Reading in Genesis This Week (1-11)

Over the next two years, as I read through the Old Testament, I plan to do it with accompanied by commentaries from several different perspectives and traditions. I am starting in Genesis (I will follow the Hebrew Bible’s order) and will begin with Walter Brueggemann’s, Genesis, Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. I am already finding that what he is saying as he exposits Genesis is challenging me to a deeper faith and more radical allegiance to God and His promises and I hope it will do the same for you. I am posting quotes from the book on my Facebook page on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday (NT is Mon-Wed-Fri) and we can discuss comments and questions about the passage there.

Brueggemann's approach in this commentary is homiletical; he is concerned with how to preach and teach the text. While he will deal with critical and hermeneutical issues, he does it to bring out the message of the canonical text we have. He sees the text as Israel's theological statement. I would agree with him that the text of the early chapters of Genesis is neither bare history nor myth (though I would see a lot more history in the text than he does). It is more a theological statement about who God is and how he relates to His creation stated in terms that the people of the ancient world would understand. The focus of the first section (1.1-2.4) of Genesis is God's love and care for his wonderful creation. God creates a world, and especially people in that world, who reflect his image as creator by themselves creating. God is in charge of this world that is brimming with life.

God does not create in the sense of a manufacturer. He does not “make” so that an object is simply “there.” Rather, he creates by speaking in ways that finally will be heard. His word has the authority of suffering compassion. The creation, then, is not an object built by a carpenter. It is a vulnerable partner whose life is impacted by the voice of one who cares in tender but firm ways. Genesis 1, 18

Israel is concerned with God’s lordly intent, not his technique. Conversely, the text does not present us with what has always been and will always be: an unchanging structure of world. Rather, the text proclaims a newness which places the world in a situation which did not previously exist. Genesis 1.1-2.4, 26

The creator is “humanized” as the one who cares in costly ways for the world. The creature is seen as the one who is entrusted with power and authority to rule. The text is revolutionary. It presents an inverted view of God, not as the one who reigns by fiat and remoteness, but as the one who governs by gracious self-giving. Genesis 1:26–29, 33

The idea of the “image of God” in Gen. 1:26–29 and in Jesus of Nazareth is not an idea which lives in a cosmological vacuum. It is an explicit call to form a new kind of human community in which the members, after the manner of the gracious God, are attentive in calling each other to full being in fellowship. Genesis 1:26–29, 34–35

The second section deals mainly with how to live in a world of death and anxiety that does not measure up to God's intent of an orderly, beautiful, productive world. Human beings tend to "grasp" for knowledge and power that will allow them to dominate others instead of serve them. This way always leads to death, though it appears seductively attractive. The way to life is not through self-grasping but through trust in God and staying within the boundaries he has established for his creation. Life is found within relationship with God and with each other.

Like the people in this narrative, our concern is not finally the danger of sex, the origin of evil, the appearance of death, or the power of the fall. It is, rather, the summons of this calling God for us to be his creatures, to live in his world on his terms...Our text leaves us with the hope that the creator is at work renewing every day. The text requires us to ask about the reality of God and his resolve for life in a world on its way to death. Genesis 2.4-3.24, 44

The serpent is the first in the Bible to seem knowing and critical about God and to practice theology in the place of obedience. Genesis 2.4-3.24, 48

Our mistake is to pursue autonomous freedom. Freedom which does not discern the boundaries of human life leaves us anxious. The attempts to resolve anxiety in our culture are largely psychological, economic, cosmetic. They are bound to fail because they do not approach the causes. Our public life is largely premised on an exploitation of our common anxiety. Genesis 2.4-3.24, 54

This evil grasping for one's self works itself out into chaos and death. And yet even in the midst of that God continues to offer grace even to the murderer, Cain, and finds a way to continue offering grace and gospel to the world through men like Enoch and Noah. God provides common grace as people, even the selfish ones, create societies that provide wealth and even music.

Biblical faith is clear: Violation of the brother is a deathly act. Yet, God’s will for life is at work with the one under death sentence. By verse 11, Cain is a dead man. The protective mark of verse 15 is less than resurrection for this dead man. But it is an anticipation of resurrection. It announces that God has not lost interest in the murderer nor given up on him. Genesis 4.1-16, 63

This chapter provides links between the hopes of creation and the reality of human sin. Noah holds promise of a new beginning in which the hopes of creation are not qualified by the realities of human choice. The words of Lamech are good news, daring to hope for a break in the sequence. That break comes, by the power of God, in human form. Genesis 5, 70

The narrative must not be pressed too far because we do not understand it. But it seems to assert that in heaven and on earth, in good order and in disorder, God still is the only giver of life. He gives life to all his creatures. Only by his gift do they live. No attempted usurpation changes that. Genesis 6.1-4, 72–73

However, there comes a point where God is so grieved because the creation has veered away so far from His purpose that He must take radical action to destroy it and start over. But even here God is gracious to provide hope for the future. The narrative turns as God "remembers" Noah and provides for the human race and creation to continue. Humanity has not changed in their rebellious attitudes but God has a plan to redeem.

With amazing boldness the narrative invites the listening community to penetrate into the heart of God (vv. 6–7). What we find there is not an angry tyrant, but a troubled parent who grieves over the alienation. Genesis 6.5-17, 77

Humankind is hopeless. Creation has not changed. It is deeply set against God’s purposes. The imagination of the heart first recognized as evil in 6:5 is still imagination of the heart which is evil in 8:21. All the terror of the waters has not changed that. Hope for the future is not premised on possibility thinking or human actualization. Hope will depend on a move from God. Genesis 8, 80–81

The covenant with Noah shows that, though the flood make it appear that God does not care for human life, God places high value on it and continues his desire to serve his creation through the human beings he has made. Chapters 9-11 provide the end of the introduction to the story of Israel and place it among the nations. Brueggemann points out that Israel was not one of the ancient nations and is a special, later, creation of God through which he will accomplish his creation purpose among the nations. Israel is chosen, basically without qualifications, to show what God could do with people who trust and obey him.

God unqualifiedly aligns himself with every human person as of ultimate value to him (cf. Matt. 6:32). The heavenly father is faithful. The ultimate valuing of every human person is echoed in the statement of Jesus, “Even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows” (Luke 12:7)...God makes an irreversible commitment that the post-flood, post-chaos situation is decisively different. In extraordinary resolve, God now says, “never again” (v. 11). What has changed is not anything about humankind or creation or waters or floods. What has changed is God. God has made a decision about the grief and trouble of his own heart. Genesis 9, 83

Chaos is not the last word. The last word is retained by the One who stands outside of and presides over the flood. Genesis 6-9, 88

The “map” offers an unparalleled ecumenical vision of human reality. In a sweeping scope, the text insists that there is a network of interrelatedness among all peoples. They belong to each other. As ecumenists are fond of saying, we have to do not with a unity to be achieved, but with a unity already given among us...The ecumenical and political reality of this text affirms that all nations derive their historical existence from the lifegiving power of God and are called to be responsive to him. Genesis 10, 93

With Israel as its goal, this genealogy affirms that creation cannot be understood in the Old Testament as an act that stands unto itself. It is always an expectation, awaiting the appearance of the full, faithful creation of God (1 John 3:2). The call to and existence of Israel keeps creation from having notions of autonomy and from being understood either mythologically, naturalistically, or scientifically. Genesis 11.10-29, 95

The section ends with the nations scattered and in rebellion, but there is hope as God begins his work with the people who will become the nation of Israel. God is about to reach out to the world to fill it with his creation purpose to fill, rule and bless the world through an old man and a barren woman.

Our Genesis text ends with a scattering. There is not listening. But there is a populating of the earth, as God willed from the beginning (1:28). And then there is a waiting—a waiting for a new word, a new call which will evoke a new community. The whole creation waits to see if Abraham will listen and trust, if Sarah (cf. 11:30) will laugh, if Isaac will be born. Genesis 11, 104

Stuff We Do on Labor Day Weekend

Happy Labor Day! We have enjoyed a busy Labor Day weekend. It began with a basketball game and it will end tonight (Monday) with a basketball game. The PIU team was happy to get our first win on Saturday morning and we will see if we can do it again tonight. The weekend also included spending time with the grandkids on Saturday afternoon which, of course, included ice cream, cartoons and some wild games in the backyard. (see video). Sunday I was invited to deliver the opening prayer for the governor’s annual labor day barbecue. That was fun. I got to meet and talk with several people in the government including the governor of Guam and Saipan. As soon as I get the pictures of that sent to me I will post them. Joyce was one of the judges for the decorating contest. Joyce then ended the day by giving the Heimbach’s a tour of the South end of Guam. It was a busy day but I did manage to work in a little college football on television.

Joyce worked on repairing and repainting and dresser for the new baby

The kids got to spend some time in the water

Some of the displays were amazing. I know Joyce and the other judges (bottom right) had a hard time picking a winner. Dept. of Corrections won with their map of Guam and feast all made from natural materials

The kids enjoyed the displays too

There was plenty to eat. We wrapped several plates to take home

Joyce gave the Heimbachs the island tour.

Ok I seem to have an issue posting my videos on my blog now. Here is the address on Youtube if you want to see the kids and Joyce playing on the hammock in the backyard: sheesh!!!  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zolm0EnNlHo

Sunday Reading, Salvation and Sovereignty by Kenneth Keathley

For my Sunday reading this week I am reading in a different area than I normally do – systematic theology. The book is Salvation and Sovereignty, by Ken Keathley, a faculty member at Southeastern Seminary. I met Ken last year at the Gospel Days celebration in Palau and then spent some time with him in North Carolina at the seminary last Fall. Our new student development staff, Jonathan and Nikki Heimbach, are from Southeastern, so there are other connections as well. Ken and I had a few theological discussions over several days and he introduced me to his Molinist view of the interaction between God’s sovereignty and human choice in salvation. I do think there is a need for a mediating view in this controversy. I appreciate Ken’s spirit in the book as he seeks a better understanding of God’s word and brotherly connection with those who disagree. I wish all theological discussions were so irenic. As an Old Testament exegete I am not so convinced of meticulous sovereignty and I am looking forward to reading what Ken has to say about it. You can join the discussion on my Facebook page. Today I am reading the introduction to the book.

Basically Molinism attempts to reconcile God’s meticulous sovereignty (the idea that everything that happens is caused/willed by God) with the idea that human beings make free choices for which they are responsible. It is called Molinism after its first proponent Luis Molina a 16th century Jesuit priest. Basically he is proposing a “middle way” between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Simply put, Molinism argues that God perfectly accomplishes His will in free creatures through the use of His omniscience. It reconciles two crucial biblical truths: (1) God exercises sovereign control over all His creation, and (2) human beings make free choices and decisions for which they must give account. 3-4

Ken is going to argue against TULIP, the 5 tenets of Calvinism, by denying the L and the I, limited atonement and irresistible grace and redefining total depravity, unconditional election and perseverance of the saints. He proposes the ROSES acronym of radical depravity, overcoming grace, sovereign election, eternal life and singular redemption. Subsequent chapters of the book will explain and argue for each of these points. I am looking forward to reading his discussion about how meticulous sovereignty can be reconciled with God’s loving character.

The Molinist model is the only game in town for anyone who wishes to affirm a high view of God’s sovereignty while holding to a genuine definition of human choice, freedom, and responsibility. 5

The attractiveness of Molinism is that it presents a logically coherent view of providence, which holds that God is meticulously sovereign, while at the same time humans are genuinely free. 8

I appreciate that Ken recognizes that nobody has the final answer to the “mystery of salvation.” Part of the reason that we have these controversies is that the Bible does not explain these things in the way we would like. God gets to propose the questions the Bible answers, not us. Nevertheless, it is a good thing to have this conversation in order to sharpen our understanding of God’s word. If we love each other like brothers we can disagree in a way that allows all of us to grow. So, again I am looking forward to working my way through this book and invite you to join me.

The goal is not to explain that which God has left unrevealed, but to demonstrate that it is not irrational to believe in the simultaneous existence of the sovereign God of the Bible and creatures endowed with genuine, responsible freedom. 12

New Testament Reading For 2015-16

Some of you may know that I try to read through the New Testament each year accompanied by a corresponding commentary set or theology. My goal in this is to think through my own reading and the implications of it for me and my ministry at PIU and to the churches of Micronesia, but it is also to make these books accessible to my students, alumni and to the people in churches in the region. Of course, the big purpose is always to get people to read more books that will help them draw closer to Christ and think more “Christianly.” This year (I am a teacher so my “year” goes from September 1 to August 31) my New Testament reading will be Paul and the Faithfulness of God, vol. 4, Christian Origins and the Question of God, by N. T. Wright. I have been wanting to read this for some time but it is a mammoth book so perhaps taking it in small bites throughout a year is a good way to do it. I will post quotes from the book on my Facebook page 3 times a week, on Mon-Wed-Fri, and about once a week or so I will sum up my thoughts about it on this blog.  I welcome comments and discussion on my Facebook page. By the way I am using the Logos version of the book.

This week I have been reading the preface of the book. Wright sums up the thesis of the book there this way:

Paul developed something we can appropriately call his ‘theology’, a radical mutation in the core beliefs of his Jewish world, because only so could he sustain what we can appropriately call the ‘worldview’ which he held himself and which he longed for his churches to hold as well. Other worldviews have their sustaining and shaping practices, but for Paul these markers (circumcision, the food laws, and so on) had been set aside as inappropriate for the new messianic day, for the new messianic people. Only a robust reappropriation of the Jewish beliefs—monotheism, election and eschatology, all rethought around the Messiah and the spirit—would do. xvi

Wright sees Paul very much as a person of his social context who is influenced by the Jewish, Roman and Greek worlds in which he lived. Wright very much wants to understand Paul in terms of these influences and to the issues Paul was addressing in the 1st century churches to whom he wrote…

C. S. Lewis, speaking of what he had learned from literary historians, described the effect for which I am striving. Such writers have helped me, he says, by placing works in their proper setting, "thus showing me what demands they were meant to satisfy, what furniture they presupposed in the minds of their readers. They have headed me off from false approaches, taught me what to look for, enabled me in some degree to put myself into the frame of mind of those to whom they were addressed." xv

I have read several of Wright’s books including the first three volumes of the series, of which this book is the 4th, and I know that they have generated some controversy. When I look at the discussions, and I have read many of the prominent anti-Wright books, I would say that the difference is more emphasis than substance. I don’t see him denying the atonement, changing the doctrine of justification etc. I would see him emphasizing a different aspect of Paul’s theology as he describes here…

God’s solution to the plight of the world begins with the call of Abraham. Nor does this mean that ‘the people of God’ are defined, smugly as it were, simply as the beneficiaries of salvation. The point of the Jewish vocation as Paul understood it was that they were to be the bearers of salvation to the rest of the world. That, in turn, lies at the heart of his own vocation, issuing in his own characteristic praxis. xvi–xvii

He addresses those who say that he forces the data into his presupposed hypotheses…

Everyone comes to the text with pictures and controlling stories—and indeed with philosophical, theological, cultural, social and political assumptions and presuppositions. The question is whether these are laid out for discussion, and whether the subject-matter under investigation is given the chance as it were to object or answer back. xviii

I hope we do let the text answer back to us and enjoy some discussion on this book as I move through it.

Prayer Chapel at PIU

Here at PIU we began the month of September with prayer. Yesterday we had our first prayer chapel of the semester. The worship team led us in music and in praying through the Lord’s Prayer during our one hour chapel time. I especially enjoyed sitting in a group with three students and praying for them and their families and having them praying for me and for my family. I love working in a place where we take an hour twice a week to focus on worship and prayer. Just one of the many reasons that PIU is a great place to work. We appreciate your prayers for PIU as well.

PIU Basketball

With the start of the Fall semester we also start basketball season for our PIU team. We are playing in the Guam church basketball league. We have started the season 0-2 but we are enjoying the time. This week we have a couple games to look forward to. I am coaching the team right now and enjoying it very much. It gives me some good time to get to know the students and I have a good time being back on the coaching bench after about 10 years away from it. I originally came out to Micronesia as a high school teacher and basketball coach at Emmaus High School in Palau in 1984. Here are a few pictures of last Saturday’s game. Joyce and I took some of the pictures, but the good ones were taken by Billy Edwin.

Some action shots. The other team was definitely taller than us

I am trying to coach ‘em up

Conclusion to Goldingay’s Theology

Today is my final post on Old Testament Theology, by John Goldingay. We have worked through all three volumes: Israel’s Gospel, Israel’s Faith and Israel’s Life. Though I don’t always agree with all his conclusions, I have enjoyed very much working through these volumes. What I most appreciate about Goldingay is that he seems to let the text set the direction of his thinking rather than trying to fit the text into his theology. I also appreciate the humility in his conclusions highlighted by the frequent use of the word “perhaps” to introduce them. Thinking through the Old Testament with him  has been a good growth experience for me in both my personal theology and Christian faith and walk. I hope you have been blessed too. Next year I will be working through various and different Old Testament commentaries and a New Testament theology.

Goldingay sees the Old Testament as a story that reveals who God is, and who humanity (through the representation of Israel) is in response. Its gospel is the story that provides the framework for self and God-understanding. Placing it in narrative form “provides it with a way of discussing tricky theological questions.” Israel’s faith deals with how the natures of Yhwh, Israel, the world and all humanity fit together. Israel’s life is how about how this is lived out in practice, pattern and performance. Goldingay then discusses several New Testament passages that discuss the nature of the Old Testament.

2 Timothy 3.16-17 says that the OT is Useful for Teaching. Though this statement is true for the entire Bible, its original context was directed at the OT. The New Testament was never designed to be complete in itself and, in fact, I would say that the NT cannot be fully or sufficiently understood without the background and context of the OT. Many issues are dealt with in the OT and don’t need to be touched in the NT. The disciples and Jesus assume a knowledge of the OT when they teach. To not understand the OT is to not understand the NT.

From the beginning the New Testament was designed to be a supplement to the First Testament that took the First Testament for granted. It was not designed to be a balanced account of the Christian faith. So the perspective of the New Testament in isolation from the First Testament is bound to be skewed. And this is reflected in the skewed nature of Christians' usual perspective on Christian faith, based as it is merely on a reading of the New Testament, and a selective one at that. (2 Timothy 3.16-17), 833

Hebrews 1.1 says that God spoke in the OT In Many Ways but in Jesus Through a Son. The point is not so much that Jesus provided new revelation but that he fully embodied in human form everything that God is and that God had revealed about Himself in the Old Testament. The purpose of the OT is not to just give us a bare history, but it is theological; to reveal God in the events of that day, the ways people thought about those events and responded to those events.

But, (Hebrews implies) the content of what God said through the prophets and through Christ is the same. There is consistency between God's speaking in the Scriptures, though there is also sequence and story. 834

Romans 4.3, 22-23 tells us that the OT was Written For Us. It was not written to us. It was written to people of a different language, culture and time and we have to interpret and apply it to our time accordingly. However, this does not mean we need “update” its truths to our time. We need to understand our personal story/self assessment/worldview according to the story of God that it tells, not the other way around. The big revelation of the OT is that life is about God, not about us.

The irony is that many evangelicals have come unconsciously to share in modernity's assumptions about the relationship of Scripture's story and our story. Whereas once the principle was to understand our story in light of the scriptural story, now that order is reversed. Whereas once the principle was that the scriptural story is true and my experience needs to be interpreted in its light, now the principle is that my experience is true and the scriptural story needs to be interpreted (which often means "evaluated") in its light. 835

Key to the achievement of God's purpose in the world is acts God undertook once and for all. That is integral to the notion of Christian faith being a gospel, a piece of news about something God has done. 836

Matthew 5.17 says that Jesus has come as the culminating revelation of God Not To Abolish, But To Fulfill. “when Jesus fulfills prophecies, commonly he does not merely do what the prophet encouraged people to expect; he “fills” the prophecies, fills them up, or fills them out, overfills them.” Jesus provides the example in the flesh and empowers through the Spirit of what the gospel community should look like. Israel’s commission in the OT was expanded to the whole world by Jesus, as God always intended.

God was realistic about the fact that the people of God remained one characterized by hardness of heart, by stubborn attitudes, by closed minds, and made allowance for that, but God also held a vision before it and sought to win it to commitment, with the prospect of the blessing that would issue from following God. It was designed to be an alternative community. In practice the church is often simply an alternative version of the same old godless community, an embodiment of that community with nominal reference to God tagged on. 838

Finally Ephesians 5.18-20 command us Be Filled With the Spirit. The Old Testament gives us a tremendous amount of guidance as to what this looks like, but it is largely ignored by the church. The OT shows us how to live in the world and enjoy God’s creation, while at the same time being that alternative gospel community through whom the Spirit convicts of sin and draws people to the love of Christ. It has a lot to sat about how to look like Jesus.

In the twenty-first century, what might be the structure of a life shaped by the First Testament? Here is a Decalogue. You can choose which you obey. But do some of them.

• Praise God at dusk and at dawn.
• Relax and sleep for the time in between.
• Grow things to eat.
• Tithe what you grow.
• Keep out of department stores and shopping malls (beware the Internet too).
• On Thursdays pray laments for people who are suffering.
• On Fridays think about the fact that you are going to die.
• On Saturdays, have a day's rest (you can tend your garden if it's not your regular work).
• On Sundays, talk with your friends or family about scripture.
• Three times a year, hold a week-long holiday with your friends or family, and celebrate what God has done for us in nature and in delivering us. 839