Scribbling Theology:

Tag: Theology

• Trans-Tribal Christianity

  Posted at 3:00 pm by scribblingtheology, on August 11, 2020

  

  One of the things I both love and hate about Christianity are the tribes it inevitably creates around theological positions. I love it because there needs to be a sense in which we define what is true and good. I’m not too fond of it because often we settle and become passionate about second and third-order issues at the expense of other people. Tribalism drives me crazy. It makes sense because what you believe is inescapably intertwined with your identity and your worship of God. We reflect what we believe. We worship what we reflect and love. What we love we passionately defend ether for good or for worse.

  Here’s the thing. Before we become theologians, before we’re biblically sound, before we know what we believe (if you ever get there right on!) before we keep others at arm’s length because they believe in some different things to us, we must remember that 1. They’re image-bearers like you and 2. You’re a sinner just like them. Do they believe women can be pastors? Don’t forget they’re image-bearers and sinner just like you. Do they think the gifts of the spirit have continued into the modern-day? Remember they’re image-bearers and sinners just like you. Do they struggle with same-sex attraction? Remember they’re image-bearers and sinners just like you. Are they liberal? Are they evolutionists, do they like modern songs more than hymns or vice versa? Are they Reformed, Charismatic, Anglican, in a cult, heretics? Remember they bear the image of God and you are a sinner as well. All of these issues are important and are worth discussing (I love theology remember). However, I don’t believe these discussions and forming opinions and beliefs around these ideas need to necessarily come at the cost of genuine love for neighbour and God. While we naturally want to stick to our own, might I suggest another way? Trans-Tribal Christianity.

  Tans-tribal Christianity is a label (ironic I know) I’m throwing out there to define a way of doing Christianity without ostracizing, isolating, or rejecting others within the Faith while still holding to your own beliefs and convictions. You’re going to be naturally drawn to some and not others. Ordinarily, you’ll worship in a church that is tailored more towards your own beliefs and convictions. However, I want to advocate for a more inclusive way of doing Christianity without compromising on “truth.” You might believe in a precise definition of the Gospel, or in the way a Christian should do church on a Sunday. Good. Hold on to that. However, We should have enough love and humility to see the potential wisdom in others. We don’t need to treat others as “second rate Christians” just because they believe the Lord’s Supper should be taken every week rather than once a month. We shouldn’t turn our nose up to people who see the Bible and the world a little bit different to us. Instead of immediately defending yourself and your position begin with the question “what can they teach me?” You might be surprised at what you learn.

  Full disclosure. Some of this comes from a reflection of my own experience. I’m an evolutionary creationist. I have a literary approach to Scripture. On occasion I see myself agreeing with liberal Christians over conservative ones. I read scholars who in some circles are seen as edgy and semi liberal, where in others they’re orthodox. I have a Reformed ecclesiology, but I’m more Arminian soteriologically. I’m a mixed bag, and it feels like I never really fit in anywhere. Yet, I have friends from all over the spectrum, and it’s got me thinking. What if we can aim for a little more unity in our theological diversity? What if we can sit down and learn more openly from one another. I’m not suggesting we trade theological accuracy for unity. I’m suggesting we aim for a loving, humble unity – a friendship with others that doesn’t need to compromise our convictions. Friendship, understanding, and empathy with others who are different doesn’t need to come at the cost of our own doctrine. So here are some steps you could take the begin this journey (if you haven’t already):

  1. God created everyone in His image and likeness (Gen 1:26). Therefore, everyone deserves the same measure of respect and love that God would give them. 
  2. We’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). Sin is such a part of who we are that it even distorts at times our reading of the Scriptures. This includes you. Never assume you that have the monopoly on truth. Instead, while still holding firm to your convictions, humbly consider that others might have some wisdom and insight that you don’t. 
  3. Know your Bible well (Psalm 1). This speaks for itself. However, in case you’re unaware, the Bible is where our theology and Christian living springs out from. Go to bible college. Read, read and then re-read the Scriptures. Meditate on them for life.
  4. Read widely and deeply. Read from every part of the theological spectrum (or listen). But read wisely. Not everything is good. Not everything is worth taking on. Use discernment. Don’t forsake the wisdom of your pastors, friends, and from those who have gone before you (church tradition). 
  5. Buy coffee. Treat someone who doesn’t typically fit your mould to a hot cup of single-origin coffee. Please get to know them. Sit, listen and take it in. Exercise empathy. If they don’t drink coffee, then that’s a telltale sign of their depravity and error, and you wouldn’t want to listen to them anyway. 
  Posted in Scribbles | 0 Comments | Tagged Christianity, church, doctrine, Friends, Jesus, Theology, Tribes

• Salvation Is: Recapitulation Part IV

  Posted at 11:08 pm by scribblingtheology, on August 7, 2020

  

  Christians are obsessed with the idea of salvation. Fair enough, salvation is essential. The problem, however, is that everyone has different opinions on what salvation actually is. Different traditions tend to emphasise and even make exclusive claims to their own definition of salvation at the expense of others. So in this series, I aim to explore the different facets of salvation so that we may better understand what it really is. Here are the salvific themes we’re going to explore:

  1. Liberation and Exile
  2. Sin and Judgement
  3. Substitution and Sacrifice
  4. Recapitulation
  5. Vocation
  6. New Creation

  Each motif plays a pivotal role in demonstrating what salvation is, how it is achieved and received, and how it is lived out by the believer. In this post, we will be exploring recapitulation.

  The doctrine of recapitulation is just a fancy term to describe the idea that Jesus reenacted the drama of humanity. That is, humanity in the person of Adam was supposed to not “eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil,” but in Genesis 3, they failed the test. Jesus, on the other hand, did pass the test, and every test subsequent perfectly. Joshua M. McNall explains recapitulation to be the foundation in which every other atonement theory makes sense.

  Like every biblical theme, we see the origins of recapitulation on the first few pages of the Bible. In Genesis 1:26, we find that God created humanity in His image (the imago Dei). In previous posts, I’ve already explored what the image of God is, in short, it is a two-fold reality. First, the image is something ontological. In other words, the image is something that is part and parcel of human nature. Second, the image is expressed functionally through the command to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth” and to work and keep the Garden (Genesis 1:28, 2:13). The problem?

  In Adam, all of humanity has now become a corrupted version of what God had intended. We’ve failed to have dominion and to keep and work the Earth. This failure becomes apparent in Genesis 3, where sin in the form of the serpent rules over humanity instead of humanity ruling over it. Also, instead of guarding and keeping the Garden (Gen 2:15), Adam and Eve allow it to be invaded by the serpent to tempt them into idolatry. Mainly, Adam and Eve failed at being human and imaging God. In Adam, we have all failed the test, and we’ve all failed to be human. However, God doesn’t just give up on humanity. Instead, God is about restoring and renewing humankind back to its original purposes, and in fact, a more excellent state (complete unity with God). So then, let us trace recapitulation through the rest of the Bible: 

  • Cain and Abel are offering up sacrifices to God (traditionally interpreted as an attempt to get back into the Garden). However, one fails at being human as Cain let’s sin rule over him (as it crouches at the door and wants to rule over him – creature language). Cain murders his brother and is sent eastward (Genesis 4).
  • Noah comes across as a good human. He builds an ark and preaches righteousness and judgement. Noah is faithful. The flood occurs. Then he gets off the ark and offers up sacrifices and plants a garden/vineyard, and God reestablishes the Adamic covenant with Noah (new Adam imagery). However, Noah gets drunks, lays around naked, and something suss happens. He fails at being human (Genesis 8-9).
  • God calls Abraham out of Babylon to be a blessing to the nations and a father of many. God wants to use Abraham to start a people that would be Yahweh’s own (Genesis 12). Yet immediately Abraham goes to Canaan with his family (though God said not to) to leave them behind). He doesn’t trust in God’s promises and has sex with a Hagar (Genesis 16). He fails at being genuinely human.
  • Moses is promising. He is called by God to deliver Yahweh’s people from bondage to Egypt (Exodus 2-3). On multiple occasions, Moses approaches Pharaoh and demands his people to be set free so that they can worship God. He sends plagues on Egypt (Exodus 7-11) until finally, Moses parts the Red Sea and leads them into the wilderness (Exodus 14). Moses goes up Mount Sinai and gets the law to give to Yahweh’s people (Exodus 19-24). The people love and trust Moses to be their representative to God. Moses might be this new human we’re looking for (Genesis 3:15). However, Moses loses faith in Yahweh and is subsequently barred from the Promise Land (Numbers 20:2-12).
  • David, the chosen the warrior king, and a man after God’s own heart ( 1 Samuel 13:14) faithfully ruled over Israel and with his son Solomon after him. Essentially they established the golden age of Israel for many years. However, David sees beautiful Bathsheba, kills her husband and takes her for his own. There’s so much blood on his hands that God won’t even let him build the temple (2 Samuel 7).
  • Solomon, the wisest king to ever rule (1 Kings 3) continued to raise Israel to a glorious standard. Solomon built the temple where God came to dwell (1 Kings 8), and was loved by all. Yet all the wisdom in the world failed to remind him that he wasn’t to accumulate much wealth, women or and army (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Every one of these laws Solomon broke which ended up leading Israel into mass idolatry.
  • Jesus Christ, is the true prophet, priest and king (think Abraham, Moses and David). The true Israel, the new Adam, i.e. the new human. In a sense, Jesus reenacts all of Israels and humanities failed history in His own life and fulfils all of that in his own life, death and resurrection. That’s recapitulation.

  My final thoughts. As we read the Scriptures, we’re supposed to see something of ourselves in them. We aren’t the heroes of the story. Far from it. We are, however, like Abraham, Moses and David. We’re all in some way or another, failures at being genuinely human. We all fail at loving others as ourselves and God with our entire beings. You could be a king like David, or a nobody like Abraham in a God-forsaken city, or a priest like Moses who talks to God like you would a friend, none of us are who we are meant to be. We all suck at imaging God. That’s ok. There is one who’s greater than us who is truly human. Who in His life took up the entire history of humanity, laid it upon Himself, and died for it. Now Jesus can make you human again, but it isn’t easy, and it doesn’t happen overnight.  

  The essence of being human isn’t seeking perfection, but now, it’s seeking Christ.

  Posted in Scribbling Scripture | 0 Comments | Tagged Christianity, church, doctrine, Jesus, Theology

• Seven Days that Ruled the World: Genesis 1-11 Part IV

  Posted at 1:44 pm by scribblingtheology, on November 21, 2019

  

  Genesis 1 is one of the most loved and hotly debated chapters in all the Scriptures. Probably the most famous debate has been around issues like the age of the earth. Young Earth Creationists use Genesis 1 (and of course other passages) to argue for the existence of a Creator and even go so far as to use it as a model or paradigm for their scientific method. Others interpret Genesis exclusively as mythology, seeing no authority in the text whatsoever and understanding it as an ancient Jewish origins account of the world. These people think that in light of modern science, Genesis 1 has nothing to offer its contemporary readers. Two very different understandings of the text lead to two very different ways in which you can understand the world and God. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

  In past blogs in this series, I have categorised Genesis 1-11 as mythological theological history. What I don’t mean by this is that the events in Genesis 1-11 didn’t happen. Instead, the primary point of these chapters is the divine truths the author is presenting. Mythological doesn’t mean fiction in this context. The mythological genre can be better understood as parabolic or allegorical. The events in Genesis 1-11 happened. However, the events recounted in the narrative bring out a theological point rather than a detailed account of the past. As Tremper Longman III says, “The book of Genesis is not a history-like story but rather a story-like history.” After we explore the literary genre of the chapter, we need to ask ourselves some critical questions.

  1. What is this saying about God?
  2. What is this saying about creation?
  3. What is this saying about humanity?

  As we have already seen in the first verse, the Lord God is the creator, of all that exists. What we see in the rest of the chapter is that God places importance on an ordered and ruled creation rather than merely leaving it to its own devices. Unlike the other gods of the time, Yahweh is deeply concerned with every piece of His creation as He places everything in the right place and humanity has the crowning jewel.

  The seven days of creation in Genesis 1 are not a scientific account of how God created the world, rather, it is a literary device standard in the Ancient Near Eastern world to describe God who is king ordering a cosmic temple to settle in and rule over. Another way to explain it is that Genesis 1 is not about the material origins of the universe. Instead, it is about the function of the things that exist with God at its centre. As John Walton explains:

  I believe that people in the ancient world believed that something existed not by virtue of its material properties, but by virtue of its having a function in an ordered system.

  Beginning in a state of chaos, in days 1-3 light, darkness, the sky, the earth, and the sea are all formed, separated and ordered. In days 4-6, God fills these spaces with the Sun, moon, stars, animals and humans to rule over them. In other words, God gives them a function. On day 6, humans are made in the image of God. The image or the imago Dei is another debated issue, but two things are clear in the text. The imago Dei is an ontological reality that is reflected in the function of flourishing humanity. They’re to have dominion over the earth (God’s cosmic temple), they’re to multiply and fill the earth.

  On day 7 (the Hebrew number for completion – a recurring theme throughout the entire Bible), after having ordered His cosmic temple, Yahweh rests. The word rest here is important because as the story of the Bible progresses, it takes on developed meaning. Here, though, the word rest, according to John Walton, has royal and divine significance. It’s not merely God stopping or ceasing from His work (though that’s, of course, the apparent meaning of the text), instead, it’s God sort of sitting on the throne after completing the structuring of His cosmic temple where He now dwells.

  In Genesis 1, the scene is set, the cosmic temple has been ordered, and God rules amid humanity and His good creation. Good though creation may be, it isn’t perfect. There is untapped potential that God wants humanity to cultivate and produce. This is the functional role that humanity is supposed to live in. Humanity in the world, God’s cosmic temple, is supposed to act as proto-priests as they tend to His good creation in harmony and peace. Genesis 2 fleshes this out more where Adam and Eve are to keep guard the Garden which is designated roles given to priests in Israel later in the Biblical story. For now, however, we see both male and female, and indeed all of creation was meant to live in an ordered world where God dwells and reigns from.

  So what do these observations say about God? God is a divine king who wants to dwell imminently with His good creation as opposed to the ANE common understanding that gods were separate tyrannical rulers. What does this say about creation? That all of creation is good but has the capacity for more as it’s given to humanity to cultivate and rule over. What does this say about humanity? That humanity as God’s vice-regents, they were to live in harmony with God’s and the created order as they reign alongside God over the rest of creation and cultivate it.

  As John Walton summarises

  The key features of this interpretation include most prominently: The Hebrew word translated “create” (bārāʾ) concerns assigning functions. The account begins in verse 2 with no functions (rather than with no material). The first three days pertain to the three major functions of life: time, weather, food. Days four to six pertain to functionaries in the cosmos being assigned their roles and spheres. The recurring comment that “it is good” refers to functionality (relative to people). The temple aspect is evident in the climax of day seven when God rests—an activity in a temple. The account can then be seen to be a seven-day inauguration of the cosmic temple, setting up its functions for the benefit of humanity, with God dwelling in relationship with his creatures.

  Posted in Scribbling Scripture | 0 Comments | Tagged Christianity, church, opinion, Theology

• Human

  Posted at 10:22 pm by scribblingtheology, on November 7, 2019

  

  “The man here tells us a truth that is awful – we baptise ourselves with names that are far from the only truth about ourselves.”
  ― Pádraig Ó Tuama, In the Shelter: Finding a Home in the World

  One of life’s biggest question’s is who are we? What does it mean to be human? What is our purpose in life? What is the meaning to all of this? Essential questions, unfortunately, not quickly answered.

  The Scriptures tell a story about us that starts on the first few pages of this ancient book. Humanity is made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26), from the dust of the ground, from the breath of God’s nostrils (Genesis 2:7), and from one another (Genesis 2:22). Humans were created to be like God and relate to Him by ruling over God’s creation. They were created with a connection to the earth as they were to cultivate and protect it (Genesis 2:15). Finally, they were created from one another as it is not good for anyone to be alone (Genesis 2:18). In Genesis 3, we became something less than human as we failed to be like God, and we allowed the serpent to rule over us. We became less than human as we failed to protect the Garden from evil. Then, we failed in our relationship with one another as we immediately turned to blame one another for our mistakes.

  At the Fall, something happened to humanity where we lost our identity. We don’t know who we are anymore, we don’t really understand what we’re meant to be doing because of that loss of self. So in an attempt to recover our lost sense of self, we grab anything that seems to offer an answer to the big question “who are we?” A lot of us, at least in the West, have bought into the modern cultural meta-narratives of capitalism, scientism, gender equality, and probably dozens of ideas I can’t really think of right now. Why? Because even those these in and of themselves aren’t bad, these things help us make sense of who we are yet never really give us the complete picture. Each little story or philosophical idea makes us feel safe for just a fleeting moment. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how much science discovers, whether we find peace in the Middle East or if climate change is solved tomorrow, we’d still end up feeling sense of restlessness and loss of who we’re truly meant to be.

  The Bible tells us that because we’re incapable of being human ourselves, God has to send someone who can fix that problem for us. Jesus is the perfect human. He was truly human in that He was completely like God (Colossians 1:15) He ruled over the serpent and evil (Matthew 4:1-11). He loved God and others as Himself (Matthew 22:36-40), even His enemies (Matthew 5:44). So as we’re united to Christ by His Spirit, we start to recover a real sense of who we’re all meant to be (I’m thinking the beatitudes here as an example). It’s only in Jesus that we truly begin our journey on becoming truly human, which will culminate in glory.

   

  Posted in Scribbles | 0 Comments | Tagged Christianity, Identity, love, opinion, Spirituality, The bible, Theology

• Gaining Wisdom

  Posted at 4:44 pm by scribblingtheology, on November 1, 2019

  

  He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.

   – Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1. 177

  Yoda, Gandalf, Rafiki, Dumbeldore, Morpheus, Professor X are among some of the greatest and wisest of characters throughout fictional cinematic history. We immediately gravitate towards these characters because they guide the hero (us) along the path, without them, there would be no happy ending. We love them because each one of us craves to either have someone like that in our lives or because we wish we were like that ourselves. How great would it be to be as wise as these characters? Even within our own history, we envy those who have gone before who seemed glimpse into the world a little then ourselves. Buddha, Muhammed, The Dhali Lama, The Pope, Jesus Himself. Each one (whether you’re religious or not) a guru and a sage in their own right. Each one has changed the course of history and that of their people in profound ways we’re only still beginning to comprehend. If only we had just a slice of their wisdom and insight into the world, maybe we’d have inner peace, perhaps we’d have it all together like they did. Maybe.

  Unfortunately, wisdom has a high price. Nothing in this world is free, and wisdom is no exception to this rule. Whether it was fighting a Balrog, fighting in the clone wars and being overthrown by the Sith or being on the constant lookout for the One, Yoda, Gandalf, Rafiki, Dumbeldore, Morpheus, Professor X all went through their own trials to gain the wisdom and knowledge they had. Gautama (the actual name for the Buddha) had to observe and experience suffering before realising it had to be overcome and thus becoming enlightened. Even the Dhali Lama, how many lives (it’s a Hindu thing) has he gone through to accumulate the wisdom he aims to share with the world? Then there’s Jesus Christ Himself the Son of God, the greatest of them all, yet even He suffered and died so that His saving Gospel could go forth into every nation, tribe and tongue. Wisdom comes at a high cost, and it is pain, trials and tribulation.

  Not only does it take pain and trials to acquire wisdom, but it takes a vast amount of time to accumulate it. There’s a reason why age is associated with wisdom. It is because those who are older have gone through the pain, they’ve experienced the vanity of this world and grasp what it is that makes the world tick. This is tied to their experiences. No amount of sitting under a tree or inspirational mountain hikes or #worshipsessions will give you wisdom, it’s something God teaches you as you walk gradually through the highs and lows of life. But it does begin with God (Prov 2:6), and as the Spirit carries you along the rough seas of life, you must always keep in mind that each vouge is a lesson that the Master has to bestow to you. We must have ears to hear and eyes to see and open hearts to receive.

  The Epistle of James is a timely piece to read and meditate on. The main theological theme of James is wisdom and faith during trials and tribulations. James encourages us to ask God for wisdom. For He will give it liberally without hesitation (James 1:5). That the sort of wisdom God gives is “pure, peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere” (James 3:17).  That these good fruits are produced through patience and a lifetime of learning through trials (James 5:7-12).

  For me, I am learning to embrace and cherish each moment that is painful and hard (and there’s been a few of them lately) as I try to remember that God is working this out for my good (Romans 8:28), that He is sovereign over history which includes my life (Genesis 5:20; Psalm 115:3; Proverbs 16:9), and that out of He will conform me to the likeness of His Son Jesus (Romans 8:29) who is wise beyond measure (Colossians 2:3).

  “Time, as it grows old, teaches all things.”
  ― Aeschylus, Prometheus Bound

  Posted in Scribbles | 1 Comment | Tagged Christianity, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• Existential Christianity

  Posted at 5:31 pm by scribblingtheology, on September 9, 2019

  

  A friend of mine once said the “Gospel” we preach today is the reason why so many people are at a loss with the Church. It’s the reason why so many of us are struggling with depression, anxiety, gender identity, and why once-famous Christians are walking away. Maybe. I think everyone believes that their “Gospel” is the right one. I think everyone thinks that if everyone just got their “Gospel” then the world would change and BAM! Jesus comes back and all is well with the world. The problem with thinking like that is that even in the midst of biblical Christianity, the Apostles had a lot of crap to deal with. Life didn’t get better for them, it got worse. They had hope in Jesus, but in their immediate set of circumstances, the Church was killed and ostracised for being a cult and for rebelling against the State (the Roman Empire). I’m now half a world away and two thousand years into the future. There might not be a Roman Empire per se, but mental health issues, social and educational persecution, the prosperity Gospel, liberalism and a swath of issues are on the front lines of the Church’s Western Front. Principalities and powers indeed.

  Not only that but more than ever in the history of humanity information and in turn philosophical and scientific theories are spreading like wildfire. You can walk into one room full of ten people with vastly different perspectives and get ten different definitions on the meaning of life and how it should be lived. Even among Christians, I’ve rarely met any two people who could agree on what it even means to be Christian. We all say yes and amen at “love thy neighbour,” but what it actually means to do that looks completely different to whoever it is your talking to.

  Personally, as I venture down the black hole that is theological and philosophical thought, I find myself, in my strive for wisdom, in a constant inner war between two primary concepts; meaninglessness and purpose (found in Christ). I find myself very much at home with the existentialist or even the authour of Ecclesiastes. There is a realness to life I think we all try to avoid. We all wear smiles as we attempt to turn that frown upside down. It’s socially awkward to admit that life sucks. “How are you?” “Yeah, good” or “not bad” is our autoresponse. Life slaps us in the face when a loved one dies or a tragedy befalls us. Suddenly it’s ok to cry, to mourn and to hurt… yet… every one of us does that every day. There’s a beautiful dread to life that we hate admitting exists. If it weren’t for the Gospel then where would I, or any of us be?

  Here’s my point to all of this. Human, get good at talking about the pain and the hurt and the despair. These are real things forming (perhaps even unwittingly) an identity inside every one of us. They take root, they form us and they make us into who we are behind the masks we all wear. Then thrust the Gospel of life into their hearts. Peel back the layers of chaos and bring the shalom each one us truly aches for. Life is beautiful but it can be more in Jesus the Messiah.

  “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. By this, all people will know that you are my disciples if you have love for one another” (Galatians 5:14; Romans 12:9, 15; John 13:35).

  Posted in Scribbles | 1 Comment | Tagged Christianity, depression, existentialism, God, Identity, Jesus, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• Life and Death: Genesis 1-11 Part III

  Posted at 1:00 pm by scribblingtheology, on September 2, 2019

  

  Death is the sound of distant thunder at a picnic. – W. H. Auden

  Quick note: I’ve skipped a few sections in this series, but I felt compelled to write about this sooner rather than later. So like Starwars, some of these posts will be out of order. Thanks 🙂

  There is nothing more sobering than the death of a loved one. When someone dies, it is the perfect time to deeply reflect on the value of life, purpose and destiny. Why does death exist? Why do we all have to die? After we die, then what? Important questions and the answer largely depends on what you believe about humanity, God and the Bible. It’s taken me a while to write this post because I’m constantly challenged on my perspective of death. Growing up, death was a reasonably foreign idea. I had a cat that died, but apart from that, I didn’t really have any relationship with it. It probably wasn’t until my dad died just a few years ago that the reality of death kicked in.

  In the Bible, the first place we come across the idea of death is in Genesis 2:15-17. Here God has placed mankind in Eden to work and keep it. Then God tells them that they could eat from any tree in the Garden except the tree of knowledge of good evil; otherwise, they’ll die. What an odd story. Eat fruit from any tree except this one, or you’ll die? Is the fruit poisoned? Does God really like this one particular tree? Are they allergic to its fruit? What’s going on here? A careful reflection on the story might lead one to consider that there’s more going on here than meets the eye. First, there are two main trees in the Garden here (Gen 2:9). The tree of knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. Don’t eat from one, but you can from the other. In the story, these trees were representative of important and more profound realities. Wisdom/knowledge and eternal life. Let’s focus on the tree of life for a moment.

  In the ancient near eastern world, these kinds of trees are associated with youth and the reversal of age. In the Gilgamesh Epic, there is a plant called “old man becomes young” that grows at the bottom of the cosmic river. In the rest of the Bible, the tree of life is portrayed as offering life and new life (Prov 3:16-18; 15-4), and can also be found in Revelation (2:7; 22:1-2, 14-15, 18-19) where the tree of life and the river of life are associated. For me, this sheds a bit of light on the meaning of what’s going on here in Genesis. A new creation is happening in Revelation. Renewal of the earth and the removal of sin and corruption where creation is finally united to God in the complete sense of that phrase. In Genesis 2, something similar is happening, unity, flourishing and absence of sin.

  Furthermore, the mention of rivers in Genesis 2 flowing out from the Garden coupled with the tree of life says to me that this is where all life and goodness comes from, this Garden, this sacred space. Except for one crucial difference. In Revelation, there is no tree of knowledge, there is no presence of sin.

  Now for the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The name given to the tree is counter-intuitive. Knowledge is good, right? Isn’t gaining the ability to discern between good and evil something we should have? Obviously, something more is at play in the story. First, it’s important to note that the Hebrew word for evil here is different from the way we use it today. Western philosophy is loaded with a certain ethical definition that isn’t necessarily in the original Hebrew word. It’s probably better to understand the word evil as bad or not good for you. For example, the word can also be used of things God does (Jdg 9:56-57; 2 Sam 12:11; Isa 45:7). However, we know that God is good and that in Him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5), so the word doesn’t always have to have the same philosophical definition that we have for it. I suppose my point is; this tree represents knowledge to distinguish between what’s bad for us and what’s good for us in the world. We call this wisdom. Essentially, eating from the tree meant choosing to live by our own wisdom (this is the definition Genesis 3 gives for defining to be like a god), rather than living by Yahweh’s wisdom. Let’s just stop for a moment. It’s not like Adam and Eve didn’t know what the right thing to do was. They certainly believed that they were going to die if they ate the fruit from the tree. It wasn’t until the serpent tempted them that they decided to become gods themselves.

  So now to death. God said, “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Gen 2:17). The thing is Adam and Eve don’t die when they ate the fruit, at least not in the conventional sense. Adam lived until he was 930 years old. He had a long full life, longer than ours. So then death needs to be understood as something more than simply not existing. First, the plain meaning of death here does incorporate physical death. Adam might live until 930 years old, but he does end up dying, and I believe that’s something that’s not apart of God’s good creation (Gen 3:19; Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:55). However, the kind of death emphasised here is a relational separation from God who is the source of all light and life (Gen 2:7; Job 33:4; Neh 9:6; John 1:3-4; 1 Tim 6:13). Like I argue in my post on Genesis 1, Moses’ audience and the later Exilic audience would have understood Genesis 2-3 as their current experience, being separated from the land, sacred space, and God’s presence as a result of human rebellion.

  To conclude, death is two-fold.  It is separation from God’s presence and the ceasing of one’s physical existence. One inevitably leads to the other. Because Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden (God’s presence), so was all of humanity in Adam. Because the inevitable consequence of rebellion and separation is physical death, all shall die. But there is good news. God makes all things (including death) work together for the good of those who love Him, according to His purposes (Rom 8:28). Though we all may die, those who turn to Christ will actually find their life (Matt 10:39, 16:25; Mark 8:35; John 11:25-26), and will take part in His resurrection (John 6:39; Rom 6; 1 Cor 6:14, 15:20-23; 1 Thess 4:16; Rev 21:1-5). We’re all exiles now (1 Peter 1:1-2), but one day, those who have bowed the knee to Christ and given Him their allegiance will be raised up on the last day and rule alongside Him in a New Heaven and a New Earth in perfect harmony with God, one another, and creation. So let’s choose to eat from the tree of life (God’s wisdom), rather than choosing to decide what’s good for us. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Prov 9:10), and it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God indeed (Heb 10:31).

  Posted in Scribbling Scripture | 0 Comments | Tagged Christianity, opinion, Spirituality, The bible, Theology

• Genesis 1-11 Part II: In the Beginning

  Posted at 7:36 am by scribblingtheology, on August 16, 2019

  

  In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. – Genesis 1:1-2

  A long time ago before I became a Christian, I remember dating a girl who’s family were hardcore believers. I remember one day being at their house, bored, and picking up a Creation magazine. Two things stuck out to me. First, that the earth was around 6000-10,000 years old and second that they didn’t believe aliens existed. Immediately I knew they were crazy. However, it wasn’t long until I thought these things myself. When I became a Christian, I hit the ground running with the Scriptures. I soaked up everything it had to say and just believed what I thought it was telling me. For most of my Christian life, I believed that God created the earth around 6000 years ago, that there was a real talking snake in the Garden, and that ideas like evolution were a lie cleverly constructed to deceive the world into believing that God doesn’t exist. I was taught by many people (people who are still dear friends today) that unless you believed these things you weren’t taking Jesus, the Bible or the Faith seriously. So I joined their tribe. I often went street preaching, seeking to debunk evolution and turn people to Jesus. For me, atheism and evolution went hand in hand, and if you could disprove one, the other would fall. Sure, I had heard about Christians out there who believed in evolution (they’re known as theistic evolutionists). However, they were considered liberal, twisting the Scriptures, compromising and it probably wasn’t long until they walked away from the Faith altogether. Since then, a lot has changed. Bible college set me on a trajectory of seriously studying the Scriptures in its original context and genre. I remember quite clearly that the first theological position that shifted was my eschatology. I went from being a Premillenail Dispensationalist to a Convenential Amillinealist. The next thing that started to change was my approach to the Scripture itself. I went from reading Bible verses in isolation from one another to seeing huge thematic threads that reverberated throughout the entire Biblical narrative (I came to know this as biblical theology).

  I began to understand the importance of context, genre, audience, authorship and to look for the authors intent (much of which I discuss here). Huge biblical themes like temple and sacred space, priesthood, union with God and much more, lit up the Bible as it began to sing to me a sweet alluring song that I haven’t been able to get out of my head to this day (not that I’ve tried). Eventually, I came across Tim Mackie and the Bible Project. They kept pointing out how important the story of Genesis 1-11 was for the entire biblical narrative, and wow was I amazed. Coupled with what I was learning at college, these guys turned the Bible from Netflix into 4k VR surround sound where, at times, it was almost like I could touch God Himself through the very pages I was reading. Now, as a result of all this, over the last three years or so I’ve shifted in my view of Genesis 1. Let’s explore.

  Genesis 1 has been the subject of much speculation and debate for thousands of years. Each generation or era has a different take on what’s happening in the text, and I actually don’t think that’s a horrible thing. I believe God intends for us to reflect on whatever it is we’re reading in the Bible into our own context and live out the implications as God’s people. However, this shouldn’t be at the expense of the original intended meaning of the text. As far as I can tell, I see three main theological themes being explored in the first chapter. 1. God and who He is. 2. The ordering or construction of sacred space. 3. The establishing of humanity and their vocation in relation to God, sacred space, and the created order.

  When we turn to the first page in the Bible, the very first thing the author wants us to notice is that there is a god and that this god created the heavens and the earth. Who is this god? This is where context is so important. If Moses wrote Genesis (I discuss authorship in a previous post), then his cognitive environment would have shaped his understanding of who this god was. For Moses and the Israelites in the Exodus events, the same God who brought them out of Egpyt was the same God who was the Creator in Genesis 1. This can be further supported by the use of the title “LORD God” in Genesis 2:4 (and onwards) where the author seems to be making an emphatic claim that this is indeed Yahweh Himself. The God of Israel is the God of the entire cosmos.

  Just this line of thought alone has some profound implication for its readers. The most obvious is that God doesn’t merely create the universe, order it, and leave it to its own devices (deism). Instead, if this god is Yahweh Himself, we see that He is always at work throughout human history. God is both transcendent and immanent. He is distinct from His creation but is at work in it and often through it to bring about the redemption of a fallen world. The New Testament later picks this up by throwing Jesus into the mix (see: John 1 and Col 1:15-17).

  Furthermore, in a polytheistic world, the idea that one God created the cosmos would have been a little edgy. In the ancient near eastern world (ANE), there were many other creation narratives, each depicting a council of gods creating the cosmos, usually chaotically, through violence and battle. Instead, God here simply speaks, and there is light, stars, animals etc. Very chill. To me, this says something about God’s character. Rather than having chaos reign, God is all about order, peace, shalom. In fact, this can be further supported by the use of the word create. This leads me to my next point. Order out of chaos and sacred space.

  Here is where I blend a few ideas together. First, we read that the earth was formless and void. The Hebrew wording here can be translated as wild and waste, desolate and chaotic. Picture, if you can, a tumultuous watery wasteland that continuously churns and destroys. This was the state of the world before day one. Immediately the readers would have picked up on what was happening here. In the surrounding ANE world, there were plenty of creation narratives where chaotic and wild waters were to be overcome by the gods. It’s where the great leviathan dwelt, chaotic and dark sea creatures at odds with the plans of the gods (see the Enûma Eliš as an example). To the ANE world, dark, chaotic waters and leviathan were something to be feared, yet in the text, God simply brings order out of this chaos by speaking, unlike the ANE gods that wared over it. Furthermore, the leviathan was made to be a good creature, not an evil one in Genesis 1:20-23 (c.f. Ps 104:26). Similarities? Yes. Absolutely. It goes without saying that we’re going to find similarities between people groups in the same cognitive environment.

  The differences, however, are important. Instead of God having to fight or war for lordship over the chaos and darkness, He is lord from the very beginning. The chaos creatures are actually His, and so are the waters. They’re subdued and ready to be moulded in the hands of the Creator. From here, God takes the wild watery wastes and uses them to form His sacred space – temple.

  John Walton in his book “The Lost World of Genesis 1” argues that the Hebrew word for “created” in Genesis 1:1 shouldn’t be understood as ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), rather it should be understood that God orders the cosmos into a cosmic temple (sacred space). I recommend you read his book and wrap your head around the full argument. From what I’ve learned from him and other resources I concur. The ANE world was more concerned with function and order then they were about the material origins we’d usually read into the text. One analogy Walton uses is the difference between a house and a home. The way we usually read the text is like building a house. We place down the foundations, the walls, roof etc. Where the ANE was more interested in a home with furniture, food etc. A home is where one thrives, lives and flourishes, the other is more about material origins. This is likely what’s happening in the text. The author is more interested in function and home in the sacred space God is about to order, rather than the material origins of the universe. In this blog, I explore the theme of temple and how it relates to the biblical story. In the next post, we’ll explore more about the theme of temple and how it relates to what’s happening here.

  So to wrap up this part of the series:

  1. The god in Genesis 1 is Yahweh. He is the sole creator, sustainer and Lord of life.
  2. The earth was in a wild, dark and chaotic space then God starts to order it.
  3. God is arranging a sacred space or temple.
  Posted in Scribbling Scripture | 1 Comment | Tagged Christianity, God, Jesus, opinion, The bible, Theology

• Genesis 1-11 Part I: Authorship, Context and Genre

  Posted at 5:12 pm by scribblingtheology, on August 10, 2019

  

  It really all began in Bible college. I took intro to the Old Testament and intro to the New Testament in my first year. Naturally, in the first semester of our OT class, we began to comb through the Torah. But in my NT class, surprisingly, we spent more time in the OT and then in the intertestamental period then I was expecting. For a while, I was a bit confused. I didn’t want to spend time in Genesis 1-3 or Exodus, let’s just talk about Jesus and the Gospels.  However, as time went on, I began to realise how important it was to understand that the New Testament is really just the culmination, fulfilment, and climax of everything the Old Testament was working towards. Essentially, the New Testament makes the most sense only in light of the Old Testament in the same way that the Avengers: End Game only makes sense in light of all the prequels. Thus, my love for the Bible truly started to evolve. I was now beginning to see that the Bible wasn’t just a collection of random independent books with neat little stories that we can enjoy or live by. Instead, it is (as the Bible Project says), a unified story that leads to Jesus. Eventually, it was Tim Mackie and the Bible Project that went even further in showing me the importance of the Old Testament story, mainly, the role Genesis 1-11 plays. In fact, I’ve developed a love so much for Genesis 1-11 that if I ever were to go into scholarship, it would have to be related to this section of Scripture. Until then, I must sate my curiosity with blogging about it.

  Genesis 1-11 is one of the most vital sections in all of Scripture. In it contains the theological mythos of the world, the introduction of God, and the purpose of humanity. Every other story in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament can find its source in these eleven chapters. Before jumping in, however, we must consider two things first. Context and genre.

  When you study any section of the Bible, three questions must come to mind. 1. Who is the author, and who is the intended audience? 2. What is the context of this verse or passage (canonical and historical)? 3. What is the literary genre (historical, narrative, poetry, apocalyptic, wisdom, epistle)? These questions can help us to conclude the authors intent of the passage and how and what the original audience would have received. Answering these questions doesn’t necessarily guarantee an accurate interpretation of Scripture, but it does get as a long way towards that goal. Let’s take a super easy one, for example. The book of Romans. We know the author (the Apostle Paul), the audience (Christians, perhaps both Gentiles and Jews in Rome), the date of the letter (A.D. 55-57), and the genre (epistle). Now, the theological purpose of the letter is somewhat debated. However, these facts give us a fair understanding of what Paul would have been writing about, why he wrote them, his possible influences and meanings of contended passages. Because Romans genre is epistle, we’re going to find less symbolism and poetry and more of a style that conveys a precise sense, theology, and purpose to his readers. We can do the same work with the book of Genesis, albeit with more ambiguous results.

  First, Genesis is one part of a larger collection of books or scrolls as they would have been in the ancient world. We know this collection as the Torah or Pentateuch; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Authorship is a bit tricky. Unlike Paul’s epistles where he actually tells his audience that it’s him writing it (or at least had a scribe he dictated to), Genesis doesn’t actually tell us who wrote it. Furthermore, many books in the OT didn’t necessarily have an author per se. This is because, in the ancient OT world, the ability to write and preserve information was scarce (they were reserved for royal and priestly offices). Tradition speculates that Moses was the author of Genesis and with good reason. The Torah is often attributed to Moses throughout the rest of the Hebrew Bible (Josh 1:7-8; 2 Chron 25:4; Neh 13:1). The New Testament and Jesus Himself seem to attribute the Torah and Genesis to Moses as well (Matt 19:7, 22:24; Mk 12:26; John 1:17, 5:46, 1:23). Whether or not they believed Moses literally penned every word or not is fairly debatable, but what we can say is that Moses had a major hand in its origins and content. This now leads us to context.

  If Genesis originates with Moses, then his cognitive environment would have had an impact on the composition of the text. The entire Exodus story and Israel’s journey going into the Promised Land would have been drawing on the Genesis 1-3 story of God giving land (Eden) to Adam and Eve, with the test in Genesis 3 mirroring God testing Israel in the wilderness and a lot more we’ll explore in further posts. However, this is only the first cognitive environment we need to consider.

  The final form of Genesis (and the Torah) that we have wasn’t shaped and put together until sometime after the Exile. This further complicates our mission to determine its context as there is a world of difference between the events of Genesis, the Exodus story and the exilic or post-exilic period. These different worlds can have vastly profound impacts on how Genesis is to be understood. This is because as people living in or just out of the Exile, they would have interpreted Genesis in light of that event. Genesis 3, for example, is about living in the land (Eden) and being exiled from it because of sin. Isreal living in the Exile would have immediately picked that up and read that as their own story.

  Furthermore, the ancient near east (ANE) was the world of the Old Testament. This means that what the ANE believed would have impacted how the authors of the Old Testament thought and wrote. Therefore, what the ANE world thought of temples, gods, relationships, family, and the cosmos would have influenced the culture of the OT. In turn, this would affect the authors perspective on certain issues (this is called one’s “cognitive environment”). Abraham himself was brought out of a pagan ANE world to start a unique family and people for God’s own purposes. Not everything Abraham did would be considered righteous or holy. Let’s not forget that Abraham was on a constant struggle to shed ANE cultural norms and expectations and live according to the promises of God. So then, what I’m ultimately arguing here is that God deliberately used each and every author’s cognitive environment as a means to shape His message.

  So then, the book of Genesis as we know it today passed through Moses and was preserved by oral tradition until finally formed in or sometime after the Exile. Genesis could then be considered (especially chapter 12-50 – even the entire Torah) as Israel’s origins. Chapters 1-11 could be regarded as the origins of the whole world. So broadly speaking Genesis’ genre is historical. However, how we study history in the 21st Century and how the ancient world preserved history was different. I would categorise Genesis 1-11 as mythological theological history. What I don’t mean by this is that Genesis 1-11 didn’t happen. Instead, the primary point of these chapters is the divine truths the author is presenting. Mythological doesn’t mean fiction in this context. The mythological genre can be better understood as parabolic or allegorical. The events in Genesis 1-11 happened. However, the events recounted in the narrative bring out a theological point rather than a detailed account of the past. As Tremper Longman III says, “The book of Genesis is not a history-like story but rather a story-like history.”

  So to wrap up Part I:

  1. Authorship: Genesis’ origins were likely with Moses but its final form as we know it was put together sometime during or after the Babylonian Exile.
  2. Context: The ANE world, the time of Moses, and the Exilic period do have a considerable impact on how one should understand the text (something more we’ll get into the next post).
  3. Genre: I believe the genre of Genesis 1-11 should be understood as mythological theological, historical narrative. It is an account of the history of the world, but a theological one told literarily through the use of story.

  In the next part of this series, we will start by looking at Genesis 1.

  Resources:

  • The NIV Application Commentary Genesis by John H. Walton
  • Genesis (The Expositors Bible Commentary): by John Sailhammer
  • The Dictionary of the Pentateuch (IVP) eds. T. Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker
  • Genesis (The Story of God Bible Commentary) by Temper Longman III
  • This video by the Bible Project
  Posted in Scribbling Scripture | 3 Comments | Tagged Christianity, opinion, Spirituality, The bible, Theology

• Major on the Majors & Minor on the Minors

  Posted at 12:29 pm by scribblingtheology, on August 6, 2019

  

  Five hundred years ago, the hammer fell, and the nail-pierced the door at Wittenburg, which gave birth to the Protestant movement which, over time, grew into the theologically diverse Church that we have today. Some say this is a bad thing, that Protestants never agree on anything, everyone in a sense is their own Pope, their ultimate authority. People argue that the Protestant movement is so fractured that it works against the unity that Scripture promotes (John 17:23; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:11-13; Col 3:13-14). Indeed I say, the Bible encourages unity and even commands it. But you know the old saying; sometimes you have to crack a few eggs to make the perfect omelette. That omelette is still cooking (we’re always reforming). 

  However, I believe as one friend told me a long time ago that the diversity in the Protestant movement is apart of God’s will to deliberately hold the entire Church accountable to interpreting His Word correctly. Rather than relying on just one or a few people to interpret Scripture accurately for us (this is the priesthood of believers). This was a huge part of the Reformation. The Word was placed into the hands of all of God’s people, not just a few “qualified” men. Praise God for that. We can’t, though, turn a blind eye to apparent differences in our movement. One can walk down a street and note a Presbyterian church next to a Uniting, next to a Baptist, next to a Lutheran, next to an Anglican, all within thirty seconds of one another. With the wealth of information (mostly thanks to the internet) and the progression of theological scholarship, even just one local church can have a diverse theological membership or leadership within its congregation. So, how do we then “major on the majors, and minor on the minors” so the speak? How do we minister with the vast range of theological differences even within our local churches?

  Short answer – it depends. Read on.

  1. Confessions or statements of faith:

  Throughout church history, many confessions, creeds, and statements have been written and nutted out by men greater than most of us that usually major on the majors. These majors include the nature of God, the hypostatic union, the nature of humanity, inerrancy and inspiration concerning Scripture, the atonement, sacraments, and in one way or another the Gospel (repentance, faith, Jesus’ life, death and resurrection etc.). Reading through some of these confessions and even potentially adopting one for your church (or even for just yourself) will go a long way in avoiding potential pitfalls in the future.

  2. Humility and grace:

  We must remember, especially those of us who are theologically trained, to maintain a position of humility and grace to those we disagree with on the minors. Minor doctrines are positions we might take that we believe to be evident in the Scriptures but don’t necessarily affect one’s standing with God. These minors issues might include eschatology, Calvinism/Arminianism/ Molinism, the age of the earth or universe (evolution and science etc.), continuationism/cessationism, again the sacraments (depending on one’s view, you can categorise some of these in different tiers), complementarianism/egalitarianism. We must always be ready to be wrong on minor issues while still believing we’re right on what we believe (otherwise, why believe it?).

  3. Ecclesiology, prayer, and coffee:

  Almost every Protestant denomination majors on the majors. You should be able to walk into a Presbyterian church, a Baptist church, a Lutheran church, and hear the same Gospel being preached to their members. However, secondary issues can affect how we minister together practically. For example, pedo vs credo baptism understandably affects the way one does church, and it has some bearing on how the Gospel is displayed, but the differences aren’t salvific. Something like this I would categorise as a secondary issue – significant enough that it affects our ecclesiology, but not so important that I wouldn’t consider the person I disagree with a heretic. A third-tier issue is something like eschatology or the age of the earth, these don’t necessarily have a bearing on your ecclesiology but are important enough to how one largely interprets the Bible and in turn the Christian life. These things can affect how we do church (depending on how militant the person is about their position), but they don’t have to. Third-tier issues can inevitably tie into second and even major tiered issues, so it’s understandable why, in some cases, people may not be able to minister together. However, if leaders and members can somehow embrace the differences, it would make for a theologically, robust church.

  This kind of unity is fostered by taking the command to love one another seriously (John 13:34-35), to maintain a humble yet open disposition displayed first from the leadership and then by the members. Lots of prayers, as I’ve heard it said, you can’t hate someone you pray for often, and lots of conversations over good quality coffee with an open Bible. Finally, I’d say encourage mature theological discussion and training. Whether it’s from a seminary, college or your church, people can only grow if you’re willing to teach. If we can encourage this kind of unity and maturity in our theological development, it will hopefully flow out into our churches. It’s hard but not impossible, and I think the rewards are worth it. At the end of the day if the differences end up being too great, at least walk away in love trying to keep the unity of the faith.

  Posted in Scribbles | 1 Comment | Tagged Christ, Christianity, church, God, Jesus, love, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• Search for:

• Recent Posts

  • Biblical Themes Part I: Messiah
  • Theological Reflections on Spiritual Formation
  • The Crackling Word
  • The Deep Blue Church
  • Trans-Tribal Christianity

• Archives

  Archives Select Month September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 July 2018 June 2018 August 2017 December 2015 November 2015

• Facebook

  Facebook

• Follow Blog via Email

  Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  Email Address:

  Follow