:: in.a.mirror.dimly ::

While the Old Testament is essential for understanding the New Testament, roughly four-hundred years transpired after the last Old Testament book was written. New interpretations of the Old Testament emerged in between the testaments, the Intertestamental period, due to religious, political, and socio-economic events.

Israel began this period under Medo-Persian rule. Then the Greeks took over before a Jewish Dynasty revolted and took control. After a brief time of Jewish rule, the Romans, those mentioned in the New Testament, conspired to take over.

During these tumultuous years Jewish writers penned a series of books known as Intertestamental literature. Some of these books developed a strong sense of the apocalyptic—anticipating the immanent return of God to save his people and to punish evil-doers. In fact, the book of Revelation in the NT is a Christian version of Jewish apocalyptic, which is something quite different than a chronicle of events that would happen in the future.

Messianic movements rose up from the fertile ground of apocalyptic literature and various Jewish sects emerged with different applications of the Old Testament to their situations. Many scholars today view Jesus as a prophet in the apocalyptic tradition.

In order to better understand how people responded to Jesus, we need a clear picture of not only the Old Testament but also how his contemporaries read, interpreted, and applied it to their times. John the Baptist, Herod, The Pharisees, the crowds, and the disciples come to life when we read about Jesus with an awareness of his setting, the expectations of his audience, and the tumultuous period leading up to his ministry.

Suggestions for Historical Background Research

• Your best sources will be Bible Dictionaries and commentaries. Some basic Bible dictionaries are fairly inexpensive to purchase in sets of two or four if you wait for the right sale at Christian Book Distributors, though many churches should have some basic dictionaries on hand in a library. My favorite is the InterVarsity press series that’s available on a more affordable CD-ROM. 
• Some local libraries will also carry the works of popular authors such as Dominic Crossan who may not hold to orthodox views of Jesus, but who can flesh out the historical setting quite well in books such as Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts. Libraries may also carry some worn dictionaries or commentaries that may be of use for extracting historical information.
• For those with a little extra time, there is a wealth of information on the Intertestamental period’s literature on the New Testament in Larry Helyer’s book Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period.
• I know you’re thinking it, so I’ll just say it: Wikipedia. Yes, you can learn a ton about the world of Jesus by reading articles on Wikipedia about the various groups, events, and characters that shaped the world of the New Testament. For starters, look up the Hasmonean Dynasty and read about its fall to the Roman dynasty of Herod.

Image credit: Jim Larranaga.

Ouch! Really? Doesn’t the Old Testament have a bunch of laws, poems and prophetic oracles that are tough to understand? Why does New Testament study have to start there?

I know that it can be daunting to begin with the Old Testament, but in order to understand the world of the New Testament, the Old Testament is required reading. In fact, we run the risk of misinterpreting the New Testament without a proper grounding in the Jewish beliefs that shaped Jesus and his contemporaries.

When reading the Old Testament you should pay attention to the larger motifs such as exodus and deliverance, exile and restoration. Take note of locations such as the wilderness, rivers and seas, and mountains—what happens at these locations and why they are significant?

Read the first five books of the Old Testament (The Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) looking for how to relate to God, as well as any mentions of covenants and in particular how to keep or break a covenant. As you move on to the historical books of Joshua through Kings these themes of covenant, righteousness, punishment, and deliverance will come up. The prophets, priests, and kings in these books flesh out what it means to keep or to break a covenant with God and what happens as a result.

These themes will also be significant throughout the prophetic books (both minor and major prophets) with a greater emphasis on judgment and restoration. The poetic and wisdom literature delves into both worship and deeper theological reflection in light of the laws of the Torah and the events recorded in the historical books.

You don’t have to read the whole Old Testament straight through or even necessarily all of it to benefit from it. Provided you at least know something about the first five books, the stories in Samuel and Kings, and a few key prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah you’ll notice quite a few significant points in the New Testament. For example, it will certainly help to read about the prophets Elijah and Elisha in the books of Kings since Jesus is often compared to them.

Unless you understand the laws concerning things such as the Sabbath and skin diseases or the expectations for the Messiah as explained in Isaiah 40-66, the actions and teachings of Jesus will be difficult to understand. Understanding the Old Testament is essential in order to make sense of the New Testament.

Suggestions for Reading the Old Testament

• Pick several translations based on the books you’re reading.
• For tough books such as Leviticus, Numbers, and Chronicles use the New Living Translation (NLT) or The Message because of their emphasis on easy reading.
• For poetry and possibly for the prophets use the New Revised Standard Version for its attention to literary forms.
• For the historical books use literal or mostly literal translations such as the New International Version (NIV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), or the English Standard Version (ESV). The NLT will be adequate as well.
• Read five chapters each day (or five groups of roughly 30 verses). 
• Look up background information for each book in a study Bible, a Bible dictionary, or an online reference site—even Wikipedia is better than nothing. In order to understand what’s actually “in” a biblical book, don’t spend your time on editorial or redactor theories such as JEDP, since they’re highly debated in many circles and will do little to help you with a book’s actual content.
• You can find most translations online at Bible Gateway: www.biblegateway.com or the NET Bible’s translation with excellent footnotes at www.bible.org.

The Bible can be tough to dive into. Where should a student of scripture begin? Most Christians want to understand Jesus and the letters that his followers wrote, but they can be tough to figure out.

When we ask questions such as, “Why did Jesus say that?” or “Why did Paul write this?” we will encounter a great deal of complexity and mystery. If we can’t answer these first questions, then it will be even more difficult to discern what they mean for us today. This application to everyday life is the real pay-off for Christians.

Studying the Bible well takes some time and effort, but just about any Christian can learn how to study it effectively with a little direction. After investing time into the study of scripture you’ll soon find it easier to read. Certain themes and connections will emerge, and you’ll not only arrive at a better understanding, but a better ability to apply it to your life.

Each day next week we’ll take a look at some simple steps toward effective study of the New Testament.

Continuing my meditations on the Gospel of Mark…

Before we begin… This past Monday I opened my meditations document on the Gospel of Mark and found a blank page for Mark 11. Mark 12-16 was all typed out and edited. So I opened my written journal and found two pages of questions related to Mark 11, but I didn’t find any conclusions or thoughts for my meditations.

Mark 11 is a tough passage. I won’t hit everything of significance here, but I think I have a few things to consider based on a few days of struggling with this chapter. On to the meditation:

As Jesus approached Jerusalem with the certainty that death awaited him (Mark 10:33-34), he adopted a symbolic action to declare his role as Messiah while still challenging the expectations of the people without riding in to Jerusalem to take over. He simply borrowed a donkey, rode in to the praises of the people, looked around a bit, and then left.

I wonder how deflated his disciples felt that day?

Whatever their expectations, Jesus took action the next day with real God-given authority by driving out the merchants from the table. While he challenged the authority of the religious leaders, whose authority in this chapter clearly relied on popular support, Jesus didn’t want to take over their roles. He attacked their authority, but refused to worship God on their terms.

Framing this clearing of the temple is a little visual lesson of sorts about prayer involving a fig tree. While the fig tree may also represent the coming fall of Jerusalem about forty years from the time of Jesus, in the immediate context Jesus was also teaching his disciples about prayer.

At a time when Jesus and his disciples waited for the prediction of Jesus’ death to come true, Jesus encouraged them to pray with boldness and to trust that God could answer their prayers. Though Jesus could not find a way to avoid his road to the cross, he still believed completely in the ability of God to answer prayer, and he used the fig tree as an example.

We also see in this passage some hints that Jesus derived his authority from God and may have been rather poor. He had to borrow a donkey for his big entrance and he sought figs from the tree because he was hungry in the morning. Why didn’t his hosts provide breakfast?

This is a bit of speculation here, but for readers in an American context where money equals God’s blessing, Jesus may have entered Jerusalem with hardly anything to his name. However, he still exercised his God-given authority among the religious leaders who had significant resources.

It could very well be the case that Jesus ministered out of poverty, if not a very limited budget. However, he didn’t let his earthly position influence God’s mission. In fact, his lack of earthly qualifications almost seemed to be an asset by the time the religious leaders challenged his authority at the end of the chapter.

Jesus drew his identity, authority, and power from God. His borrowed donkey, humble procession, and empty stomach did not deter him from the work God set for him. His confidence rested solely in the power of God and the possibilities of prayer.

Two years after writing Coffeehouse Theology I can see that I made a few mistakes, but as I read other books on theology and culture, I find that I’m still very satisfied with what I wrote. In fact, for the most part I still agree with myself, if you’ll permit me to speak in such silly terms.

I’d like to reflect a little more about what I wrote two years, and why I still hold to the core issues in my book.

How to Approach Theology and Culture

Much ink has been spilled over the fusing of theology and culture, but I don’t think we can hit either extreme of fusing them together or ignoring culture in favor of scripture alone.

Culture cannot set the terms for how we understand God because that is reserved for God alone through his revelation. However, when we ignore culture we run the real risk of missing the lens of our culture and considering it normative for ourselves, for others, and even for God. In other words, finite humans with limited perspectives think more of their limited views than warranted.

Christians need to maintain a relevant and prophetic tension in relation to culture. We can’t ignore culture, but rather in understanding culture we aim to work within it in relevant ways, much like the writers of the Bible did (but that’s for another post), while maintaining a prophetic stance that is guided ultimately by God.

My Theology Diagram

Each chapter of Coffeehouse Theology is tied in with a diagram of theology and culture that locates all of theology within God’s mission to save us—a mission that has now become our own. That mission sends us into culture, which means that theology serves both our relationship with God and our calling to make him known to others.

What will we make known to others and how will we do it? that’s determined by the leading of God’s Spirit and the revelation of scripture. We also learn from our traditions and Christians both local and global, which brings us to my last point. 

The Sources of Theology

Theology is located in mission and culture, but the sources where we derive our theology include: God as source and guide, scripture as a normative guide, tradition, and Christians both local and global. While God and scripture are at the center of theology, possibly fused together or overlapping a bit, traditions and other believers are not quite as authoritative.

I see our traditions and other Christians providing two key functions. First of all, they help us determine the core of Christianity, what we could call orthodoxy, the rule of faith, mere Christianity, or the essential dogmas. Secondly, they help us overcome the limits of our context by showing how Christians in different contexts read the scripture and are led by the Spirit.

The Feedback I’ve Received

While I think I may have overwhelmed some readers with the breadth of information I cover, I have received plenty of positive notes saying that I helped clarify theology and culture for them, providing a way forward for them. I am absolutely convinced that Christianity can thrive today because our faith has passed through numerous cultures and conflicts and yet God’s Spirit continues to help us meet the challenges of each time and place.

Our hope is ultimately in the power of God and the leading of his Spirit. It has been my prayer throughout that this book would be a blessing to readers, helping them move closer to God.

Continuing my series of meditations on the Gospel of Mark…

The rich man who kneeled before Jesus provides a stark contrast to the ideal children Jesus used as an example of those who eagerly enter the Kingdom. In fact, this man illustrated how those who refused to become like children could easily miss out on the Kingdom.

He displayed a mix of sincerity in his devotion to Jesus and devotion to his possessions—the things that commanded his ultimate allegiance.

Though the disciples had a hard time understanding Jesus or giving up their dreams of power in his Kingdom, they had at least given up their material wealth to follow. The rich man wanted to be validated by Jesus, to find out that he had done things right. He didn’t come to Jesus like an open child, willing to receive whatever Jesus offered or asked him to do. He had a lifestyle or religious observance that he wanted Jesus to stamp with approval rather than challenge.

In his eyes he had kept the commandments and didn’t see what more should be done. Jesus shocked him by challenging him to sell his possessions, to give to the poor, and to follow him. He preferred to keep his current level of religious devotion rather than accepting the challenge given by Jesus.

For all of their failings, the disciples of Jesus learned that they had not only done the right thing in leaving their possessions behind in order to follow Jesus, but they also learned that that their sacrifices would be rewarded with blessings, persecutions, and eternal life. On the face of it, Jesus was asking the prosperous to give up what they had in order to receive both persecutions and life.

There would be a steep cost that came with a high reward. However, in order to come first they had to sacrifice and take last place.

In this passage we see the degrees of devotion in following Jesus. While children are the ideal, the disciples can see that they have part of the Kingdom correct by leaving their former lives behind for the sake of Jesus. The rich man is an example of another step away from the Kingdom since he had many possessions.

At least those without much to their name could hear what Jesus had to say, even if they sometimes sought a higher position and failed to imitate Jesus or come to him as children. Mistaken though they were at times, the disciples had a much easier time of eventually entering the Kingdom as children because of their devotion to Jesus. They didn’t have the same limitations as the rich man.

There is something to be said for leaving behind all that hinders in order to follow and to enter God’s Kingdom. The disciples took yet another step in that direction.

I’m leading a small group study of my book Coffeehouse Theology, and since I wrote the book two years ago I’m reading through a few chapters before leading the discussion each week. While the ideas are quite familiar, there are times when I’m jarred by meeting myself from two years ago.

There are two things I’ve noticed.

1. I’m a bit rough on other perspectives.

No matter how hard my editor tried to tone things down, I still made some strong statements that failed to capture what I really meant to say. In fact, I ended up sounding a bit angry or at least very frustrated at times in my sweeping, unqualified statements about other perspectives.

For example, in the Bible Study Guide, which I’m using for discussion questions in our group, I made a terrible blunder by saying, rather point blank, that the church ruins Easter for me. Ouch! Did I mean that? Well, not quite.

I meant to say that I and other Christians sometimes miss the forest for the trees when we lose sight of the significance of the Resurrection and spend our time on Easter Sunday preaching at the “unsaved Easter people” who show up at church once or twice a year and when we preach the mechanics of salvation, how each piece of redemption fits together. I’d much rather focus on the bigger message of the coming of God’s Kingdom and the significance of the resurrection itself. I meant to say that I made this mistake, but instead I come off as a smug theology student with an axe to grind.

I’m working on getting rid of my axes, but you never know when they may come up again…

2. I Covered Too Much Nonessential Information

I wrote Coffeehouse Theology wanting to not only explain everything behind my method of theology but also to give all the major thinkers I referenced their due—like a good seminary student. While I deleted the section on Nietchze, I can now see that even my pared down chapters on philosophy, theology, and culture were too much in a book that was supposed to make theology accessible.

I probably should have reworked the material to give a basic overview of where I’m coming from and then focused more on how to do theology with more information in an appendix at the end. I clung to so much nonessential information because I feared leaving gaps in the book’s progression. Unfortunately my measures to fill in gaps created some walls in the process.

In summing up…

It’s easy for a writer to forget his tone and to become lost in the importance of his information—thereby including more than is necessary. While I’ve heard from many readers who thought I hit the right balance of information, I think the average Christian reader, my target audience, will feel a bit overwhelmed by what I included. It’s always humbling to encounter yourself from a point in the past, but I’m also encouraged that I’m learning, growing, and hopefully taking steps that will ensure I don’t repeat those same mistakes again.

A few days ago  I read a blog post by someone who had some questions about the nature of the relief work in Haiti. This person asked whether we really are saving these people for a better life, or are we going to save them and then abandon them to die in some other way. And in light of the odds of the survival of some even with our relief work, should we even bother?

That, at least, is my interpretation of what this blogger had to say.

I’m sure you’re feeling a bit of the tension here. Some may wonder, how could someone say that? I was thinking of entering a comment, but as I read the thread of comments that followed the post, something that I didn’t feel l should add to, I learned something very significant about this blogger.

This person has not only struggled with addiction but also with suicide. There have been occasions on which this person thought it would be much better to die. Death didn’t seem all that haunting or terrible. In fact, death is an escape from the pain of this world.

It would have been easy to write this person off as lacking compassion or worse based on the post’s leading question, but once we answer the question, “Why would you say that?” we understand that this question is rising out of some very deep, embedded thinking from this person’s past.

I shudder at both the nature of such thinking and at the possibility that I could have very well begun to challenge this person without a proper understanding of where such thinking is coming from. I could have written off the experiences and challenges that this blogger faces without properly understanding and addressing them.

So I have two thoughts:

For starters, about the relief work, I think we have a lot to learn from the book When Helping Hurts. Relief work isn’t enough. We need to empower people by coming alongside them and helping them invest in their own development. So our work in Haiti isn’t simply a matter of stopping the bleeding and then abandoning. It should be a sustained approach. That’s my new criteria when searching for a worthy organization for my donations.

Secondly, I don’t want to offer pat answers to one person’s deepest pains, but so far as I can tell from scripture, God desires that we experience abundant life now—even the word “eternal” life in the Gospel of John carries this sense of abundant or overflowing in the original Greek. Jesus preached the coming of the Kingdom today, and so living in the Kingdom today is how we begin to move away from the pain of this world.

I can’t speak to this person’s situation exactly, so I don’t want to generalize, but the Good News of Jesus is that sin and death have been defeated and his Resurrection gives us new life. That means we go forward into our world of uncertainty, natural disasters, violence, and greed asking God to bring his Kingdom’s life to both ourselves and to others.

It’s not easy, and I don’t want to trivialize anyone’s experiences. However, speaking in the most general of terms, God desires that we will start living in the freedom of his Kingdom today. I pray that we can leave behind everything that hinders in order to enter that place of rest rather than any other poor substitute. Even if it’s a long, difficult road to freedom, I pray that we will get there.

While driving home from Vermont this past Saturday, I listened to Guy Raz of NPR interview Kathryn Lopez of the National Review. They were discussing this conservative manifesto of sorts called The Mount Vernon Statement, and Raz asked her to define what a conservative is. Have a look at what she said and how Raz responded:

Ms. LOPEZ: A conservative is somebody who respects the Constitution. He wants to support policies that advance freedom. A conservative is someone who believes that we don’t need to reinvent the wheel and that the founding fathers knew what they were talking about. They established a republic based on moral principles, and these are things that we dont want to get away from.

RAZ: I guess what’s not clear to me is what specifically does this document say a conservative is? And if a conservative is simply those things youre saying they are, I dont think I’ve ever met anybody who’s not a conservative.

If you work on the subtle implications of what Ms. Lopez said, you could almost say that those who disagree with her do not respect the Constitution, reinvent the wheel, distrust the founding fathers, and don’t follow moral principles. It’s an implication that Ms. Lopez could deny ever making, but the undertones are coming through loud and clear, as evidenced by Raz’s reply.

Interesting though politics may be, this is a theology blog, so I’d like to use this as an example of what we don’t want to do when discussing theology with others. It’s easy to frame ourselves as heroes, defenders of the truth, seekers of unbiased answers, and members of the true faithful.

While it’s understandable to be partial to one’s religious perspective, we lose our ability to have meaningful dialogue and discussion with those from opposing views when we forget that those who disagree with our perspectives can have just as much integrity and the same commitment to finding the truth. By defending a point of view by saying, “I’m committed to asking honest questions” or “I take the Bible seriously,” we imply that our opponents aren’t committed to asking honest questions or taking the Bible seriously.

What we mean to say is that we have weighed roughly the same evidence and come out with a different conclusion. Perhaps certain parties in our debates over theology have some short-comings in their ability to ask good questions or to give the Bible the serious consideration it is due, but we won’t have many discussions if we begin with accusations.

Whether we debate theology or politics, the core difference often isn’t integrity or honesty. There are good people on both sides believing what they think is best. The core difference is our conclusions, not necessarily the process of arriving at them. When we can see our “opponents” as fellow truth seekers who have arrived at different conclusions, there will be room for honest discussion and greater compassion. Perhaps some minds may even be changed in the process.

Continuing my series of meditations on the Gospel of Mark…

The Pharisees showed up once again to discredit Jesus and his ministry by laying a theological trap concerning the sensitive topic of divorce. They presumably wanted his popularity to take a hit should he respond with too many restrictions or with too few. Asking whether a man could divorce his wife, they had the Old Testament law handed down from Moses to back them up.

Jesus cut through their arguments by pointing them to God’s ideal for marriage as laid out in Genesis where a man and woman become one. The Pharisees had more than an interpretation problem, they had a heart problem that completely missed God’s intentions laid out in scripture. Rather than offering a new spin on the law of Moses, Jesus completely upended it by stating that neither men nor women could divorce one another.

This reading of scripture gave women equal rights with men, while also exposing the hard-hearted reading of scripture championed by the Pharisees. They clung to the regulations but missed the goals of God for marriage. They read scripture to find out the rules of life rather than seeking the heart of God and asking God to shape their lives. Scripture isn’t something to be figured out and then obeyed but rather something to be studied, understood, and then unleashed in our lives through the power of the Holy Spirit.

After this tense confrontation, Jesus surely must have welcomed a chance to be with children who weren’t trying to trap him with theological questions. However, his disciples tried to stop the children. Once again the disciples didn’t want others crossing onto their turf and taking away from their time with the master. While they could tolerate malicious religion scholars, they failed to honor the very people to whom the Kingdom of God belonged.

Jesus rebuked them because they not only kept these children away but also because they had failed to understand his previous teaching about welcoming little children. He once again taught them the importance of children by using them as models for the kind of people who own the Kingdom of God. In fact, unless his disciples gave up their power trip and became like little children they were in danger of missing the Kingdom that they longed for so badly.

This powerful statement of ownership made it clear that those like children belonged in the Kingdom of God. In fact, only those who received the Kingdom in such a way could enter it. Children weren’t trying to take over, to gain control, or to profit from the Kingdom, which stands in contrast to the struggles of the disciples at this point in Mark.

By using the scriptures as a collection of regulations to be employed as a theological trap, the Pharisees were unable to accept the teachings of Jesus. The disciples of Jesus had their own difficulties with control and power when relating to others. Whether guarding theology or a perceived position with Jesus, both groups put themselves at odds with Jesus in this passage.