would turn around and the the aisles would be red hot with decisions, Sunday School would grow, etc etc etc. That night I had an epiphany. God surely had been trying to tell me this for a long time, but I just had not listened. In as clear a voice as I've ever heard, the Lord spoke to my heart—"Son, it is not your job to grow the church. It is mine! You just be faithful to preach my Word. That is all that is required of you. If the people respond they respond to Me—not you. If they rebel, they rebel against Me—not you." Since that night I have not worried whether or not decisions are made, attendance is up, giving is up, and so forth. I really don't look at attendance and giving reports that much. My response when someone asks how many were in church Sunday, "The number is exactly what God knew it would be." The spiritual burdens a pastor carries are always there, but the unnecessary guilt of having to cause church growth is not.

Acts 2:47 is instructive: "And every day the Lord added to them those who were being saved." The Lord added to the church. The apostles did not. They were just faithful in what God called them to do. Jesus said the church was His and He would build it [Matthew 16:18]. The pastor doesn't, Jesus does. Paul reminded the Corinthians "I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth" [1 Corinthians 3:6]. Paul was faithful to preach the Word, as was Apollos, but it was God who brought about growth.

The problem lies in the fact that we have brought the world into the church. We use business principles to determine whether a pastor is doing his job. And if a church is not growing in numbers or if it is losing budget dollars, many church members believe something is terribly wrong with the pastor's leadership. Pastors do the same thing. They often see a problem with their leadership when baptisms are down, membership is down, no decisions are made on consecutive Sundays, budget numbers are lower, etc.

Our denomination (Southern Baptist Convention) does not help. We tout the churches/pastors who baptize the most, who have the greatest increase in attendance, who give the most, etc. That kind of thing should stop. I would love one day to attend a pastor's conference and the featured speaker is a man of God who has proven himself faithful in a church where absolutely nothing visible has happened (attendance increase, baptism by the score, etc) or could happen.

The fact of the matter is that there is only one thing God requires of any person, including pastors—faithfulness. The pastor's responsibility is to preach the Word, and he is responsible only to attempt to lead the church into the presence and purpose of God. I use the word 'attempt' on purpose, because he is not responsible for the church's response.

By the way, proper spiritual leadership often does not lead to church growth. Depending on the circumstances, it may lead to a mass exodus. Also, there are church situations in which no numerical growth is possible, and the success of a pastor's ministry in that kind of situation should not be based on baptism numbers, Bible study attendance, etc.

Pastors—stop trying to grow the church. Church members—stop placing upon the pastor responsibilities that are not his. When both pastor and church members are faithful, God will do in the church was He deems necessary and proper. His will is done. Shouldn't that be the goal anyway?

Pinnock

I heard recently of the death of Clark Pinnock. Russell Moore has a wonderful commentary on BP.

Pinnock died on Aug 15. Read his obit on Christianity Today.

The Christian Funeral

Rob Moll has written an interesting book, The Art of Dying, which I recommend highly. In it, there is a chapter on the Christian funeral. Moll is correct when he observes that funerals are best done within the context of a church community and are more than just an opportunity to soothe the grief of the bereaved. He defines the Christian funeral as a "worship service that dramatically recognizes that the Christian life is shaped in the pattern of Christ's own death and resurrection."

For many believers today, there is no sense that the funeral is a religiously significant event. They have bought into the "Hollywood" version of a funeral; it's all about the deceased. There are eulogies and music that reflect who the deceased was and his/her accomplishments. I have even had Christian families ask me to not be 'too preachy'. Unbelievable I know, but increasingly true.

We are losing the Christian funeral because believers are losing sight of its importance. Why have a funeral when it's so expensive and a waste of time? It is important for several reasons. First, it is the last chance for the deceased to influence anyone for Christ. Most Christians have family members and friends who are unbelievers. Some of them will attend the funeral. The testimony of a faithful believer's life [which they obviously know] plus the preaching of the Gospel may soften an otherwise hard heart. I have seen more than one person come to Christ following a funeral service. Second, while there is much more to a Christian funeral, God does use it to comfort the grieving family. Grief is part of life; however, Christians do not grieve hopelessly. As the hope of the Gospel is reaffirmed by the one preaching the funeral, the Holy Spirit comforts the heart and even brings joy in the midst of sorrow. I've seen this happen countless times. A family enters the funeral home or church crying and as the service progresses their countenance changes. There is still grief at loss, but hope brings joy. A funeral consisting of just eulogies neither comforts nor brings hope. Third, as Moll so aptly puts it the funeral is a chance 'for the church to . . . begin reintegrating mourners into the community and . . . to publicly express the church's and the deceased's faith and hope.'

A Christian funeral should include the following:

• Singing—I think congregational music is appropriate although it seldom is used [at least in the Baptist tradition of which I belong]. The songs should not be 'dirges'. They can and should be joyful, focusing on Christ who has defeated death. I recently attended a funeral in which congregational music was used, but the songs made me more depressed than joyful. That's not the purpose at all of a funeral service.
  
• Scripture—I appreciate our more liturgical friends here more than Baptists—their services are full of appropriate Scripture passages from both Testaments. When I am in charge of an entire funeral service, I try to spend at least some of it in the reading of the Bible.
  
• A brief testimony concerning the life of the deceased—everyone in the room knows something about him/her likely, so the fact that he was a family man who loved the Braves, for example, is not what I mean. I believe there should be a clear testimony about his/her faith in Christ.
  
• The preaching of the Gospel, emphasizing hope. In recent years I almost exclusively preach on the hope of heaven, using Revelation 21-22. I use other passages, but I seem to keep coming back to those two chapters. A brief message about heaven reminds the believer of what God has prepared for those who love Him and challenges the unbeliever to consider his/her own eternal destiny.
  

I would agree with Moll's summary, "In some ways a funeral is simply an excuse to publicly get together. Gathering around food, at a funeral home or cemetery, or at-home visitations is an end in itself. A healthy community (here he is talking about the church) and the recovering bereaved simply need to be together. Funerals can be done both well and inexpensively, but the purpose is not to get it done cheaply. Singing hymns, reading Scripture and hearing God's Word preached—all with an ear toward the purpose of a funeral—is how the church displays hope. By doing so the congregation not only gives witness to the rest of the world, but it also serves to reaffirm our resurrection hope" [Art of Dying, 126].

Above everything, the funeral is a worship service, whether it is in a funeral home chapel, cemetery, or church. A funeral is more than just a memorial service. It does remember the one who has died and his/her significance in the lives of those who have gathered to mourn, remember, and worship. More importantly there must be the worship of God, who has through His Son defeated death, and the intentional witness to that glorious hope.

Is Cremation a Christian Practice?

A question that I have been asked more times that you might think is whether or not cremation is a Christian practice. Based on sheer statistics, it is a question people are asking whether they pose it to a pastor or not. The number of cremations in the U.S. is on a major upward swing. I read recently that between one-quarter and one-third of all corpses are now cremated, compared to less than 5% in 1970. By 2025 that percentage will rise to 60%.

Historically, there is no question about the burial practice of Christians; they always opted for burial if given a choice. In fact, there are those who have written that the great care of a body that Christians displayed is a reason why 'the Way' spread throughout the Roman Empire. Like many modern ethical issues we face, the Scriptures do not really deal with cremation directly. 1 Samuel 31:8-13; Amos 2:1-3, and 6:8-10 are the only explicit passages. Amos 2:1-3 is the only one of the three that unambiguously condemns the practice. The partial cremation of the bodies of King Saul and his sons can be connected to the necessities of war and quite frankly the latter passage in Amos is debated by OT scholars. It may or may not deal with cremation. I believe it probably does, but the cremation of bodies can be seen in that passage as necessary due the great numbers of the dead. While there are no 'thou shalts' or 'thou shalt nots' to draw from, that does not mean the Bible is unclear on the issue. In both testaments, it is absolutely clear that the standard way that God's people handled a corpse is burial. Obviously, there is also the example of Jesus. His body was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. There are exceptions, but they are rare. The exceptions certainly do not lend themselves to approval, even tacitly, of the practice.

There are basically four reasons Christians chose burial over cremation. First, the body was created by God in His image and was proclaimed by Him as 'very good' [Genesis 1:31]. While some deny the physical aspect of the image of God, Genesis 9:6 is clear: "Whoever sheds man's blood, his blood will be shed by man, for God made man in His image." This verse makes no sense at all if the soul (non-body) was the essential part of a human being. Thus the body is not just an appendage housing the soul/spirit (non-body). Human beings are a body/non-body unity, incomplete when that which is non-body is separated from the body.

Second, there is need to consider the Incarnation. "The Word became flesh and took up residence among us" [John 1:14]. John Stott has written, "Christians should treat the human body . . . with special respect. Why? Because this is the form in which God became flesh."

Third, there is the fact that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit [1 Corinthians 6:19]. Christians have historically believed that the body should be honored because the third Person of the Trinity used it as His home, living through the body and producing His fruit [Galatians 5:22-23].

Fourth, the final part of a Christian's salvation is the resurrection of the body. Paul wrote, "And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, then He who raised Christ from the dead will also bring your mortal bodies to life through His Spirit who lives in you" (Romans 8:11). According to Millard Erickson, "This new body has some connection or point of identity with the old body, but is differently constituted." That different 'constitution' is that it is transformed, outfitted for eternity. However, there is a direct connection between the mortal and immortal body. Christians have believed that burial best bears witness of this connection.

Thus the issue is not whether God can raise a body that has been cremated. Of course He can. Neither is the issue whether cremation is sin. I do not believe that it is. The issue really is two-fold: What burial practice best reflects the hope of the Gospel? What burial practice honors the body as God's good creation in His image? It seems to me the answer is burial. Just as we (Baptists) believe in immersion baptism because it shows best in a symbolic way what has happened spiritually to a person, burial does the same thing—the burial of a body shows in a symbolic way that God created the body good in His image (thus we honor it), and it better reflects the hope of the future resurrection of that mortal body.

Why has cremation become so popular? I can mention a few reasons. First, the traditional funeral is seen as a waste of money; thus it has become a consumer issue. Second, environmentalism has caused a "Save the Land for the Living" mentality to creep into the American consciousness. Third, there is the upswing of other spiritual worldviews, especially eastern mysticism, which is shown in the increased approval of such ideas as reincarnation. Cremation can be seen as a cleaning/releasing of the soul from the dead body so it will be prepared for another life. Rodney Decker observes correctly, "The cremation movement thus reflects the dramatic shifts in American views of 'spirituality' and the radical pluralism of our postmodern culture." Perhaps a traditional burial will be one of the most counter-cultural acts a Christian can perform in the next generation.

But, why are more and more Christians opting for cremation? I think at least two of the reasons above filter in. The traditional funeral is seen as a waste of money and more believers are embracing 'all things green.' I will blog soon on why a traditional funeral is a good idea for a Christian. All I will say about 'all things green' is that the Christian should be not be 'sucked in' to a worldview that may be far less than Christian. The radical environmental agenda that is so sanitized by the color green is more pantheistic than Christian at its core.

There is a specifically Christian way to grieve. Paul wrote that Christians are not to grieve as those without hope [1 Thessalonians 4:13]. Russell Moore challenges us with this thought, "Christian grief, the way the Christian community deals with its dead, signals what it believes to be true about the dead in Christ." Is what the Christian community believes best seen in burial or cremation?

Floyd and CP

I have been critical of Ronnie Floyd, pastor of FBC in Springdale, because of his sparse support for the Cooperative Program, the primary funding tool of the Southern Baptist Convention. However, today BP reports that the church is doing something very significant to increase CP support. Read it here.

Bravo to Bro. Floyd and FBC.

The SBC in Orlando

I thought I'd share my impressions of the SBC in Orlando, particularly with regard to the GCR report. The report passed, but I voted against it (seemingly one of the few). My reasons are simple—Great Commission giving was left in the report. Although I like the amendment which reads that designated giving is to be a supplement to and not a substitute for the Cooperative Program, the idea is still there. Yes I know that designated giving has been and always will be done, but I don't think we need to 'celebrate' is as much as we need to discourage it. I would have liked recommendation 3 to just reinforce CP and that's it. The recommendation is 'better' but not what I would have liked. The other reason I voted against the report was that there is still the 'cooperative agreements' problem out there between the state conventions and NAMB. That wasn't debated, but a change in those agreements may be detrimental to our smaller state conventions. I would have liked to have heard more about that.

With that said, I will support the vote of the convention. I believe that once a decision has been made in a business meeting (in this case the SBC), the decision should be supported (if it's not heretical of course or contrary to the Bible). Thus I support the report and now pray that its impact will be positive and not negative upon the denomination I love and support.

I greatly appreciated the spirit of the debate on both sides. There was no rancor. There was passion, but Baptists should be passionate about how we're going to reach the world. We may have different ideas on how to do it sometimes, but that is ok. Debate is not a bad thing if done with love. It was and that was good to see.

I voted for Ted Traylor for SBC president because I know him to be a good man and pastor who has led a great church. I do not know the ministry of Bryant White, but I'm sure he is as well. He will be in my prayers. I agreed with a statement that he made to the press that he would like to see a smaller percentage of CP funds allocated to the states and more to national causes (NAMB and IMB in particular). That may not ever happen, but I would like to see that debate here in South Carolina. I appreciate the work of the state convention but I have a problem with half of CP funds staying in our Jerusalem and Judea.

The sermons I heard were primarily 'resurgence' centered in some way. I liked it when Mac Brunson (pastor of FBC Jacksonville) said that we did not need resurgence, we needed a refocus to Jesus.

 

The Unchurched Used to Be in Church

share

SBC In Orlando

Everyone and his grandmother are commenting on the Great Commission Resurgence Task Force [GCRTF] report so let me do so as well with a handful of bullet points of comments and questions as I muse.

• The SBC has always had a commitment to the Great Commission, something to applaud.
  
• We are not reaching the masses, something to grieve us.
  
• No report by any denominational task force will bring a greater commitment to the Great Commission in the local church, something to remember.
  
• Will Great Commission giving reported alongside gifts to the Cooperative Program lead to a splintering of the CP? Something to pray about.
  
• The Great Commission giving idea should be scrapped for sake of unity. Something to consider.
  
• Will passing the report as it currently stands lead to a more 'societal' approach as in pre-CP days? Something to watch.
  

I felt that the TF was hamstrung from the beginning, given the makeup of the team itself and because of its chairman. While the team was tweaked a bit later, in the beginning the TF did not really represent a cross-section of Southern Baptists—mistake. Also, his increased giving to CP notwithstanding naming Ronnie Floyd as chairman, when his church gave little through the CP, was a critical error by Johnny Hunt [please keep in mind that comment in no ways reflects upon Bro. Floyd as a good man and pastor—his church's giving through CP is a matter of record.].

Is the recommendation to celebrate Great Commission giving a way to make more palatable the nomination of men to leadership in the SBC whose track record on CP giving is less than stellar? I don't know…this is just the musing of a country preacher.

I'm not naïve. I've been around for a day or two now. I believe the SBC could do with some stream-lining, and I would like the state to have less of my CP dollar (although I appreciate the fine work of the state conventions), but I think changes should come from the bottom-up and not the top down. Churches must change, send people to their state conventions for them to change, and then the SBC will reflect those changes.

I also think the strength of the SBC is in cooperation. We can still do much more together than separately [even the super-churches]. Whatever moves we make should strengthen cooperation and our resolve to reach the masses with the Gospel. I'm concerned Orlando won't do that.

The Key Question in Hermeneutics

There is a key question when approaching any biblical text. Where one begins is where one ends. The issue: is a biblical text anthropocentric or theocentric? In other words, is a text man-centered or God-centered?

Sidney Greidanus has written eloquently on the topic:

 

"Fundamentally, the Bible is more than an ordinary history book, more than

artistically pleasing literature; it is religious literature . . . As religious literature,

the Bible reveals its theocentric nature. Everything is viewed in relationship to

God: the world is God's creation; human beings are image-bearers of God;

salvation belongs to God—in short, all of life belongs to and is governed by

God.

 

Every genre of biblical literature is theocentric. Even Esther, although God is not mentioned in the book, has a theocentric viewpoint. God is obviously working to protect the Jews. Theocentric interpretation seeks to expose in every passage the God-centered focus of the entire Bible.

Anthropocentric interpretation, on the other hand, is focused not upon God but upon human beings. Too often an anthropocentric emphasis is found in preaching and teaching. Interpreters love to focus on the human drama in the text. Bible characters are often seen as either good or bad examples of what one should or should not do for God—and because those examples are easily found in a text and resonate with the interpreter, a "man centered" spin is placed upon a text that was ultimately meant to teach a great truth about God.

While this is obviously a New Testament narrative, a good example of anthropocentric interpretation is found in the denials of Christ by Peter. As Ernest Best pointed out, "The incidents in which the weakness of Peter are (sic) shown are not recorded primarily to tell us about Peter's weakness but about the mercy of God who forgives him." Thus, Best argued, "The selection of incidents which we have been given about Peter has been dominated by an interest other than the character of Peter himself. It is foolish of us therefore to use these incidents to build up a picture of the character of Peter and then to go on and apply it to men generally. We ought to use the incidents of Peter's weakness instead to argue for God's mercy and strength."

Keep the following principles in mind when interpreting a passage of from the Old Testament:

• The Bible was given to reveal the character and purpose of God, not us.
  

  
   

• Even the moral requirements of Scripture reveal God and his intentions.
  

  
   

• Every text can be studied to discover what it tells us about God.
  

  
   

• Theocentric interpretation does not mean the sermon or Bible study is about
  God
  

  
   

• Theocentric interpretation asks, "What does this text tell me about God?"
  

  
   

• Use the basic concepts of a passage to consider how they point to God.
  

  
   

• In the New Testament, the basic question would then be, "What does this text tell me about Christ?" In essence, texts in the New Testament are Christocentric. The approach of a New Testament text would essentially be the same as that of the Old Testament.
  

  
   

Allow me now to turn to Genesis 22, the account of Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice. More often than not, interpreters focus on Abraham and offer a moralistic sermon or study on faith. Obviously, Abraham's faith is important in the passage, however, when one focuses only on the Patriarch, it is an anthropocentric interpretation of the text.

If the text is theocentric (and it is), then let us ask the key question: What does this text say about God? When one looks at the text from this perspective there is a change in focus. What did Abraham and Isaac learn about God that day? The answer to that question is found in verse 14 after Abraham found a ram caught by his horns in the thicket: "And Abraham called the name of that place Yahweh-Jireh (The Lord Will Provide)."

One meets biblical characters who are extremely human. Remember, however, they are never seen in isolation. They are always part of a much larger story—the story about God. Hence, when interpreters pass on the biblical story, "they ought to employ biblical characters the way the Bible employs them, not as ethical models, not as heroes for emulation or examples for warning, but as people whose story has been taken up into the Bible in order to reveal what God is doing for and through them." [Greidanus]

New Parents and Church

Does having children make parents better church goers? Here's an interesting article from Barna that didn't send great surprises my way. We better rethink, however, the old idea that parenthood makes people more inclined to think about God and more open to Him.

We Have Seen His Glory

I didn't read as much on this week of vacation as I usually do, but I did get through an interesting book. Ben Witherington has recently published, We Have Seen His Glory: A Vision of Kingdom Worship [Eerdmans]. Witherington is rightly concerned by the consumer mentality of today's worshiper and attacks it through what is in essence a very fine New Testament theology of worship. The author believes that worship should be seen in light of the eschaton 'rather than in light of what has already gone on in the past, in light of Kingdom Come rather than in light of kingdoms gone' [ix]. He writes, "I am convinced that one of the great detriments to having a more reflective and more Christian approach to worship is that even many of our ministers and worship leaders have very little understanding of what the New Testament actually says about worship" [x]. With those words in the preface, Witherington proceeds in eight chapters to concisely present what the New Testament does say about the subject.

Here are some salient quotes from the book that resonated with me:

• Salvation is a means to an end, not an end in itself—that end being the worship of God [7].
  
• Worship is the ultimate ethical act on earth, the most important act on earth because it is the ultimate fulfillment of the Shema, the Great Commandment, and indeed the First and Second Commandments [8].
  
• The function of music in worship is not to set the mood or even to rev up the troops, but rather to engage them at the affective level so that their whole being . . . are caught up in the wonder, love, and praise of God [17].
  
• One of the most disturbing trends in worship is its anthropocentric character. Worship is to be theocentric/Christocentric [20].
  
• Only God's glory should show up in worship [23].
  
• The confession of Jesus as Lord changes everything, including worship [31].
  
• We take the America's Got Talent approach to deciding who does what in worship. Paul says that the prerequisite is having given oneself totally to God, and then recognizing the character and measure of one's faith [40].
  
• Early Christians did not hold to theological principles which suggested that edifices for worship were inherently bad and worship in houses was theologically better [51].
  
• Worship is not just a matter of adoration, but also involves edification [66].
  
• We would do well to see invoking Jesus' name at the end of a prayer as signing his name to our petitions. If so, then we need to ask, Would Jesus sign off on our entreaties? [81].
  
• Did any of the New Testament writers believe they were writing sacred, God-breathed texts? The answer must be surely yes [97].
  
• The fundamental reason why Christian worship should be different is not because Christ has inaugurated his kingdom on earth, but because believers are different and should worship differently [134].
  
• All acts of work should be doxological, and thus should be acts of worship [136].
  
• As the biblical understanding [of worship] ebbs and the consumer mentality flows and grows, it is hardly surprising that worship has been turned into something it was never intended to be: a performance of the few fo the couch potatoes for Jesus in the pews [146].
  
• Worship is the means God uses to mold us into our better selves [150].
  
• Too often people evaluate worship and which sort they want to participate in on the basis of style, and this is a serious mistake . . . The issue is not style but substance. The issue is not 'where am I most comfortable. Did it ever occur to you that worship might be most helpful when it unsettles your ways and makes you profoundly uncomfortable with your present state of spiritual lethargy [153]?
  
• Worship without good preaching is not adequate worship, because God wants to clear his throat each week and address his people [155].
  
• It is not the preacher's job to 'put the cookies on the bottom shelf.' It is time to stop serving pablum in worship instead of real soul food [160].
  

Witherington does a marvelous job taking a difficult subject and dealing with it biblically and theologically. He synthesizes the NT witness about worship and makes is available to all who wish to 'have an ear to hear.' I found his thoughts on how the early church felt about 'buildings' over against 'homes' especially helpful, given statements in the "home church" movement that worshiping in homes is more 'biblical.' On the negative side, I felt his emphasis on rhetorical criticism a bit out of place. However, his chapters dealing with John 4, Revelation 4-5, Worship as Sabbatical, and Work and Worship, were very insightful and helpful to me. The reflective questions at the end of each chapter make this an even more helpful text. Preaching/Music professors should consider it. I may even use it as a book review text in New Testament because of the importance of the subject.

Ministers need to read this book. The consumer and narcissistic tendencies in today's worship is at partly (and maybe more) our fault. Ministers do need to understand worship, particularly from the NT point of view. Witherington has done us a service in writing this book.

Great Commission Resurgence

I've read the final report of the Great Commission Task Force. While I'm glad there is a strong affirmation of the Cooperative Program in the final report, I'm still troubled by its embracing of so-called "Great Commission Giving." My church gives 10% of its undesignated receipts to the CP, but we also give a substantial amount of money each year to other mission causes. I would never dream of reporting that giving alongside the CP.

Morris Chapman has written a concise article concerning this issue. I basically agree with his sentiments.

I wonder how much of this is politically motivated? In other words, I wonder if what drives at least some of this discussion is criticism of some recent SBC president candidates who lead churches that give such a low percentage to the CP? Just musing.

When the Word Is Ignored

What does a pastor do when the message that God lays on his heart is faithfully developed and preached but subsequently ignored? Does he give up? Does he turn in his ordination papers? Does he retreat to his study and crawl up in the fetal position? While those might seem to be viable options at the time (especially on Monday morning), what is the right thing to do? Obviously the right thing is to continue to preach. The preacher needs always to remember this—the response of people to God's message is not the responsibility of the deliverer. The preacher is responsible only for himself. If he has prayed; if he has studied; if he has delivered the message God has laid on his heart—a message based on God's authority (His Word), then that is all he can do. He can do nothing more. God requires nothing other than faithfulness from him. God will take care of the hearers. They are in His hands anyway.

Paul warned Timothy:
For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, will multiply teachers for themselves because they have an itch to hear something new. They will turn away from hearing the truth and will turn aside to myths [2 Tim 4:3-4]. We may be living in the era of 'itching ears' but remember what the Apostle said in vv. 1-2: I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus, who is going to judge the living and the dead, and because of His appearing and His kingdom: ² Proclaim the message; persist in it whether convenient or not; rebuke, correct, and encourage with great patience and teaching.

The preacher's job, even when people don't listen—keep preaching! Be faithful! Keep praying! Keep studying! Keep preparing! The preacher doesn't work for the people anyway. He works for God!!!

 

Is there a reason you’re late … or is it just an excuse? : The Work Buzz

Is there a reason you’re late … or is it just an excuse? : The Work Buzz

Posted using ShareThis

A Good Word for Preachers

In a book by Paul Boller, the author tells a story about Woodrow Wilson. One of his cabinet members praised him for his short speeches. He then asked Wilson how long it took him to write a speech. "It depends," said Wilson, "If I am to speak ten minutes I need a week for preparation, if fifteen minutes, three days; if half an hour, two days; if an hour, I am ready now."

E. Earle Ellis

I'm saddened by the death of Dr. E. Earle Ellis, renowned New Testament scholar and churchman.

Southwestern Seminary has an obituary. Ellis' The Making of the New Testament Documents is a classic that will be quoted for years to come.

What Is Worship?

Being in church for the first time in two weeks today just reminded me again of how sweet it is to worship God corporately. There is nothing much else like it. Let's be reminded of the definition of worship I came across years ago from Calvin Miller, "Worship is the church busy at the business of loving God." Worship has nothing to do with music style or even preaching style. It has everything to do with the heart. Whether the music is liturgical or contemporary; whether the preaching is expository or topical (as long as it is biblical), the believer can worship. It makes no difference who is leading in worship. It makes no difference what the instrumentation is. Worship begins and ends with the heart of the individual. Did you show God you loved Him today? If you did you worshiped. If you didn't, well….

ACTS 6 AND DEACON MINISTRY

The recent edition of Bibliotheca Sacra has an interesting article by Phillip Sell, "The Seven in Acts as a Ministry Team." Traditionally, this passage assumes the Seven chosen to wait on tables to be the beginning of deacon ministry. For several years I've questioned that, and the article by Sell convinces me that I've been on the right track. Sell writes, "The continual growth of the church seems to have made the distribution of goods to the needy a large task that needed attention so as not to disrupt the unity of the church. This division of labor is situational not paradigmatic for the church for all times. It reflects their practical situation" [61]. Sell also believes that the laying on of hands in the passage was not 'ordination' to a lifetime office but the authorization of the apostles to act in their stead and confirming the selection of the Seven by the congregation.

I've believed for some time that Acts 6 was situational and that the Seven were simply carrying out a temporary ministry. Stephen and Philip, the only two of the Seven that we know anything about, certainly had preaching/teaching ministries—Philip being a church planter/missionary. Neither seems to have been a deacon in the church office sense. Certainly by the time Paul writes the Prison and Pastoral Epistles, the office of deacon was part of the church. The Apostle greets them in Philippians 1:1 and gives presents a list of characteristics to look for in deacons in 1 Timothy 3. It's not altogether clear what their primary responsibilities were, although practical ministry may have been the bulk of it. However, overseers were also to be involved in serving others. Certainly deacons were and are to be spiritual leaders involved in helping the overseer minister to God's people.

In his commentary, Bock writes that the actions of Acts 6 may have led to the creation of the office at a later time. Perhaps that is true, but that may be going too far as well. All we can really say is that the office developed over time—the need for the overseer to have help in ministering to God's people would be obvious so he can spend the bulk of his time in prayer and in the Word. However, the deacon's ministry probably should not be limited to waiting on tables.

Ministers and Depression

I have meant for a while to blog on a recent article in The Baptist Courier concerning minister's battles with depression. The suicide of a pastor I know last year caused me to think about this problem and the recent article made it even more of an issue for me.

There is a letter to the editor in this week's edition that will shed even more light on the pain in many a pastor's home.

I'll have more to write about this topic later, but the challenge of unrealistic expectations that most congregations have placed upon their pastors is a major problem. Both the article and the letter focus on that. Congregations need to take a hard look at what they expect, ensure that their pastor gets rest and has some down time, and help share the load. Pastors also need to take a day off, have a hobby or something to get their mind off the unending challenges of ministry (I admit that is difficult), and have some people around them who can encourage them along the way.

Read both articles--they are eye openers.

Kennett "Coke" Picture

Chet Andrews was recently at the Coke museum in Atlanta and found this picture of my hometown of Kennett, MO. Interesting!

Happy 75th Elvis!

This would have been Elvis' 75th birthday. Shouldn't today be a national holiday?