Should We Care About Our Approach To Mission?

God has commanded that his message of salvation be communicated to all cultures. However, there are barriers to effectively communicating that message. If ever there was a mandate for the masses, Jesus communicated that mandate in Luke 4:18-20. Bob Ekblad posits that communicating the Scriptures can result in “reconciliation, unity, joint mission and spiritual renewal.”[1] In order to communicate the Gospel, communicators must “provide safe spaces for people to share openly their problems and thoughts,”[2] present fears, needs and concerns. If the communicator is to be effective, he/she should: (1) be aware of their own cultural and theological assumptions; (2) identify the racial/ethnic, cultural and class assumptions of the audience; (3) be fully aware of pitfalls to hearing the Good News; (4) seek to develop a spirit of awareness and dependence on God’s spiritual gifts and (5) learn effective pedagogies and communication strategies.[3]

The Historical Jesus

Christ and his work are inseparable. This presupposition has fueled Christological debates for centuries and held as dogma by the early church. A shift occurred during the medieval period when “scholastic theology separated the doctrine of the person of Christ from the offices and work of Christ, making it more difficult for the average Christian to appreciate how this plays into their everyday living.”[1]  The quest of the historical Jesus was a means of making sense of all this.

Erickson considers the “Christology from above” approach as fideistic.[2]  Understandably so as Scripture went mostly unquestioned during the early years of church history. It makes three assumptions: (1) foundational to the Christian faith is the witness of Christ and his word proclaimed (the kerygma); (2) there is a preference for the “explicit theological interpretations of the apostle Paul and the Synoptic Gospels (especially John) and the witness of the prophets and apostles; (3) faith in “the Christ in the flesh” as foundational; “he or she will accept historical statements by being rationally persuaded.”[3]

Why God?

Ever fell into the trap of asking (or even complaining to) God about the returns on your  investment in His kingdom? One young man felt so good about his prospects that he was confident enough to say to Jesus “I’ve kept all the laws.” The disciples looking on saw a very disappointed young man walk away in response to Jesus’ answer. At this point, Peter quips “Well, we’ve left everything to follow you. What’s in it for us?” (Mat. 19:27; emphasis mine).

We just can’t help ourselves in not only comparing ourselves with others, but asking the same set of questions the original audience put to Jesus:[1]

ü  “What will I (we) get for our labor?  19:27

ü  “Why don’t I get more for my effort?  20:11

ü  “How can this be fair?”   20:12

ü  Since I (we) have sacrificed so much, will I (we) receive more than him/her?”  20:21-22

The Illogic of Grace: Dealing With My Neighbor

Kingdom values are totally reversed from the world. Our cultural values may contribute  harm and pain to others. How should we handle difficult situations? Sherwood Lingenfelter has an interesting perspective on how to deal with this:

"When we follow God's way we focus on loving one another and extending grace to our brothers and sisters in contexts where we have disagreements and conflicts with them. We try to implement the commands of the Lord to love one another, to deny ourselves, and to be servants. Our relationships are then guided not by logic, but by the illogic of love that flows from grace."[1]

---

[1]  Sherwood Lingenfelter, Leading Cross-Culturally, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 50.

Cultivating A Christian Worldview- Our Nine Year Old Girl

My nine-year-old (she tells me soon to be 10) does not instinctively gravitate towards anything “church/God”. I have to wonder what my mom would say about me when I was 9/10 years old. I have been observing her for a few months now, and notice that if given the opportunity, she will not: sing church songs, worship, read her Bible, pray, act friendly towards others. However, as I have observed over this summer, she will: watch as many hours of videos as she can, she knows all the (worldly) songs and dance moves, can repeat the coolest things to say, can identify all the kid celebrities, will play all day. C’mon, you say…give her a break! She’s only nine years old. True. Again, at my age, I cannot remember what I was like at her age. I am sure I was no saint, and I did much the same things as she did. At nine, I was in Primary school and in love with the prettiest girl in the school (Kim), thought we'd get married too…funny thing I am married to another  beautiful girl named Kim. I was on top of stuff, knew all the songs (it was the Michael Jackson era). I was very engaged in school and did a lot of stuff with friends and family. But church… can’t say. I lived with my grandmother who had a more subdued approach to "training in the Way." 

The Apostle Paul's Use Of Old Testament Scripture

 The Logic of Paul’s use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:9-10

In the broader context of Deuteronomy 25, God was concerned with justice even for the most vulnerable. The apostle Paul in making the case that “servants of the gospel who sow spiritual things among people should benefit materially from those same people” analogically uses a Deuteronomic law for a stronger argument.[1] The first approach is in use of a lesser to greater argument (moving from a law about animals to an application of a principle related to humans). In defending the rights of apostles in first Corinthians (“Do we not have the right to our food and drink?” 9:4), Paul makes a comparison by pulling on a universal principle. “He applied an Old Testament law to the issue at hand, insisting that God was concerned about more than an oxen,”[2]  also an integral part of that agrarian society. Even though the Deuteronomic text on the surface deals with an oxen plowing/threshing grain, “the command is not for the oxen in Israel’s day, but it is for our sake.”[3] Another way to say it is that there was a deeper moral principle that undergirded the Deuteronomic law and Paul exegeted a fuller meaning in first Corinthians 9:10.[4]

The second approach is a proverbial use of the text. Commentators “suggest the Deuteronomic text was already understood proverbially” and not written only for the welfare of animals but as advocating for the rights of humans.[5]  “This is how Rabbis could argue that what is true of oxen is all the more true of men.”[6] Paul, then, accurately applied the Deuteronomic text to make a strong case as such:  if the oxen can eat of its labor, the same principle applies to the welfare of those working in ministry. This second approach is the most convincing as it was part of his intertextual approach commonly practiced. Evidence of this can be seen in his use of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17, (“going far deeper than an explicit quotation.")[7]

---

[1]  G. K. Beale, Handbook On The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament: Exegesis And Interpretation, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012), 67.

[2]  Richard L. Pratt, Holman New Testament Commentary: 1-2 Corinthians, ed., Max Anders, (B&H Publishing Group, 2000), 138, accessed August 23, 2018, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=673831&query=1+corinthians

[3] Beale, Handbook, 68.

[4]  Pratt, Commentary, 138.

[5]  Beale, Handbook, 68.

[6]  Leon L. Morris, 1 Corinthians, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Vol.7. InterVarsity Press (2014): 8, accessed August 23, 2018, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/lib/liberty/reader.action?docID=2030116&query=1+corinthians

[7]  Steven Moyise, Paul and Scripture: Studying The New Testament Use Of The Old Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010), 111-2.

Written by Kevin A. Hall

Problem Passages: New Testament Use of Psalms In The Book Of Hebrews

The ministry of the Psalms gives testimony to a God who is both immanent and personal, who reveals himself throughout biblical history. The Psalms is also a “universal statement about the majesty of Yahweh and the delegated authority of humanity.”[1] It contains some of the most profound sentiments humans have about themselves and God. “It functions to give people opportunity to articulate their uncertainties about their positions as human beings in the world, before drawing them into statements of faith.”[2] In contrast to the poetry of the Psalms, the author of the letter to the Hebrews will effectively utilize the quotations and imagery of the Psalms to “demonstrate the superiority of Christ to every other key Jewish figure and institution.”[3] The author of the book of Hebrews will apply a Christological hermeneutic that reveals how “the moonlight of the Old Testament is replaced by the sunlight of a new era in God’s dealings with men.”[4]

Interpreting The New Testament

Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Bock & Enns

It is easy to claim improper usage of Old Testament (O.T.) texts in the New Testament (N. T.) if there is not a seemingly logical flow. Bock debunks this idea with his “Single Meaning, Multiple Contexts and Referents” method. He makes very persuasive points, taking both an historical-exegetical and a theological-canonical approach to the reading of Scripture. The strength of his argument is found in the appeal to an “inherent futureness” found in the texts.[1] Bock agrees with Kaiser’s “Single Meaning, Unified Referents” adding that N.T authors authoritatively used O.T texts with “the presence of new factors in the progress of revelation within the movement of the history of salvation, factors not obvious at the time of the original production of the text.”[2]

How The New Testament Authors Used The Old Testament: Examples

New testament writers often utilized Old Testament texts to indicate a direct fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Because they had a Christotelic mindset, their use of certain seemingly unrelated Old Testament texts elicited claims of arbitrary and embellished use of the Scriptures. Both Matthew and John utilize Messianic typological interpretive methods in revealing Jesus to their audience.

  I.            Problem Passages: Zechariah 11:12-13 & Matthew 27:9-10

Zechariah was a priest and one of “the greatest post-exilic prophets.”[1] He had more to say about the Messiah than all other prophets except Isaiah and “his message included rebuke, exhortation and encouragement.”[2] The surrounding context of the pericope finds the Israelites as a vassal of the Medo-Persian empire (539-334 BC).[3]  God assigns Zechariah to convey a symbolic message to the nation in response to their rejection of him. He will use multiple metaphors to deliver the message. In chapter 11, verses 1-3, Zechariah describes the national apostasy using “picturesque language of trees (nations)wailing, fire (judgment) devouring, shepherds(kings/leaders) weeping and lions (kings) roaring.”[4]  In a magnificent display of power, Zechariah prophetically describes desolation from Lebanon in the north to Bashan to the South. “The figurative of shepherds and lions describe the leaders of Lebanon and Bashan lamenting the destruction of their pride and livelihood, which is the timber of the region.”[5]As part of his Messianic prophecy, the message he develops is that when the “Good Shepherd” is rejected, the people will be led like sheep to the slaughter by evil, insensitive, ungodly and wicked leaders (11:6-7). There will be rampage as all they have will come to ruins (v. 3). “Resistance is futile, so Lebanon should open her doors (like the gates of a fortified city) to the fire of God’s judgment awaiting her.”[6] Miller suggests that Jewish rabbis interpreted Lebanon as representative of temple and the devastation would be so complete that what the fire did not destroy would be cut down.”[7] The destruction Zechariah alludes to is the Abomination of Desolation realized in Jerusalem when the Roman armies descended in A.D. 70.

Still Under The Law?

The apostle Paul in his letter to the Galatians said, “But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore, the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” (Gal. 3:23-24, Nasb 2000). Here is good defense in support of the role of the law in the life of the Christian. Parts of it still works. Surely not the ceremonial and some of the civil pieces (for these would be unreasonable to uphold), but they played the crucial role as that of a school master/principal – keeping you in line till graduation. My tutor gives me guidance and insights; keeps me focused when I wish to game away the evening; keeps me in check and sometimes chastises me (in the old days, give me a whipping). But all for a good purpose.

Paul was accused of cozying up with the Gentiles and watering down the need for upholding the Law. He responded essentially that “the law teaches us the need for salvation. It has its place. The law is not what gives salvation, only God. The Old Testament reveals God’s nature, his will, his moral laws and gives guidelines for living. But what the law does is show people where they have sinned (tutor) and points them to Christ.”[1] The law was truly an integral part of their identity. But now, the identity of the Christian is not to be found in a set of laws as the Israelites had, rather faith in Christ. Why put your confidence in a system that was “restated, modified, intensified, changed and repealed?”[2] Makes no sense when we can have direct access to the law maker himself. Christians are now governed by the Holy Spirit and the law provides both moral and ethical guidelines for living today.

---

[1]. Life Application Study Notes, (La Habra, CA: Zondervan, 2000), 2061.  

[2]. J. Daniel Hays, Applying The Old Testament Law Today, Bibliotheca Sacra, Iss. 158 no 629 (2001):29, accessed July 19, 2018.

Written by Kevin A. Hall