Scribbling Theology:

Tag: 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 | 0 Comments | 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 | 1 Comment | 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

  

  500 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 own 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 promotes unity and even commands it. But you know the old saying, sometimes you have to crack a few eggs to make the perfect omelette.

  Granted, that omelette is still being cooked (we’re always reforming). However, I believe as one friend told me a long time ago that the diversity in the Protestant movement is actually 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 it rightly for us (this is known as 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, simply turn a blind eye to obvious 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 (largely 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 own 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 own 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 and even potentially adopting one for your own 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 personally believe are clear 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 here 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 – important 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 own 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 | 0 Comments | Tagged Christ, Christianity, church, God, Jesus, love, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• The Image of God

  Posted at 9:02 am by scribblingtheology, on August 2, 2019

  

  Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

  So God created man in his own image,
  in the image of God he created him;
  male and female he created them. – Genesis 1:26-27

  The Imago Dei or the image of God has been discussed at length for a long, long time. Throughout history, some have assumed that the image of God refers to intelligence and the ability to discern between moral choices. Others have assumed it’s more about the soul or spirit of a human. I believe that the Image is something functional (something we do) and ontological (something we have). Let’s explore.

  One of the most distinguishing characteristics of Yahweh is that He wants to be known, and He wants to know His creation as well. This is somewhat bizarre because most gods in the ancient world weren’t really concerned with the affairs of humanity unless thought they could get something out of them. Yahweh, on the other hand, is completely driven by love, order, shalom and holiness. So what does this mean for the Imago Dei?

  In the ancient world, kings were known to be the earthly representatives of their god. In Egypt, for example, the pharaoh was thought to be the incarnation and representation of whatever major or popular god was in at the time. Furthermore, these representative kings were meant to rule over their nation as though the god itself was ruling, thus displaying all of the god’s attributes and character. Other examples in the ancient world also show how the representatives of the gods also played a mediatory role, a sort of middle man between the god and the nation. In Genesis 1-2 there is a similar message. Humanity (both male and female) are created and endowed with something of the Creator God. They intrinsically possess the divine (ontology) as they were made to image or display their Creator the rest of creation (function). According to the passage, humanity were to image Yahweh by “having dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth” (Genesis 1:26), and to work and keep the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:15). What does this mean for us then?

  In Genesis 3 classically entitled as the Fall, humanity meets a weird talking serpent (sin incarnate), they’re tempted, they take from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and are then exiled from the Garden because they failed in their vocation to be keepers of  Eden and to rule over creation. Instead of ruling over the serpent (sin) they are ruled by it. Instead of protecting Eden (Yahweh’s dwelling space) they let chaos and sin come in and take over. So when someone does bad at their job, they’re fired. So were Adam and Eve.

  Genesis 1-3 is really unique. There are several ways one could interpret and understand the story. One way I think we should understand Genesis 1-3 is that it’s really the story of all of humanity. God has tasked all of us (Christian or not) with a divinely appointed job to lovingly rule over creation, to work it and to keep it so that God can live among us. From before even the very beginning, God’s intention for His creation and humanity especially was that He would dwell and live in loving harmony with them. This is where the Imago Dei kicks in. Every single one of us was created to reflect and show God’s very being by doing the above tasks. Reflecting or imaging is inescapable for us, it’s a part of our being. Now, however, we image and reflect the other gods (idols) we worship, namely death and chaos. Reflect on this quote by one of my favourite scholars G. K. Beale:

  “People will always reflect something, whether it be God’s character or some feature of the world. If people are committed to God, they will become like him; if they are committed to something other than God, they will become like that thing, always spiritually inanimate and empty like the lifeless and vain aspect of creation to which they have committed themselves.” 

  Now consider this passage from Psalm 115:4-8:

  Their idols are silver and gold,
  the work of human hands.
  They have mouths, but do not speak;
  eyes, but do not see.
  They have ears, but do not hear;
  noses, but do not smell.
  They have hands, but do not feel;
  feet, but do not walk;
  and they do not make a sound in their throat.
  Those who make them become like them;
  so do all who trust in them.

  If there’s on thing humanity loves more then themselves its flat out drama (chaos). We’re confusing little things. One the one hand we protest and petition for peace on earth, we desire to see the end of famine and disease, we boil and rage at corruption in government, and we weep and wail over death and genocide. Yet we send people into war (sometimes a necessary evil). We spend $50 on a shirt made in Twianese sweatshops. We hate sexual abuse and fight against rape culture yet we watch porn and get excited over shows like Game of Thrones that perpetuate that culture. We “know” what’s wrong and what’s right, yet we’re in a constant struggle to live consistently. You could say that we “suppress the truth in our unrighteousness” (Rom 1:18). All the technology and scientific advancements in the world won’t give us what we really need, a new heart, with new desires, and the ability to live consistently (Ezekiel 36:26). Once, that’s solved then we can once again image and reflect God who is life and love rather than the gods of death and chaos. How do we obtain new hearts?

  Great question. Ezekiel 36:26 (cf: Eze 11:19-20; 18:31; Ps 51:10; Jn 3:3; 2 Cor 3:3), is something God wants to do to everyone in Christ to restore the Imago Dei and have them return (to greater heights) to their intended role in the cosmos. Jesus lived, died and rose from the dead as a perfect human being, as our representative (Rom 5:12-14), so that by grace, through faith (Eph 2:8-9) we can be united to this new and perfect human (1 Cor 15:22) by the Holy Spirit (Jhn 3:5-6). When we’re united, we’re then washed clean and made pure (1 Cor 6:11) – we’re made truly human in the Messiah Jesus. Now we’re able to truly love, rule, reflect and keep as we were made to.

  Posted in Scribbles | 0 Comments | Tagged Christ, Christianity, doctrine, God, Identity, Idols, Jesus, love, newlife, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• The Lonely Theologian

  Posted at 3:05 pm by scribblingtheology, on July 22, 2019

  

  Believe me, when I say this – It would be so easy to draw a “crowd.” I know what the right things to say are, the right doctrines and thoughts. I could be thoroughly orthodox in every way and no one would bat an eye and every blog I wrote would get likes, “amens” and maybe a few shares. I could completely immerse myself in a theological tribe and get pats on the back and a thumbs up from my kin all the while completely selling out on what is I really believe. If you want the easiest path to being liked by others in the Christian Faith let me tell you what to believe (on top of the obvious stuff about Jesus, the Trinity, Scripture and salvation which are non-negotiable):

  1. That the universe is roughly 6000-10000 years old. Christians love this one because Jesus said in order to receive eternal life you must firmly hold to the idea that the universe is young and then be born again… obviously.
  2. The Bible is to be read at face value and read literally. I mean because every single one of us reads the Scriptures in its original languages and has a thorough understanding of its original context. Wow! Amazing!
  3. That all we need to do is read just “read Bible.” We just need a “simple faith.” Amen, I mean who needs over 2000 years of theological thought, translation and reflection to at all help how we understand God’s Holy Word right?
  4. That the Bible is about me and you. The authors of the Bible wrote Scripture fully anticipating a white Western 21st Century Christian to be reading about food safety laws in Leviticus thousands of years later. How considerate.
  5. That our tribe has it all figured out. This one just speaks for itself.

  Satire? Yes. I hope you get the point.

  Trust me, being a theologian (though I’m not sure if I’d really consider myself as one) is lonely and tough work. You read and pray, and think and pray, and discuss and pray, and read some more. We’re in “ivory towers” not just because we choose to be there ourselves, but because sometimes we’re exiled to the ivory towers by the community of Christians we usually hang around. Usually, what ends up happening one way or another is that what you once thought you knew ends up changing or at least being convincingly challenged. This is extremely isolating because at least in my experience, you start believing and working through things that no one else likes and you become alienated even from people you were closest too. I make note of this issue in a blog I recently wrote but I’ll reiterate it here. Being a good theologian, even a good Christian is embracing “the wrong.” We should love it, look for it and welcome it like a dear friend. There is nothing more humbling and even exciting than realising something we’ve held to our entire lives wasn’t quite right and that there is an entirely new world of waiting for us to take hold of.

  I guess my indictment is this. Let’s kill our theological golden calves before we “kill” one another. There are truths worth dying for –  but there aren’t any worth killing for.

  Posted in Scribbles | 0 Comments | Tagged Christianity, church, doctrine, God, Identity, Idolatry, Jesus, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• The Sin of Scepticism: Finding Wisdom in an Age of Criticism

  Posted at 9:09 am by scribblingtheology, on July 10, 2019

  

  The Age of Reason gave birth to the sceptic in a way never before experienced by humanity. All of a sudden, everything we read and believed was to be grounded in evidence and reason. If it didn’t make sense then it didn’t exist. In a lot of ways, this was really great. We could call in to question once held to beliefs, challenge them, and we could see if they held ground. This paved the way to a lot of what we have today technologically and even what we’ve rediscovered historically. Unfortunately, scepticism has become the default position of our generation, it has become one of the greats gods of our era. Recently, a good friend of mine asked me “Why do you reckon we find it easier to be negative and sceptical than positive?”

  Love is the quintessential epicentre of Christ and ergo, the Christian faith. We are seriously terrible at loving people because we’ve learnt to hate our entire lives. What I mean is this. Consider one of the great meta-narratives making its way throughout our time. “You’re special. You’re smart. Whatever you put your mind to, you can achieve. You’re important.” This narrative perpetuates the notion that the individual is the most important thing in existence. We’re taught to love ourselves, to think highly of ourselves, and to believe we can do anything if we just try… and even then we’re still utterly amazing if we don’t. However, in the never-ending quest of self-love, we actually end up seeing others as less important, less special, less intelligent, less capable, and less wise. One can see how steeped in pride this is, easily leading to hating your brother and thinking him a fool.

  Let me be clear if you’re reading this: in and of yourself, you are extremely mundane.  This is hard for us to come to terms with because every movie we watch, or book we read, the world is telling us that we’re destined for greatness, that we’re the chosen one who’s going to bring balance to the Force, that we can destroy the Matrix, throw the ring into Mt. Doom, and save the princess. Reality sucks. People go their entire lives and die without ever finding love, purpose or meaning. It’s tragic but nonetheless real.

  Second, is change and challenge. We automatically disagree with new or different positions because change is an incredibly hard thing to have us do. Why? Because realising that you have to change and grow is admitting to yourself and to the world around you that you’re not as perfect as you thought. It’s an immensely humbling and often painful process which is why it might take years for someone to even shift their perspective on a certain issue let alone change the way they live.

  Third, positive reinforcement, and having an open disposition to others’ opinions rather than being immediately dismissive means believing that another might have more wisdom than you. This is a big struggle for a lot of us because we’ve lived our lives acting (never admitting) that we’re always right about anything and everything we hold to. All of a sudden, someone else might know better than you and that’s a huge kick in the backside – extremely deflating to one’s ego (especially mine).

  Finally, let me say this. I think God holds Christians to a high standard. The Scriptures tell us that Christ has become the wisdom of God, and we’re in Him (1 Cor 1:26-30), and if the Fall was about us living by our own wisdom and not God’s (Gen 3), then we’re called to not be wise in our own sight (Rom 12:14-21), to uphold one another in honour (Rom 12:10), and to even consider others better then ourselves (Philip 2:3). Now we’re getting somewhere, no we’re displaying the love of God. So, instead of coming into a conversation or situation with an attitude of disbelief or with scepticism, we should be asking “what can God teach me through this person. Especially, if all things are worked out for my good (Rom 8:28), even this conversation?”

  Posted in Scribbles | 0 Comments | Tagged Christ, Christianity, church, God, Jesus, love, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• Learning from the Puritans: Communion with the Triune God by John Owen

  Posted at 12:54 pm by scribblingtheology, on July 8, 2019

  

  I remember reading J. I. Packer a few years ago and being struck when he said that the Puritans are like the Redwood trees of the Christian world (the Redwoods are the biggest trees in America). And I remember being even more struck when he said: “And John Owen is the greatest of the Redwoods”.

  And just as the Redwood trees would be a momentous climb, so John Owen requires a momentous effort to read. He even laments his own writing style. But I firmly believe his writings and works are worth all the toil in the world.

  This short blog on communion with God is really an attempt to make accessible what John Owen has to say about how we worship the Father and the Son in an intimate and particular way. The aim of this blog is to elicit deeper and richer worship.

  So how do we worship the Father, and the Son?

  The Father: Owen begins pastorally by helping us to see that we commune with the Father in love. Christians should see that the Father is full of love for us. I think it’s tempting for us to sometimes think that God the Father only loves us because Jesus died for us. But notice the order of John 3:16. It’s because God loved the world that he sent his Son to die for it. Because God set his affections upon us he paved the way back for us to commune with him through the sacrifice of his Son.

  And there are two responses from us if we’re to have communion with God the Father. First, we must receive this love by faith, and through Christ. We need to see, behold, and hold on to the fact that as the light of the sun comes to us and warms us by its beams, so through Jesus, the beams of the Father’s love comes to us with delight. Second, we are to respond in love as we marvel at the fullness of the Father’s love towards us. A right understanding of God’s love to us must pass through the head and into the heart. And when the heart is warmed by the love of God we cannot help but love him back. Ephesians 1:4 begins with God’s love to us in Christ, and finishes with our love for him.

  The Son: We commune with Jesus Christ in grace. Grace is everywhere described to Jesus Christ. Grace and truth came through Christ (John. 1:16-17). We commune with Christ in grace in three ways.

  1. Grace as personal beauty. We commune with Christ in his beauty because we are desperately needy. As Christians, we can assume that when we first come to saving faith we are needy and Christ meets our need. But then we eventually move on and lose our neediness. But this isn’t the case, we never become not needy. But the good news is that Christ never becomes not sufficient to meet our needs. The Father was pleased for the fullness to dwell in Christ (Col. 1:19). Because of his fullness, Christ meets our every need. Are you dead? Christ is your life. Are you weak? Christ is your strength. Are you ignorant? Christ is your wisdom. Are you guilty? Christ is your righteousness. As we see Christ’s sufficiency for our every need we commune with him in the grace of his beauty.
  2. Grace as acceptance. Paul in the book of Ephesians reminds us that we’ve been saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9). This grace is the free undeserving acceptance of God the Father through the blood of Christ. This grace is extended to us because of the perfect life, death and resurrection of Jesus. And so we get to commune with him as the blood brought bride.
  3. Grace as renewal, and the enabling to walk in the holiness of a new life. This is an organic grace that we receive from Christ. It’s a grace that Jesus works in us by the power of the Holy Spirit. In John 15, Jesus says he is the vine, and we are the branches. When we are united to Christ by faith he will produce good fruit in us. This is a work of his grace.

  So next time you drop to your knees in prayer, consider the unique ways you can pray to God the Father in love, and God the Son in grace. Consider how you relate to each member in particular. And may your walk with God become richer, deeper, and more meaningful in the years ahead.

  Part II on the Spirit still to come…

  Written by

  Daniel Barden

  Posted in Book Review | 0 Comments | Tagged Christ, Christianity, church, God, Jesus, love, opinion, Review, Spirituality, Theology

• Love is More Complicated Than You Think

  Posted at 9:34 am by scribblingtheology, on July 6, 2019

  

  So I had this thought while driving to work this morning, “love is more complicated than you think.” On the one hand, it’s really simple, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Simple yes, the problem is though love gets a seriously bad wrap in the 21st century so the idea of loving your neighbour can be often misunderstood to mean a few things:

  1. Love is often misunderstood to mean that you should just lay down and die. Love does not mean that you’re a welcome matt for everyone to walk over. Love means service and sacrifice, but it doesn’t need to mean abused slave (persecution is an exception). I can’t even count the number of times I’ve seen Christians roll over and die for the sake of “loving your enemy or neighbour” (Mark 12:30-31). All I’m saying is this, Christian, be careful you’re not using love as an excuse to justice a passivism of idolatry. Be careful you’re not using love as a way to get out of confrontation because you’re afraid of what people might think of you or do to you. God uses the weak, yes (1 Corinthians 1:7). But sometimes He needs fearless warriors as well (Ephesians 6:13-18). This sorta leads into my next point.
  2. Perhaps it’s my sinful self but nothing frustrates me more than Christians allowing someone to do something in the name of love but at the expense of justice. Alright guys, let’s get real here. God hates injustice and iniquity (Psalm 5:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Isaiah 59; Luke 12:45-46). He hates the oppression of the poor, the widowed and marginalised of the world (Psalms 68:5; 1 Timothy 5; James 1:27). Time and time again I see Christians use loving people as an excuse to not boldly call out when there’s something wrong happening in our communities because there’s a belief that being a meek and mild passive Christian seems to be more loving then stopping someone from doing something bad. Oh and that reminds me.
  3. Stop using love as an excuse for sin. This is the real fundamental issue. Time and time again Christians use love as an excuse to let people off the hook for their sin. “Don’t judge” they say, or “just love them, dude.” Let me be absolutely clear there is nothing more unloving, more ungodly, more unchristlike then allowing a person or persons, in the name of love, to perpetuate sin, injustice and chaos in a world where God wants to make all things new and free from these very things (Proverbs 17:15; Matthew 18:15-17).

  All this tends to fly in the face of the modern concept of love. Allowing people to do what they want, acceptance and endorsement. This couldn’t be more unbiblical and, dare I say, abhorrent to the God of the Bible.

  So then, what is love? This is where it becomes a touch more complicated because the Bible only gives us hints and clues but really leaves the practice up to wisdom and discernment. Love is servanthood and sacrifice (Romans 5:8; 1 John 4:10), it’s patient and kind (1 Corinthians 13:4-8), humble but also fierce, it’s human flourishing at its finest (Genesis 1-2). Love is the main game but it’s the sort of love we find in Jesus’ whole life and ministry. Jesus was, by today’s standards fairly judgemental, corrective of sin, stood out against the oppressed and marginalised, but loved the world so much that He died for it (John 3:16). He was the ultimate servant of humanity (Philippians 2). We need a complete and holistic perspective on Jesus’ character if we are to imitate Him. 

  Posted in Scribbles | 0 Comments | Tagged Christ, Christianity, church, God, Jesus, love, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• Must Read Books and Theologians: Part I

  Posted at 11:43 am by scribblingtheology, on June 25, 2019

  

  N.T. Wright

  Wright will probably go down in history as one of the greatest theologians/scholars of our age. He is a monster when it comes to writing books (he pumps one out every day I swear), and his work in the historical Jesus is unmatched. There isn’t a single book that won’t make you walk away with a fresh perspective and a greater appreciation for Scripture and theology.

  • Surprised by Hope 

  Surprised by Hope is probably one of his more well-known works. This book almost single-handedly changed the way modern evangelicals think about the last days, heaven, the judgement to come. If there was one book out of this list you should absolutely read it’s this one.

  • The Day the Revolution Began

  An excellent book on thinking over the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. For a more in-depth review click here.

  • Pauline Perspectives: 1978-2013

  This was my first introduction to Wright. I gotta admit, when I first read it, I had no idea what was being said. It’s a dense read and has over thirty years of scholarship for you to comb through. If you can get through it then you deserve a clap. Good luck.

  • Paul: A Biography

  A great introduction to the person and work of the Apostle Paul. For a good review on this book click here.

  G. K. Beale 

  Beale is an absolute genius and knows his biblical theology almost better than anyone I’ve read. If you want to understand how our eschatology integrates with the here and now as well as with the biblical narrative look no further.

  • A New Testament Biblical Theology

  No pastor’s library is complete without Beale’s A New Testament Biblical Theology and A Commentary on the New Testaments Use of the Old Testament. These books are worth their weight in gold as you go back to it time and time again to make sense of the passage you’ll be preaching through.

  • The Temple and the Church’s Mission

  Originally recommended to me by a good friend of mine, The Temple and the Church’s Mission coupled with Kingdom Come by Sam Storms thoroughly convinced of Amillennialism and it’s implications for the Christian life. Look no further dear reader.

  • We Become What We Worship

  I first heard of this book through my old bible college lecturer as he was going through the idea of identity and idolatry (another great book by the way). I’ve gotta say, thinking about sin, and how we become what we worship changes the way you look at life on a fundamental level. I cannot recommend this book enough.

  • Revelation

  I’ll be blunt. If you want a solid commentary on the book of Revelation, start here.

  C.S. Lewis 

  Does this man need an introduction? If you’re not sure who he is… where have you been? This guy is a legend and definitely belongs in the theological hall of fame.

  • The Chronicles of Narnia

  Yes… ok… not very theological I know. However, go deeper dear reader and you’ll begin to discover and taste some of Lewis’ idea as they jump off the page in this grand story. Besides, this is a classic… so just read it ok?

  • The Screw Tape Letters

  Edgey, scary, and so very thought provoking. The Screw Tape Letters are probably one of the best books ever written on the topic of spiritual warfare. It won’t be long until you start to adopt a more spiritual perspective of reality.

  • The Great Divorce

  Hell yes. This book is so confusing but rich at the same time. I recently wrote a blog on hell that mentions this book, and let me just say The Great Divorce adds a lot of shape to the conversation around the nature of hell. Go! Read it.

  John Walton

  Walton is a great as he can be controversial. Personally, I love everything he does. However, he stirs up Christians who tend to read the Bible more literally. What fun!

  • The Lost World of Genesis One

  The first book in his lost world series, Walton really digs deep into the ancient near eastern world, develops the context, and places the Scriptures in that world. Worth a read he is honestly one of the best people for this job. For a deeper review, click here.

  • The Lost World of the Flood

  I personally clicked with this book better than Genesis one, but it’s similar in style and content, copy and paste above 🙂

  • A Survey of the Old Testament

  A Survey of the Old Testament by Hill and Walton was actually my textbook for bible college. It’s easy to read, informative and a great resource to introduce anyone to the big picture of the Old Testament.

  Other Must-Read Books and Theologians

  • The Cradle, The Cross, and the Crown by Andreas J. Konstenberger

  One of the best New Testament introductions I’ve personally had the pleasure of reading.

  • Desiring the Kingdom by James K. A. Smith

  Amazing. Compliments Beale’s theology on idolatry and worship. Smith is simply brilliant.

  • The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser

  Still making my way through it as I’ve given it a friend. From what I’ve read of it and heard of Heiser on his podcast, the biblical theology in this is stunning, challenging and extremely thought-provoking. Expect a more in-depth review of this in the future.

  • Anything by Tim Mackie and the Bible Project

  Delightful.

  Posted in Book Review | 0 Comments | Tagged Christianity, church, doctrine, God, Jesus, opinion, Review, Spirituality, Theology

• Hell

  Posted at 11:49 am by scribblingtheology, on June 20, 2019

  

  I wanna write a few things before you jump into this blog:

  1. I’m not entirely sure why I’m writing this. I feel like I need to, there seems to be a huge swell of conversation around this topic of late. I guess I’m trying track with it while offering some insight and resources for my readers.
  2. I’m not entirely sure where I actually sit on the issue of Hell. Like I mention in the blog, the Bible uses a lot of different language to describe its nature. I think it is real but what Hell actually looks like is still a bit of a mystery to me.
  3. I’m not really refuting any other position per se, rather, I am writing about this topic in order to work out in my own head and heart what this is all about. While there are certain positions on the doctrine of Hell I certainly reject, I am open to discussion and different perspectives.

  Anyway, enjoy, ready, love and get back to me on your thoughts over the issue. Here we go.

  “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.”
  ― C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

  Hell. No matter where you land on the issue, it is perhaps one of the most dreadful of doctrines to discuss. Every Christian knows someone who will be found wanting on the Day of Judgement, and like God, we take no pleasure in the perishing of the wicked (Ezekiel 33:11). One should not be able to discuss such doctrines without feeling a sense of despair for the one who may go there. It is a heavy burden indeed to live one’s life knowing that not everyone’s future is so secure. Yet, it is a reality that every one of us must face, that we all must give due diligence to if we are to be faithful Christians who deliver the message of hope. For some, Hell is a place where fire burns eternally, where the stench of sulfur and ever rotting corpses permeate the underworld never ceasing. For others, Hell is fiction, perhaps a fairy tale used to scare children into being good little boys and girls. The truth, I think is somewhere in between.

  When we grab one doctrine and start to study it we must consider it in light of Scriptures grand narrative, the bigger picture so to speak. Simplistically, the story of the Bible looks something like:

  creation > fall > exile > redemption > new creation

  —————————————————————————–

                                      (Kingdom)

  The question is where does the doctrine of Hell fit into all of this? Systematically and traditionally, Hell is the consequence of rejecting God in this life so you suffer eternally and consciously in the next. Think torture, burning and wrath being poured out on the wicked for all of eternity. Usually, this fits in between redemption (the Cross) and new creation (as that’s sort of where we are currently in the timeline). However, I think the Bible paints a bit of different picture of Hell, and even the picture it does paint is messy, and not always very clear.

  First, where does the idea of Hell even come from? A lot of work has been done on this, a great podcast you can listen to is here. In short, I’ll say this. Whilst the primary image and metaphor that is used to describe the nature of what happens to those in the afterlife, who continue to rebel against God is one of fire and torment, the New Testament also uses other images to describe this reality. Hell is firey, hot and tormenting (Matthew 13:42, 25:41; Mark 9:43; Jude 1:7; Revelation 21:8), but it is also dark, depressing and full of anguish (Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30; 2 Peter 2:4). Because the Bible is using metaphors to describe to us what Hell is like, and hell can be both firey and painful, as well as dark and depressing. Interpreting these images is quite the task as they could have different meanings based on the context and on the literary structure of the Bible. What we can gather however is that this is not a place you want to end up. For me personally, Hell is more about what we do to ourselves as opposed to the everlasting wrath of God tormenting us.

  Hell, I think, is more about the choices we make here in this life and how they carry over into the next. There is beauty in this life, a lot of it but it seems so often clouded by the chaotic choices humanity makes. We quickly turn against God, one another, and even true selves in order to get what we think is good for us (Gen 3). Picture this for a second. What is the New Creation? It’s where God dwells among His people, it is where people are in perfect harmony with God, one another, and the rest of creation. Love reigns, there’s goodness and perfect health. There’s light and laughter, flourishing and beauty. Therefore, Hell must be a place void of goodness, the opposite of flourishing, a place of darkness and anguish, sickness and death. Why does anyone go there? Because we choose to. The Bible is pretty clear, there are those that love the light and those that love the darkness (John 3:19-21). So lovers of darkness get what they love… darkness. Lovers of light, on the other hand, get light.

  All that to say this – death and then judgement is something that happens to all of us at the end of the age. Jesus will judge all of us, He will separate the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25), the wheat and the weeds (Matthew 13:24-30), to those who don’t obey the Gospel God will judge with everlasting destruction (2 Thessalonians 1) but will grant everlasting life to those who believe (John 3:16). We have to wrestle with this, meditate on it and work out the implications of what we believe. We must ask why does this matter, what does this mean, and how this affects our lives? Good luck.

  Posted in Scribbles | 3 Comments | Tagged Christianity, church, doctrine, eschatology, God, heaven, hell, Jesus, opinion, Spirituality, Theology

• Search for:

• Recent Posts

  • Genesis 1-11 Part II: In the Beginning
  • Genesis 1-11 Part I: Authorship, Context and Genre
  • Major on the Majors & Minor on the Minors
  • The Image of God
  • The Theological Pilgrim

• Recent Comments

  	Genesis 1-11 Part II… on Genesis 1-11 Part I: Authorshi…
  	Must Read Books and… on The Lost World of Genesis One:…
  	Must Read Books and… on Hell
  	Must Read Books and… on The Day the Revolution Began:…
  	Phil on Hell