Thoughts and Russellings

Podcasting sermons for free

2009-08-18T21:07:00.005+10:00

OK, have just gone through setting up a podcast for our church without having to set up a new upload section and without having to pay for anything. So, for those who are trying to do the same, and with huge kudos to this article from Bukisa, here's what I did.

Setting up:

Open an account with Fileden where you will upload your mp3 (and other formats) files to.
Open an account with Blogger and create a blog which will provide your podcast entries.
Go to the "Settings" tab for the blog and set "Show Link fields" to "Yes".
Create a 300x300 pixel image for your blog's entry on iTunes. (And you can create a separate image for Feedburner's feed if you like.)
Upload the images to the web somewhere. (eg. Fileden if you like.)
Open an account with Feedburner and create a feed for your Blogger blog (it will even let you submit the podcast to iTunes). This will be your podcast feed.
Go back to your blog on Blogger, click "Settings" and choose "Site Feed" then paste your Feedburner feed URL into "Post Feed Redirect URL".

Posting podcasts:

Create a fully tagged mp3 or m4a (or both in our case).
Upload it/them to Fileden and record the direct link.
Create a post in Blogger. The title should be the name of that particular podcast.
Enter the description of the post as the body of the blog post, bearing in mind that all carriage returns will be trimmed out.
Leave the "Link" field empty.
Click "Show enclosure links" and enter the URL for the uploaded file.
Post the blog entry.

Perfects in Hebrews 12

2009-08-18T09:02:00.004+10:00

Well, I noted how naturally an aspectual approach accounts for the perfects in Hebrews 11. But the ones I'm particularly interested in are those in Hebrews 12:18 and 22.

Why the interest? Because in my experience these verses are used to emphasise the present reality of having already entered into the heavenly assembly of God through his gathering us together. It particularly plays a crucial role in the theology of church-as-gathering in the theological circles that have been formative for me.

However, if the perfect only encodes heightened proximity aspectually, then it seems to me the more natural reading is to see this as emphatic, rather than as portraying the coming as a past event with present implications. Thus I would almost render 12:22 as "But we are immanent to Mount Zion...". Such a reading makes more sense of the letter's recurrent call to "draw near". Particularly in chapters like 3–4 and 11 the picture is of a certain promise that must still be laid hold of by the individual. An emphatic verb form is used because the once-for-all sacrifice has already been made by the great high priest, Jesus. But the book is a warning not to abandon the covenantal relationship that he has established. It is our only genuine means of approaching God's presence.

But having made these observations, I think there is little other support scripturally for the gathering of God's people in heaven being an eschatological event that is already realised in us. Rather, Christ stands in God's presence and, though our union with him (our being "in Christ"), we have total confidence to draw near ourselves knowing our future is assured. (In Paul's language, we are so identified with Christ that we have already died and our future life is that of Christ's—Colossians 3:3–4). Christ is the eschatologically realised gathering. We remain to participate.

Can someone tell me where I'm getting this wrong? Thanks.

Taking contemporary worship to its logical conclusion?

2009-06-15T21:46:00.001+10:00

Explaining a recent CD released by Vineyard Music Group, its director of public relations explained,

People aren't content with yesterday's level of closeness. They want something more. We feel this album gives them that.

The result? A CD with titles including "My Lover, My God," "Touch Me All Over," "Naked Before You," "I'll Do Anything You Want," "Deeper" and "You Make Me Hot with Desire." It's not that surprising Walmart felt the need to refuse to stock the CDs.

Reason to lose your job??

2009-05-22T06:55:00.001+10:00

Apologies for my long silence. I have comments to reply to and emails to send and I'm not in that position yet. But I needed to share this.

In Scotland's Presbyterian church (which is probably more like our Anglican church in that historically it had strong social and political ownership) there is currently debate over whether it should receive as a minister a man who is living in a homosexual relationship. Some disagree and have signed a petition. What surprised me is that William Philip, who formed the petition, has noted,

Several who have signed up have been intimidated into removing their signatures because employers have threatened discipline just for someone daring to express their support for the orthodox Christian position on human sexuality. Some chaplains from the hospital or prison service have been threatened with discipline and perhaps even dismissal. So we are called narrow and intolerant, simply for asking that church leaders observe what the church has always believed and stood for

I'm not clear if the only people threatened with losing their job have been chaplains. I dearly hope people in other fields haven't been threatened. But even for these chaplains the implication is worrying. Can you only act with loving concern for someone if you think what they're doing isn't a sin? Are the two mutually exclusive?

Augustine — a man listening to a timeless message

2009-05-09T10:13:00.001+10:00

Listening to wise christians of the past is a great way of helping us reflect on how we listen today.

Are Christians or non-Christians more moral?

2009-04-30T06:45:00.001+10:00

One of the interesting conversations I had in the last week while we were visiting Rockhampton was with a few guys that were suggesting that the good things I do is less genuinely good than when they do good things because I do them because I'm a Christian. If I understood them correctly, they're saying that they do things simply because they're the right things to do, whereas I do them only because God says to do them. While I had heard similar comments before, I hadn't thought about it recently and only now have I had a chance to reflect on their comments.

My first reflection is that I do things because they're the right thing to do, as well as because God says to do them. That is, it's not like I object to doing the good things that these guys were talking about. I'm no different in that respect. I love helping friends. I'm moved with compassion when I see people having a rough time. And I think it's great that they want to do good things. It seems only natural. I live in this world where I have a natural desire to seek to do the good. It works. It makes the world a better place. It expresses love that I genuinely feel. Speaking as a Christian, God's made the world to work that way. Loving God's world doesn't mean blindly obeying his commands. It means obeying his commands with my eyes wide open—responding to the world in a way that "fits".

Second, do non-Christians really have no other motivation than that it's the right thing to do? I do the right thing because it benefits others, it pleases me and it pleases God. Don't non-Christians do the right thing because it benefits others and it pleases them? How long would people do the right thing if it always didn't benefit them? How long would it seem the right thing? Altruism is satisfying. I enjoy it, as I say. There's nothing wrong with that. But doesn't it taint our altruism? And shouldn't we stop and consider how long we'd be altruistic if it wasn't pleasing to us?

But third, the question of whether a Christian or non-Christian is more moral depends on whether you believe there's a God. If there isn't a God, it does seem more moral to act without the need of extrinsic motivation. But if the God of the Bible is there, then the good we do is a gift from him. And to do that good without acknowledging the gift is, well, a form of pride. So I appreciate these guys arguments. I can see that in their worldview, they seem more moral than I do. But I hope they're also willing to see how it looks to God if he actually is 'the giver of every good thing'.

Perfects in Hebrews 11

2009-04-28T15:24:00.001+10:00

I've been working through Hebrews preparing to preach it later in the year, and I'm in the midst of chapter 11. At the same time, I've been following several discussions on B-Greek about Con Campbell's explanation of aspect. I get the impression that some are cautious about the theory of aspect in general and that most find his explanation of the perfect unsatisfying. Frankly, I've been fairly persuaded and have been moving more towards a temporal understanding of tense.

But then I've encountered 11:17 and 28. Here the perfect doesn't have a clear "past event with present consequences" meaning. Apparently Gundrie argues the perfect emphasises the events' abiding impact, but I just don't see that contributing anything to the broader argument. My best reading? The perfects emphasise the climactic events in the authors two most extensive accounts of lives of faith (Abraham and Moses). The perfects are emphatic, not temporal, and so Con's "heightened proximity" approach gives a good account at this point. I'll pull out Porter and think through what a stative account could mean, but it's not immediately obvious to me.

Reasons Queenslanders stayed Presbyterian

2009-03-31T12:22:00.001+10:00

Like Kamal, I'll be presenting at the combined Presbyterian colleges' conference, Descendi Studio next week. I think I'll be on Wednesday. However, I must confess I'm not presenting on Calvin. Neither am I presenting on my project from last year looking at Doctrines of Scripture in Islam and Evangelicalism.

Rather, I'll be looking at why Queensland Presbyterians who chose to remain presbyterian did so during the formation of the Uniting Church in Australia (ie. back in the '70's). It was an essay I did for Church history last year and probably of interest to many attending the conference.

What will it be about? It doesn't claim to be comprehensive, but I question some claims I found about that people remained Presbyterian solely (yes, some historians went that far) because of their cultural backgrounds. Instead, I'll be suggesting that at least in Queensland, doctrinal issues—especially the question of Scripture—were significant to many who chose to "continue Presbyterian".

Why do I care? Well, I'm not historically Presbyterian, but I'm training to work with them. So I wanted to know about a defining event in the life of this denomination in recent years. I think it's impact is still felt both practically (eg. why some regions don't have churches, why there's a sudden need for ministers in the denomination) and theologically (eg. why has Queensland Presbyterianism been so theologically conservative post-union, when might we be seen as betraying what people at that time were fighting for, when are we not). I want be unpacking all that in my presentation, but I hope that's what I started to learn last year doing the research.

The faith of evolution

2009-03-17T07:04:00.001+10:00

Yet another atheist warns that Darwinism is gaining a religious adherence.

Do we treat the incarnation as CGI?

2009-03-17T07:01:00.001+10:00

Some interesting thoughts suggesting that we undermine the comfort of the incarnation when we emphasise the its miraculous nature. It's a salutary reminder. The great news is that God can be approached by us in Christ, not that the unknowable God has come even closer. Yet, is there any real comfort is John's 'symbolic portrait of Jesus' is little more than a 'full blow[n] CGI presentation' of the gospel? There is a danger that '[b]y fixating on the imagery, the underlying plot is lost.'

But what if the plot itself is supposed to show that 'God [...] fills the gap where human actors could not possibly succeed'? What if the only way God could become as approachable as John portrays was for God to come in the flesh and die for our sins? In that case, we're not dealing with CGI. This is old school filmatography where someone needs to get in the car and drive through the flaming building. And it's the Bruce Lee/Jacky Chan school of acting where there are no stunt doubles.

It's true we can learn a lot about the human condition from The X-men. But the historical factuality of Schindlers List should be a lot more sobering.

The parables show Jesus looked to the future

2009-03-17T06:42:00.001+10:00

I love Singing in the Reign. These Catholic scholars make such great observations, particularly pointing to strong evidence against some sort of deep divide between the teaching of Jesus and the community of believers that formed after his death (and resurrection).

Their most recent post points to Jesus' parables as evidence that he was expecting a delayed realisation of God's Kingdom, not an immanent one as often promoted in the footsteps of Schweizer.

The other reason I'm keen about the post is because I've always wanted to refer to a work by Snodgrass (apparently an excellent consideration of the importance of Jesus' parables). I just love that name.

Concerning moves in the international rights debate

2009-03-17T06:34:00.002+10:00

According to Christopher Hitchens, some legislation is before the UN that is seeking to criminalise criticism of religions (particularly Islam) by suggesting that ideas, not just individuals, have rights. It's a worrying prospect.

Wise words on understanding Islam

2009-02-27T06:27:00.001+10:00

Shawblog has some wise words on learning about Islam from Muslims, not books.

Must Christians marry Christians?

2009-02-26T05:41:00.003+10:00

Heaps of young Christians struggle with this question. (And even more so older Christians who are or become single.) The hard thing is that (a) it's often quite hard to find someone to marry. This is especially the case for women. There are just not enough godly Christian blokes about in many churches. And (b) many argue there's no one clear verse that says Christians must marry other Christians. It's a big problem and not one to be tackled lightly.

Sadly, I'm not in a position to help with the first problem. (Although my goal as a minister will be to build up as many solid young men, and women, as I can so I guess I'm trying to help.) But with the second I encountered a verse today that I'd often overlooked. It's 1 Corinthians 9:5.

Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Paul here is interacting with the Corinthians' assumption that they have "rights" that they should be free to exercise. (I'm reading these chapters this morning for a lecture where we'll be discussing how Roman society viewed these "rights"/ἐξουσίας) In chapter 9 he lists out a bunch of "rights" that he has.

But what struck me was this one. Paul has a right to get married, and to take her along on his journeys. But can he marry just anyone? Apparently not. He has a right to marry a believing wife.

OK, so it's still not an explicit command to all Christians that they should marry Christians. But it's another piece in the puzzle. And it's a significant one. The apostle Paul didn't have the right to marry just anyone. He had to marry a believing sister. I hope that's some encouragement and help to those looking to marry.

Quote from Peter Jensen

2009-02-21T21:55:00.001+10:00

Peter suggests he's almost an atheist.

A video message from American Muslims

2009-02-21T21:54:00.001+10:00

Picked this up from Shawblog. Worth remembering when we start to tar everyone with the same brush.

Blogging on my iPod

2009-01-10T20:38:00.001+10:00

Well, my palm m550 finally gave it in. After a lot of internal debate I opted for an iPod touch as it's replacement. You don't get many PDAs available these days and the touch does the task very well.

And for those wondering: no, I still don't want a mobile phone.

Taking the cross out of Christianity?

2009-01-10T11:01:00.001+10:00

Apparently a vicar in West Sussex has removed the crucifix from the front of his church because,

The crucifix expressed suffering, torment, pain and anguish. It was a scary image, particularly for children.
[...]
It wasn't a suitable image for the outside of a church wanting to welcome worshippers. In fact, it was a real put-off.
We're all about hope, encouragement and the joy of the Christian faith. We want to communicate good news, not bad news, so we need a more uplifting and inspiring symbol than execution on a cross.

A part of me broke down in laughter while the other part was horrified to think that anyone owning the name Christian could possibly think the cross had no place in welcoming people to Christ. Granted, I'm no fan of crucifixes per se (call me an iconoclast if you must), but it's devestating to think someone responsible for God's sheep could possibly ignore the wisdom of God in the cross.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. [...] 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Is Biblical faith frustrated with God?

2009-01-08T08:20:00.001+10:00

John Hobbins suggests that "someone who is not on occasion perfectly aggravated by what God does and does not do, is bereft of biblical faith." I'm not 100% convinced by his argument. It's true that the Bible often expresses confusion and consternation at God's actions. But I think it does offer a real explanation. Not in the opaque determinations of God's divine wisdom, but in the rebelliousness of humanity and the resultant rift between us and God.

I found this particularly studying Ecclesiastes recently. It seems to me that while the author is resigned to life being fleeting and frustrating, he holds hope of a final reconciliation. I know the experience of—at some of my lowest moments—simply wondering if God's really got it together. But it's seeing people persevere through those moments, because of God's kindness in holding on to them when they'd rather reject him, that I would call evidence of "biblical faith".

Great definition of Biblical Narrative

2009-01-07T05:24:00.001+10:00

Liked this definition from Biblical Preaching (which is actually quoting Jeffrey Archer's Preaching with Variety.

Biblical narrative can be defined as a historically accurate, artistically sophisticated account of persons and actions in a setting designed to reveal God and edify the reader.

Emotions and Christians

2009-01-03T05:10:00.002+10:00

Another blog I follow referred me to Gospel Reminders. I thought the following was a fantastic quote by William E. Sangster.

The man who screams at a football game, but is distressed when he hears of a sinner weeping at the cross, and murmurs about the dangers of emotionalism, hardly merits intelligent respect.

Update

2009-01-02T15:16:00.003+10:00

Have been quiet for a few months. Having finished college in Sydney, we're now part way through a move to Queensland to work for the Presbyterian Church of Queensland. We're looking for a place in Arundel where I'll be a student minister at Arundel Presbyterian while I study at the Queensland Theological College. So my thoughts haven't been that straight, especially with the stress of trying to find a house to rent during the Christmas-New Year chaos. (Will try and post about that experience at some stage.)

So what will we be doing at Arundel? Initially, just getting to know people and taking on leadership of the Youth Group. But long term, we're aiming under God's hand to start up a congregation that specifically serves University students well. Will try and post my lessons along the way. I also owe a few posts with highlights from my project comparing Christian and Islamic doctrines of Scripture and my issues paper on eschtaological Sabbath Rest. But not today. Until then, please forgive my relative silence.

Obligatory murder?

2008-12-26T08:15:00.001+10:00

I missed this article in the Sydney Morning Herald which argues there should be obligatory screening for Downs syndrome. We deliberately avoided the 12 week ultrasound for both our children because we knew that diagnosis leads to pressure to abort. (We've certainly heard plenty of parents being reminded repeatedly that "it's not too late" and being looked at with disdain by hospital staff for not aborting.) To suggest such screening should be mandatory would place incredible strain on those, like us, who are fully persuaded that just because a child is handicapped, doesn't mean they should be killed.

Jesus in swaddling cloths

2008-12-26T08:00:00.001+10:00

Once again, Singing in the Reign provides a though provoking post. Fitting the Christmas theme, it suggests that Jesus is wrapped in swaddling cloths in keeping with Luke's Davidic interest. It seems like it's an allusion to Wisdom of Solomon and Solomon's self-description. Sounds interesting to me.

Thoughts on "assisted suicide"

2008-11-26T20:27:00.001+10:00

The BBC News site has an open letter from one person in a wheelchair to another who is considering leaving life because it's not worth living. It's so saddening to think how we can make people feel so unwelcome that they'd rather die than hang around with our society.

From Resurrection to its Report

2008-11-26T20:19:00.001+10:00

One big skeptical argument in recent decades that rejected the resurrection suggested that it was a myth that developed in the life of the community of those that followed Jesus after his death. However, Craig Blomberg summarises a recent article which sees both Evangelicals and Atheists arguing that convictions that Jesus had risen from the dead must originate within a year or two of his death. That doesn't leave enough time for a resurrection myth to develop. The Atheist argues it was a mass hallucination. The Evangelical argues it must have really happened.

Zechariah 14:12-21

2008-11-15T14:07:00.001+10:00

One last aspect of Zechariah's hope has not been fulfilled—the willing submission of the nations to Yahweh's rule. Without this, these is no hope of permanent peace. And this is what the final passage brings. First, an apocalyptic battle is portrayed involving supernatural, flesh-rotting plague like something out of a horror Sci-Fi flick. This seems directed at the nations that immediately surround Jerusalem, removing them from the land and their attempts at acquiring what is devoted to God's people. Verses 13-14 draw attention to the collaboration of Jerusalem and Judah in contrast to the strife and turmoil within the camps of those nations. And all the other nations who joined in this apocalyptic battle will be subdued. They will pay homage in Jerusalem, owning the Feat of Booths as their own—expressing their allegiance and owning Israel's history. They stand under the covenant, it seems, for their disobedience receives the same withholding of rain that was incurred by the Israelites and that plagued the post-exilic community (cf Hagg 1:9-11). Even the land of Egypt that does not depend on rain will not be exempt, for they will be plagued if they rebel. And they will go to Jerusalem for it will finally be the city of priests. Unlike its sinful past so recurrent in Zechariah, it will be a city devoted to God such that even the most ordinary utensils will be suitable for temple sacrifices. Two final clauses are particularly poignant. That there will be no merchant means the rulers will finally care for the people, in contrast to the catastrophic mess of chapter 11. This is delightful hope. And yet... A pendent "On that day..." reminds the people that it remains, for now, only hope. They must await God's intervention, persuaded that the city of Jerusalem remains a valid locus of promise—the home of Yahweh, the covenant God.

We see a theology that will one day incorporate nations, though the role of the Jews will remain distinct. We see God reigning directly as King, though history testifies this did not extinguish hopes in a Messianic ruler. Rather, this section asserts the future lies wholly in the hands of God, and not in the political machinations of his people. "That day" remains Yahweh's day.

The great privilege of Gentiles like myself is to be incorporated into this eschatological reign—living with Christ as King and Lord, and saved from the horrifying judgment that is the fate of all who oppose God's possession of his creation. And to rejoice that God is purifying for himself a people who can dwell in his presence. But it is a day that I must wait for. Like Peter, I know that the day of judgment is coming and that any delay is only his patience (2 Pet 3). Like John, I take heart that every injustice will be righted on that day. But I remember that the only the Lamb is worthy to open the scroll by breaking the seals and unleashing eschatological judgment that will redeem his saints and bring his final justification (Revelation). Maranatha.

Zechariah 14:1-11

2008-11-15T12:44:00.001+10:00

A strange salvation. For the beginning of the chapter has the people refuging in Jerusalem, but the city is taken and the the tragedy of exile relived. The key statement is the final clause of verse 2: the remnant will not leave the city. Rather, Yahweh will battle for them. For he will reconfigure the geography—splitting the Mount of Olives as the place of refuge and then departing his city to go with his people. Suddenly events are of the order of a new creation: there is no light from the heavenly beauties, only a permanent light that recollects the first day of creation. And living waters flow from the city like an ANE mountain of the dwelling of God, bringing permanent life to the land. And Yahweh rules and he is king. He is known as the only God, in keeping with the Shema. And his city is raised up, subduing all the surrounding land so that his people can finally live in safety.

Here is the hope for the people. They must stick with Jerusalem. Despite the failure of the leadership. Despite their subjugation. God will save the remnant from Jerusalem. Unlike the message to Ezekiel, where the remnant in Jerusalem was lost, here God insists that in Jerusalem he will work salvation. And so the people are to remain devoted to it. (A sentiment known in the days of the Maccabees.)

And so the Son of God comes and heads determinedly to Jerusalem. The night before his triumph he goes to the Mount of Olives, present with his disciples. He has assured them that with faith as small as a mustard seed, God will provide the way of deliverance by casting the mountain even into the sea. And then he goes forth to battle, winning victory not by military might, but through an atoning sacrifice that defeats the powers of evil that ruled his people and prevented their faithfulness and his presence. And in Revelation the geographic recofiguration goes beyond merely raising and lowering mountains. A new Jerusalem descends from the heavens, from which flows a river of live that fills all the earth and nourishes abundant life. As the dwelling place of God with men, Jerusalem remains an important locus of hope. But when God comes incarnate, the geographic locale loses its importance.

Zechariah 13:2-9

2008-11-15T10:09:00.001+10:00

Chapter 12 has brought hope and expectation, but it concluded with the repentance of the people for stabbing one closely identified with God. The nature of this problem is more fully revealed. It rests in false religion—idols and their associated prophets. These prophets have no place in God's eschatological kingdom. Their misleading work must end. We are reminded of the idols and false visions of 10:2. The interpretive dilemma is who the shepherd is that is struck. Most consider it the general leadership of Israel or specifically the worthless shepherd concluding chapter 11. I lean in this direction, particularly thinking of the problem of international control of Jerusalem. This false shepherd has been the source of idolatry—a government that fostered polytheism. Perhaps it was Zechariah's challenge to this authority that led to his assassination, particularly if he attempted reunification in chapter 11. And even once this bad leader is removed, the people must be refined and their idolatry removed. Some will be removed from the land entirely. Others will pass through fire that they may be pure. The picture is of severe cleansing. There is no easy participation in God's eschatological kingdom.

Before the people can be cleansed, their leadership must be reformed. And this will not be done merely by installing new leadership. The problem is more ingrained. A purifying of the scale of the exodus is required—God's judgment in its fullest severity.

And so in the New Testament Christ arrives as the promised King, but he cannot simply replace the existing leaders. The people's sin is too ingrained and the leadership is too entrenched. We have only one expectation. God must strike the shepherds and scatter the sheep of Israel. But at this very moment, expectation is inverted. For Jesus declares that he is the one to be struck and his people those who will be scattered. How can this be? It is because judgment is needed. Judgment of such severity that every sin must be removed. In light of Isaiah 53, it is necessary for the Servant to take the place of his people and so ensure their cleansing. Yet doom is also pronounced for Jerusalem's leaders, and their days are numbered. They are revealed as misleading the people, and they must be cast from the land for they share in the rebellion of their fathers (Matt 23). But even then, the refining process has only begun. Judgment has begun with the household of God, and his people live troubled lives in the furnace of refining. But God's intent is established and through the substitutionary work of Christ, the remnant's future is assured. One day we will call out "My God" and mean it with all our heart. For the Christian today, we remember that the fire of refining is for our benefit. God's desire for us is holiness (1 Thess 4).

UPDATE: I've been thinking. Zechariah might tell us more than I realise about why the king must die. Perhaps the shepherd must be struck because he stands in the way of God and his people. That seems the frustration of Zechariah 9-13. The great inversion in Jesus is that he is willing for this to happen! Jesus is the humble king of Zechariah 9. God will work salvation for him. And this is most evident in his submission to the point of death. The danger in taking this reading is treating it as THE interpretation of Christ's death, to the cost of its atoning work. This is the danger of pacifist readings of Christ's life like Yoder's. But his observations are still noteworthy. There is an entirely polity established in Christ that contridicts all our expectations.

Zechariah 12:1-13:1

2008-11-15T08:29:00.001+10:00

A new oracle begins and portrays an eschatological intervention on behalf of Jerusalem and Judah. Yahweh is presented as the universal sovereign, forming earth and heaven and disposing the affairs of every human. As in chapter 9, there is the promise of Yahweh fighting on behalf of the people. Judah will be united with Jerusalem and will trust in it as a refuge, but in turn will be raised up to an equal position with its capital. But note the people are not merely humbled. They are clumsy. In fact, they are eventually portrayed as penitent. They have stabbed someone who may be identified with Yahweh himself. They have judged wrongly and only by Yahweh's intervention do they realise they were wrong. We think of Zechariah, who was rejected as their leader in chapter 11 and how again and again the fulfillment of his prophecy has been promised as the vindication of his message (2:8,11; 4:9; 6:15). How much more so given the conflict between experience and promise in this latter period of prophecy?

The passage is a clear declaration of God's faithfulness to his promises. Despite the message of the previous chapters, God's promises will be fulfilled. He will liberate his people from the nations which have lead them astray in unfaithfulness. He will bring them to repentance for rejecting his messenger. God will vindicate himself but also regain his people.

And so Christ comes as God's promised king yet is rejected by his own. But this doesn't thwart God's purposes but fulfill them. And on the day of Pentecost, the house of Israel, listening, hear Peter's accusation and mourn and seek salvation. And in so doing, God keep his promise to his people and saves a remnant as his very own. The people of Israel become the centre of the future kingdom of God. Remembering both their rejection and their repentance is important if we are to avoid anti-Semitic patterns in the history of the Church.

Zechariah 11

2008-11-14T20:27:00.001+10:00

The previous chapters have been building to a climax. God is promising to remove external powers and to reunify Israel, even though this will take a divine intervention of the scale of the Exodus event.

And these expectations look like they will be fulfilled in the first 3 verses. The cedar evokes a majestic ruler—perhaps Babylon, though I'm more and more persuaded it may be Persia—and this means his subordinate rulers in Bashan and, more importantly, Jerusalem mourn their loss. While they are called shepherds, this strong association with a northern ruler supports the thought they are not faithful Israelite leaders. There's something wrong with them.

But where the whole game is revealed is in 11:4-11. Not only are the shepherds revealed to be self-interested and selfish just as in Ezekiel 34, but the people are described as 'sheep for slaughter'.With Ezekiel in mind they sound like victims . But turning to Jeremiah 12:3, the sheep of the slaughter are those marked for judgment because, in Jer 12:4, they defile the land. The problem introduced in the first half of Zechariah (Zech 6;8)! And in Zechariah the frustration with the shepherds quickly becomes frustration with the sheep. The people were supposed to be waiting for Yahweh's intervention, but neither they nor the people are at all willing to be led by the prophet Zechariah. And so, using imagery from Ezekiel 37, the hope of reunification is shattered. Yahweh was for the people. He was prepared to reunite them. But when the time came, they were unwilling despite his benevolent leadership and their leaders were rebellious, just like in the days of Jeremiah. In 11:12-16 we discover the contempt is even from the "buyers" (is this a shift in metaphor?) who pay a paltry amount for his shepherding—something Yahweh considers an assessment of his leadership. (Again, Jeremiah is evoked.) And so the people are abandoned. Worse, they are given poor leadership, manifest in a particular leader who is cursed even though he is God's chosen leader. The restoration promised in Ezekiel 36 HAS NOT COME. If it is to come, it is not through this political turmoil. Why? Because of the enduring rebellion of the people.

This message is not that surprising when we consider the wider message of Ezekiel, for there it was not just leadership that needed repairing, but the heart of the people. And Zechariah finds this problem is not resolved. Though the temple is built, though the people are returned to the land a remnant, the essential transformation to godliness has not yet happened. Contrary to many readings of these books, its concern is not merely re-establishing cultic activity but also the faithfulness to God that should accompany it.

New Testament implications generally are that the people of Christ's day are still expecting the exilic promises to be fulfilled. The return was not complete. Its fulfilment fell short (because of the people's sins). And so there is every context established for Jesus' coming. And yet, it is 30 pieces of silver that Jesus is sold for. Where the shepherd was paid in Zechariah, an ironic twist sees the shepherd sold 'like a sheep for slaughter.' Like Zechariah, the New Testament authors see a complex of expectations fulfilled as Christ is crucified. But important for our passage, their fulfilment witnesses to the rejection of God's chosen leader by the people and their leaders. Whatever solution Zechariah has in store must deal with an entrenched problem. For now, we are warned of the danger of rejecting God's shepherd. We also may exclude ourselves from receiving his promises.

Zechariah 10

2008-11-14T19:00:00.001+10:00

Following on from the previous chapter, Yahweh calls on the people to ask for rain. But his intervention can only happen if the people stop following idols and divinations. And this can only happen with a change of leadership. I wonder, in the context of 9:1-8, whether we should be viewing this leadership as foreign—as the nations ruling Jerusalem. There's nothing here that suggests to me a priestly or Davidic shepherd, apart from the fact they are called shepherds. (That's a big exception, though.) Either way, the need is for Yahweh to intervene. And in so doing, he will restore the nation not merely by re-establishing his rule but by regathering the lost northern tribe. This intervention is of the scale of the Exodus—unsurprising given how the people have been scattered among the nations.

The big theological development is the magnitude of God's intervention to save his people. But that intervention strengthens the people—from among them comes his ruler. They are his agent of victory.

And that is what Christ is. Because in the gospels even the disciples prove unable to follow God until the end, only Christ can be God's agent of victory. But, through him, God gathers not only the lost people of Israel but even those who were not Israel—the Israel of faith. Through the preaching of the gospel, people are drawn into his kingdom. The condemnation of false leaders establishes a space between earthly rulers and the Christian community. Only Christ will rule as God intends. Any earthly rule must only be figurative and incomplete.

Zechariah 9

2008-11-13T13:57:00.001+10:00

Entering this section raises the whole question of how the two halves of the book fit together. On this issue, I am reading the book as presented. There are enough linguistic connections and thematic connections between the two books, and specifically chapters 8 and 9, to justify reading them together. However I'm not going as far as seeing the concluding chapters as the answer to the delegation from Bethel. The event may set up a context, but the chapters establish quite a different trajectory in the end. The connection is ultimately by way of contrast.

Turning to this chapter, the first 8 verses have a particular rhetorical effect. The word against the northern cities and nations emphasises God's sovereign hand against them. I have to confess that the events of Alexander's conquest strongly reflect the picture of these verses, particularly with the emphasis on Tyre's fall and on Gaza's stubbornness. This puts the final part of verse 8 in strong contrast: Yahweh is for Jerusalem (and note the inclusio created by "eyes" in 1 and 8). In the following verses from this picture of Yahweh's sovereign care of Jerusalem develops a portrait of the people he cares for. First, an allusion to Zephaniah 3:14 introduces a humbled king. Are we to think of the long absent Zerubbabel now chastened and returning?? It evokes a picture where the king reigns in peace, but the peace is achieved by Yahweh's hand. (Note the passive in many places, which in context of Zephaniah implies Yahweh's hand.) 14-15a is central to the passage insists that Yahweh comes as the divine warrior to deliver his people—he will act to save. And the implication is that the saved people, like their king, will be humbled. For while victorious, it is a victory won to the honour of Yahweh. His saved people are for his glory, like jewels of a crown. Their health shows his abundant provision of food and drink.

Theologically, this passage asserts Yahweh's sovereign action for his people, but also the humility that must result. The passage may have been written in the times of threat from the north during Nehemiah's days, or during the times of Alexander (or more likely, composited from prophecies during several periods). But without an explicit historical context, the passage portrays God's salvation and the humility that must necessarily result.

And so, not only does Jesus' entry as the humble king on the donkey befit the portrait of a king saved by the hand of Yahweh—one who submits to God even to death, knowing that his Father has the power to raise him even from the grave. But it also must characterise his people. Those who wait, not seeking their own justice but knowing their victory has been worked and will be effected by the hand of God. Thus our lives are to be to God's glory in this humility.

Zechariah 7-8

2008-11-13T10:46:00.001+10:00

Well, if you though I had some strange ideas, here's where I go out on a limb. I reckon chapters 7-8 completes a chiastic structure, picking up the theme of repentance from 1:1-6. Within these chapters, I think Zechariah responds to a delegation from Bethel (7:1-3) by first questioning his contemporaries' motives for fasting (7:5-6), then recalling the prophecy Zechariah received in 1:1-6 (7:7-8a) which itself recollected the words of the former prophets (7:8b-10). But then Zechariah reminds them that their fathers did not obey and so were sent into exile (7:11-14). However, gracious words also came from Yahweh promising of a return and restoration (8:1-8 with allusions to Nah 1 and elsewhere). And so finally Yahweh applies those past promises to Zechariah's present audience—those who heard the words of the former prophets on the day the foundation of the temple was laid. They potentially stand in the era of God's presence—there is hope of prosperity and an end to the curse on the land if evil is removed and the temple completed (8:9-17, cf chapter 5). Thus, to directly answer their question, their feasts can recognise an end to exile, but they need to reflect on the truth and peace that Yahweh's presence should bring (8:18-19). This leads to two additional promises (which might be independent, but clearly seem implied to the editor by what has gone before) of all the peoples coming to Jerusalem (8:20-23).

The big picture? First, we see that the very jealousy that caused judgment in 1:1-6 is also the source of promise in 8:1-6. God seeks faithfulness because he is faithful. So opportunity is here. The curses can come to an end. If the people will heed Yahweh's words—particularly through the prophets—then the promised peace awaits. For those living in the territory of Judea (ie. Yehud, though the question originating from Bethel suggests even Samaria is being invited to submit to rule from the temple of Yahweh) they need to pursue righteousness and sincerely submit to God as he is taught from the temple, for that is what all nations will ultimately do.

The big theme in this chapter is the correlation between God's character, his saving activity and the character of those who are saved. There's no surprise that God's grace teaches us to say 'no' to ungodliness (Titus 2) because God's great kindness is expressed in holiness. God generously acts to save so that we will be his. The big NT debates about the meaning of πιστις (faith/faithfulness) in studies of books like Romans reflect a genuine interplay between the faithfulness God shows and the faithfulness he demands. That's how Hebrews 12 climaxes. And Hebrews 12 resolves the dilemma because it is the one who goes ahead of us in faithfulness and struggles with sin and sinners to the point of bloodshed who in turn enables us in our struggles with sin and sinners (cf Heb 2:18). If we claim to be saved by God, we expect a life that expresses that holiness. Only by the promise of the new covenant where God writes the law on our heart (cf Heb 8) by his Spirit can we live up to this high calling.

The other point of note if my reading is right is that once again the doctrine of Scripture's ongoing speech is important. And compared to Zechariah 1, it is the promise which continues to speak, not just the warning.

Thinking human rights

2008-11-12T12:11:00.001+10:00

(Apology in advance. I'm still a bit fuzzy on this one.)

I've been toying with the thought of whether we should re-work the "human rights" discussion into a inter-relational, rather than individualist, framework. (Assuming Christians would argue the foundational component of society is relationship, not the individual nor the society as a whole.) So Christians would defend proselytisation as freedom to pursue agreement together and the freedom to differ.

The problem is, of course, that this inter-relational approach best fits a Christian viewpoint. We can advocate "freedom in relating to God" in place of "freedom of religion", but that's not what a Buddhist is even pursuing. It's not about relationship with God.

The value of the approach is that "rights" do immediately dictate the actions of the individual. They require certain manners of relating from a society, rather than insisting that particular individuals are always free to behave in a particular way without a view to the effect of their actions on others.

Probably lawyers will tell me it's unenforcable. And of course, any collection of rights will ultimately enter conflict. Whether it's worded as the "right to liberty" versus the "right to equality before the law" or the "right to relate" versus the "right to equality in relationship with officers and agents of the law".

Appalling sermon!!!

2008-11-12T09:39:00.001+10:00

On Youtube, George Athas has posted an absolutely appalling sermon which will make the skin crawl of anyone with even a smattering of Hebrew. It hurts so much!!! Surely this guy can't be serious. Surely he's deliberately misleading people. Or is he simply that ignorant of Hebrew grammar?

A review of Con's latest aspect book

2008-11-10T05:09:00.001+10:00

As I do last minute preparations for my New Testament 4 exam, it's a little scary but also encouraging to see a review of the approach to greek verbs we've been learning at college on someone else's blog. Scary, because it's the way I've been taught to think. Encouraging because his cricisms aren't too sever, and he's otherwise very encouraging. Mike's a great contributor on b-greek, which I follow. It's just good to see a careful critique of where things are at so that those of us learning his approach, especially regarding the perfect, are aware of reservations.

There's also a second part to the review, as well as the promise of a blog by Con on his book.

Zechariah, Micah and Zephaniah

2008-11-06T19:51:00.001+10:00

Having worked through Zechariah recently, I've been struck by the allusions particularly to Micah. (Mind you, the prophet was very conscious of his predecessors and is a strong demonstration of the relevance of God's Word across generations.)

The allusions to Micah are striking within the book of the 12 because Micah is the final prophet to the united kingdom. Thus when his themes are appropriated in Zechariah 9–14 it is no small assertion and the hearer must ask how the hopes and expectations of Micah are to be appropriated in Zechariah's generation.

Here's the allusions that have struck me. I haven't found anyone else list them together and I wanted to see whether they have weight together.

Allusion	Micah	Zechariah
The problem of false prophets and the people's faithfulness	2:11	13:2—6
Gathering of the scattered flock of Israel	2:12	10:6–12
Peoples streaming to Zion	4:1–2	6:15; 8:20–23
Zion as the source of law	4:2	7:2–8:19
Peace among the nations from the Davidide	4:3–4	9:10
Sitting beneath a vine	4:4	3:10
Nations that rejoice over fall of Israel	4:10–13	2:1?
Reign to the ends of the earth	5:4	9:10
Shepherd of the flock	5:4–6	9:16; 10:2–3; 11:3–17
Israel scattered among the nations and brought out in judgement	5:6–8	10:8–11

And since I came across them, some interesting words shared between Zephaniah and Zechariah.

Word or phrase	Zephaniah	Zechariah
Canaanites/traders	1:11; 2:5	14:12
"Congealed" men	1:12	14:6
Fortress	1:16	9:12 (not exactly same root)
The remnant's hand will not sink	3:16	(I forget what I was thinking)

I'm sure there's more, and I'm still forming my thoughts about the significance. And yes, some of the connections are more tenuous than others. I've been generous until I work out what I'm thinking.

Zechariah 6:9-15

2008-11-06T14:51:00.001+10:00

The visions are ended. Here Zechariah is given explicit instructions about crowning Joshua the high priest in the presence of others. It's possible they're supporters of a Davidic rulership—perhaps the party that instigated rebellion under Zerubbabel though remember we're conjecturing. Multiple crowns are made, but only Joshua is crowned and one crown (or it might be two depending on whether you follow the noun or the verb) is placed in the temple as a reminder. But of what? Well, if the high priest is crowned 'a Branch' (note, not the branch) then the crown in the temple might be a reminder of his authority to those awaiting a Davidic ruler, and a reminder to the priests that their authority is temporary, just as they were told in chapter 3 when Joshua and his companions were symbolic men. Joshua will continue to build the temple, awaiting the return of Zerubbabel promised in chapter 4. Together they will complete the temple, but in the meantime the people are not to throw off Persian rule but accept it. The distant ones—the Persians—will help the building for now.

As we have begun to notice, there are major changes for the Judeans in the way they view their rulership. It is possible to build a house for God without the promised son of David! But he will be a priest-king. Yet all this is temporary. It awaits something more. Though the circumstances are strange, they are God's doing.

From these circumstances opens the possibility of a king and priest (also prefigured in Melchizedek—Psalm 110). Initially the two parties that opposed and supported Persian rule are to have counsel together, but ultimately their peace must come in one man who realises God's rule according to the Davidic line.

Zechariah 6:1-8

2008-11-06T14:09:00.001+10:00

OK, I'm highly influenced by my lecturer on this one. First, we follow the Hebrew original in seeing the white horses following the black ones to the north. Second, we notice the connection with chapter 1. The horses represent God's powers at work through the world. And here, rest comes from the Northern land. Because in chapter 4 God's Spirit is at work through Zerubbabel and Joshua, we must ask whether here it acts independent of human agency. Or, does God's Spirit at rest in the north suggest that Yahweh is at work even through the powers of Persia as they go out, first to quell rebellion in the Babylon and Assyria (who would normally attack from the north) and then in Egypt. It would fit with the general picture that claims God has brought peace in a historical context where the Persians are still ruling (better than ever, in fact). If so, this passage sanctions the Persian rule, even as the heart of the vision insists that Joshua and Zerubbabel will complete the work.

The Yehudites are being told that God is at work through the power of a foreign force. This is revolutionary. No longer are they to strive for independence as part of the realisation of the temple. This may only be a temporary measure—Zerubbabel still lurks in the background—but it is still astounding.

And in the New Testament, God can be at work even in human authorities, so that Timothy is to pray for them (1 Tim 2). Realising the Kingdom of God is not the defeat of human powers when Christ comes, but nor is it denying the reign of his chosen king. Rather, we wait in hope knowing that all things work to our good (Rom 8).

Zechariah 5:5-11

2008-11-06T13:34:00.001+10:00

Continuing the picture of 1-4, wickedness is now removed from the land. Thus where the first promised the destruction of individuals who did evil, now the picture is of a more general cleansing of the land. Of course, this introduces ambiguity. Are the people involved? But I don't think that's the emphasis, particularly because wickedness is given a "resting place" (often used for the temple) in the vicinity of Babylon. It seems that evil is given a new home. Given God's attitude to evil, this also guarantees his opposition to Babylon, as was already expressed in the 2nd and 3rd events in the vision. Evil is powerful—it needs to be restrained. But the angel of Yahweh is able to do it.

Where the previous picture was of God's standards imposed on the land, here is assurance that God will act to ensure the cleansing. The land will not be left polluted so God will live among his people and will make it happen.

Where we observed the need for holiness, now we observe God's ability to guarantee it. He demonstrated his ability in judgment through the exile to these people. Will he demonstrate it in some other way now? The details are not spelt out. But it sets up not only a realm of his holiness, but a conflict with another realm where evil dwells. Similarly, Paul speaks of being delivered from the dominion of Satan and delivered into the kingdom of the Son whom God loves (Col 1:13-14). Here is the Bible's form of duality. Satan is under God's control and his defeat is certain. With Christ's coming, the divide between the world that opposes Christ and Christ who is the holy one of God becomes stark. And it is only in his mercy that some are delivered from judgment to be counted holy in Christ and are ensured of being conformed to his image.

Zechariah 5:1-4

2008-11-06T12:59:00.001+10:00

In this vision, a scroll goes out carrying a curse on those that swear by Yahweh's holy name falsely and those that steal. These are problems back in Hosea 4, so if we're thinking of Zechariah within the book of the 12 minor prophets, these are the problems that first brough his condemnation. Thus we might see them as summarising the prophetic warnings, even if they also evoke the requirements of the Decalogue. (Though we need to work out if the scroll is double sided.) Historically, there's also evidence that Darius encouraged local provinces to codify their laws as early as 519BC. This would fit our time period fairly well, though I think it's more relevant in chapter 7. Here, the clear message is that with God's presence in the land, evil must go. Reference to the "curse" does evoke Isaiah 24:6 and Jeremiah 23:10 and thereby Isaiah 24:6.

God's presence in the land requires holiness. As in the days of the exile, so now.

Thus holiness characterises God's people for, without it no one will see God (Hebrews 12). That's why God disciplines us. And we must be warned that on the day of Christ's return, every evil doer will be cast into hell (Rev 20). But that isn't to say that we can be holy enough on our own. We long for one who can make us holy by his death for us.

Zechariah 4

2008-11-06T12:21:00.001+10:00

Many commentators point out that 6b-10c feel like an editorial insertion. The whole thing would read smoother without them. And I think they're right. But what I disagree with is what they then do—remove it. There is a basic skepticism toward the editor in Biblical studies. But why? How can people get away with such wholesale editing—especially such blatantly obvious editing—unless everyone considered it complemented, and perhaps expanded, what was already said by the text.

So, how do I understand this chapter? Let's start without our contentious insertion. The picture is of a lampstand that is fed by two trees. We are explicitly told that the two trees are the anointed ones standing before the Lord of the earth. In the Jewish thought world of the time, the two anointed ones can only be the king and the priest. And they have been present ever since Haggai. Of the options for the meaning of the lamp, the most natural would be to see it as representing the temple. It's almost a conglomeration of temple implements stacked one on another. Thus Zerubbabel and Joshua will enable the temple because they stand before God himself. In a very subtle way this passage insists that they will build the temple.

Insert 6b-10c and this only becomes more explicit. The message is directed to Zerubbabel. Why? Because he's notably absent up until this point. But perhaps at a later time Zerubbabel returned from a temporary exile (as part of Darius' clean up of the area) and this prophecy insisted he would rebuild the temple. But it says more. It says this is possible only because he is God's agent. Not by political strength except as the agent of God's Spirit. Within this series of visions, this is a natural fit. God superintended all that happened to Israel at the hand of the Persians in order that his temple be built. And God has done it by the hands of Joshua and Zerubbabel. But no one dare mention Zerubbabel while he's in the lockup in case they also are accused of insurrection.

The original passage emphasises God's intention to build his temple, and to do it by the hand of his servants Zerubbabel and Joshua. If the people want God's presence, it is realised through these two roles. This is a development compared to 2 Samuel 7 where the emphasis is clearly on the King. But in Zechariah's day, the priest is brought into greater prominence as an entirely appropriate person to direct the building of God's temple. This doesn't conflict with Israel's past for it was Moses, the prophet, who was God's agent for constructing the tabernacle. And the priests are prominent in Josiah's day in enabling the rebuilding, though Josiah is primary. But in Zechariah's circumstances, the priest must step forward without reducing the emphasis on the king's importance. And so the insertion reinforces that it will be the king, but by God's Spirit. This is why the king is so important to rebuilding.

And so in the New Testament, we find the priest-king who possesses God's Spirit in accordance with Isaiah (cf Matt 12). He is the agent of God's presence in a way unimaginable in the days of Zechariah.

Zechariah 3:1-10

2008-11-06T09:40:00.001+10:00

Against a lot of commentators that see this as an affirmation of Joshua's intercessory role as high priest, having been cleansed from sin, I wonder if this isn't an affirmation of his role as king within the community at that time. The "Satan" may be a party of accusers sent from Persia because Zeruabbabel has overstepped his authority and Persia has intervened. But Joshua is assured that if he is in any way implicated in Zerubbabel's guilt, the accusations will not stick. I think this particularly makes sense of Joshua's turban (which many commentators seem to think is a royal turban) and his "men of signs" (v.8) who point to the promised Davidic king—the Branch. I take the stone to be full of eyes and to compare with the "eyes" sent from Persia to watch Jerusalem. But Yahweh has his own "eyes" keeping watch and that ensures that he will ultimately remove their guilt.

(I should clarify. I'm open to the thought that the passage leans heavily on Joshua's role as intercessor and couches a lot in terms of his priestly role. But several times the imagery seems "bent" toward a kingly claim—and the sudden mention of the Branch means some commentators try to move it to the next chapter. Rather, this is carefully presented imagery to affirm Joshua's ability to rule while Zerubbabel is apparently absent, while not suggesting he replaces the promised Davidic king.

Obviously, the presence of a "priest-king" would point us toward Jesus. He is ultimately the promised Branch. But also, the imagery of the accuser is taken further in the NT to assure us that no one can bring an accusation against God's chosen people (Rom 8).

Zechariah 2:1-12 [2:5-17 Heb]

2008-11-06T09:32:00.001+10:00

Jerusalem doesn't need a wall. Their security lies in God's presence, for he will be a wall of fire around them. Implication: don't build a wall and repel Persia, build a temple and allow the sovereign God to protect you. This is good news for the surrounding country (the open lands referred to in v.8) as well. v.10-17 seems to be a separate song and I think 14-17 leans heavily on Zephaniah 3 (especially 8-9, 14-15). This reaffirms what the prophets promised before exile, provided the people look to Yahweh and align with him (ie. they build the temple so his presence is manifest in their midst).

Again, the nations are in view, but here it emphasises their being gathered to Jerusalem. Despite its insignificance, and worse its apparent weakness before Persia, their God—Yahweh—is asserted as sovereign of all the earth. Even in their weak and hidden state, God is in control.

The hiddenness of God's sovereignty is seen clearly in Jesus' death (the disciples' prayer in Acts 4) and teaches us to turn to Christ despite his being humiliating in the world's eyes (1 Cor 1).

Zechariah 1:18-21 [2:1-4 Heb]

2008-11-06T09:22:00.001+10:00

This brief part of the vision seems to declare God's judgment on those that scattered Israel—implicitly Babylon and Assyria. I think the best reading is to see this as asserting God's sovereignty over the action of Darius in quelling rebellion. If the Persians were Babylon's punishment, Zechariah insists they will not escape but God has sent his workers to bring an end to their rebellion.

Thus Darius is an agent of God's vengeance, immediately reminding me of the role of all government as the agent of God's justice (in a limited sense) at present (Rom 13).

Zechariah 1:7-17

2008-11-06T09:19:00.001+10:00

The first section of Zechariah's overnight vision, we first note this vision still has the authority of God's word. The means of God's self-revelation does not dilute its authority. Rather, the presence of mediators seems to impress upon the people their distance from God. And yet God remains sovereign. The horses seem related to the troops of Persia—the present rulers—which have brought peace after the succession of Darius and his efforts at quelling uprisings.

The effect of this passage is to affirm that Jerusalem is still the centre of God's interests, but that he is working out his purposes through the powers of Persia. Yet there is still a longing for Jerusalem's restoration. This is assured by Yahweh's love for them, not the evident power of Yehud (the territory around Jerusalem at that time). There is also the possibility that Zerubbabel has tried to exert political power or claim too much for his rule, and so Darius has intervened. In that case, the expression of God's compassion and consoling is because he still loves Jerusalem, despite their present circumstances.

Moving into the New Testament, we discover God's self-revelation not in a final and authoritative prophetic voice alone, but in something more substantial. The mediator who is his Son, and who, by knowing him, we know the Father. Thus Christian Scripture accomodates far more than just the prophetic word (cf Islam). The rebuke of Zerubbabel if he ran ahead of his humble circumstances could speak to Christians who wish to act like they rule with Christ now, not appreciating the humbled reign of Christ while he was here on earth and his humility in heaven now. Finally, note how being at the centre of God's purposes is predicated on his love, and not our efforts.

Thoughts on Zechariah 1:1-6

2008-11-06T09:09:00.001+10:00

OK, you're now the victims of my study. I need to work through Zechariah and provide a theological and pastoral reflection for each. This is going to be pretty rough, but I figure it's a good way to "get things on paper".

So, Zechariah 1:1-6. I reckon this is a call for Zechariah's generation to remember the reality of the exile and realise they must repent. In his context, that means building the temple. (Haggai sits right before this chapter.) Within his rhetoric, he sees the vindication of the former prophets in that what they said came to pass, and so their ethical code belongs to today. And most central to that code is faithfulness to Yahweh.

There's some great reflection here about the ongoing voice of God's word (just like in Deuteronomy 5 where the commandments spoken at Sinai are seen as spoken to their children). But there is also the warning of not repenting—the warnings of God have an expiry date. His patience extends only so long.

In the new testament, we find all Scripture useful for rebuke and correction (2 Tim 3:16), including messages to the people of Israel long ago. And we are warned that God is patient, but his patience has a limit. God is longsuffering because he wants us to repent (2 Peter) but there is a day of reckoning (2 Peter 3).

Studies in Pooh

2008-11-04T04:25:00.003+10:00

Ok, so I'm a geek. But I found this treatment of Pooh Bear in the tradition of Driver, Sanders, von Rad and other OT big-wigs entertaining. And yes, I should be studying but I promise I didn't go searching for it.

Why doesn't Microsoft Word support unicode???

2008-10-31T12:35:00.001+10:00

OK, so all you PC users are looking at me strange. I'm talking about Office 2008. But I hope this post turns up in other searches on Word and unicode because I want Microsoft to receive the bad PR.

My complaint is that Word for mac can't handle Right to Left text. Astounding. The operating system supports it. OpenOffice can do it. So why would such a fundamental feature be missing? Is the computer simply not appropriate for semitic and arabic users??

Ok, enough ranting.

Great quote on Form Criticism

2008-10-30T05:51:00.001+10:00

For the biblical scholars out there, here's a great quote on form criticism.

No Power in the Hour?

2008-10-29T10:24:00.001+10:00

Albert Mohler describes tensions between Robert Schuller and his son. I'd love to read more somewhere. The striking quote is Robert (Snr) saying, "I was called to start a mission, not a church," which means, "You don't try to preach [...] what is sin and what isn't sin. A mission is a place where you ask nonbelievers to come and find faith and hope and feel love." It's a fascinating distinction (compared to being a church). But where does he get that from? Can't be the Bible that I know.

Wisely spending money

2008-10-27T10:41:00.001+10:00

After a great sermon on Ecclesiastes 5 and 6 at church yesterday, this post has some very practical tips for saving money that really agree with the wisdom of Ecclesiastes. As the article begins,

Live a comfortable life, not a wasteful one. Do not spend to impress others. Do not live life trying to fool yourself into thinking wealth is measured in material objects. Manage your money wisely so your money does not manage you. Always live well below your means.

Or as Ecclesiastes says,

5:10 Whoever loves money never has money enough;
whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income.
This too is meaningless.
[...]
13 I have seen a grievous evil under the sun:
wealth hoarded to the harm of its owner,
14 or wealth lost through some misfortune,
so that when he has a son
there is nothing left for him.
[...]
6:9 Better what the eye sees
than the roving of the appetite.
This too is meaningless,
a chasing after the wind.

Long lost quote on heaven

2008-10-24T10:23:00.001+10:00

A number of years ago I read J Oswald Sanders' Heaven better by far and I remember being struck by one quote in particular. I've finally found it again. It was a song by Johnson Oatman. I remember being astounded to think that humans would have something to sing of that the angels wouldn't know.

There is singing up in heaven
Such as we have never known,
Where the angels sing the praises
of the Lamb upon his throne;
Their sweet harps are always clear.
O, that we might be more like them
While we serve the Master here.
Holy, holy is what the angels sing,
And I expect to help them make
The courts of heaven ring;
But when I sing redemption's story,
They will fold their wings,
For angels never felt the joy
That our salvation brings.

Understanding how styles apply

2008-10-21T03:33:00.001+10:00

Most people hate Styles in Word, yet they are incredibly powerful when used right. Microsoft Office's Word Team Blog has this article on how styles are applied so you can get a better idea of the hierarchy of styles.

What happens when people become commodities

2008-10-20T05:15:00.001+10:00

I hadn't heard about this story, but apparently it's been widely publicised. A baby was "commissioned" by a Japanese couple wanting a child but before she was born the couple divorced. That's a tragedy common enough. But now the child is not recognised in either country. What's going on their? Why is it so hard for societies to welcome people? I'm sure the child is loved by the nurse that cares for her.

Criticism of the Victorian charter of rights

2008-10-15T03:41:00.001+10:00

OK, so here's a test case. Is using the charter of rights an entirely appropriate critique of the current Victorian abortion law, or as Janet Albrechtson puts it

the weapon of first resort for those opposed to laws duly enacted by the elected representatives of the Victorian people[?]

Apparently it's fine to protect people's rights, provided the majority of people want it.

Whatever your views about abortion, there is a much larger issue at stake. Since its introduction in 2006, this is the first – but it will by no means be the last time - that the Charter of Rights will be used by litigants who ask unelected judges to overturn the democratic decisions of Victorians.

Isn't the whole point to preserve essential rights of all individuals against potential neglect (or malicious harm) by will of the majority? Or have I misunderstood?

I should point out Janet does not support the law as it stands.

While I’m firmly in the camp that regards the new Victorian abortion laws as abhorrent because they legalise the killing of a baby that could survive outside the mother’s womb, the Victorian Charter is nearly as bad. It kills democracy.

Worrying times ahead

2008-10-13T14:35:00.001+10:00

I just can't understand our society. At one moment paranoid about paedophilia, the next promoting the sort of sexualisation described in this SMH article. Why does every sexual experience have to become a matter of public consumption? Should some of the fantasies described in the article be applauded, or a cause for loving concern that sex has been derailed from its value in the relationships of men and women who wish to raise children together and, as a family, work toward good purposes for the world?

Am I misunderstanding something?

UPDATE: Here's one person's experience of that "fantasy" lifestyle explored by the above article.

Subordinationism debate

2008-10-11T18:26:00.001+10:00

Anyone know where I can find out more of what was said at this debate?

Helpful post

2008-10-08T10:40:00.001+10:00

Paul Grimmond has a really helpful post that just reminds us to give thanks for the work God does and to live that way more often.

Church publicity at its heart

2008-10-07T05:57:00.001+10:00

This article from Church Marketing Sucks is just really sensible (though I hate the marketing speak). If you want to start a church, don't think big events are the way to go. What's important is people and so we've simply got to spend more time getting to know people. The minister at our church at the moment is having lunch periodically with many of the guys. It's great for pastoral contact, but I now realise it's a great way to meet new people. Must remember this in the future...

Hooray for the Presbyterians!

2008-09-30T13:56:00.001+10:00

The Presbyterian Church of Australia has been derided at times for its handling of heretics. Some will claim it was too harsh. Others will think it has at times allowed heresy to fester. The Age reports on a recent heresy finding that I thoroughly support. To quote the article:

The six teachings the commission rejected are accepting "feelings" as revelation from God equal to the Bible, that contact with non-Fellowship members leads to defilement, that the Fellowship claims higher loyalty than members' families, that Christians can be controlled by "generational curses" or evil spirits, and that God's forgiveness depends on confessing to other people or on personal holiness.

They sound like teachings worth condemning to me because they are miles from the confidence that we know God as he reveals himself in Scripture, that his salvation is secured by his grace in the Christ's death and resurrection (and not by our obedience) and that he establishes a community aligned with Christ that continues to live in this world as witnesses.

The word heresy sounds harsh. But leading people away from Christ deserves harsh words.

Carson on the Church's trends

2008-09-30T08:21:00.001+10:00

Carson is a man always worth listening to given his extensive knowledge, broad contact with the Christian church and devotion to Christ and the gospel. This post at Acts 29 summarises some of his reflections that are no exception.

Back to OpenOffice

2008-09-30T05:46:00.001+10:00

Have just returned to OpenOffice having used NeoOffice because support for mac had been attrocious. The new version doesn't require X11 and all the other junk, so I'm enjoying it. It's not quite as well integrated into the mac environment and the release candidate still has a couple of bugs. But it's going pretty well so far.

How long to prepare a sermon?

2008-09-24T13:01:00.001+10:00

It seems a perennial question for ministers. How long to spend in preparation? The more time spent with God's word, the more piercing our presentation of the text is likely to be ... unless we're so disconnected from the congregation it becomes irrelevant.

I just finished preparation that took about 12 hours though it needs another couple of hours editing before it's a really effective sermon. But I remember one lecturer telling a class, "If it takes more than 12 hours to prepare your sermon, you're not worth feeding." And this I read Mark Dever saying he spends 30 to 35 hours! All well and good in a mega-church situation...maybe. But where does wisdom lie.

The other problem is that the previous generation of preachers (ie. now retiring) had a different philosophy again. One told me that if it took more than 4 hours to prepare sermon, I was wasting time. I needed to be out with my congregation. (I asked a few questions and it seems he was mainly describing the time taken to prepare notes for preaching. He actually did his exegesis the year before and would spend 1.5 hours every morning during his quiet time first on personal reflection but then on developing exegetical notes. By my calculation, he may have spent more like 14 hours.) And then another minister told me he spent 1-2 hours! I'm not seeing them as models. But they are some of the modern generation's strongest critics. And they have a genuine concern. When do we spend time with people. When does the pastoring happen if we're cloistered in our study?

Breaking blog silence for breaking news

2008-09-15T17:04:00.004+10:00

Only a brief raising of the head between chapters of my project and an essay on social ethics. Just wanted to observe how current world events will be even more pertinent to my essay on the governance of the free market. It will give me good reason to stop and think how reliable the free market really is, while it would be naive (and theologically incorrect) to say that the subprime mortgage disaster should never have happened.

Further, as I sit wondering what will happen with my savings, it will be very helpful to be preparing a sermon on Ecclesiastes 3, with its reminder that we can never know the big picture, and there will be times for bad as well as good in this peculiar concoction that is "life under the sun." They're not comforting words, but they're probably just the words we all need to hear right now.

At some later time I'm also preparing a post looking at allusions in Zechariah 9–14 to Micah and their significance to the post-exilic Judeans and their significance to us. But all that will need to wait until post-essay (and possibly post-project). For now, it might be time for a quotation from Ecclesiastes 3:

For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
[...]
a time to weep, and a time to laught
a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;
a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
a time to seek, and a time to lose;
a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
[...]
What gain has the worker from all his toil? I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; [...]
I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him. That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away.

Do we need more capitalism in church?

2008-09-04T15:12:00.001+10:00

I'm in the midst of working on a social ethics essay asking, "Can the 'free market' be governed ethically?" And then in the same moment I see Gordon Cheng's notes on Mark Driscoll's talk on what Sydney Evangelicals are to do. And one of his comments is that we lack entrepeneurialism in our churches!

This was exactly my thought as I've been reading Ian Hore-Lacy's Creating Common Wealth. Yet I'm so uncomfortable with it, it's scary. I'm going to benefit from this essay, me thinks...

The question isn't "continuity/discontinuity"

2008-08-13T11:43:00.003+10:00

Have been watching (and participating a little in) a discussion on the continuity and discontinuity between the old and new creation. The discussion started at Sola Panel and continued on Michael Jensen's blog. It has generally been very helpful for me.

It's made me realise that continuity/discontinuity just isn't the issue. What we're all trying to work out is:

(a) how to rightly portray the judgement of God on this world in a way that speaks the affirming "yes" of Christ's resurrection while not losing the horror inducing "no" as God condemns our idolizing of his good creation;

(b) how should our attitude to the present creation be affected by the knowledge of God's eschatological purposes—his work of judgement and re-creation.

I've appreciated being moved in a different direction.

Historical Jesus methodology

2008-08-11T12:10:00.003+10:00

Singing in the reign is a blog worth reading. In this post is an excellent discussion of current assumption in much of the historical Jesus research. It raises some great questions about the assumptions being made when we assume not all the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are really his.

Identifying weaknesses

2008-08-07T10:35:00.001+10:00

Here's good advice for churches, where people are notoriously reluctant to give negative feedback. Look for what people won't tell you.

Conversation tips

2008-08-07T06:59:00.002+10:00

Ministers are wise to think carefully about how they speak and act in conversation. Here's a helpful post with links to other pages on body language and other non-verbals.

Michael Ovey on Repentance

2008-08-06T06:13:00.001+10:00

Have just started our Moore Annual Lectures. Michael's taking us through Luke-Acts and asking whether the Gospel is, as Calvin would suggest, centrally about repentance and faith. Or whether, as some modern views would suggest, that repentance is a by-product of the declaration of the Lordship of Christ. Last night was very enriching—using literary tools Michael reflected on the contrast of character development of "tax collectors" and "Pharisees" in Luke. He used six feasts mentioned in Luke's narrative to show how this developed. The real twist came when we discovered the early characterisation of greed and sinfulness of the tax collectors is revealed to also be the characteristic of the Pharisees, but that the Pharisees, due to their self-righteousness, do not receive the invitation to the joyous feast of repentant sinners. Looking forward to seeing the understanding of righteousness in Luke unfold.

The Law and the Gospel...and Calvin

2008-07-28T05:37:00.002+10:00

An article I'm looking at discussing Calvin's understanding of the three-fold division of the law. It's more the discussion of the use of the law than the recognition of different "types" of the law. I'd love to find some helpful material on the latter.

Irresistible Grace

2008-07-22T21:16:00.005+10:00

Am preaching on Irresistible Grace, or Effectual Calling in a month or so. It's part of a series going through the 5 points of Calvinism, TULIP style. Have started thinking (and a little reading of Dabney) and have had many thoughts on how I might explore the topic.

Some possibilities:

in contrast to a more general work of grace that merely enables us to respond to salvation;
exploring the question of whether we can be saved without any evidence of change in our lives;
addressing the question of "why bother evangelising if God elects".

Not sure which I want to choose. And especially how best to structure the sermon.

Revelation and the genres of Scripture

2008-07-16T13:48:00.005+10:00

Looking at dialogue with Muslims has raised questions for me about how different genres are authoritative for Christians. Here's a choice quote from B. B. Warfield:

we have no Scriptural warrant to go on in contrasting one mode of revelation with another. Dreams may seem to us little fitted to serve as vehicles of Divine communications. But there is no suggestion in Scripture that revelations through dreams stand on a lower plane than any others [...] It may seem natural to suppose that reveations rise in rank in proportion to the fulness of the engagement of the mental activity of the recipient in their reception. But we should bear in mind that the intellectual or spiritual quality of a revelation is not derived from the recipient but from its Divine Giver. The fundamental fact in all revelation is that it is from God.¹

And he brings out how God uses the entire person to reveal himself:

And when it is not merely the mouths of men with which God thus serves Himself in the delivery of His messages, but their minds and hearts as well—the play of their religious feelings, or the processes of their logical reasoning, or the tenacity of their memories, as, say, in a psalm or in an epistle, or a history—the supernatural element in the communication may easily seem to retire stil farther into the background. [... But i]n the view of the Scriptures, the completely supernatural character of revelation is in no way lessened by the circumstance that it has been given through the instrumentality of men.²

He directly addresses other genres than prophecy (like poetry, psalms, epistles) as modes of revelation that are called "concursive operation". Of these he says:

The Spirit is not to be conceived as standing outside of the human powers employed for the effect in view, ready to supplement any inadequacies they may show and to supply any defects they may manifest, but as working confluently in with and by them, elevating them, directing them, controlling them, energizing them, so that, as His instruments, they rise above themselves and under His inspiration do His work and reach His aim.³

Finally, he sees all these revelations culminating in Christ, for

the revelation accumulated in Him stands outside all the divers portions and divers manners in which otherwise revelation has been gien and sums up in itself all that has been or can be made known of God and of His redemption. [...] Nevertheless, though all revelation is thus summed up in Him, we should not fail to note very carefully that it would also be all sealed up in Him—so little is revelation conveyed by fact alone, without the word—had it not been thus taken by the Spirit of truth and declared unto men. The entirety of the New Testament is but the explanatory word accompanying and giving its effect to the fact of Christ.⁴

¹ B. B. Warfield The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1970), 84.

² Warfield, 86.

³ Warfield, 95.

4 Warfield, 96.

Humble dialogue

2008-07-16T11:25:00.007+10:00

Yesterday I was reading an interesting article by John Azumah¹ which argues for the centrality of Jesus' uniqueness in interfaith dialogue. He argues, from his experience in Africa, that only by maintaining Jesus' uniqueness do we accord right respect to our dialogue partners. But, significantly, he still thinks this will lead to humility in evangelism, because the manner of our dialogue will reflect God's attitude.

Finally, in talking about following Jesus as unique Lord and Saviour in a broken world, Christians should bear in mind how the Lord Jesus himself chose to be remembered. ‘And he took bread, [...] It is significant that, of all which he accomplished during his time on earth, Jesus chose the brokenness of his body, his crucifixion and death for his own memorial, rather than his miracles or exaltation. The lust for power and dominance is one of the principal causes of the brokenness of our world.²

This particularly struck me because earlier I had read an article reviewing Cardinal Ratzinger's theology of dialogue prior to his becoming Pope Benedict XIV.³ Caldecott also is confident that a claim that a belief is true need not lead to an arrogant attitude in dialogue. In his article, it is provided by a confidence that truth is external to those in dialogue and is being sought by them. He considers, with Fr Kereszty, that for Christians this stems from the incarnation:

God’s mode of self-revelation takes this into account, since God (who is the ultimate truth) approaches us through an Incarnation that only fully reveals its riches “through the whole of history and through all redeemed humankind”. This is the work of the Holy Spirit.⁴

Adding Azumah's observation, it is not just that God bends down in the incarnation but that he humbles himself to the point of dying for us.

And I wonder if that implies that one of the best ways of entering into dialogue with other faiths is to introduce them to this truth that stands outside ourselves. That is, to read the Scriptures with them. They, in turn, will point us to wherever they believe they encounter objective truth. But for a Christian to read Scripture with someone should be an immense act of humility, for we are encouraging them to hear the message of Christ, not as we would argue and present it, but as it is proclaimed by the Scriptures themselves. And we will look, not to our own persuasive power, but to the Spirit to make this external truth effective for that individual.

And further, if they reject this truth, we do not need to feel personal offense. For they have not rejected us and our arguments. They have been interacting with the Father who speaks in the world by the Gospel which testifies to his Son. And it is the Spirit who will make that word effective. Even for us.

¹ John Azumah, ‘Following Jesus as Unique Lord and Saviour in a Broken Pluralistic World’ Evangelical Review of Theology 31/4 (2007): 294–305.

² Azumah, 'Following Jesus', 305.

³ Stratford Caldecott, ‘Benedict XVI and Inter-Religious Dialogue’ Transformation 23/4 (2006): 199–204.

³ Caldecott, ‘Benedict XVI’ 202.

Surprising turn around

2008-07-16T06:57:00.002+10:00

Have been reading Hosea in my morning readings lately. Though I think I'd seen it before, I'd forgotten what a turn around happens between Hosea 13, the phrase "O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your sting?" is God searching for the worst possible to pour out on his people, for "Compassion is hidden from my eyes." These sentences, in themselves, are not a message of hope.

In their context in Hosea they're not entirely despair, as they stand within the larger dilemma God is facing which is introduced in chapter 11: "How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel?" Yet, within that debate God says he will hand the Israelites over to Assyria to receive terrible judgement. The hint of hope is simply that God won't bring the nation to an entire end. He will judge and the people will suffer, but there will be a future post-judgement for Israel as a nation. For the individual living through judgement this would be little comfort. In Hosea's prophecy, it matters a great deal whether you stand before or after judgement.

And so when Paul picks up Hosea in 1 Corinthians 15 there's this massive turn around. Paul says that at the resurrection, judgement will have been and gone for the Christian, for they will be "clothed with the impreishable" and the sting of death will be gone. In Hosea's history, they will stand after judgement. How is this possible? Because the power of the sting of death (that is, the law that condemns sin) has been dealt with in Jesus, through whom God "gives us the victory". Within Hosea's scheme, Paul is implying that judgement has been and gone. The terrors of death that God would pour out have already been poured out—on the cross.

At once we breath a sigh of relief. But if we've understood Hosea, we also look back at the cross with newfound awe. On the cross, Jesus bore the worst judgement possible, for that is what our sins deserved. What a humbling thought.

Printing A5 booklets using OpenOffice

2008-02-15T10:06:00.003+10:00

I've always found this frustrating. Usually the only way to print A5 brochures from a wordprocessor is to set up columns and work out by hand which column represents which page. It's a pain to set up and even worse to edit.

Well, I've discovered that OpenOffice does the hard work for you. If you set up a normal A4 document and type up whatever you want to print, you can still produce it as an A5 booklet. The following assumes you can't print double sided pages automatically. All you have to do is:

Choose FIle | Print...
First, we'll print the odd pages:
1. Select the printer properties button
2. Set the printer to landscape and press OK
3. Choose the Options button
4. Make sure that the "Right" and "Brochure" tick boxes are selected and that the "Left" and "Reverse" tick boxes are not
5. Press OK to return to the Print dialog
6. Print the document
Now we'll print the even pages:
1. Re-insert the paper so that you print on the reverse side of the page
2. Choose File | Print... again
3. Make sure the printer is still set to landscape
4. Choose the Options button
5. Make sure that "Right" is deselected and that "Left" is selected (I didn't need to use reverse, but others report needing to do that)
6. Press OK to return to the Print dialog
7. Print the document

With any luck, you now have an A5 booklet that you can fold up and give away. This is just too easy compared to setting it up manually. And you can convert any A4 document into the same format.

Preaching through Hebrews 1-6

2008-01-08T09:59:00.002+10:00

Working through Hebrews 1-6. It's been a real treat.

I've noticed a lot of variation in the focus of the series - an alternating of explanation of who Jesus is and warnings of listening to him. What's got me curious is how this worked in the overall structure. I have an article from Joosten that I'm hoping to read that might enlighten me, and Ellington flagged it as a point of debate.

My current theory is that the first 6 chapters are more than a prelude. They establish the broader framework (the things that the Hebrews should already have known) and that 7 and following delve into the further things - the bigger implications of who Jesus is - that the Hebrews should be delving into by now.

But as far as preaching goes, it's been a very helpful book to work through. Chapter 1 was great pre-Christmas - recognising Jesus as more important than anything else. 2 worked really well in contrast to New Year's resolutions - the Christian life is not constantly resolving to "do better" but constantly turning in dependence to Jesus. And 3-4 was a very helpful exhortation as people were beginning to plan their year - keep making time to listen to God's promise.

It's going to be a shame to stop at chapter 6.

The almost purchased mac

2007-12-28T14:46:00.000+10:00

Well, I became the owner of a macbook for a couple of days, but had to return it. It's not that I won't buy one. It's just that I bought one on special at Dick Smith - the previous 2.0GHz model - where they assured me I could install 4GB of RAM. But then the advice around the internet is that it will only use 3GB. So I returned it since Dick Smith said they'd done it, but they couldn't guarantee that it would work. And I couldn't test it out in the brief 14 day window (since I was going to be away for a while).
Ah well, we wait until February.

Time for a new computer

2007-12-13T11:53:00.000+10:00

Well, I've spent the last couple of years with some second hand laptops for college. They've been good, but the one at college only has 64MB of RAM and the one at home 186MB. At college I've been using Vector Linux which is sweet. But while Word 97 has been running fine, it started to crash periodically. At home it's been Windows 2000 which takes forever to load and is cramped.
So with 4th year coming, it's time for an upgrade.
And I'm looking at moving to the mac. Partly because Vista looks even more ugly than XP, and partly because I want a machine that's simply going to work. And I figure if Apple's produced the machine and the software, there's at least some hope. Besides, I like Unix, so I'll feel more at home if I need to go to prompt.
I'm thinking of a Macbook, upgrading it to 4GB so that I can run parallels comfortably, and then I can keep working with Bibleworks. (Accordance is ok, but you get more for less money with Bibleworks, it seems to me. And we currently have v. 4.0 of Bibleworks. I'll probably run Windows 2000 in Accordance, still. Don't own a spare copy of XP.)
I hate going through the process as I get too caught up in geek-fantasies. I'll be glad when the decision are all over.

Exams are over - again

2007-12-13T08:18:00.000+10:00

Oops! A year of neglect. All my good intentions. Well, let's see what I can do over the holidays. I have a month's preaching through Hebrews which should get me reflecting and I'm looking at moving to the mac world, so I'll share where I'm at. But all in good time.

Exams are over

2006-11-27T05:29:00.000+10:00

Well, exams are over and I'm happy with what I've learnt (and hopefully I'll be content with my results, too). Highlights were:

putting together the Pentateuch and Former Prophets and being persuaded of their historicity;
getting to do the detailed commentary reading I hadn't managed all year;
Romans 5 and 8. Hope != wish. These are great chapters that move from the reality of Christ's work for us to the certainty of our future with Christ and of Christ's work in us;
getting the narrative of John sorted out (a bit);
quality time with Luther - I love his passion and the shape of his theology. We have so much to thank God for from his time on earth.

Now it's time to relax, go to AFES's NTE and then sort out things around the house and on mooreish. We'll see what we get done.

Ethics of Work

2006-10-21T07:05:00.000+10:00

Have been asked to lead a strand for AFES's National Training Event on the Ethics of Work. (It's not so much that I've been asked. Joce is a full time staffworker and has lead their Biblical Theology strand for years now, so she asked for a change and this is what they suggested. Am looking forward to it but have some thinking to do. Have not become conscious of my thinking on ethics so will need to give myself more of a framework. (This year's philosophy helped but need to think on the explicitly Christian application of it.) Big questions at this stage: if we say that work is neither entirely continuous nor entirely discontinuous, how do we speak about the continuity and on what basis do we draw the line? what is the cash value? (obviously not "your work redeems creation and establishes God's kingdom now", but neither is it "your work is useless or only of value for feeding yourself" - which Ephesians 6 pushes against) So some fun thinking to be done.

Success with Puppy Linux

2006-10-16T16:19:00.001+10:00

Well, I ended up getting my Compaq laptop to run, but only by dropping back to Puppy 1.08. Two major improvements from the last install. First, I installed a newer version of OpenOffice that uses the GTK+ graphics system (or whatever JWM uses) so it runs heaps faster. Second, initially I couldn't get BibleWorks 5 to re-install under wine. (It was a different pup file than my original install.) But when I found a replacement dll file for the editor's dll, it ran happily. I'm back to working well on my laptop after much frustration.

Thinking through Niccacci on text analysis

2006-10-16T16:19:00.000+10:00

I've been working through our Old Testament set texts for college (1 Sam 9-10; 2 Sam 6-7) and marking them up largely according to Niccacci's method of text analysis. However, I'm having trouble with his insistence on dividing narrative from other discourse. It seems to me that narrative is something we all do during speech and it would be surprising that there would be such a strong distinctive in how the language works. Instead, I wonder if written narrative is just a slightly more formal form of discourse narrative. If that's the case, then we need to treat weX-qatal's as more like mainline clauses and less like offline clauses. They provide emphasis in the narrative and may be largely antecedent (though I'm still working through whether they always refer to what is about to happen or can look back and add information to what has already happened in the narrative, cf George Athas' teaching grammar) but still, they are more than merely circumstantial clauses. They introduce significant information that substantially affects the narrative. At least, in my limited experience of analysis so far. I have much to learn.

A good, readable introduction to the Trinity?

2006-10-08T06:50:00.000+10:00

I'm not aware of any simple, easy to read books that introuduce the Trinity to Christians and help them better understand why we must believe it because of who we meet in Jesus in the Bible but also why it's so valuable because of the difference it makes to our relationship with God. I figure it's increasingly important. In the evangelical circles I'm in, exegetical teaching is primarily how the Bible is taught. That means people are really confident of their ability to learn from the Bible but it means sometimes people aren't as thought through about these more systematic issues. And I figure this is increasingly important as Christians should be increasingly in dialogue with Muslims given the danger of fear developing on both sides in our society at the moment. Christians need to have Muslim friends and understand how they view God. But Christians also need to be clear why the Bible doesn't let us say that Jesus is simply a prophet and not God's Son and genuinely God. (And also how Mary is not the third member of the trinity.) As far as introducing why we believe in the Trinity, it needs to cover:

monotheism as a Jewish and Christian insistence;
understanding what Jesus said and did in this light;
how the early Christians talked about Jesus in the same way as they did about God.

Within this section you'd also want very brief explanations of things the early church fathers wrote in the creeds we recite, like:

what does "of one substance" mean?
what does it mean that Jesus is "begotten" and how does that compare with the Spirit "proceding"?
how did they still insist that Jesus wasn't simply another "face" of God?

But you wouldn't want to make this too heavy. Rather, we would want to explore what these things mean for our relationship with God. So:

how, because of Jesus, we now can be totally confident that God can be known and that we know him;
the way that; because God is triune, he didn't have to create the world - it wasn't that God was lonely;
but also, that because God is trune relationships are fundamental to the nature of the universe and the difference that can make;
the way that each person in the godhead works in a different way to restore us to relationship with themselves.

The difficult thing with that last bit is how much to explore Jesus' divine and human natures. It's exciting but also hard work. Will keep working on a table of contents until I hear of someone who's done it already.

Setting up an old Armada laptop with Linux

2006-10-04T05:44:00.000+10:00

Have been setting up an old Compaq Armada 1500c laptop with Linux and have tried the following:

Obviously Ubuntu was just too slow (it only has 64MB RAM). Xubuntu is nice to use but again ends up too slow, especially with OpenOffice. Puppy wasn't a lot better for OpenOffice but because booting and general use are a lot faster, it was easier to at least get off the ground. My particular problem has been using Wine to run BibleWorks 5 - software for working with the Greek and Hebrew text of the Bible. Originally I had Puppy 1.8 and the version of Wine I downloaded happily installed BibleWorks. But in every other later setup (including Puppy 2.2 and Xubuntu 6.6) the version of Wine froze during early installation or would freeze immediately on startup. Am still only learning the ropes with Wine so will keep trying. On www.winhq.com BibleWorks 5 is listed as not installing so it's not really that surprising. What is surprising is that it worked in the first place. Have fiddled with WineTools under Xubuntu without any effect. My next plan is to try installing under Win98 mode instead of NT. Perhaps the first install was before they had switched the default emulation mode.

Current reading

2004-08-25T12:43:00.000+10:00

Doctrine of the knowledge of God was recommended to my by Neville Sandon, one of the consultants at work. I've been really pleased to read it. It's addressing a lot of the questions I've been tossing around in my head for a few years:

How do we know God?
Where do we start when talking to people about God?
Where do we start when developing a framework for our theology?
How do we justify our starting points?

Being an engineer I haven't been trained in philosophy (although I hope that college next year will help start to address this) but Frame's argument is that philosophy, and indeed all knowledge, is only a subset of theology - or at least subserviant to it. This is said from the Christian stand point that acknowledges the existence of God and the Bible as His word.

I think I like the book because it acknowledges the divide between Christian and non-Christian thinking but doesn't try to unite them. It takes the fact that God exists as fundamentally changing how we should know things, which means that if we've rejected that as fact, we're starting in a different (and in fact disobedient) position.

Of course, this also feels really awkward and potentially arrogant. I've still a lot of reading to go yet and I see this as a starting point that fits with what I had understood up to this point. From here I'll keep working on my thinking and develop a framework that has been tested by multiple views.