What was the purpose of the law (Torah)?

I can’t remember how many times where I’ve only heard “the law” spoken of in a negative way. Of course, there was a “hard edge” to the law – the fact that not a single individual Jew could keep the entire law. But, was that expected of every single individual Jew? I haven’t really thought much about this, though I’ve heard many people say it: “The purpose of the law was to show that we couldn’t keep it, and therefore we needed Jesus to keep it for us.” Of course, I’m sure many different people explain this in many different ways. But, that seems to be a basic, “Reformed” viewpoint toward the law. Again, I’m not saying that wasn’t part of the purpose of the law, but was it the main purpose of the law?

Something Wright says here seems to throw a wrench into most of the things I’ve heard about the law:

Torah, of course, included the sacrificial system through which Israelites could atone for their sins, so that one did not need or expect to be always perfect in all respects.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t know that I’ve ever heard someone say, “Jews weren’t expected to be perfect.” At the moment, I can’t think of exactly the foundation upon which the expectation of perfection has been built. But, I’m posting this to ask the question really..

Were Jews expected to be perfect? Or, was the sacrificial system to be seen simply as “making up” for the fact that Jews would sin?

How To Read Genesis by Tremper Longman

At first glance, a title like “How To Read Genesis” seems pretentious. But, I guess it’s not as initially bold as something like “A Book You’ll Actually Read…” To be honest, if I wasn’t already a fan of Tremper Longman’s work, I would never have picked this book up. But, I’ve now read several of his books, and I’ve gleaned insight from him with each of them. This book is no less informative or challenging.

I’ll just point out a few things from the book that I think are especially important:

He briefly touches on history as interpreted, which flies in the face of a lot of assumptions about history (and specifically the Bible). He says that “it is impossible for a human being to present the past as a mere collection of uninterpreted facts.” All history is interpreted history. Each author is selective about what he sees as the most relevant information to be communicated. This doesn’t in any way take away from the divine nature of the Scriptures, but, in my opinion, enhances it. God didn’t drop completely objective (a-cultural) information out of the sky. In the simplest sense, the text was written in human languages. We need to know as much about the human element of the text as we do the divine intent (This, of course, is a highly debated point, but if pushed too far in the other direction we end making ourselves the ultimate autonomous “knower”).

Another important point is that “the concern of the text is not to prove the history but rather to impress the reader with the theological significance of these acts.” This doesn’t detract from the historical nature of the text, but rather clearly defines the intent. The core reason that some don’t believe that the Bible is “true” is not because they haven’t clearly examined the “evidence” using the scientific method, but rather because they’ve refused to acknowledge God as the true Lord of the world, and have replaced Him with other “gods.”

Regarding Genesis 1-2, Longman says that “the biblical account of creation was not written to counter Charles Darwin or Stephen Hawking, but it was written in the light of rival descriptions of creation.” Too often, we ignore the literary nature and context of Scripture and impose our own worldview onto it. He goes on: “since God’s people were constantly tempted to worship the deities of other nations, we shouldn’t be surprised that the biblical accounts of creation were shaped in such a way as to provide a clear distinction from those of other nations.” Several years ago a statement like this would have scared me. I assumed that for something to be “divinely inspired” that it had to be completely “original.” But, I now see that the reading of Scripture is actually enhanced when compared with other ancient documents. Longman does a great job introducing us to this topic. Of course, one tendency is to read these other documents as some kind of “proof” that the biblical accounts are borrowed. I think we err if we either ignore the extrabiblical material or if we put too much emphasis on it. Any good author uses the language and culture of his time to clearly communicate with his audience. This seems pretty simple, but for some reason has completely polarized many in the American church.

The second half of the book is Longman’s attempt at a brief summary of the major points in the Genesis narrative. He brings quite a few interesting observations that I will definitely be interposing into some of my teaching in the near future.

The very last section, “Reading Genesis as Christians,” was almost brief enough to not have said anything at all. He mainly only introduces the idea of reading the book in light of the fuller revelation of Jesus as opposed to reading it solely on its own (or only as a Jewish document). Much more could have been said about this, but this is only an introductory (invitational) book to dig deeper. He provides some recommendations for commentaries in an appendix.

I would definitely recommend chapters 1-6 to anyone who is interested in the study of Genesis (or the Old Testament in general). Those of us who grew up in a tradition that labeled heretical anyone who didn’t believe in a literal 6-day creation or a global flood would find some great introductory remarks here. Of course, to go any further one would need to get a (good) commentary.

Judges and Justice

Chris Wright, in his commentary on Deuteronomy, explains that the duty of Israel’s judges was to “administer the law of God” (16:18-17:13). He references Job (ch.29) as an “elder-judge” in his defense, to which some interesting things must be pointed out:

• Job was respected by the old and young (v.7-11);
• He “saved” the poor and the fatherless (v.12);
• He blessed the perishing, and delighted the widow (v.13);
• He “wore” righteousness and justice (v.14);
• He was eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, father to the needy (v.15-16); and
• He stopped injustice (v.17).

The judges were, in a sense, the “secular” authority established in Israel to ensure justice was done. But, what I think is interesting are the self-descriptions of Job, implying the kind of character that even a secular judge was expected to live out.

However, like all fair descriptions of the story of Israel, Wright concludes his commentary on this section: “Sadly, the history of the nation tells us that many prophetic words of condemnation were brought against the judges themselves, for their contempt of the Torah of God and their corruption of justice.”

Reflections on Ezekiel 3:4-7

And he said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with my words to them. For you are not sent to a people of foreign speech and a hard language, but to the house of Israel— not to many peoples of foreign speech and a hard language, whose words you cannot understand. Surely, if I sent you to such, they would listen to you. But the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, for they are not willing to listen to me: because all the house of Israel have a hard forehead and a stubborn heart.”

This section of this chapter stands out to me in relation to the concept of “foreign missions.” I still vacillate in my thoughts of what the church’s global responsibility actually looks like (the fact of our responsibility is not in question, but rather the actual practice of it). But, what specifically resonates with me is the idea that Ezekiel was sent by God to God’s own people to speak His words to them. Ezekiel was himself a member of the covenant people of God, so his mission was not to a foreign land. As Chris Wright points out, “it would have been easier for Ezekiel to be a cross-cultural missionary than a prophet to his own people.”  Wright goes on, “It is still tragically true that in some parts of the world the challenge of God’s Word receives a better hearing among those who have never heard it before than among established churches who have grown hard and deaf in their resistance to the movements of God’s Spirit.” I think that today, especially in the Bible belt, what Matt Chandler says so often is true, that for the most part people have been inoculated to the gospel. They have heard so much about Jesus but do not really know Him at all.

This reality means that if we’re going to stay where we’ve been sent, then we’re responsible to deconstruct a lot of the myths about Jesus that don’t come from the Scriptures. If you’ve ever had a conversation with someone who doesn’t claim to follow Jesus about Him you’ve most likely been in this situation – where you’re asking the person what they think you mean by a certain word or idea, and what they think is actually not true, but rather some distortion of the truth. It’s definitely easier to just try to ignore the lies and go on with our comfortable Christian lives. Honestly, if we don’t know the difference between the truth and a lie anyway, and can’t articulate that difference, then why should we try? This, I believe, is a huge problem today.

I really think this is actually the fuel that drives a lot of people to want to leave our country and go to another to preach the gospel. What I’ve seen, more often than not, are those who have a deep passion for this, but while here they don’t believe they have a mission at all. In many ways, it’s a lot easier to love a person who you don’t really understand and don’t feel required to develop a long-term relationship with. Incarnating into a specific place takes a lot of hard work. But, I think it’s highly ironic that other countries are now sending missionaries over here – despite the predominant conservative myth that we live in a “Christian nation.” If this is the height of what a government run by Christian principles is supposed to look like, then I’m the last person who wants to be part of anything called a Christian nation.

I’ll conclude with another thought from Chris Wright: “The warning of Jesus still confronts our complacency and our privileged theology with the disturbing thought that there will be some who have never heard the gospel of the works of Jesus at all, but who will fare better in the final judgment than some who have heard but have refused to respond with faith and obedience.” God’s judgment always begins with those who claim to be His people.

With great privilege comes great responsibility.

Reflections on Ezekiel 1:26-28

Ezekiel is one of those books that just doesn’t sound too exciting. You don’t generally hear preachers quoting it, and you won’t find many t-shirts with memory verses from it. It was written in a very different culture and time than our own, so even approaching a book like this seems like a daunting and useless task. Who is this crazy guy? What does it mean? I’ve just begun my trek into this book, and I’m already seeing a lot that I think I’ve been missing out on by my own refusal to tread into mostly unknown territory.

What stands out most from chapter 1 is God’s glory. Ezekiel’s sees a vision of “the likeness of the glory of the Lord” (1:28). As Chris Wright explains, “The word essentially has to do with weight or substance. It portrays the sense of God’s majestic reality, the overwhelming power of his presence, the weight of His eternal Being.” What makes this vision so interesting is that it uses the language of “image” or “likeness” similar to that used in God’s creation of humanity in His image – to be His representatives on earth. This vision, therefore, is an anticipation of the incarnation of Yahweh. There is a lot of the same language used in Revelation 4, so obviously John was drawing upon this vision for His own vision of the throne.

A main question we must ask, then, is what is Ezekiel’s response to this glimpse of the glory of God? As in other places, Ezekiel says he fell on his face. This is not the god that most of us have created as a means to some futile end. This is not the god that is our buddy or our therapist. This is the infinite, sovereign, holy, transcendent God that is not to be trifled with. When we are in His presence, the only proper response is humility.

But, we also see that the God who is transcendent is also the God who is imminent. At this point in Israel’s history, God’s people had been exiled from their land and were now under the oppression of a pagan empire. It seemed that God was distant, silent, apathetic. This is the same picture of God we get from Qohelet in the book of Ecclesiastes. God doesn’t care, and He’s not fulfilling His promises. But, in a great reversal of their frustration and bitterness, God appears in the midst of their exile. God cannot be constrained by a temple or a plot of land (Acts 17:24). God is here.

I think most often our own experience of God is similar. We either don’t “feel” like He is present, or we live as if He doesn’t exist – we’re practical atheists. But, I think we can get some comfort from this preliminary vision. God doesn’t fit into the boxes we create for Him, and He doesn’t work in our schedule. God is holy, and God is here. If God were simply whatever we made Him out to be, He wouldn’t be a trustworthy God at all. He would simply be a reflection of our own sinful selves. If God’s actions were completely dependent upon our wishes, then He would simply be an actor rather than the divine playwright. That’s no God that I want to be in control of the universe.

Though, as we will soon see, God’s appearance to Israel through Ezekiel is not primarily to comfort or console, but rather to judge.

Ecclesiastes – An Alternate View

A few days ago I wrote an introduction to the book of Ecclesiastes, as we’re preparing to jump into this book. I proposed some things which I truly believe make the most exegetical sense of the book, rather than having to import a lot of stuff from outside the text to make the text say what it doesn’t. I personally cannot bring myself to do this, so I’ve adopted a view of the book that reads it literally – as a pessimistic (unbiblical) understanding of God and life. To get to this point, I’ve been influenced by one particular commentator (Tremper Longman), but his own commentary is an adaption from several others. So, Longman isn’t proposing some extreme, “new” view of the book, but rather carefully seeking to understanding the context and text of the book, and comparing it with how the book has been viewed throughout the history of the Church (and the Jewish community).

In my introduction, I posed two questions which I think are very important when going outside what seems to be the “traditional” view. The first was the question of biblical authority. The second was the human factor in the actual text of Scripture. As I’ve been digging deeper into these questions, I came across a review of Longman’s commentary from Amazon:

This was Longman’s doctorate thesis so I expect better, as a graduate at Yale Divinity though I am not surprised. He is a liberal Christian which means he is not orthodox as his commentary was also not orthodox.

This is exactly why I asked these questions. This is one of the most ridiculous sets of statements I’ve heard in awhile. When someone seems to go outside the “norm” (tradition) and be true to the text, then they’re automatically deemed unorthodox (i.e. heretical). Longman is a liberal because he despises the authority of the Bible and refuses to critique the human elements within the Bible, right? This is absurd.

This is similar to a lot of people throughout history who have viewed Song of Solomon allegorically rather than as an erotic love story. Those kinds of things can’t be in the Bible, so let’s just make “his banner over me is love” not about oral pleasure but about God’s love for His people (and create a terrible praise song out of it)!

Strangely, I’m looking at a couple of other books I have of Longman’s, and I definitely wouldn’t fit the endorsements of those books in the “liberal” camp. His book “Immanuel In Our Place” received stellar endorsements from Sinclair Ferguson, D.A. Carson and Bruce Waltke. Damn those liberals! Longman’s commentary on Proverbs also received an unapologetic endorsement from Tim Keller. I also have a book Longman cowrote called A Biblical History of Israel, in which the authors’ whole point is to debunk the critical, anti-biblical scholarship that has recently prevailed on the Old Testament. Sounds like a liberal scholar to me!

Sad.