Think Wink.

N.T. Wright on Genesis

N.T. Wright on Adam and Eve

N.T. Wright on How Our Worldview Impacts Our Reading of Scripture

Michael Horton’s Review of N.T. Wright

Thoughts on the Endings of Kings and Chronicles

The Faith Of Jesus Christ

Back in August I wrote two blog posts weaving my way through Psalm 72. In the first post, Justice and Psalm 72, I discussed the meaning of “righteousness” as the psalmist here uses it and looked at its impact upon my understanding of the New Testament’s use of “righteousness.” Suffice it to say, I find myself more inclined then, as I do now, that the traditional formulations of “righteousness” language is deficient due to the much needed impact of the Reformation of the 16th Century. However, righteousness, especially God’s righteousness, cannot be located solely in a sphere of merit theology and legalism. God’s righteousness is active and does more than merely declare someone to be righteous or wicked, but also acts according to that verdict, namely resurrecting Jesus and those who are in his kingdom from the grave.

Then in the second post, Domain and Psalm 72, I discussed the poem in a little bit more depth. But I saw there that the poet prays that Yahweh will expand the borders of the kingdom to include the whole world which would thus bring this saving righteousness of God to the whole world through the king and his kingdom. The wicked of the entire earth will be defeated by God through his king and the righteous poor will be prospered. God grants the king his own righteousness, and then gives the whole world that righteousness by bringing the world under the domain of his king.

In the following post, I want to conclude my look–yes I wrote the first two in August and it’s now March, my timing is off–at Psalm 72, namely Psalm 72:15-19. Read more

James 4 and Psalm 24

sane’, Malachi, and Paul Pt 1

Pre-Pre-load Psalm

Having been reading 1-2 Samuel that last few weeks, I have been really blessed. Seeing how God moved Israel from the period where the nation was governed by judges to the period where Israel was ruled over by her first monarchies, Saul and David. Watching God anticipate the coming of a king through Hannah to fulfilling that hope in David and making a covenant with David to always have a member of his family line on the throne and not be rejected like Saul was rejected.

One of the things I have been looking for while I have been reading the story of David is how do I fit into the story of God. Keep in mind that as a Christian, I look at David as a type who anticipates Jesus Messiah. So where do I fit into that narrative? There is one point of David’s story that really grabbed my attention as a possible way into God’s story. Read more

Redemptive-Historical Preaching and Charles Dennison

Some Thoughts on John

Evangelical Training

Today I was reading in 1 Samuel 15-16. It’s the part in the story of Israel’s monarchy where Saul is officially rejected by Yahweh. Then Yahweh sends Samuel to the house of Jesse the Bethlehemite to anoint a king for Israel, one who is “after God’s own heart.” I really enjoy the confusion that 1 Samuel 15 ends up creating and the solution presented by the LXX.

What’s the confusion in 1 Samuel 15? When Yahweh tells Samuel that Saul is officially rejected by Yahweh as king because he did not obey Yahweh’s commands to completely devote to destruction the Amelakites. Saul allowed the king, Agag, to survive as well as the choicest parts of cattle and sheep. Saul says it was for an offering to Yahweh for giving Israel victory that day in battle. I guess that he had a different understanding of what it meant to devote to destruction, or at least the people of Israel. Saul, when confronted by Samuel, says it was a fear of the people that drove him to disobey God. But it’s too late. He’s has failed Yahweh for the last time (I hear Darth Vader speaking from Empire Strikes Back when he kills the fleet admiral at the beginning, “You have failed me for the last time.” Why? I don’t know but I do.).

The confusion, especially for theologians, begins in 1 Samuel 15:11 (NET) when Yahweh says to Samuel, “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned away from me and has not done what I told him to do.” It’s the term translated as “regret.” It’s the niphal perfect form, נִחַמְתִּי, which means “I regret.” It can also mean “I repent” when in the niphal form. Yahweh is telling Samuel that he is repenting of his decision to make Saul king over Israel. God has changed his mind. And for some theologians, this becomes a great and powerful proof text against a school of thought like Calvinism where God is said to being unfolding history according to his divine decree and he never deviates from that decree.

But then when one comes down to 1 Saumel 15:29 (NET) Saumel tells Saul that it’s too late and God will not change his mind on this, “The Preeminent One of Israel does not go back on his word or change his mind, for he is not a human being who changes his mind.” The word that the NET translates as “change his mind” both times int he text is יִנָּחֵם and לְהִנָּחֵם, the same Hebrew term from 15:11 that means “I repent.” So now in the same chapter Yahweh is said to not repent. So the Calvinist comes back and says, “See, God doesn’t repent and change his mind. He always accomplishes what he decrees.” And off to the races both sides go arguing about this issue.

I found it funny how the LXX dealt with this problem. What 1 Samuel 15:11 LXX has done is read נִחַמְתִּי not as a niphal verb but rather as a pual verb that means “be comforted,” and translated it with the perfect middle form of παρακαλέω. Thus God is comforted by the fact that he made Saul king because Saul has turned away and not kept God’s commands. The implication is that God can remove Saul from king and anoint another man to be king, as is evidenced by Samuel’s reaction.

Then in 1 Samuel 15:29 uses μετανοέω, “I repent,” to translate יִנָּחֵם and לְהִנָּחֵם, the same term the New Testament uses when it commands sinners to repent (cf. Mark 1:15 NET). Now what is really odd is that this verse in the LXX prophesies that Israel will be divided, but I suspect that is because the LXX was written after the exile ended and Alexander had invaded Persia.

I don’t think the LXX really solved any theological problems. But I found it interesting nonetheless.

Thoughts in Light of 9/11

Don’t Waste Your Pulpit

I Evangelize Because of Joy

Today, continuing in my reading of the Israelite Monarchies introduced Saul, the first king over Israel. 1 Samuel 9-10 were very interesting to read. There were two points of interest for me in the text. First was the term Yahweh used to described Saul’s function as king over Israel in 1 Samuel 9 and then Saul’s actions when Samuel had called the entire nation together to publically appoint Saul as king in 1 Samuel 10.

First point of interest for my reading came in 1 Samuel 9:17. The author of Samuel uses the qal imperfect verb יַעְצֹר. It’s a word that means to restrain, but the idea has more to do with detainment or imprisonment. Why does Yahweh use this term to express how Saul is to rule over Israel as his prince? Is this to be a good thing, as in Saul is to imprison Israel under the rule of Yahweh? Or is this a bad thing, as in Saul will be a harsh ruler over Israel and ultimately pointing to Yahweh’s rejection of Saul’s house? Is the author of the text alerting the reader to Saul’s future, that Israel will suffer under Saul’s rule because he is a king like the nations and not a true “Son of God” who becomes an extension of Yahweh’s kingship over Israel? I tend to think that this latter option, a negative view of Saul’s reign by the author and Yahweh. We as readers–when reading the Hebrew–would see that Saul is not God’s choice of a king over his people but rather reflects the people’s desire to one like the nations to rule over them.

The second point of interest comes from 1 Samuel 10:20-24. Samuel has told Saul that Saul will be Israel’s first king, God has chosen him to defeat the Philistines. Then Samuel gave Saul a series of signs that will demonstrate Yahweh’s choice of Saul as king. So as Saul journeys home, all of the signs come to pass, including Saul prophesying at Gibeah under the direction of the spirit of Yahweh. When Saul finally gets home, he reports why it took him so long to return, but doesn’t tell his family about him being anointed as king over Israel.

Samuel calls all of Israel together at Mizpah to anoint and appoint Saul as their king before the whole nation. So Samuel, by way of lots, singles out the tribe of Benjamin, then the clan of Matri, then the house of Kish, and then calls for Saul. But Saul is nowhere to be found. So God tells Samuel that Saul is hiding amongst the “equipment” (NET) or “baggage” (ESV).

What I find so interesting is that Saul hides. My question is why hide in that moment? I don’t get the sense from the narrative to this point that Saul is just so humble that he doesn’t want the attention and humbly accepts the role of king. It seems that he’s scared for some reason. I want to know what his emotional state was at that moment, knowing that he is going to be king, and hears the call coming and decides to hide. And if it was fear that drove him, why was he scared? I’m no psychologist so I don’t know how to break down a person’s psychological makeup. But I want to know here.

I have to admit, that if Saul is hiding because he is afraid of the role he is about to take and the responsibility it carries, I find a little bit of Saul in myself. I don’t know why, but whenever I face tough decisions in life, my initial response is to hide from them. It could even be said to hide with the “baggage” of my books, friends, family, video games. I hide too. And as such, reading this story I am reminded that I am not the right person to rule over God’s people. I am a coward.

But God has not chosen me to be Israel’s king. He has his king, David. No a king even greater than David. He has carried me through death and into new life. He has given me the Spirit of Yahweh to create in me obedience to him. So that when those fears come, I can fight them. I am free from having to try to be king, I serve the King. I obey his will and so there is no fear because the decision is made for me. I only have to follow what the King directs.

Writing Scripture out

Thoughts on the Endings of Kings and Chronicles

Blessing and Psalm 72

Joel Willitts at Euangelion just finished a seven part review of R.T. Frances Matthew commentary in the New International Commentary on the New Testament (NICNT) series. I found some of the interactions from Willitts to be very helpful and informative in how to read Matthew. I hadn’t really considered reading that gospel in such a blatantly obvious way before. Shame on me I have to say. I feel like a dunce after reading Willitts review (yes that’s right, I said dunce).

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7

Martin Luther and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Quick Links

Movie Script Review of Green Lantern

This is my final post on Greg Boyd’s response to the Reformed reading of Romans 9, which sees God determining who will receive mercy and who will be hardened so that those who receive mercy from God will be part of those whom Jesus will vindicate at the eschatological judgment. In this post I will take up Boyd’s sixth argument and his concluding paragraphs. Read more

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5

Objections to Calvinism Part 7 of 5

My Comfort in Romans 9

It’s been a while since I have blogged, let alone about Greg Boyd’s arguments against the deterministic reading of Romans 9. But I return to this since Reformed theology is heavily on my mind today. In this post I will examine Boyd’s fifth argument against he deterministic reading, namely that the clay determines how the potter will fashion it.

Fifth, if read in the light of its Old Testament background, Paul’s analogy of a potter working with clay doesn’t imply that the potter unilaterally decides everything, as the deterministic interpretation of Romans 9 suggests. Indeed, in the Old Testament passage that makes the most use of the potter-clay analogy, it has the exact opposite meaning.

Read more

Objections to Calvinism Part 1 of 5

Objections to Calvinism Part 7 of 5

My Comfort in Romans 9

I was supposed to preach this in KC next weekend but scheduling is going to not allow that to happen. I’m sad that I won’t get to see the youth like I wanted to but you take what you can. I haven’t blogged in a very long time so enjoy.

Text: Mark 5:1-20 (all texts not marked NET are author’s own translation) Read more

“Son of Man” and Jesus

What can I say?

Prayer for a new church

In Genesis 1, Elohim gave humanity in Adam the responsibility to subdue the earth and to take dominion over it, filling it with the image of Elohim through procreation. Humanity’s great position in the universe is to reign as Yahweh’s vice-regents and to represent his presence upon the earth. However as we look around the world around us, we can clearly see something happened because the image of God, humanity, is busy rejecting the very God who created them to rule and have dominion over the earth. The created order is at war with the imago dei with violent storms and earthquakes and the animal kingdom fixed an a circle that is deadly to humans. Humanity itself is so concerned with itself that it will kill itself. The question is, what happened?

Genesis 3 is where the answer to this question lies. It is here that humanity will find out why the world around them is so broken, ravaged by disease and death. Read more

Imagio Dei

An Informative Review

“In his image” and Aramaisms