anointed

Ethics

Submit a 250 word post on how you come to make ethical decisions. For example, my approach, based on John Wesley's is to first check out what the Bible says, if anything. Then I check what Church Tradition has said about it, again, if at all. Then I check it out with my reason,(not with how I feel about it, because feelings can be liars). Then finally I will check it with my experience of it. This, to me is like a wedding cake with a basic layer at the bottom, the Bible. Tradition comes next, then reason, then experience. These layers are not equal. As I said , it is like a layer cake. Notice how most decisions are made by how people feel about something?That is because we are in a post-modern world which thinks that everyone's ideas of what is right or wrong are just as good as anyone elses, and that everyone is basically good in their own mind.I'll be interested in seeing your responses, which I hope you will all take the time to read as part of the class assignment. God Bless AND ENJOY THE ASSIGNMENT! Dr Prosser

I rely heavily on reason when making a decision.  I begin with scripture as a foundation, evaluate the facts, research data, seek options, give it time, pray, and execute a decision accordingly.  I do not rely on feelings generally, because I find that feelings are fickle.  I make a decision allowing for mistakes since I am not perfect :-))  Ethically, I think we have a duty to seek truth, know the facts, and THEN act (with knowledge).  I agree with Dr. Prosser that the mainstream approach to decisions is based on feelings and I think it is unfortunate that many act according to how they feel.  I think it is dangerous to make ethical decisions based on emotions since feelings tend toward self-centeredness.  I find that common sense is absent in our society thereby aggravating the lack of reason found in our post-modern world.  Feelings have their place in life, but not where ethics are concerned.  Ethics let us know what is wrong and right, and I would be more apt to rely on sense than I would on feelings.  Ethics also hold a liability clause for those of us who are in a position of authority (i.e. leadership).  If we hold to know the "truth" then it only follows that we should be held accountable for what we preach/teach and how that affects the lives of those we lead.  It has been my personal experience that accountability is not common in the church.  This makes me wonder if we are practicing faith without reason? 

2 Peter

Report on the Holy Spirit in 2 Peter

Setting

            The Apostle Peter warns about false teachers and evildoers who have come into the Church (2 Peter 2-4).  Peter begins by confirming a Christian’s call and election (2 Peter 1) and follows by explaining prophecy in scripture (2 Peter 2).  Peter states that it is wise to pay attention to biblical prophecy “as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in our hearts” (2 Peter 1:19). 

What Does the Author Say About the Spirit?

            The Spirit is referenced only one time in 2 Peter.  The reference concerns the authenticity of prophecy, which is never derived of man’s, will.  Prophecy is generally defined as “an inspired declaration of divine will or purpose” (Merriam-Webster.com).  Peter conveys that any divine utterance is God inspired and never a manifestation of man’s spirit.  Man is the vehicle through which God speaks, but the substance of prophecy is not “man made.” 

The origin of Prophecy is found in the Holy Spirit alone (2 Peter 1:20-21)

            “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”

Exposition

            Peter expresses a genuine concern for the church when he speaks of false teachers.  It is significant that Peter begins 2 Peter with a definitive statement that prophecy is only divinely endowed and not something that can be created by man.  Peter specifically references “destructive heresies” that are contrary to what we know of God (2 Peter 2:1-2). 

Significance for the Original Readers

            Peter wants to establish that false teachers do exist.  Between the point of Christ’s death and resurrection when the gospel began to be preached, false teachers managed to enter the church.  Notably that is a relatively short time span.  Peter is warning believers about the individuals that preach doctrines inconsistent with the resurrected Christ.  Further, Peter warned that these teachers would exploit with stories, “they had made up” (2 Peter 2:3).  A serious charge if the false prophets taught erroneous doctrine with an intent to deceive God’s elect.

Selected Bibliography

            There are numerous passages concerning false teachers who were already present:

Mt. 24:4-5:11; Acts 20:29-30; 1 Jn. 2:18-19, 22; 2 John 7-11 and Jude 3-4. 

Significance for Readers Today

            The message is an important one today, because there are many self-proclaimed prophets who exploit believers in a relatively overt manner.  In the church today, there is a state of “emotionalism” that results in fanatical behavior.  False prophets are identifiable because typically they stray significantly from the word of God.  An uniformed believer may not perceive the deception but it is relatively apparent.  The message remains the same; the Holy Spirit alone is at the source of prophecy.  Indeed God has always used man to convey a message, but consistently that chosen individual would have to abide in God’s light and in His commands visible in a prophets life and actions.

Running for Zambia

Brish Miller is a wonderful friend of mine who is running for Zambia.  Brish has a heart for this region as he has prviously engaged in outreach endeavors in this area.

Brish is running to raise money for HIV/AIDS in Zambia:

"Why am I running a marathon you ask?  Simply put, I am just a regular 23 year old young adult, living in the Silicon Valley, who is utilizing the gifts that God has given me to make a real tangible change for the oppressed.  What are Zambians oppressed by exactly?  Besides years and years of colonial oppression from the West, the HIV/AIDS pandemic remains a serious oppressor.  Zambia is just one of the countries that has been severely ravaged by HIV/AIDS.  Sub-Saharan Africa remains the most affected region in the global AIDS epidemic..."  Brish

You can check out Brish's site for more information: http://www.firstgiving.com/brishmiller.  Please note that 100% of the proceeds will go to this cause. 

Please consider making a donation online or keeping our brother in Christ in prayer.  Thank you for your support!

God bless! 

Redemption

I met an amazing group of men yesterday and brotherhood unlike anything I had ever seen before.  Maybe it’s the case that were very little exists, a form of grace abounds to a point where what otherwise would be a group of strangers would turn into a fellowship of acceptance, encouragement and fraternity.  The individuals I speak of are inmates currently serving terms for a variety of reasons from misdemeanors to felony sentences.  Some are even repeat offenders…and still their expressed contrition and hope for redemption is honorable in that they readily accept responsibility for their mistakes and encourage each other and those who visit them not to follow in their footsteps.  Many are held for possession and/or substance abuse, and I have to wonder how many I know who engage in this type of behavior and simply haven’t “been caught” (and I say this not as a point of condemnation, but one of awareness…)  As I listened to many express regret and others share the steps they had taken (are taking) to “stay clean” and out of trouble, I had to wonder if first we “had to be caught and punished” before we could walk a path seemingly more consistent with a desirable end?  Many of these inmates are Christian, many are Catholic and some are even agnostic or atheist…..and still it seemed to me like the “rules of consequence” applied to all across the board.  What started out as a simple gesture to bring comfort in the form of friendship and aid to these inmates turned into a more self-revealing endeavor of how as human beings we tend to learn from hardships more so than we do from direct instruction to abstain or refrain from ill behavior.  In other words, most if not all know when an act is not beneficial, and still we move forth expecting non consequential or even good results….now how is it the case that we behave one way, but expect the opposite to take place?  Co-existing with those who no longer have their physical freedom gave me something to think about, but especially where redemption is concerned, because I wholeheartedly believe that each one of them (and each one of us) has hope for deliverance……….

Divine & Human Covenants

Human and Divine Covenants

            The bible is often referred to as the covenant between God and mankind.  This biblical overarching covenant is further divided into the Old and New Covenants (i.e. Old and New Testaments) referring to what was disclosed prior to the Messiah’s arrival and thereafter.  In the Old Testament, several divine covenants are found including but not limited to the Noahic, Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants between God and His people.  Two of the covenants are grant covenants where God assumes complete responsibility to bring forth a promise to His people.  However, one of the covenants is conditional and is contingent upon obedience.  These divine covenants are significant to the Pentateuch because they are fundamental to God’s relationship to the Isrealites.

            The Pentateuch is made up of the first five books in the Old Testament which the Jews refer to as the Torah (Jewish Encyclopedia).  “In this first five books laws, rituals, regulations, ceremonies, and calendars are included” (LaSor 3).  The Pentateuch covers foundational elements concerning relationship between God and the Israelites which includes “promise, election, deliverance, covenant, law and land” (La Sor 4).  The first five books of scripture are important because Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are instructional in nature and hold a code of expectations for living as disclosed by God Himself.

            God’s fulfillment and disclosure of His promises allow for Jews to see God’s word and faithfulness as He satisfies His word through many instances of blessing, deliverance and curses.  The election of the Jews is a type of sanctification that makes them an exclusive election for His purpose and as an example of God’s covenant relationship to those He has chosen (Deuteronomy 7:6).  The laws stand as regulatory means to guard God’s people against wrongdoing and the land promised to Abraham is an ongoing theme in the bible only fulfilled through the appearance of the prophesied Messiah (Jeremiah 31:33-34) that Christians refer to as Jesus Christ. 

            “A covenant is a means of establishing a relationship (not naturally existing), which is sanctioned by oath sworn in a ceremony of ratification” (LaSor 73).  Technically, both divine and human covenants fall under the scope of LaSor’s definition. However, a divine covenant has supernatural factors where only God alone is able to act without the aid of mankind.  Each entity, whether human or divine, is held to a standard of behavior or expectation with some kind of consequence (good or bad) that follows. 

            Notably, God is not held accountable for His “end of the bargain” because it is presumed that God is a good god incapable of breaking His own word (Isaiah 40:8).  Both divine and human covenants hold similar characteristics which can include: promises, oaths, vows, stipulations, contingencies, disclosure, terms, conditions, sacrifices, swearing, limitations, pledges, witnesses, supernatural or visual signs, offer and acceptance.  Covenants are generally binding to full force and effect as defined by its agreed upon provisions.  Of distinction, a human covenant has the option of damages that can be pursued for a violation of a condition, whereas a divine covenant has no such specification because God will necessarily act and man is not in a position to repay God for lack of obedience which leaves God to punish man for not adhering to the covenant obligations.

            In comparison to human covenants, divine covenants are entered upon a solicitation from God which usually includes a blessing or a curse.  Whereas human covenants are entered between two individuals taking an oath before God and agreeing upon conditions, stipulations and consequences should the covenant be broken.  The bible is full of covenants between the divine and human kind thereby conveying that the Israelite tradition is one of faith, expectation and vows.  While contractual obligations are explicitly set forth so that anticipated course of action is clearly delineated, there is still a sense of trust that the vows taken on both sides will come to pass accordingly.

Divine Covenants

            Noahic Covenant: “The Noahic Covenant came at the time of a great flood when God promised Noah, his family and all mankind subsequent them that He would never destroy the world with a flood again and gave a sign of the rainbow to remind Himself of His promise” (Busenitz 173).  In the bible, Noah was born to “comfort the Israelites in labor and painful toil caused by the ground the Lord had cursed” (Genesis 5:29).  Noah had favor with God (Genesis 6:8) and was chosen to build an ark to save his family and creation that God had chosen (Gen 7:1).  God was putting an end to all people, because the earth was filled with violence and as a result God destroyed both mankind and the earth (Genesis 6:13). 

            It is noteworthy to consider that while the covenant to “never destroy the earth again” required no explicit legal action on Noah’s part, God chose a righteous man of faith to give the covenant to.  In other words, God did not choose an ordinary man, but one that was familiar with His voice sufficiently to execute God’s desires of building an ark prior to the flood and conveyance of the covenant.  It was during this time that not many were righteous before the Lord, and Noah was specifically chosen to carry out the “undefined” terms which preceded God’s oath to His people to never destroy them again (Genesis 7:1).  The terms explicitly used by God were:

I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth.  I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth (Genesis 9:9-11). 

Further, God concluded the covenant with a supernatural sign that would remind Noah of God’s promise to humanity:

"This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come:  have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.  Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind.  Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.  Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.  This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth” (Genesis 9:12-17). 

            Abrahamic Covenant: “God promises to make Abraham a great nation, to bless him and to make his name great.  The Lord makes clear to take it upon Himself alone the responsibility for fulfilling the covenant” (Essex 191).  Abraham is asked to leave his country, his people and his father’s house to a land that the Lord will show him (Genesis 12:1).  Abraham obliges and God appears to Abraham to bestow upon him an unconditional promise to “make Abraham the father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5).  Significant to God’s promise is the fact that Abraham and his wife Sarah are beyond the point of childbearing years (Genesis 17:17) “thereby making the birth of the first-born even more remarkable” (Provan, et al. 110).

            Similar to Noah’s Covenant, God chose a man of faith in Abraham.  This is best demonstrated in that Abraham follows God’s instructions to leave his home to an unknown land that the Lord has promised him.  Abraham’s faith, however, is challenged in the notion that he will be granted heirs when he is in no physical capacity to embark in such an endeavor.  In spite of God’s promise to grant Abraham an heir, an illegitimate son is born to Sarah’s maid and Abraham.  Nevertheless, God fulfills his promise of an heir through Abraham’s legitimate wife thereby executing the terms of the promise in God’s own time and under the initial terms of disclosure.  It is here that the covenant is challenged in an informal sense when Abraham doubts God’s word, but God nevertheless obliges.  While the covenant itself does not overtly require faith on the individual receiving a promise from God, it is an implied necessary condition since Abraham must have sufficient trust in God to act on His statements.   “In other words the successful fulfillment of the promise is intrinsically linked to the response of the human will: Abraham must, after all, respond to the divine command if the promise of nationhood and blessing is to see fruition” (Mann 29).

            It is significant that God did not just bind Himself to Abraham, but also to Abraham’s seed that would follow (Essex 194).  God’s explicit terms to Abraham were as follows:

I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing.  I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you (Genesis 12:2-12:3).

It is necessary to consider that not all which was contained in this statement would come to pass during Abraham’s lifetime, but rather would be fulfilled many generations after Isaac, Abraham’s first heir.  In other words, this covenant has yet to be fulfilled in its entirety because Israel “has not been restored of all things spoken by the prophets, including possession of and prosperity in the land of Canaan” (Acts 3:19-24).  This final clause will not come to pass until Israel’s sons turn from their wicked ways through the deliverance of the Messiah (Acts 3:25-26),”  (Essex 211).

            Mosaic Covenant:  “The theological context of the Mosaic Covenant is Israel’s election by grace and the redemptive context, God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt.  The covenant addressed itself to Israel alone with its divinely authoritative rules that stipulated standards of righteousness, and is the most conditional of all covenants” (Barrick 213).  This covenant was set forth through Moses who stood as God’s agent to deliver God’s people from Egyptian slavery and subsequently bring forth the laws conveyed through the covenant delivered on Mt. Sinai. 

            It is interesting that God chooses a murder (Exodus 2:14) to deliver His people from Egypt and as the messenger of the new covenant law.  Moses’ questionable background serves to contrast Noah who is portrayed as righteous in scripture without any attribution of wrongful act; Abraham who is righteous in faith, but doubts; and now Moses who kills an Egyptian and flees to save his own life (Exodus 2:10-12).  Nevertheless, Moses is chosen.  God brings forth His calling of Moses through a burning bush and Moses hesitantly obliges (Exodus 3).  Moses brings signs of God’s omnipotence to the Israelites’ oppressors (Exodus 9:14) and eventually God’s people are rescued in an overt act of supernatural deliverance by God (Exodus 15:3-5). 

            Notably, it was through Moses that God continually acted in a supernatural manner so as to make His presence known among the Israelites.  The presenting of the Ten Commandments was no exception when God came forth in a striking manner:

On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled.  Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain.  Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the Lord descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, the whole mountain trembled violently (Exodus 19:16-18).

God brought forth his expectations of Israel which is referred to as the Mosaic Covenant.  The covenant rendered at Mt. Sinai, Israel takes an oath to obey God and “Israel’s obligation is obedience to the covenant stipulations” (LaSor 73).  The entering into a covenant with God is significant, because Israel has agreed to “serve no other God” (Exodus 20:1).  The covenant itself is redemptive in nature after God delivers Israel from Egyptian bondage and the laws are designed to keep Israel under God’s protection (Exodus 20:20).

            Mosaic law was supposed to give the people a sense of conscience between right and wrong so that they would not sin against their God (Deuteronomy 6:2).  In having a “fear for God” through knowledge of the laws, the Israelites would uphold their covenant obligation of obedience.  As a result of obedience, God’s people would also be sanctified for his use and purpose (Leviticus 15:31).  In other words, the laws given to the Jews were a list of required acts which resulted in a sacred walk with God.  Absent the guideline of the laws unto righteousness, Israel walked in a state of sin and required that sacrificial offerings be made to make up for those transgressions against God as defined by the law (Exodus 29:36).

            The covenant law was so compelling that it even served as a point of “cohesiveness among all the sects in Israel and any digression thereof was considered damnable” (Stein 120).  The laws themselves were more like policy and not written in a manner as we understand laws today because they “contain no penalty and are not carefully defined” (LaSor 75).  In other words, “the legal policy was a basic statement of the kind of behavior which the covenant community is willing to sustain by force” (LaSor 75).  Consequently, those who took their covenant relationship with God seriously, upheld a behavior which was consistent with what was expected of them, including punishing another for not behaving in a similar or like manner (Exodus 22:20). 

            The Jews were to uphold their promise to obey God’s laws subject the “ultimate price for disobedience which was a curse of exile” (LaSor 75).  The exile was not just one of removal from the promised land, but also a type of exile which presumably removed the disobedient from the will of God.  And once removed from the will of God the community suffered collaboratively, and engaged in discipline or consequence in a collective manner (Leviticus 24:23).  Adherence to the covenant law was not necessarily a matter of establishing a personal relationship with God, but rather a means of unity as a group that God ordained as sanctified.  Consequently, this covenant in comparison to the others set forth a burden on Israel and was not considered a grant covenant where God alone was responsible for fulfilling the terms and conditions of the agreement.  The blessings were considerable as were the curses which came forth if the covenant was violated. 

Human Covenants

            Abraham/Abimelech Covenant:  “Then Abraham complained to Abimalech about a well of water that Abimalech’s servants had seized” (Genesis 21: 25).  A point of conflict arises between two neighbors where a water well is in dispute.  In our present day the water well may not appear to have much value, but at the time of this disagreement the well stood for a point of survival since water is generally necessary for drinking and cleansing.  Also, water would be indispensable in the remote location the covenant takes place.  Abimalech’s servants appear to have taken over a water well that did not belong to them but Abimalech is not aware of the trespass until Abraham brings it to his attention: “I don’t know who has done this.  You did not tell me, and I heard about it only today” (Genesis 21:26). 

            “So Abraham brought sheep and cattle and gave them to Abimalech and the two men made a treaty” (Genesis 21:27).  While it is not explicitly stated, Abraham appears to have put forth material good in exchange for any perceived ownership on Abimalech’s end as an “act of good faith.”  In other words, Abraham was acting with “an honest intent without taking an unfair advantage over Abimalech even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled” (Law.Com Dictionary).  Abimalech was technically trespassing on Abraham’s property, but even so Abraham was “buying out” any perceived interest in the well: “Accept these seven lambs from my hand as a witness that I dug this well” (Genesis 21:30). 

            In putting forth a good faith effort, Abimalech agrees to the covenant and a trees is plated as a sign to the treaty: “Abraham planted a tamarisk tree and there he called upon the name of the Lord, the Eternal God” (Genesis 21:33)  In terms of contractual obligation, a problem between two parties arose.  The offending party was made aware of the problem.  An offer to rectify the dispute was made, acceptance was rendered and a treaty resulted with a sign of a tree to mark the covenant between the two parties which had come to a mutual agreement.   

            Laban/Jacob Covenant: A dispute arises between in-laws.  Jacob has married Laban’s daughters and fled after Laban seemingly violated two agreements which preceded the marking of land between father-in-law and son-in-law.  Jacob had been tricked into working seven years to marry Rachel (the wife Jacob desired) but instead was given Leah (Laban’s oldest daughter.)  As a result, Jacob had to work an additional seven years to earn a right to marry Rachel, who Jacob had bargained with Laban in the first place (Genesis 29).  Laban did not uphold either agreement which resulted in Jacob leaving Laban’s property with all he had earned over the course of twenty years (six additional years working for cattle) including his two wives and children (Genesis 31:40-42).

            Laban proposes the following covenant which Jacob agrees to:

The women are my daughters, the children are my children, and the flocks are my flocks. All you see is mine. Yet what can I do today about these daughters of mine, or about the children they have borne? Come now, let's make a covenant, you and I, and let it serve as a witness between us (Genesis 31:43-44). 

Laban has unlawfully wronged Jacob on several occasions and is now concerned that Jacob will return to take more than is owed to him (perhaps as additional damages rightfully owed to Jacob?)  In an effort to protect his property, Laban invokes God as a witness between Laban and Jacob and marks the point of division between land:

May the LORD keep watch between you and me when we are away from each other. If you mistreat my daughters or if you take any wives besides my daughters, even though no one is with us, remember that God is a witness between you and me (Genesis 31:31:49).

Laban appears to have a genuine concern for his children and grandchildren as well, however, given his past behavior of cheating Jacob, Laban seems much more concerned with division of property and possible vengeance from Jacob (although Jacob has only behaved in a civilized manner with Laban). 

            It is noteworthy that while God is invoked as a witness, a heap of stones is also used to symbolize the testimony of refraining from harming one another (Genesis 31:52).  Additionally, both parties take an oath in the name of “the Fear of Abraham”, offer a sacrifice, and share a meal to mark their treaty (Genesis 31:53).  It appears that both parties engage in the covenant to keep from future disagreements.  The oath is basically putting an end to potential retribution given the tumultuous history of breaking promises that both share.  In the end, Jacob ends up with what he has rightfully earned and Laban seemingly acknowledges this when he enters into the agreement with Jacob when both promise not to take what belongs to the other in the future.  The end of this covenant is marked with a civil parting when Laban kisses and blesses his grandchildren and daughters before returning home (Genesis 31:55). 

            In this contract the reader is not told whether each party upholds the terms and conditions of their agreement.  However, we do know that each willingly entered into the covenant.  A problem arises, an offer is made and acceptance is rendered.  There is a sign to mark the treaty, an oath is taken, a witness invoked and a sacrifice made concluding in civil parting and a meal that infers peace between the two families.  God is explicitly incorporated by reference as the witness between Laban and Jacob making this human covenant one with a divine element. 

Similar Covenant

            “The Suzerain-Vassal Treaty in the Near East between overlord and people bears a striking resemblance to the covenant entered on Mt. Sinai” (LaSor 73).  This treaty holds five provisions defined as follows:

1. “Preamble: Identification of the author which is similar to God’s statement of: "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation” (Exodus 3:15).
2. Historical Prologue: Emphasizing relationship between suzerain and vassal which included kind deeds.  Similarly, God establishes His relation as deliverer of Israel from Egyptian slavery (Exodus 20:2).
3. Stipulations: Basic demand for allegiance.  Which is what God asked of the Israelites (Exodus 20:3).
4. Provisions: Location of the texts.  Israel held a similar condition wherein the tablets containing the Ten Commandments were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:16).
5. Curses and Blessings: Invoked upon the vassal for violating the terms and conditions of the Covenant.  Similarly, invoked upon the Israelites for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28:1-68)” (LaSor 74-75).

The comparison of the Mosaic Covenant to that of the Suzerain Vassal Treaty serves as affirmation that this type of agreement continued in validity after it was first conveyed to Moses.  Both covenants apparently held authoritative attributes, especially with the fifth provision where the suzerain (who was a lord but not divine) is not held liable for violating the terms and conditions of the covenant.  However, the Mosaic covenant was divine in that by faith the Israelites believed it came straight from God, whereas the Eastern covenant was man made. 

Distinction Between Divine and Human Covenants

            The most significant distinction between divine and human covenants is the “God factor” where God enters into the contract as a party who is responsible for executing some type of action.  This is a remarkable statement in that in order to enter into the covenant relationship to begin with, faith is required from the other party.  In other words, an individual (or group of individuals) could not enter into a covenant with God if they did not necessarily have faith in His existence and promise.  Faith then becomes a matter of necessity which is not overtly required as part of the contractual obligation. 

            In the Noahic, Abrahamic, and Mosaic Covenants, faith was required of the three leaders which were chosen to deliver God’s people in some manner.  God did not speak to unbelieving parties who were unfamiliar with his practices and voice, but rather with chosen men who had sufficient faith to carry out God’s wishes.  As unconditional covenants the Noahic and Abrahamic covenants appear to be without burden to Noah and Abraham, however, it is noteworthy to consider that each was tested in faith.  Noah was asked to build an ark against societal resistance, and Abraham was asked to sacrifice his first born.  Moses on the other hand was given many supernatural signs before he moved forward in God’s will to deliver the Israelites from the Egyptians.  Notably, Moses was not asked to enter into the covenant on behalf of God’s people.  Instead, Moses was a type of intercessor who spoke on behalf of God’s people, but each Israelite was still held accountable for their individual actions as a collective group sanctified by God. 

            In comparison, human covenants have similar characteristics as divine covenants where  a pledge, terms and conditions are rendered.  However, seemingly it appears that the human covenants in the Pentateuch arise out of some type of conflict and in an effort to resolve that conflict, people enter into agreements to avoid future damages or harm.  Human covenants also contain the elements of rights and privileges, whereas the divine do not.  For example, the covenant between Abraham and Abimalech contained a right to the water well and the covenant between Laban and Jacob contained a right to land.  Notably, the divine covenants contained no such delineated rights and were based on God’s grace alone. 

Pentateuch Covenant Theology

            The Noahic, Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are essential to the Torah.  Noah’s Covenant appears to have a message of starting over once God does way with the violence in man’s heart.  The manner in which Noah’s faith is tested is important, because this is the first character in the bible that we see perform a duty for God without having any tangible evidence to support the request.  Noah was asked to obey God by faith in his building of the ark and Noah’s obedience sets a tone for future compliance with God’s requests.  God’s promise to never destroy the earth again is equally important, because here the reader is made aware of God’s intentions for the future to be patient and endure with the fallacy of man.

            The Abrahamic Covenant teaches that Abraham was chosen as a patriarch to the Israelites and that indeed these people were God’s chosen.  This is considered a grant covenant, but with a contingency of fulfillment in the Messiah which is prophesied about in the Old Testament.  In other words, God is responsible for executing His own promise, but this will not occur until the return of Jesus Christ when Israel is restored what has been lost (Isaiah 59:20,21; 27:9).  This covenant has yet to be fulfilled in its entirety and just like Abraham was chosen to believe by faith, so is the rest of creation asked to do the same as believers anticipate the final moment of realization. 

            The Mosaic Covenant is binding contractual obligation between God and His chosen people.  The laws contained in the covenant were set to be an ongoing obligation for the Israelites that would never achieve an absolute state of righteousness through mere obedience.  The fulfillment of this covenant stood on the foundational desire to serve one God.  This allegiance results in a series of expectations that the Israelites must uphold in an effort to be blessed and simultaneously at the peril of being cursed.  God’s entering into the covenant with His people implies that the Israelites were capable of obedience especially since the agreement allowed for offering of sacrifices when the laws were broken.  However, the contract was continually violated which resulted in the exile of those God chose (2 Kings 17:7).

            In summary, both divine and human covenants served to convey that Israel was structured in accordance to God’s will of order.  The terms and conditions found in the covenants served to regulate God’s people.  More importantly, God was a major factor in this lifestyle as He continually sought to engage with the Israelites.  Generally, agreements seek to promote peace and stability and consistent with this expectation, the Israelites had a strict moral guideline to adhere to where they lived in peace among themselves and to this day have managed to maintain their status as God’s elect as a collaborative group.  Without human or divine covenants the Israelites would not know God’s will or how to live righteously.  Laws and covenant obligations allow God’s people to know what is expected of them as a group (and individually) thereby creating a sense of cohesion through their sanctified ways.   

References:

Barrick, William D., “The Mosaic Covenant,” The Masters Seminary Journal 10/2 (Fall 1999) 213-232.

Busenitz, Irvin A., “Introduction to the Biblical Covenants: The Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant,” The Masters Seminary Journal 10/2 (Fall 1999) 173-189.

Essex, Keith S., “The Abrahamic Covenant,” The Masters Seminary Journal 10/2 (Fall 1999) 191-212.

LaSor, W., Hubbard, D., and Bush, F., Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form and Background of the Old Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Eardmans), 1996.

Mann, T., The Book of the Torah-The Narrative Integrity of the Pentateuch, (Atlanta: John Knox Press), 1988.

Provan, I., Long, V., and Longman III, T., A Biblical History of Israel (Kentucky: John Knox Press), 2003.

Stein, R., The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings, (Kentucky: John Knox Press), 1994,  .

Zondervan NIV Study Bible.  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), 2002.

Jewish Encyclopedia: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/. Available as of: April 27, 2008. 

Law.Com Dictionary: http://dictionary.law.com/.   Available as of: April 28, 2008.

Job

Central Theme

            The central theme of the passage concerns Job’s conviction of his own innocence before God in light of the accusations of sin against him. 

Larger Message of the Book

            In summary, the book of Job is about a “blameless man” (Job 1:1) who is tested by Satan with God’s consent.  Job’s family, fortune and health are removed leaving Job to question what has brought on the suffering in his life.  When Job’s friends bring comfort in the form of blame, Job holds to his innocence and challenges God in effort to gain insight into his tragedy.  Job’s resolute conviction of innocence results in a dialogue with God concluding with Job’s repentance for having put his own innocence before God’s moral purity.  The Book of Job carries many theological implications and in an effort to fully grasp the writer’s intent of Job 13:13-19 this paper will focus on Job’s certainty of his innocence in light of his friends’ accusations against him. 

            In Job 13, Job is replying to Zophar who “is a rash dogmatist calling Job to repent of the sin that must have caused his suffering” (LaSor 476).  In the preceding chapter, Job speaks about how he is “not inferior” (Job 12:3) to those that have brought accusations against him and continues his speech of self defense into the subsequent chapter stating that all that he [Job] wants is to “speak with the Almighty and argue his case with God” (Job 13:3).  In an effort to bring Job wisdom in the form of condemnation, Job’s friends seemingly fuel Job’s inner fervor to prove his innocence particularly since Zophar is not only comparing Job to the wicked (Job 11:14), but also belittling him as one who has earned such chastisement from God.  As a dogmatic religious man, Zophar is likely to be authoritative in his rebuke against Job and this is best exhibited in his statement concerning the unknowable qualities of God.  Simultaneously, Zophar misses his own point that sometimes God’s will is not understood: “Can you fathom the mysteries of God? Can you probe the limits of the Almighty? They are higher than the heavens—what can you do?  They are deeper than the depths of the grave-what can you know?” (Job 11:7-8).

            It is interesting that Job refers to his affliction as a “case that can be tried in court before God”(Job 13:3) as if proof against alleged sin is possible.  Notably it is Job putting on a case before his friends and not God since it is Job’s friends who are accusing him.  It’s as if Job’s friends serve as a type of collaborative “accuser” convicting Job of sin in light of his afflictions.  In reality, Job has no “proof” per se to offer, and is only able to stand on his integrity that cannot be taken from him as his faith is challenged. 

            Comparably, it is also Tate’s position that a “Satan figure” stands as a form of accuser in scripture (Tate 461).  Relative to the book of Job, the Satan figure indirectly accuses humanity of “having a price” for integrity” and first asks to test Job through removal of his assets and then removal of his health (Tate 463).  God willingly obliges and warns the Satan figure not to take Job’s life.  In this scenario, which is the crux of the story, the accuser (i.e. the Satan figure) assumes that Job will renounce his faith, and God seemingly upholds Job’s virtue by allowing the testing to occur.  It is here where Job’s claim for innocence is logical because only Job knows the level of devotion that he holds for his God, and even if Job is guilty of sin it is his position that “he has not committed any sin that is deserving of his state of agony” (Crenshaw 105).  But it is also here where Job’s conviction of blamelessness turns into a point that by way of “clutching to his claim so doggedly Job places his own innocence above God’s moral purity” (LaSor 482).

            “The overall style of the debate between God and Job unfolds in the form of an argument rather than a traditional court case. Further, the content of God’s speech seems to miss the issues raised by Job and especially the avowal for innocence”  (LaSor 481). It’s as if God makes His own case in an effort to display inerrable judgment without convicting Job of any wrongdoing.  God is firm in his statements to Job and simultaneous sensitive to Job’s humanity to a point that Job recants his challenge to God and repents for having questioned God at all (Job 42:6)..  At the end of the story, Job is in a sense vindicated (i.e. his possession, family and health are restored), but especially from his friends’ accusations of any wrong doing when God poignantly tells Job to forgive and pray for Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar:

“After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.  So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has."  So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job's prayer” (Job 42:7-9).

Immediate Surrounding Context

            The Book of Esther precedes the Book of Job.  In the Book of Esther, notably God is not referenced in the story, but godly attributes of integrity and conviction are emphasized.  Esther is a seemingly ordinary individual until she marries King Xerxes and is put in a situation where she is able to save the Jewish race (Esther 2, 4).  In standing on her conviction to do the right thing, Esther puts her life in jeopardy as she goes before the king to plead her case.  Similar to Job’s story, Esther is moved by a sense of confidence that she must adhere to her inner self-assurance in faith of her beliefs.  Still more striking is the similarity drawn between the authority figures that both Esther and Job face as they plead their case.  While Esther isn’t looking for personal vindication, it serves as a sharp contrast to the personal vindication that Job seeks.  Neither pursuit is selfish, but in light of the confidence that each feels for their position, each is successful in attaining what they do seek.  Esther holds a conviction concerning the innocence of her people and Job holds a conviction about his own innocence.  In reality, neither of them has proof to offer, but each demonstrates a sense of faith that is greater than the odds that they face.  The Book of Esther serves as an excellent introduction to self-assurance and noble actions that must be executed in light of a great trial.  The Book of Job naturally follows with an equally great trial of integrity at stake in a personal struggle to trust God without reservation.

            The Book of Psalms follows the Book of Job.  The Psalms are types of hymns written as a sort of a praise offering to God for His presence in the lives of the authors (LaSor 433).  In light of the trial and vindication that Job has undergone it is only fitting that a book of praise in God’s honor would follow.  The psalms are ridden with examples of how God was actively involved in David’s life and it makes sense that a book encouraging believers would come after a book that addresses so much loss in Job’s life.  While Job is restored for all that he lost in terms of assets, family and health, it is still necessary to consider the agony that Job underwent.  While there is comfort in knowing that “God was in control all along” it is equally discomforting that “God allowed the suffering” at all.  Central to the theme of Job and the Psalms is one of trusting God in spite of the painful challenges that arise in life.  Job exemplifies the blameless man who suffered under God’s consent and while this may bear a point of apprehension for the reader, Job’s testing promotes faith in the face of injustice.  After having read Job, it’s almost as if the evil aspect of life is irrelevant as long as God is at the center of the faith, which is what enables the trial as a bearable experience.  And it is in the Psalms where we find multiple examples of lament, trials and praise from equally devout biblical figures who trust in their God regardless of the circumstances that seemingly consume them. 

Literary Genre

            “The book of Job comprises a poetic dialogue or debate which has been inserted into a narrative framework.  As a result of this strange union of incompatible literary strata, tension between the prose and poetry mounts” (Crenshaw 89).  The Book of Job is a powerful statement of human inquiry in the face of remarkable suffering.  The story is set up in a manner where the characters are relatable.  Job is a person like any other and one cannot help but feel his isolation when those closest to him do not understand his suffering and loss.  The loss that is described (i.e. family, assets and health) are devastating compared to what most undergo in one lifetime.  It is in this rarity where Job is portrayed as a sort of heroic believer for holding on to his faith when all else in his life seemed to contradict the existence of his God. 

            The manner in which the dialogue is exchanged between Job and his friends shows the conviction, which each felt for their statements and draws the reader in to try to understand what each is saying.  In reality, we never know whose theology is correct in a time of crisis like Job’s and all that really matters is the faith that is adhered to when all else seems senseless.  “In determining the poet’s sentiments the reader must ask whether the ancients appreciated spiritual rebels anymore than officials of institutionalized religion do today” (Crenshaw 108).  In other words, Job appears to have taken a posture contrary to the religious dogma each of his friends spoke about, but in the end, Job is credited for his simple faith in God.  It is noteworthy, that even as Job’s world fell apart there wasn’t a correct manner in which to search for answers except to stand on the inner conviction of faith believing that he was innocent before God.  And while Job did challenge God, he did it with a pure heart seeking answers to the tragedy before him.

            It was when Job had heard all the theology his friends offered that he sought answers for himself, challenged God and received more than he sought, which included repentance and reconciling with a God whose purity could not be questioned.  It is in this light of challenging faith that the writer draws in any believer seeking truth for themselves.  The inner struggle to find God is all too familiar to anyone who believes in a greater Authority and wants to make sense of trials that inevitably come up in life.  In a sense, Job is every person that has ever questioned evil and this is clearly exemplified in the narrative figures during the course of poetic dialogue, debate, relationships and struggles contained therein.

Job’s Innocence

13 "Keep silent and let me speak; then let come to me what may.  14 Why do I put myself in jeopardy and take my life in my hands?

            Job literally asked Zophar to stop speaking and to listen.  Assuming that what Zophar offered was true, Job was ready for the consequences.  Job was acknowledging Zophar’s judgment of condemnation and was knowingly “putting himself in jeopardy” to state his case.  Job sets up the “danger of taking matters into his own hands” in a matter of justified defiance as if to set up an argument of self-defense.

15 Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him; I will surely defend my ways to his face. 16 Indeed, this will turn out for my deliverance, for no godless man would dare come before him!

            Assuming that it was God who “slay” Job, remarkably Job was still willing to trust Him.  This is a poignant statement considering that all that identified Job’s life was struck down.  This single verse demonstrates Job’s piety in that he is willing to trust God under any circumstance.  Job’s willingness to continue believing in God and his conviction to step forth to defend his case was Job’s “proof” that he was indeed innocent.  In other words, Job’s conscience was clear of any wrong doing consistent with the idea that “God punishes the wicked” (Job 15:20).  Job concludes his statement of self assurance by reiterating that the mere intent of “defending his ways to God’s face” was an act of blamelessness since “no godless man would dare” to do so.  Job was confident that if his God “only knew the truth (i.e. of his innocence), God would deliver Job.

17 Listen carefully to my words; let your ears take in what I say. 18 Now that I have prepared my case, I know I will be vindicated. 19 Can anyone bring charges against me? If so, I will be silent and die.

            Job is trying to convince Zophar that he is innocent.  Job has been punished through his loss, he’s prepared his case and all he wants is the vindication that Job believes he is entitled to.  If it turns out that indeed Job can be charged with wrong doing, then he professes silence and pronounces his own forthcoming death.  If Job lost his case, what would be left to do than to be “silent and die”? 

Primary Features

            The most forceful feature used by the writer is Job’s conviction of faith.  As Job waits for a reply from his God covered in lesions from the leprosy and having lost all that he possesses, Job holds to an inner truth that is much more powerful than the evidence that surrounds him.  The message communicated of inner struggle and vindicating faith is conveyed through Job’s suffering.  As believers we’ve all undergone some form of suffering and Job’s pain is all too relatable if even in the smallest sense.  It is Job’s lament and patience, which seems remarkable in spite of all that he is hearing from those who are supposed to love and support him.  The writer uses the potency of imagery as one can only imagine what it is like to lose not only tangible objects, but a lifestyle that defined identity.  Job was a blessed man, and in an instant he went from being “blessed by God” to the torment of loss, which surrounded him.  It is incredible that given the circumstances, Job didn’t give in to “being punished for wickedness” (Job 15:20) as his friends suggested.  If Job was blessed of God then it would follow that he was also “not being blessed” by God, didn’t it?  And even in that state of natural logic, Job refused to give in to the notion that he had done anything to upset his state of blessedness.

            The image of Job’s friends’ idea of consolation is also noteworthy.  Job’s friends were supposed to bring words of encouragement and instead brought condemnation.  Having lost his children, all that Job had left were his friends and the wife who told him to curse God and die (Job 2:9).  Job was alone.  His inner isolation must have been compounded by God’s silence.  The image of a man who is presumably near death with nothing to hold on to is compelling, but only because he is untouched by those who seemingly stand in a favorable position with God (i.e. they’re not undergoing the same suffering) and have convicted him of sin.  It’s as if an innocent man with evidence of “wrong doing” (i.e. the loss) stands before his accusers holding on to the last shred of dignity which is Job ‘s conviction that God has not abandoned him.  In a courtroom, Job might stand condemned given that he had “been confined like a guilty man” (Job

11:10) but Job held on to his honor, and rightfully so.  Job’s character represents a symbol of the individual living a life on earth and being affected by a cosmological world that is unseen and not necessarily understood.  The Book of Job leaves much to be desired, since Job is never told by God why he was tested in the manner that he was, but simultaneously, it is a book of victory when hope is placed in God.

Key Theological Thinking

13 "Keep silent and let me speak; then let come to me what may. 14 Why do I put myself in jeopardy and take my life in my hands?

            God has authority over good and evil (Isaiah 54:16-17).  In a state of sinful wickedness, Job is likely to be rejected by God (Psalm 119:118), but given Job’s integrity he’s willing to stake his life on his decree of innocence.  Job’s perception of guiltlessness is so great that he genuinely believes that somewhere in God’s cosmological world a mistake has been made as he suffers like a wicked man without any apparent wrong doing on his part (Job 8:20). 

15 Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him; I will surely defend my ways to his face. 16 Indeed, this will turn out for my deliverance, for no godless man would dare come before him!

            In the Old Testament, God has consistently punished wrongdoing when wickedness overtakes man (Exodus 34:7).  Job’s perceived blamelessness moves him to bring his case of innocence to God in spite of the afflictions he is undergoing which speak to the contrary.  In coming forth in such a determined manner, Job is seemingly questioning God’s authority to do as He wills (James 4:15).  However, Job is knowingly taking this risk encouraged by his self assured innocence.

17 Listen carefully to my words; let your ears take in what I say. 18 Now that I have prepared my case, I know I will be vindicated. 19 Can anyone bring charges against me? If so, I will be silent and die.

            Job was willing to see his wrongdoing and if it was the case that he was guilty then he would stop defending himself and give in to his death sentence.  Generally, in the Old Testament a guilty man was sentenced to death by his peers according to his evil deed and by law (Leviticus 20:22 ).  Nevertheless, Job was convinced that he had not committed any wrongdoing that would warrant the “punishment” he underwent.

Christian Church Today

            This passage reminded me of the notion “when bad things happen to good people.”  Often we wonder why there is suffering when a wrong has not been committed.  The theology in the Book of Job can be troubling if we are to consider that “God allows for the suffering” at all.  However, Job’s strength and vindication is comforting to those who wait in patience for a new beginning to any pain or loss.  Job serves as this type of resolute individual who did not give up on hope in his God in spite of what went on in a cosmological world he could not see.  All that Job knew was that he trusted in the God that gave him life.  Notably Job did curse his own life in light of his suffering, but still he held on to a conviction that was much greater than his trial and that was a belief in justice through his faith which could not be shaken.  Job is an inspiration to any Christian or non-Christian alike who is suffering and through self-inquiry finds a place of peace with what appears to be an injustice bestowed upon them.  And although Job does not receive a reason for his suffering, he rests at peace knowing that his God really is enough.  Having read Job, as Christians we should walk away with a sense of reassurance that no matter how great the suffering, God knows about it and in the end whether it looks like it or not, God is always there. 

References:

Old Testament Survey: The Message, Form and Background of the Old Testament, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), LaSor, Hubbard and Bush.

Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), Crenshaw, James.

Tate. Marvin, “Satan in the Old Testament,” Review & Exposition 89/4 (1992)

             p. 461-74.

Zondervan NIV Study Bible.  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002).

Psalm 1

Central Theme

            The central theme of the passage contrasts between the righteous and the wicked.  Notably the Psalm concludes with the eternal fate of each. 

Larger Message of the Book of Psalms

            The Book of Psalms sets out to disclose a God in the lives of the authors.  It is noteworthy to consider that a majority of the psalms are written by King David who was both anointed and yet still a sinner.  The remarkable presence of God in David’s life inspires the reader to believe that God is available to all.  Psalm 1 specifically sets a foundation that those who are within God’s reach are not just blessed by His constant care, but also with purpose for their lives in Him.  It is important to consider the type of psalm that is being read, because these hymns are used for many purposes.  Brueggmann categorizes the psalms into “Orientation, Disorientation and New Orientation”.  Specifically, each section is identified as follows:

• Psalms of Orientation:  These psalms are statements that describe a happy, blessed state in which the speakers are grateful for and confident in the abiding, reliable gifts of life that are long standing from time past and will endure for time to come.  Life as reflected in these psalms is not troubled or threatened but is seen as the well ordered world intended by God” (Brueggmann 25).

• Psalms of Disorientation:  “The point to be urged with these psalms is that the use of “darkness” and may be judged as would be acts of unfaith and failure, but for the trusting community their use is a an act of bold faith albeit transformed faith” (Brueggmann 52).

• Psalms of New Orientation:  “The speaker and the community of faith are often surprised by grace, when there emerges in present life a new possibility that is inexplicable, neither derived nor extrapolated, but wrought by the inscrutable power and goodness of God.  The newness cannot be explained, predicted or programmed” (Brueggmann 124).

            Psalm 1 is placed at the beginning intentionally as a prolog to set the tone for the entire hymnic collection and falls under the scope of Psalms of Orientation where indeed a blessed state of living is described provided the people of God adhere to the standards as referenced in the Torah.  This Psalm is a fundamental contrast of Israel’s faith and moral distinction between righteous and wicked, innocent and guilty and those who conform to God’s purpose and those who ignore those purposes and disrupt the order (Brueggmann 39).  This psalm adequately represents the black or white standard that the law sets for the chosen people of God.  The author is clear that choices are required and that the selection between wickedness and righteousness will result in a day of judgment where one will stand or perish” (Brueggmann 39).

            The major theological theme contained in this psalm includes that of salvation or damnation in the alternative.  In the Old Testament righteousness was indeed a matter of faith by and through obedience to God’s law (Deut. 4:1).  It was one thing to acknowledge and understand the law, but quite another to have the faith to obey it in an effort to honor the God who commanded it.  However, those who did not believe and chose to be wicked (in conflict with the mandates of God) would perish.  It is noteworthy that this state of spiritual death did not just mean the final moment of judgment in the Kingdom of Heaven, but also a state of lack during their lifetime (Psalm 1:6).  Conversely, those who were upright in heart towards God’s law prospered and were blessed during their lifetime and were granted eternal salvation. 

            Relative to the New Testament, Psalm 1 applies on a comparable level where those who have accepted Christ as Savior (Rom. 10:9) similarly prosper as a result of having God as Lord.  The law is still applicable, but is now fulfilled in Jesus and not in human might alone.  The compelling message behind this writing is the importance of choosing between wickedness and righteousness and certainly the central theme to the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Psalm 1 is relevant in the Old Testament and equally significant in the New Testament, because we are reminded of our eternal fate and the blessings or lack that result from living a godly life or a wicked one.  The option to chose between God and the alternative is consistently black and white or as Christ so poignantly states “hot or cold” (Rev.  3:15).

Immediate Surrounding Context

            Immediately before the Psalms is the Book of Job.  Specifically, in the last chapter of Job, there is a type of reconciliation between Job and God.  Job is troubled by his testing and inquires as to his affliction and eventually challenges God (Job 40).  After having undergone a significant amount of loss and questioning the purpose behind the suffering, Job concedes and states that “surely he has spoken of things he did not understand” (Job 42:3).  In a way, Job’s concession establishes the righteousness that God seeks in believers where trust in Him is required to practice faith (Hebrews 11:6).  When Job gives in to his lack of understanding, he is essentially telling God that he will trust Him in spite of the mess in his life.  And it is in this surrender to trust God that God is able to move in Job’s life and restore what was lost (Job 22:21). 

            Similarly, in the first Psalm, the blessed man is described consistent with what we witness in Job: “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked” (Psalm 1:1).  Indeed, Job sought answers to his misery and was ill advised by those closest to him (Job 42:7-8).  As a result of pursuing God in a state of submission, Job is then, “Planted like a tree by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither, but prospers” (Psalm 1: 3).  We see this in Job’s restoration of family, children, material goods when “The Lord blesses the latter part of Job’s life more than the first” (Job 40:12).  It is incredible to conceive that someone undergoing loss and suffering like Job would “not curse God” (Job 2:9-10) and it is in this state of conviction of unwavering faith that Job is blessed for his confidence in God.  It is here, where a striking similarity can be seen between the blessed man described in the first psalm and Job as the blessed man as a result of his righteousness before the Lord.   

            Immediately after the first psalm, a total of 149 psalms follow full of praise and worship.  According to LaSor, these Psalms are further divided into 5 sections and the division probably follows the pattern of the Pentateuch.  Each book ends with a doxology which serves as an overarching concluding doxology for the whole collection intended to give praise for what has been revealed about God in each book and thereby inspiring faith as an affirmation that God is real. 

            The closest Hebrew word to Psalm is mizmor which translates into “a song sung to musical accompaniment”  (LaSor 430).  This is noteworthy since each Psalm appears to be a declaration of faith by each of its authors and expressed in worship through music.  “Behind the editorial division of books there lies…a combination of different collections of psalms which reflect different functions in Israel’s private and public worship  (LaSor 431).  To this end, it is almost as if there is a psalm for every occasion of public reverence which can include, praise, worship, lament, victory or instruction.  Consistently, the last psalm in this collection emphasizes praise through music: “Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with tambourine and dancing, praise him with the strings and flute, praise him with the clash of cymbals, praise him with resounding cymbals (Psalm 150: 3-5). 

            The Book of Proverbs follows the Book of Psalms, where more instructional material is found.  In comparison to the Psalms, Proverbs are written by Solomon and not David.  There are striking resemblances in the manner the books are written, however, David’s Psalms are more concentrated on inspiration, whereas Solomon’s proverbs are inclined more towards wisdom.  Additionally, Rabbinic custom placed the Psalms before Proverbs and the rest of the wisdom literature, assuming that David’s collection should precede that of his son, Solomon (LaSor 430).  Notably both books are instructional and give insight into a life that is full of the presence of God and the wisdom that is granted in the word of God. 

Genre

            The genre of the writing is poetry especially considering that the psalms are construed as hymns.  According to LaSor, “Poetry appeals to the imagination and emotion than to reason and consequently the reader must consider the form to understand the content” (p. 231.)  And while this psalm uses vivid terminology like “planted tree” or “blown away like chaff” which certainly appeal to anyone’s imagination, in this psalm it is not necessary to read between the lines.  The author does an excellent job of using analogies and simultaneously upholding the integrity of the simple distinction between the wicked and righteous.

Central Theme of Wickedness and Righteousness

1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. 2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.

            The blessed man will mediate on the law of the Lord.  Consistent with the central theme, those that are blessed will be inclined towards God’s will and choose accordingly in comparison to the wicked who will not.  The Law of the Lord is a blessing in itself because the desires of the Father are honored and disclosed to humans.  It is remarkable that what God wants is known by mankind at all and still much more significant that God’s expectations are clearly understood! 

3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither.  Whatever he does prospers.  4 Not so the wicked!  They are like chaff that the wind blows away.

            The central comparison between the wicked and righteous is contained in these verses.  The righteous will bear good fruit in due season and the wicked will be done away with and not blossom.  Not only is there a declarative promise of spiritual prosperity for the righteous, but there is also a warning that the wicked will be tossed like worthless matter.  It isn’t simply a lack of value that is denoted here for the wicked, but also a weakness so great that they “will be blown away.”

5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous. 6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

            The final judgment is inevitable.  It is clearly established where the righteous will begin their everlasting life and how the wicked will end.  The psalm properly begins with identification of wickedness and righteousness and ends with the fate of each.  It is sometimes difficult to conceive that a fate beyond our control will take place, but if we hold any faith in what is written in the word of God, those who believe take great interest in the words proclaimed in this simple verse. 

Primary Features

            The author uses a potent method of candor.  Those who are wicked will perish and those who are righteous will inherit eternity.  The message is clear, it is concise and it gets an explicit meaning across that is necessarily to the point.  If the author were to convey emotion, then the aspect of apparent choice might be lost, because then the decision would not be focused on human reason.  Laws tend to be decisive and it is in this writing that all laws commanded by God are succinctly stated in several lines at the beginning of the Book of Psalms (i.e. Psalm 1) that inspires orientation.  It is here where we witness the consistency that God uses when He makes mandates that are obvious and often repetitive (i.e. obeying the law: Gen. 26.5; Lev 18:4; Lev 25:18; Deut 6:25; Deut11:1, etc.)  What is contained in the first psalm is a reflection of what has been previously stated on multiple occasions concerning the fate of the wicked and the righteous (Gen. 18:23; Deut 9:4; Job 35:8; Psalm 1:5, etc.)

Key Theological Thinking

1 Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.

            Those that live within the provision of God’s word are distinguished when compared to those that are “sinners and mockers” for “What does righteousness have to do with wickedness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14).  The author makes clear that light cannot fellowship with darkness, because the wicked are apt to corrupt that which has been sanctified (1 Corinthians 15:33).  The verse makes a case for being separate when walking in the way of God which is consistent with the separation of Israel from all that was heathen (Lev. 15:31).

2 But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night.

            The law of the Lord is central to the passage as a whole, because those who abide in it are likely to remain blessed when compared to those who perish without it.  The law was given to those who would not only obey, but meditate on its significance and relevancy in their daily walk with God.  It’s important to consider that the Israelites did not practice religion (i.e. they did not attend church on the weekends) but rather lived a lifestyle that honored their God through their Jewish traditions.  Everything from how to raise a family to how to sacrifice to God was clearly delineated for them.  And similarly with the blueprint of Judaism, Christians are called to do the same by the power of the Holy Spirit.  In other words, the law was never done away with, but rather fulfilled in Christ and is still applicable to believers today (Matt. 5:17).

3 He is like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither.  Whatever he does prospers.

            The key theological theme here is God’s remarkable attention to care for that which belongs to Him.  Like everything else that is planted, it is likely to flourish in due season (Ecc. 3:1).  This verse speaks of the blessed individual who is “planted by streams of water” which theologically denotes the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:26).  And having been planted in God’s orchard, that tree full of life is likely to yield fruit in season without the threat of death because it is everlasting in the Heavenly Creator (John 3:16:b).  The Jews were planted in the Law of God, but carried the burden of having to fulfill the Law, whereas Christian believers simply believe in Christ’s work by the power of the Holy Spirit.  Christ taught that the Father cares for the simplest of creatures and especially for those that belong to Him (Matt. 10:29-31) and it is in this verse where we see that affirmation. 

4 Not so the wicked!  They are like chaff that the wind blows away.

            The writer is clear that the wicked will easily be swept away when the time of judgment arrives.  I believe that this is more likely to be a warning instead of a threat given the nature of the entire bible with: warnings, examples of sin and redemption, and the willingness of Christ to lose His life for humanity.  God is exceedingly patient about allowing everyone to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).  Consequently, those that are founded in Jesus Christ are likely to hold during a storm, whereas those who are lost will indeed be “blown away like chaff” (Luke 6:48).  The theme here is about the reality that without Christ, some will be lost.

5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.

            This is an exceedingly unequivocal message, “The wicked will not stand in judgment” (period.)  The author does not mince words or add anything unnecessary to the statement.  It is the same message that is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ and again, without superfluous data.

6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

            God is faithful (Deut. 7:9).  God watches over His own as conveyed through the consistent theme of forgiveness in the Old Testament.  I think that God is unable to watch over the wicked, because He simply doesn’t have access to that which is not His (Job 22:23).  If we base our faith on the fact that only God alone is good and gave His own Son for the sake of humanity, then it only follows that it is His desire to restore all of mankind.  To that end, it seems consistent that God would want to care for both the righteous and the wicked (because we were all “wicked” at one point pre-salvation.)  Sadly, when the time of judgment comes, those that are not legally His will perish. 

Christian Teaching

            This Psalm could easily be used to make a case for salvation.  The righteous will always have the mercy and direction of God, whereas the wicked will remain lost and deficient in some area in their life.  It is noteworthy, that the deficiency referenced does not necessarily signify material loss, but rather a lack of relationship with all things that are good in the spirit of Christ (Gal. 5:22).  This psalm is about “being planted by streams of water” and this “water” that is spoken of cannot be gained in a world of possession:  "Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life" (John 4:13).  To that end, it is fitting that the first psalm in this book begins with a writing on eternal fate, because after all, isn’t that where our Christianity begins and ends?  After having read this passage, as Christians we should walk away with a sense of gratitude for being reborn into the Kingdom of God by grace alone and without having to fulfill any requirements at all. 

---

[1] Pss.1-41; 42-72; 73-89; 90-106; 107-150 (LaSor 430).

Esther

In your discussion, respond to the following four points:

1) Describe at least one thing new that you have learned in your reading of Jackowski. Be specific and explain why it is a new learning for you.  The most striking point that Jackowski makes concerns the blind surrender of followers to leadership: “….a government in violation of its own constitution without questioning superiors about the blatant illegality of their actions” (p. 403).  Sadly, this was a reoccurring theme in the Old Testament with God’s people.  Their God never left them, but they continually sought to blindly follow the leaders they could see instead of the One they could not.  As Christians, we are taught to “walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7) but seemingly, the Jewish people were blind in spirit which affected their ability to “see” God.  I think this gives us perspective on how the Jews came into captivity.  While the Jewish people were not subject to Haman by choice, at some point they stopped trusting God which opened the door to the oppression they were under. 

2) Describe at least one point at which you disagree with our question Jackowski’s interpretation. Why do you disagree? “When disobedience relieves oppression and commands the single hearted support of the oppressed community, one can safely trust that the disobedient one comes from God” (p. 405).  I disagree that “the disobedient one” came from God simply because God was able to provide relief.  Just because God has the answer does not necessarily mean that He is responsible for the havoc.  I’m often concerned that Satan is left out of statements such as these…or maybe it’s implied and a matter of semantics?  This phrase should read: “…we can safely trust that the disobedient one came from Satan and God subdued it.”  And maybe it’s just me, but the idea that both good and evil come from the same God who sent His Son to die for us, just doesn’t sit well with me.  I’ve heard it before and I consistently react the same way, because I don’t personally know a God that is both good and evil, and for me that means that only good emanates from God.

3) Why do you think that God was “absent” from the book of Esther, that is, that he is nowhere named in the book?  I think that God was very present in Esther’s boldness and courage.  Given the time when the book was written, most women would not have risen to that kind of “holy anger” (Eph. 4:26) particularly, because they were in no position to do anything to alleviate the sense of injustice.  Esther on the other hand is situated to “make a difference” and notably at the expense of her life.  I think she’s noted in scripture, for her position and conviction to address an unbearable situation that called her to action (p. 404).  God is always present when we’re willing to act to a selfless end and toward the benefit of another.  Here, Esther meets that circumstance as she is willing to lose her own life to save an entire race…and while God is not explicitly referenced in the text, her actions are not common and thereby default to where good comes from (Matthew 19:17).

4) Are you able to think of a specific instance in our day and context in which you feel that Christians are called upon to exercise “holy disobedience”? How might we apply the story of Esther? Be specific.  I circled “holy disobedience” in my text several times…only because I think it’s a dangerous statement.  Holy disobedience as defined in our readings is premised on a belief that we are “hearing from God” (p. 403).  And my first question concerns the individual’s certainty of that statement…i.e. How do we really know that we are hearing from God and are not in pursuit of a personal agenda or bias?  I think Jackowski sets up an amazing argument for a necessity to act in the face of oppression.  However, Esther did not act because she audibly heard God’s voice, but rather acted, because she had to.  I think that as Christians, often we are to act because we must and certainly in accordance to the will of God (i.e. Matthew 25:40).  But to walk in a state of conviction by virtue of our Christianity under the belief that our “holy disobedience” is always godly, is simply reckless.  To that end, I think as God’s Church we are called to help the oppressed, but still nowhere have I found in Jesus’ teachings that I am to walk in “holy disobedience”. In my short walk as a spirit filled Christian, I’ve learned not to use the terms “holy” and “disobedient” in the same context.  I do believe that some are called to that end, like Martin Luther King, Caesar Chavez or Esther, however, I believe it is a specific calling, it’s timely and it requires a specific person with a specific situation that is used for God’s purpose.  Indeed, it could be anyone or everyone, but I think it’s important to be true to our godly convictions (i.e. usually related to helping others) so that we can be used for God’s will.   

Feminism

a) Do the Feminist theologians have a solid argument?     Is addressing God as Father sexist?

            In our society where individualism rules above all else, the feminist argument is valid and even applicable.  However, generally as spirit filled believers we uphold that scripture is absolute as it is written regardless of gender use.  In other words, scripture is exact as it currently reads and does not require modifications to accommodate the priorities of our society.  In fact, it is the constancy and reliability of scripture that makes it so potent.  It is the never changing God who is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow (Malichi 3:6) who we will continue to rely on and look to for consistency.  If God was male yesterday then necessarily He must be male today and tomorrow.

b) Would a gender inclusive translation of the Scriptures assist in evangelism?

            Evangelism is true insofar as it is revealed by the Holy Spirit and is never achieved in our own might: “Faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).  The very nature of evangelism is to promulgate the contents of the gospel to anyone willing to listen.  And if the word of God is modified in a manner that changes the intended message of the bible, then the gospel is no longer being preached at all.  Consequently, including a gender translation to address a Heavenly Father as a “mother” substantially changes the role of God in the lives of those who pursue knowledge from scripture.  If God wanted to call Himself a “mother” then He would have done so, but He in fact did not. 

c) Is refusing to acknowledge God as Father a denial of direct revelation? If we call God, “mother” or the “divine parent” are we damaging the Gospel and creating a different God then the one Jesus addressed and taught us to pray to?

            God has a specific hierarchy where men and women are concerned.  This hierarchy is denoted in Genesis where Eve comes from Adam (Gen 2:21) and is once again reaffirmed in: Ephesians 5:22.  God explicitly makes His readers aware that there is a difference between authority as designated to each gender and the reference to males as opposed to females is not an accident but rather an overt statement of truth in God’s Kingdom.  Further, in John 17, Jesus prays, thereby teaching us to pray by example to a “Father” and not a “mother” or “divine parent”:

• Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you (John 17:1). 
• Father, glorify me in your presence (John 17:2).
• Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name (John 17:11).
• Father, just as you are in me and I am in you (John 17:21). 
• Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am (John 17:24).
• Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you (John 17:25).

            As this relates to our reading of Stein, God as Father is summarized in the following quote: “Father” was an address made toward God that only believers could legitimately utter, for it was as God’s children who possess the Spirit that believers cried, “Abba!  Father!: (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15), and in this confession the Spirit himself bore witness that they were indeed children of God (Rom 8:16).”  In other words, Stein concurs that the relationship of Father and child is affirmed by the power of His Spirit and a remarkable truth in the body of Christ.

Deuteronomy

1) In a single sentence describe the central thesis (the “big idea” or main point) of Moore’s article.  Moore focuses on the written and oral revelation of God’s word in Deuteronomy. 

2) Describe one new learning for you that has resulted from reading Moore’s article.

I’ve never considered the Old Testament as “revelatory”.  I always thought of it as a historical account of God (and honestly, irrelevant to some extent insofar as Christ already fulfilled law and prophecy.)  Moore brings forth a perspective I had not considered in Jewish tradition.  I’ve erroneously labeled God’s people as “legal” worshipers and had not stopped to appreciate that they would also have revelation as a part of their awareness of who God is.  *Side note, I just thought about the Psalms in the OT, and I tend to think of those as incorporated into the NT by reference: Luke 24:44 and not an account of the past per se.  I do realize that the OT can be inspirational, but never had I considered any of the books as “alive” (i.e. Holy Spirit revealing alive)…they’ve always seemed like dictation.  Which is what Moore touches on when he talks about how without revelation, ”Israel is prone both to violate Yahweh’s first word and to antiquate his entire word” (p. 90).  Here, Moore is affirming the need for revelation and at the same time acknowledging that without it, then God’s (OT) word, would result in an unattainable end (like words without Godly significance or meaning.)

3) Describe one aspect of the article with which you disagree or about which you have questions.  “As soon as the contrast between written revelation and prophecy is drawn in terms of permanent versus occasional, some might be inclined to conclude from this that prophecy was understood here as...nothing other than temporary revelation on its way to being permanent written revelation” (p. 80).  This is a striking statement.  Moore adds to this that indeed there is revelatory verbal utterances that do not result in written form, but nevertheless it made me think of the value behind words that are spoken but are not recorded for others to hear.  I was struck by the statement on it’s own without Moore’s subsequent comments and would tend to disagree (with Moore) that spoken revelation is lacking in any manner compared to written form.  Both I believe are preserved according to God’s will and to His end.

4) How does Moore’s model fit with you own understanding of divine revelation? Specifically, how do you understand the relationship between the written word of scripture and the spoken prophetic word?  God is the Word (John 1:1) and scripture is absolute in its entirety from Genesis to Revelation.  If the prophetic word is spoken in the Spirit and to God’s end, then that prophetic utterance is an appendage to the revelation of Christ in scripture.  The analogy in my mind is Christ as one entity and scripture and prophecy as a disclosed fraction of Him.  This is consistent with Moore’s views: “Deuteronomy in general offers a past basis, present model and future projection of the complementary relationship between written word and charismatic word in the OT” (90).  While Moore doesn’t explicitly state that Deuteronomy is God, he does touch on “past, present and future” which could only be encompassed in God’s Person.

5) If you could speak with Dr. Moore, what question would you ask him about the ideas that he has expressed in his article?  I would want to ask Dr. Moore about the Holy Spirit as the point of revelation in Deuteronomy?  Does Dr. Moore credit the Holy Spirit regarding revelation in his findings at all?