Category Archives: Uncategorized

Esther and the Land

Posted on by
Reply

this post continues a series reflecting on various issues raised in the book of Esther.

Into Exile

In around 590 B.C., the prophet Jeremiah wrote a letter to the God’s people who had been taken into exile in Babylon. He told them to settle down, because they were going to be there for the long haul:

This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says to all those I carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: "Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease. Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jer 29:4-7 ESV)

Return from Exile

However, the exile was not to be permanent. God had a future for his people beyond exile, and in 70 years time, the door would open for them to return to the land:

This is what the LORD says: "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfil my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future. (Jer 29:10-11 ESV)

And sure enough, in 538 B.C., the Persians overthrew the Babylonian empire and king Cyrus issued a decree freeing the Jewish exiles to return. Over the next 20 years Ezra oversaw the reconstruction of the temple. The 70 years were finally up, and it was time for people to return to the the land God had promised them.

Still in Exile?

But the book of Esther is set over 120 years after the original exile. What are Mordecai and Esther doing living in Persia? And unlike Nehemiah, why do they never seem to show any hint of desire to to get back to the Jewish homeland, and worship at the rebuilt temple?

Of course, these questions are hard to answer with any certainty, but perhaps Esther and Mordecai are examples of Jews who now felt “at home” in a pagan culture. They had taken Jeremiah’s advice to “settle down”. Susa was the only home they had ever known, and Mordecai even has a good job in the Persian empire (Est 2:21 “sitting at the gate” indicates an official position in court), allowing him to act for “the peace and prosperity” of the city in which he lived.

Missional or Holy?

In some ways the contrast between the approach of Mordecai and Esther with that of those who returned to Jerusalem like Ezra and Nehemiah is analogous to two competing approaches to cultural engagement.

Traditionally the evangelical church has stressed the need to be “separate” from our culture – to be distinctively different and avoid being polluted by the world. The emphasis is on being a “holy” people, who gather together as a church which seeks to shine as a light on a hill. This approach however has come under criticism in recent years. Believers have retreated into a Christian ghetto and failed to make any kind of evangelistic impact on the culture at all. And historically this proved to be the case with Israel. They prided themselves on their separateness from the Gentiles and failed miserably to fulfil their mandate to be a “light to the nations” (Isa 60:3)

On the other hand, there are those who emphasise a “missional” approach. Believers are to seek to transform the culture from within, to be fully engaged and involved with the society in which they live. We are told that there should be no “sacred-secular” divide and so life as a pagan court official in Persia can be just as much an act of worship as life as a priest in Jerusalem. But it would be foolish to imagine that this approach has no dangers. Perhaps the biggest temptation for missional believers is to slowly conform to our surroundings, taking on their values and failing to be noticeably different. Maybe this had happened to Mordecai and Esther. At the start of the story, it does not seem that anyone knows they are Jews at all.

Esther and 24

Posted on by
4

This is the first in a series of posts on the book of Esther, which I am preparing to teach a summer seminar series on. I put them out here not as completed works, but as half-developed ideas seeking feedback. Please chip in with your own criticisms and additions in the comments. This first one is not to be taken too seriously, but I hope to follow up with a few more that explore various theological and practical issues raised by the book of Esther.

Made for Television

There are few stories in the Bible as suitable for movie adaptation as the book of Esther. It has all the elements of a good Hollywood movie – a tough non-conformist hero, a beautiful young heroine, an ego-centric murderous villain, and a foolish and easily manipulated ruler. There are several unexpected plot twists, a tense climax, and some comedy thrown in for good measure.

In fact, I got thinking about who the various characters in the book of Esther would be if they were in the “24” television series. Here’s my suggestions (although I still think I need to pick a better villain to be Haman).

Elisha Cuthbert as Kimberly Bauer on 24. ª©2002 FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY. CR: Aaron Rapaport/FOX. Mordecai is Jack Bauer – he’s fiercely loyal to the king (even if he is a bit of an idiot), but he always does what he believes is right, no matter what the consequences. He won’t take orders from fools either.

Esther is Kim Bauer. At first she seems to be in the story just for being beautiful and her relationship to the chief protagonist, but as the drama unfolds, we discover that, like it or not, she will have  a crucial role to play requiring courage and wisdom.

Ahaseurus (Xerxes) is President Charles Logan. He’s the most powerful ruler in the world, yet we find it hard to be impressed by him. A morally ambiguous man, easily manipulated, unable to make his own decisions without the aid of advisors.

Vashti is Sherry Palmer. Wife of the most powerful man alive, she is not content to just stand at his side and smile sweetly. She is her own woman, who does her own thing, and ends up being divorced as a result.

Haman is Jonas Hodges. He is a powerful and influential man, who knows how to manipulate the king to get what he wants. He has his own agenda and will stop at nothing to get it. In the end his pride becomes his downfall

Hegai is Aaron Pierce. On the staff in the palace, he’s not necessarily on anyone’s “side”, but he is honourable and reliable. Charged with the care of queens and princesses, he is made a eunuch to prevent him from overstepping his bounds (no affairs with the first lady for Hegai).

Harbona is Mike Novik – a trusted advisor who knows when to keep his mouth shut and when to speak and as such is able to maintain his own position and influence policy making.

TOAM 2010

Posted on by
Reply

After sadly missing out last year, I was able to make it for a day visit to the newfrontiers “Together on a Mission” conference this year. As always, Adrian Warnock is doing a sterling job of live-blogging the conference. You can also get real-time updates by following the #TOAM hashtag on twitter.

I always find a visit to TOAM to be a spiritually refreshing and energising experience and this year was no different. I’ll just give a brief report on the sessions I went to.

Session 1 – Matt Hosier – Faithful & Fruitful – The “Lion”

My first session of the day was a seminar by Matt Hosier. His was the first in a series entitled “The Lion, the Bear & the Bulldog”, which was about how we can remain faithful and fruitful at different life stages. I just about still fall into the “Lion” category (up to 35). He worked his way through 10 things you should do before you are 40, based on a list from John Maxwell.

Rather than being a biblical exposition, it was more a collection of proverbial wisdom: “become reconciled to your averageness”, “don’t be dictated to by the tyranny of the urgent”, “things that are worth achieving take time”, “develop the skill of friend making”. A nice touch was that a representative of each of the three age-groups was given a brief chance to give their perspective on the needs of those in the “lions” age range. We were reminded of the importance of simply being willing to serve, and the need to actively seek input from older generations. It was great to be prayed for by a really nice bloke from Brighton at the end.

Session 2

Sadly my visit was on a day when Dr Goodwill Shana was due to speak, and he was unable to attend due to visa problems. Still the extra time meant the day wasn’t quite so rushed as usual. It was great to meet some fellow newfrontiers bloggers, including Dave Matthias, Dave Bish, Steve Froud, and Steve Dunn.

Session Three – Terry Virgo – The Armour of God

The afternoon session started with worship led by Evan Rogers in his usual exhuberant style. Then it was Terry Virgo, preaching on “the need for defence”, working through the armour of God from Eph 6:10-17. It is testimony to his gift for Bible teaching, that a passage that most of us have heard preached on dozens of times was brought to life yet again, in a challenging & insightful way. I won’t summarise his points since Adrian Warnock has already done so here. He was particularly good on the breastplate of righteousness, and on the helmet of salvation, where he emphasised our future hope – the “not yet” part of our salvation.

Session Four – Dave Devenish – God’s Purposes Fulfilled Through Scattering

The evening session’s worship was led by Kate Simmonds, and we learned an excellent new song about the grace of God. Dave Devenish had the unenviable task of preparing a message for a major conference at very short notice. After a slightly rambling introduction he got right into his stride, speaking on the way that God fulfils his missional purposes through scattering. He showed that this was not merely apostles going to new places, but hundreds of ordinary people taking initiative at a grassroots level. I think this is a principle we really need to take hold of if we are to see significant gospel advance in our nation. Again Adrian Warnock has provided detailed sermon notes.

MP3 downloads

I obsessively listen to almost every TOAM message each year so am eagerly awaiting the downloads to appear on the newfrontiers website. Sadly they haven’t appeared online yet, but look out for them here over the next few weeks.

Where have all the OT songs gone?

Posted on by
5

Matt Hosier’s post on fatness stirred up some memories of a classic old song we used to sing in my youth growing up in restorationist circles, based on Isa 55:2 in the King James Version. My favourite line went "and your soul shall delight itself in fatness, in fatness, in fatness" – a great Biblical justification for a second helping of cake. Along similar lines, I always felt that the song based on the prayer of Jabez "O that you would bless me, and enlarge my borders" sounded like a request for a bigger waistline.

It made me ponder how Scripture saturated many of the songs we used to sing in those days were, especially rich in Old Testament references, which have virtually been expunged from modern worship songs (with the exception of the "safe" bits of Psalms). I think this is due in part to the seeker sensitive movement and in part to the lack of systematic coverage of the entire Bible in the church’s program of teaching and preaching.

For instance, we would often sing of Zion: "Awake, awake, O Zion and clothe yourself with strength" (Isa 52:1), "Sing and rejoice O daughter of Zion, for lo I come" (Zech 2:10) or "O Zion, O Zion, that bringest good tidings, get thee up into the high mountain" (Isa 40:9).

Other songs picked up even more obscure Old Testament references: "I hear the sound of rustling in the leaves of the trees" (2 Sam 5:24), "the trees of the fields shall clap their hands" (Isa 55:12), "Pierce my ear O Lord my God" (Deut 15:17), "Within the veil, I now would come" (Lev 16), "Lord our God, he runs in the heavens, he rides on the clouds" (Ps 104:3), "Lord give me also springs of water" (Josh 15:19), and even "I will not be like those of Ephraim, who carrying bows, turned away when the heat of the battle came" (Ps 78:9).

I’ll just mention a couple of other favourites. One song contained the line "I will extol your love more than wine" (Song 1:4), which always struck me as somewhat odd in a strictly teetotal church. Damning with faint praise anyone?

There was less squeamishness in those days about the more abrasive portions of Scripture. We would sing about "the horse and the rider he has thrown into the sea" (Ex 15:21) and "God’s enemies shall be crushed beneath our feet" (Rom 16:20).

For years I sang about the "guard of my salvation", before realising that this was just Ern Baxter’s way of pronouncing "God of my salvation" in his broad American accent.

So, what classic OT allusions do you miss? And who’s going to redress the balance? Let’s have some new songs about the wine of Lebanon, the balm of Gilead and the jawbone of a donkey. Who will be the first modern songwriter to mention Melchizedek or Canaan? Sadly, my own contribution based on the song of Deborah, has yet to gain widespread acceptance.

William Temple on Christlikeness and the Spirit

Posted on by
Reply

In John Stott’s Radical Disciple, in a chapter on Christlikeness, he cites William Temple:

It’s no good giving me a play like Hamlet or King Lear and telling me to write a play like that. Shakespeare could do it; I can’t.
And it is no good showing me a life like the life of Jesus and telling me to live a life like that. Jesus could do it; I can’t.
But if the genius of Shakespeare could come and live in me, then I could write plays like his.
And if the Spirit of Jesus could come and live in me, then I could live a life like his.

Stott concludes:

God’s purpose is to make us like Christ, and God’s way is to fill us with his Holy Spirit

Don’t Wimp Out of Family Devotions

Posted on by
6

I recognise that many readers of this blog won’t be at the same stage of life as me, with four young children (ages 9, 7, 4, and 1 after a recent round of birthdays), but I hope you’ll bear with me for a post on “family devotions”.

It’s Hard

Recently Matt Hosier posted a book review of “Gospel Powered Parenting” in which he challenged fathers not to “wimp out” of doing family devotions just because they are hard. It was a timely reminder for me, since I have allowed our family worship to become sporadic, and so we have upped the frequency of them again. Just so no one reading this has a romanticised idea of what our family devotions are like, the main challenges I face are…

  • fights and arguments (seem to break out as soon as I start reading from the Bible!)
  • eagerness to leave the table (children eating their dinner in 30 seconds flat so they can get back to doing what they were doing before dinner)
  • constant interruptions (needing the toilet, spilling drinks, falling off chairs, asking questions in the middle of prayers)
  • lack of concentration (ever felt like you’re talking to yourself? welcome to family devotions)

When?

I think mealtimes make sense since the whole family is gathered. We always eat together as a family in the evening (breakfasts are a little more chaotic), and so I try to fit something in after we have eaten. Between courses is a good idea, as there is an incentive for everyone to stay at the table. You can even use pudding as a bribe to behave during devotions, but I’m not sure how “gospel-centred” that approach is.

How?

My main approach has usually been to read a few verses of Scripture, make a few comments on it, suggest a topic for prayer, and then encourage everyone to pray briefly. Occasionally, my children’s prayers will indicate that they took something in, which is always encouraging. Also, we sometimes get into discussion, as the Bible reading raises questions. But don’t expect the questions to be directly related to the topic you wanted to emphasise. Often my children ask tangential questions that need a long answer (“Why can’t I get baptised now?”, “Why don’t I ever hear God speaking to me?”). I try to briefly answer, and provide fuller answers one-to-one with them, or in future family devotions.

Our attempts to sing have met with limited success. Our children each have their own favourite songs, and don’t take well to singing anyone else’s! They also insist on wildly running round the room while we sing, resulting in lots of accidents (or sulking if we ban it). Probably I need to select a repertoire of songs that we all know and like and choose one for each time.

Ideas?

I’d love to hear what you do with your families. What works well? I certainly don’t feel like I’ve arrived at an ideal model, but I am a bit more determined not to wimp out when it doesn’t seem to be going according to plan. I’m not saying that I will stubbornly persist with an idea when it is clearly not working, but I am not going to be so easily discouraged.

Memorize his laws and tell them to your children over and over again. Talk about them all the time, whether you’re at home or walking along the road or going to bed at night, or getting up in the morning. Write down copies and tie them to your wrists and foreheads to help you obey them. Deut 6:6-8 (CEV)

Some Links

Posted on by
3

A few links for you to check out…

Slaves or Sons?

Posted on by
2

One question that I have been pondering recently is what to make of the tension between the biblical designations of believers as both sons and slaves (the Greek is doulos, more commonly translated servant) of God, highlighted by my recent reading of Murray Harris’ book “Slave of Christ”. Should I primarily think of myself as a son, but in a lesser sense a slave? Or is there another way of holding the two in balance?

Indeed, for many, if not most evangelicals, the concept of thinking of ourselves as slaves  at all seems very foreign. After all, in the famous parable, the wayward son thinks he can only come back to his father as a servant, but no, he is welcomed back as a son (Luke 15:19,20). Similarly, Paul seems to encourage us to think of ourselves as sons of God rather than slaves in Gal 4:7 –

So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.

But this is the same Paul who introduces himself in several places as a “slave of Christ”. So how can we hold these things in tension?

God the Father, Christ the Lord

I wonder whether there is a clue in the names used most commonly of the first and second persons of the Godhead. First, we have God the Father. Though he could also be called God the Creator, or God the Judge, the name that we as believers most commonly refer to him as, is “Father”, following the example of Jesus. Hence, I would argue that the primary way we think of ourselves as relating to God the Father is as his dearly loved children.

However, when we think of God the Son, by far and away the most common title he is given in the New Testament is Lord. The term is entirely religious for most people today, but in the first century, as Murray Harris points out, wherever there was a slave (a doulos) there was also a master (a kyrios, or Lord). Whilst we could say that Jesus is our elder brother, or friend, or even lover, the primary way we are encouraged to think of him is as our Lord or master, who we listen to and obey and seek to please.

“Abba Father”, “Jesus is Lord”

I wonder then if there is any coincidence that the two authentic heart-cries of the Spirit filled person are to refer to God as “Father” and to Jesus as “Lord”. “Father” is not just a name we mechanically call God as we recite the Lord’s prayer, rather the Spirit causes us to recognise deep within us that we can relate to God as his children in whom he takes great delight.

And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" (Gal 4:6)

For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, "Abba! Father!" (Rom 8:15)

Similarly, it is the Spirit who causes us to joyfully confess the lordship of Jesus in our lives:

no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 12:3)

This is confession that Jesus is Lord is at the very heart of our regeneration, also a work of the Spirit:

if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9)

Conclusion

I would suggest then that the primary way we are to think of our relationship with God is as his sons, and the primary way we are to think of our relationship with Jesus is as his slaves (although maybe obedient disciples might be a better way to express this). And since it is the Spirit who causes us to recognise these things, this is not a purely intellectual exercise. As we are filled more with the Spirit, so we appreciate and rejoice in these realities more and more.

I must admit that this solution is not perfect. Paul does sometimes refer to himself as a “slave of God” (e.g. Titus 1:1), so he clearly did not consider that self-designation to be inappropriate. Similarly, it would be a mistake to suggest that we can only relate to Jesus as slaves (e.g. John 15:15). But I think it is true to say that God the Holy Spirit is the one who helps us to rightly understand our relationship to God the Father and God the Son.

Schreiner on Judgment According to Works

Posted on by
4

6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; …

10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

(Rom 2:6-7,10 ESV)

At first glance, what Paul says in Romans 2:7 (and 2:10) seems to be that you can earn your salvation by good works. The big problem with that, is that he categorically contradicts that idea elsewhere (for example, Rom 3:20 which states that no one can be righteous before God by the works of the law). So what exactly does he mean?

Naturally, some are willing to suggest that Paul has indeed contradicted himself, but this seems like a colossal blunder to attribute to someone who is such a coherent thinker.

An alternative approach, is to assume that Paul is speaking hypothetically here. That is, “Eternal life would be given if one did good works and kept the law perfectly, but no one does the requisite good works, and thus all deserve judgment”. In many ways, this is a good solution, since it harmonizes well with what Paul says later in chapter 3, while still fitting in with the overall argument of 2:6-11.

However, Schreiner has come up with an alternative and intriguing suggestion:

Paul elsewhere teaches that works are necessary to enter the kingdom of God (cf,. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 5:10; Gal 5:21). Since Paul asserts that works are necessary for salvation and also that one cannot be justified by works of the law, it is probably that he did not see these two themes as contradictory.

He thus concludes:

in verses 7 and 10 Paul is speaking of Christians who keep the law by the power of the Holy Spirit

Apparently he defends this view further in his commentary on 2:25-29, which I haven’t got to yet. In many ways, this idea is connected with his take on “the righteousness of God”, being both “forensic” (it is a declaration) and “transformative” (it actually changes us). Here again we see a synthesis between the two potentially competing concerns of salvation entirely based on grace not works, and a strong expectation that those who receive that salvation will indeed experience a transformation of behaviour.

Schreiner on Forensic and Transformative Righteousness

Posted on by
1

A key phrase for all who want to understand Romans is the meaning of the “righteousness of God”. There have been a variety of different understandings of this term, and in Schreiner’s commentary on Romans in the Baker Exegetical Commentary series, he sets forth two main interpretations.

1. Righteousness of God = Believer’s Status

This is Luther’s understanding of the term (Schreiner also lists Calvin, Bultmann, Cranfield and Moo amongst others as proponents). Luther rejected two competing understandings of “the righteousness of God” that were common in his day:

  • that it refers to God’s justice whereby he judges all people impartially
  • that it refers to an infusion of righteousness that would effect inner transformation, or moral renovation

In other words, for Luther (and many others), “the righteousness of God” refers to, and only to, a declaration of right standing before God. It is a purely forensic (legal) term, meaning we are declared not guilty.

2. Righteousness of God = God’s Saving Power

This second point of view, growing in popularity (including Dunn, and Stott recently) does not deny that a righteous status is given, but sees the term “righteousness of God” as more broadly referring to God’s saving power. In other words, it is not only something God gives us but something God does in us.

3. Schreiner’s Synthesis: Righteousness as Forensic and Transformative

Schreiner initially sets out a strong case for a forensic understanding of “the righteousness of God”, from which he concludes that righteousness does indeed have a forensic dimension that is not intrinsic to human beings by nature, but is a divine gift.

But then he goes on to point to the large amount of evidence supporting the second point of view. He therefore concludes that the term “righteousness of God” is both forensic and transformative (though both senses are not always present every time the term is used). These two meanings are not incompatible since “those whom God has vindicated, he also changes”.

He explains the synthesis of these two positions a little more fully here:

The saving righteousness of God is a gift received by faith alone, and God declares sinners to be in the right before him on the basis of Christ’s atoning death. Yet God’s declaration of righteousness – which is a gift of the age to come invading the present evil age – is an effective declaration, so that those who are pronounced righteous are also transformed by God’s grace. Such a transformation is due solely to God’s grace and does not involve a perfect righteousness, nor is there any suggestion that the good works that follow this transformation merit eternal life. Nonetheless, as Rom. 6 shows, believers are changed by the grace of God, and this transformation is an essential ingredient in God’s saving work. … The forensic is the basis for the transformative, but the one cannot be sundered from the other.

What do you think? Is Schreiner trying to have his cake and eat it, or has he uncovered a false dilemma?