June 17, 2013
Though often called the “letters to the seven churches” (with somewhat good reasons), the address to each church functions as a prophetic oracle. John has called his work a “prophecy” (Revelation 1:3) and in these “letters” the prophet calls the churches to respond in faithfulness much like Israel’s prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Thyatira, a city which began as a military outpost in the third century BCE, grew into a thriving financial center during the Roman era. A biblical example is Lydia of Thyatira who was a seller of purple (Acts 16:14). There are a large number of inscriptions and monuments that verify the pervasive influence of trade guilds (similar to unions) in the city. This is natural for a commercial center. These guilds, however, were often associated with particular gods, temples, political allegiances, and/or festivals. This created tremendous social and economic pressure to participate in the various activities in order to maintain social standing and financial opportunities.
Addressor: “the words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze.”
The risen Messiah identifies himself with three lines but only the last two come from the Christophany in Revelation 1:12-17. This first identification is the only time “Son of God” appears in Revelation. Rather than a theological identification with deity (though it may have that ring when read in the churches), the primary referent–because it is part of the agenda throughout the Apocalypse–is a contrast with Caesar who was often given the title “son of God.” For example, a statue of the Emperor Trajan in Ephesus had an inscription containing the attribution “son of God” (see the picture at Richard Oster’s blog where the title is underlined in red). This understanding of the title accords well with the promises to Thyatira (discussed below).
The firey eyes and bronzed feet are most likely taken from Daniel 10:6 where they describe heavenly figures. The eyes function to highlight a discerning, even judging, gaze (see “searches mind and heart” in 2:23) while the bronze feet probably represent stability and certainty. This Caesar–this “son of God”–stands firm and sees what is happening at Thyatira.
Commendation: “I know your…”
- works
- love (agape)
- faith
- service (diakonian)
- patient endurance (hupomonen)
This is an impressive list. Unlike Ephesus, the church is commended for its “love.” The acknowledgement of it works is amplified in terms of their ministry (service) which probably specifies their benevolent activities. They care for others, and they endure the hardships of their situation. Their works are further commended because they are increasing–they are greater than at the beginning. From appearances, this is a vibrant, ministering, and loving congregation despite their hardships.
A further commendation appears in 2:24 as some (or many?) have maintained sound (healthy) teaching. They have not bought into the rhetoric of those who follow Jezebel. It seems that some claimed that they have “learned the deep things of Satan” as some call it. But who names it such? If it is the Jezebel party, then perhaps they claim some “deep” knowledge that rationalizes their practices as if they know how to discern the workings of Satan. If so, they excuse their immorality and idolatry as people who can discern between what is indifferent and what is truly Satanic. Perhaps, then, the claim is to some insight or knowledge that justifies their behavior. If it is what those who reject the Jezebel party say, then they associate the practices of the party with Satan. If this is so, then Satan once again lies behind this assimilation to paganism, according to the prophet. In either case, the practices of the Jezebel party are deeply rooted in the powers of Satan and thus reflect assimilation to the imperial culture.
There are, however, a significant number in the congregation who have remained faithful in their witness against accommodation. They reject the Jezebel party and are commended for their faithfulness. Indeed, as the oracle says, Jesus lays no “other burden” on them than “hold[ing] fast” till he comes. perseverance is a key theme among the letters and for the whole Apocalypse. Christ-followers must continue their works, love, and faith until the final realization of God’s new creation emerges in the Eschaton.
Warning: ”But I have this against you…”
Jezebel is probably a metaphor for a particular prophetess in Thyatira who is seducing members of the congregation with her teaching. Two particulars are identified: sexual immorality and eating food sacrificed to idols. Apparently, this was previously addressed in some way in the hopes she might repent (God is gracious in giving “time to repent”) but she refused. Consequently, Christ will act against her.
The Jezebel imagery is significant as it connects us with the story of Israel’s queen (1 Kings 18-21). She incited her husband to follow Baal and lead Israel into immorality and idolatry. Her leadership in pagan assimilation forms the typology that the prophet employs here.
The specific practices are similar to those found at Pergamum. It is the same problem of cultural accommodation to pagan idolatry and immorality. Here, however, there is a specific leader with a significant following (“her children”). The result for both is the same–death. There is no reason to think this is a form of Christian violence but rather that her (and her children’s) end will be the same as Jezebel as the metaphor of the biblical story is continued. Here it is metaphorical in the same way that the threat against the churches is. Just as Jesus will remove the lampstands from his presence if the churches do not repent, so now Jesus will act to remove Jezebel since she has refused to repent when she had the opportunity.
Christ’s eyes are fixed on his congregations. He searches “mind and heart” and intends to give to everyone what their works deserve. This underscores the significance of faithful witness through persevering in good works. The commendation of Thyatira is the model for this perseverance, but they must also reject the influence and presence of Jezebel. They can tolerate her no longer.
Promise: “I will give…”
- authority over the nations
- the morning star
The first gift highlights a major theme in the Apocalypse. The conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this world (or world powers) is central to the drama which will unfold in the second vision (Revelation 4-16). The prophet utilizes Psalm 2 in which God addresses the son (king) and promises him the inheritance of the nations as the son will exercise authority over the kingdoms of the earth. The Apocalypse identifies this son with the risen Christ who, enthroned in heaven, now exercises authority over the nations through the unfolding apocalyptic drama. The promise is that those who follow Christ (who overcome and persevere in their works) will share in his reign over the nations; they will rule with Christ. The promise entails the defeat of the world powers that now war against the kingdom of God. [There is a question whether 2:26b is part of the quotation from Psalm 2 and thus addressing only the Messiah or whether it is an application of Psalm 2 to all Christ-followers. I think the latter, but Aune (Revelation) and Oster (Seven Congregations, 154-6) argue for the former.]
The two gifts are connected though it is not obvious to 21st century readers. The “morning star” is explicitly connected with the Davidic dynasty in Revelation 22:16. Further, the morning star (the planet Venus) often appears on Roman coinage and is deeply embedded in imperial and Roman mythology. Oster (Seven Congregations, 160) suggests that the connection between Julius Caesar and the worship of Venus as well as the association of the founding of Rome with Venus generated a strong association between the “morning star” and Roman Emperors (see also Oster’s discussion of this along with some sample coins on his blog). In other words, “John’s use of the ‘morning star’ christology would place Christ in competition with Caesar.” It is the risen Messiah who holds the stars in his hands and who can dispense Venus as a gift to his followers. Christ, rather than Caesar, reigns and shares his reign with those who overcome and “keep [his] works to the end.”
Admonition: “he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
Are we listening?
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | 
Biblical Texts | Tagged: Ethics, Revelation 2:18-25, Thyatira | 
Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
June 14, 2013
Though often called the “letters to the seven churches” (with somewhat good reasons), the address to each church functions as a prophetic oracle. John has called his work a “prophecy” (Revelation 1:3) and in these “letters” the prophet calls the churches to respond in faithfulness much like Israel’s prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Pergamum competed with Ephesus and Smyrna for importance as all three had imperial temples (Neokoros). It the first city to build a temple dedicated to a Roman Emperor (Augustus in 29 BCE, which was also dedicated to Roma). Pergamum was city alive with pagan spirituality and dedication. Its temple to Asclepios (the Roman god of healing) was renowned and the god adorned the city’s coinage in the late first century. 
The large altar of Zeus which is now in the Berlin Pergamum museum (pictured here) was a magnificent marble structure. Pagan and Imperial vitality was as pervasive and healthy as in any city in Asia. As an administrative center, Neokoros of the imperial cult, and medical center based in the Temple of Asclepios as well as the second largest library in the world (next to Alexandria) it was a religio-cultural center for Asia and beyond.
Addressor: ”the words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword.”
Revelation 1:16 pictures Christ with a two-edged sword coming out his mouth. The sword probably represents the discerning message that pierces hearts and opens up their secrets before God. The sword can heal or destroy; it can regenerate (renew) or devastate. Christ has some sharp words for Pergamum that entail the potential use of the destructive power of this sword.
Commendation: ”I know where you dwell.”
This is practically a concessive. The prophet recognizes the serious situation in which Pergamum Christians live. This church has already experienced legal pressure to renounce the name of Christ and suffered at least one martyr for their resistance. Antipas, about whom we know nothing else, is the only named martyr (“faithful witness”) in Revelation other than Jesus himself.
Pergamum is the location of “Satan’s throne.” This is not a reference back to the “synagogue of Satan” in Smyrna. Rather, this refers to the pagan environment in which Christians lived. Identifying the specific “throne” has proved rather fruitless so perhaps it is best to simply associate it with the vibrant pagan religious life present in Pergamum (including all the features noted above; Oster, Seven Congregations, 135). This city, like others but even more so in Pergamum, was immersed in its dedication to pagan deities and the imperial cult. At one time the capital city of Asia and the virtual center of the imperial cult, perhaps that is sufficient to identify it as “Satan’s throne.” The “throne” here contrasts with the other thrones that appear in Revelation, particularly the “throne” of God in heaven (Revelation 4:2, etc.)
The reference to Satan anticipates how significant his role is in the apocalyptic drama. He is the power behind the Empire as he makes war on the saints of God.
Warning: “But I have a few things against you.”
- “you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam.”
- “you have some who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans”
While the saints in Pergamum may not have denied the name of Christ, they have compromised it through a syncretistic tolerance. Balaam is a well-known symbol of syncretism, assimilation, and compromise as he attempted to subvert the faith of Israel (Numbers 22-24). Beale (Revelation, 248-51) notes that the “sword language” that begins and ends the oracle to Pergamum reflects the language of Numbers 31:8 (also Joshua 13:22) that Balaam himself was killed with the sword.
Whatever the specific teachings of these two groups, the prophet focuses on two practices that compromise the faith: (1) eating food sacrificed to idols, and (2) practicing sexual immorality. Oster (138) observes that “the combination of idolatry and immorality is part of the stock Jewish characterization of pagan existence (cf. Romans 1:18-32 and Wisdom 14:22-27)” and the specific target of Paul’s call to ethical purity in 1 Corinthians 10:1-21. Like some in Corinth, some believers did not think it inappropriate to participate in the idolatrous festivals and eat food sacrificed to idols (presumably at the temples in connection with their artisan guilds or political associations) as well as pursue sexual lust.
Imperative: ”Therefore, repent.”
Cultural and religious assimilation as well as the toleration of aberrant Christian ethics spelled the doom of the Pergamum congregation. The Imperial Lord Jesus the Messiah warns that he will draw the sword against them and wage war against their practices. ”I will come to you soon,” he announces. This coming is neither redemptive nor eschatological. Rather, it is a divine visitation to remove the lampstand of Pergamum from his presence. Jesus will not tolerate their tolerance for Baalam-like syncretism. Instead, they will experience the wrathful sword of the Lamb that will ultimately destroy the nations in Revelation 19:15
Admonition: ”He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
This is a warning not only to Pergamum but also to the other churches overhearing the message to them. It is time to listen and respond accordingly.
Promise: “I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone.”
Given the pressure-cooker in which they live and the suffering they have endured, the promises are significant: (1) hidden manna and (2) a white stone with a new name.
The hidden manna probably alludes to the story in 2 Maccabees 2:4-8 that describes how Jeremiah hide the ark of covenant (containing manna) in the Transjordan region at the time of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. This manna was to remain hidden until God gathered his people in an eschatological harvest. Manna is a symbol of God’s provision, and to receive the “hidden manna” is to experience the eschatological banquet, that is, to eat at the table of God. This stands in strong contrast with eating at idolatrous tables.
It seems we ought to see some connection between eating the manna and receiving a white stone with a new name. The stone probably refers to some kind of invitation since a general custom was to use stone as entrance tokens to banquets and other events. The new name probably refers to a victory name, a conquering name which is given in light of the victory. Consequently, the total picture probably anticipates our invitation to and entrance into the victorious Messianic banquet. As victors–those who have overcome–the faithful witnesses sit at the banquet table and share in the “new name” that Jesus himself has received (cf. Revelation 3:12; cf. 19:12). Probably the “new name” alludes to Isaiah 62:2 and the newness promised in the later chapters of Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah 65:17; 66:22) which is the “new heavens and new earth.”
The contrast, therefore, is strong. Instead of eating at idolatrous banquets and participating in the fleeting pleasure of sexuality immorality, Christ-followers anticipate eating the manna of God at an invitation-only banquet in the New Jerusalem.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Pergamum, Revelation 2:12-17 | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
June 11, 2013
Yesterday I received my copy of J. Caleb Clanton’s new book entitled The Philosophy of Religion of Alexander Campbell (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2013). I had previously read the manuscript in early 2012 and am pleased to see it in print.
Caleb taught philosophy at Pepperdine for several years but now teaches at Lipscomb. I am grateful that Lipscomb has secured his services as a philosopher, and a philosopher who is interested in mining the resources of the Stone-Campbell tradition.
I deeply appreciate his engagement with the resources of the Stone-Campbell Movement, particularly Alexander Campbell, in the discipline of Philosophy of Religion. Of all the early Reformers, Campbell is the best—perhaps the only choice—for such a project. However, my appreciation not only extends to the subject matter, but also for how Clanton brings Campbell’s philosophy of religion into dialogue with contemporary discussions. In the language of Vatican II’s aggiornamento, Clanton brings the Campbellian philosophical tradition “up to date.”
Clanton’s work is impressive. His analysis of Campbell’s ideas are fair, clear, and illuminating. His re-contextualization of Campbell’s thought is insightful. He demonstrates that Campbell squarely faced the questions that philosophy of religion raised in the early nineteenth century. Campbell was well-acquainted with the philosophical issues of his day. Not only does this demonstrate that the Stone-Campbell Movement has its own “philosopher,” but that the philosophic tradition Campbell represented may yet still provide some guidance in our current context. And, yet, I think it remains clear—as Clanton’s discussion of the Campbell’s ideation argument for the existence of God indicates—that Campbell, as a philosopher of ideas, is a deeply rooted empirical Biblicist who only ventures into metaphysical waters as a negative apologetic while always staying within sight of the empirical shore.
At the 2012 Christian Scholars Conference I offered a response to Caleb’s manuscript regarding Campbell’s understanding of Arminian-esque theodicy. Campbell’s theodicy, as Clanton unfolds it, is focused on the Free Will Defense, responds to the “Divine Hiddenness” problem, and articulates a high view of providence (even meticulous providence) that denies gratuitous evil. My response to Clanton is available here.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Books, Stone-Campbell, Theology | Tagged: Alexander Campbell, Free Will Defense, God, J. Caleb Clanton, Meticulous Providence, Philosophy of Religion, Providence, Stone-Campbell Movement, Theodicy | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
June 10, 2013
Though often called the “letters to the seven churches” (with somewhat good reasons), the address to each church functions as a prophetic oracle. John has called his work a “prophecy” (Revelation 1:3) and in these “letters” the prophet calls the churches to respond in faithfulness much like Israel’s prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Smyrna, the modern city of Izmir in Turkey, was a long-time ally of Rome, even during its wars with Carthage (North Africa). It boasted a temple to the goddess Roma as early as 195 BCE and won the honor of building a temple to honor Emperor Tiberius in 26 CE.
Consequently, Smyrna had the civic honor of Neokoros (Temple Guardian) as well as Ephesus and Pergamum (cf. Friesen, Twice Neokoros, 57-59). The Emperor cult was alive and well in this city of between 100,000-200,000 people. (The photo shows the remains of Smyrna’s agora or marketplace where a statue of Zeus was prominent.)
One of the most significant early Christian leaders was from Smyrna–Polycarp. He was martyred in 156 CE. (identified as the “twelfth” martyr from Smyrna) and claimed that he had served Christ for eighty-six years (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 9, 19) which would place him among those addressed in this letter (assuming he lived in Smyrna at the time). We know he was the “Bishop of Smyrna” when Ignatius wrote his letter to Smyrna and subsequently wrote a letter to Polycarp himself (around 112-115 CE). Polycarp’s reputation in the history of the early church is parallel to Smyrna’s reputation in this letter–a faithful, suffering witness to Jesus.
Addressor: ”The words of the first and last, who died and came to life.”
The language comes from the Christophany in Revelation 1:17-18. The first phrase identifies him with Yahweh who is so described by Isaiah (44:6) and the latter identifies him as the one who returned from Hades. This return to life, however, was not simply a resuscitation, but a resurrection or transformation, that is, he is the “firstborn from the dead” (1:5). The language underscores his presence as a divine figure who has overturned the powers of Hades and Death. The reference to death is particularly appropriate as the church at Smyrna will face a testing that will bring them to the edge of death in their faithful witness.
Commendation: ”I know….”
- “your tribulation”
- “your poverty”
- “the slander”
Probably these three are linked in some way. Their troubles are partly economic perhaps brought on by the slander of hostile neighbors. The picture is larger than that, of course, but the interconnection of economics, slander, and troubles is part of the drama in the next vision (Revelation 4-16). Christians were sometimes boycotted and denied economic access; at other times they refused to participate in idolatrous rituals which would have been economically beneficial. Their faithful witness has exacted a heavy price. But their wealth is not found in Roman materialism but in the richness of God’s community.
The risen Christ identifies the source of the slander (literally, blasphemy). They “those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” Oster’s discussion of this line has been one of the more helpful ones to me (Seven Congregations, 120-125). Some believe this refers to Jews who reported some of their former synagogue members to the authorities on the grounds that they no longer contributed the tribute tax demanded by Romans after the destruction of Jerusalem (the Fiscus Judaicus; cf. Suetonius, Domitian, 12.2; Josephus, Wars of the Jews, 7.6.6). In other words, some Jews may have incited legal proceedings against some Christians on the part of the Romans.
Others, like Oster, believe it is more likely that this is a matter of sectarian hostility between Christians and Jews. Just as Jews began to exclude Christians from the synagogue, so Christians regarded Jews hostile to Jesus as representatives of the powers that lie behind the evil in the world. Satan is the power that lies behind the Empire but Satan also slanders Christians at the synagogue.
This is not a function of anti-Semitism as if Christians hated Jewish ethnicity or hated them as “Christ-killers.” Rather, it is tension born of different loyalties and sectarian division (a tension evident in the Martyrdom of Polycarp [12-13] when Jews are described as those who collect the wood to burn Polycarp). The Satanic image reflects a broad apocalyptic understanding that the risen Messiah is engaged in a cosmic conflict with Satan and whoever opposes the Messiah serves the purposes of Satan. Consequently, Paul referred to his opponents in Corinth as “servants” of Satan (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).
There is also a claim here that true Jewishness is not found in ethnicity. Rather, it is found in following the Messiah. Revelation will describe the faithful in terms of Jewish theological roots, even the twelve tribes of Israel (Revelation 7:1-5). For Revelation authentic Jewishness is faith in the Messiah–following the Lamb rather than ethnicity or Torah-keeping.
Imperatives: ”Do not fear…Be faithful unto death.”
The context for these imperatives is the impending “tribulation.” They have already suffered some trouble, but more is coming, perhaps an escalation. Imprisonment is coming for some and maybe some will even suffer to the point of martyrdom (“faithful to the point of death”). The faithfulness demanded here is not merely a faithfulness until one dies but a faithfulness that might lead to death itself like Jesus himself.
The prophet characterizes this period as a “testing” or some kind of probation. Theologically, God will permit a time of testing. This is a consistent trajectory in Scripture (Genesis 22:1; Psalm 81:7; Jeremiah 11:20; 20:12; Proverbs 17:3; 2 Chronicles 32:31; 1 Thessalonians 2:4). It is one of the ways the people of God are refined. God tries us to see what is in our hearts, that is, where our treasure lies (cf. Deuteronomy 8:2).
The most curious dimension of this probationary period is its length. What does “ten days” symbolize? Some think it identifies a short period of time in contrast to, say, a thousand years. Given the context of probation and testing, it seems more likely that we find the roots of this image in a significant moment of testing that lasted ten days in the Hebrew Scriptures. In Daniel four Hebrew young men are “tested” for “ten days” (1:12-15). The Greek Scriptures (LXX) use the same language that we find in Revelation 2. The “ten days” is probably a metaphor for a period of testing analogous to Daniel’s own testing (cf. Beale, Revelation, p. 242). The question is whether Christ-followers will refuse assimilation just as Daniel and his friends did or will they compromise their faith.
Death as a faithful witness, however, is victory; it brings a “wreath (stephanon) of life.” 
Death is not defeat as the faithful witness is awarded a victory wreath. A stephanos was given to victors in athletic contests as well as on other occasions (military victories). This is not a royal crown of authority but a victory celebration. The laurel wreath was commonly depicted in Greco-Roman art, even on tombstones where it depicts the reward for a life well lived (see the image at Oster’s site). 
The coin on the right, minted in Thyatira during the reign of Domitian, pictures Nike holding a victory wreath.
Admonition: “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
The “testing” is coming; indeed, it is already here. Who is listening?
Promise: “The one who conquers will not be hurt by the second death.”
The one who was once dead but is now alive promises the same for those who overcome or conquer. The “second death” is the fiery lake described in Revelation 20:14 or, in common parlance, “Hell”. In other words, there will be no second death for those who die in faith. They will, like the Messiah, live forever. This is the Christian hope–resurrected life.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Apocalypse, Revelation 2:8-11, Smyrna | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
June 6, 2013
The 2013 Christian Scholars Conference is currently in progress. Gary Holloway asked me to present a paper that would respond to the ecumenical 1982 Lima “Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry.”
I have uploaded the paper on my Academic page and it is now available here.
The paper suggests that the great strength of the document is its fundamental theological orientation but that its weakness is its strongly institutional character.
To figure out what that means I guess one will have to read the paper.
Blessings
John Mark
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 Comments | Stone-Campbell, Theology | Tagged: Baptism, Churches of Christ, Eucharist, Ministry, Stone-Campbell | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
June 4, 2013
Though often called the “letters to the seven churches” (with somewhat good reasons), the address to each church functions as a prophetic oracle. John has called his work a “prophecy” (Revelation 1:3) and in these “letters” the prophet calls the churches to respond in faithfulness much like Israel’s prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Ephesus was named the provincial capital by Augustus Caesar in 29 BCE and an imperial cult center dedicated to Roma and Divus Julius was established in the city and later followed by a temple dedicated to Augustus. Ephesus was the first city to build a temple to the Emperor Domitian though it was renamed for Vespasian after the death of the unpopular Emperor (the Roman Senate wanted to rid themselves of Domitian’s legacy). Its remains are still visible today, built 89-91 CE. 
A 50×100 meter two-story structure, Ephesus thought it a great honor to be the first city to honor the Emperor (neokoros, a Temple guardian) as a provincial center of the imperial cult for Domitian. As a center of Imperial civil religion Ephesus stressed its allegiance to the Emperor (a statue of Domitian stood in the Sabastoi Temple) as well as to Greco-Roman deities through multiple temples. One could not live in Ephesus without the constant reminder of how religion pervasively shaped daily life (from coinage to festive processions) and was, in effect, a civil religion for the culture.
The interconnection between commerce, religion and public fidelity to the gods is part of the story in Acts 19 when a mob demonstrated at the theatre because Paul’s new faith was diminishing the devotion of Ephesus to the goddess Diana (Artemis). 
The theatre could hold 25,000 people and the mob was only quieted after hours of demonstration and the pleading of officials. This illustrates the kind of excitement that civil religion could generate in a Roman city.
Addressor: ”who holds the seven stars in his right hand, who walks among the seven golden lampstands.” Jesus addresses the angel as a representative of the church–all usages of the English “you” are singular.
The significance of the “seven stars” should not be underestimated. Domitian minted a coin in memory of his dead son. 
The inscription read: “the divine Caesar, son of the emperor Domitian.” The image of the son is encircled by seven stars as he sits upon a globe.
In other words, it is Christ rather than the Emperor who holds the stars in his hand. He speaks as one whose authority is unquestioned and one who “walks” among the churches. This is the language of living God dwelling among Israel (Leviticus 26:11-12). Christ dwells among his people.
Commendations: Ephesus is commended for multiple positives.
- good works and toil (difficult labor)
- patient endurance and “bearing up” without growing weary
- tested false “apostles”
- intolerant of evil (e.g., they “hate” the works of the Nicolaitans)
We might summarize this list under two headings. First, though the Ephesian church was suffering under the pressures of living in a hostile culture, they persevered in good works. Twice John describes their “patient endurance” (hupomone) which means that they have stood up under the pressure. Instead of giving up, they continued their hard work (kopon). Their ministries were ongoing and laborious.
Second, they have resisted the pressures to abandon the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of their faith. They “hate” the works of the Nicolaitans, as does Christ, and they did not accept the message of some itinerant teachers who claimed to be apostles. The Ephesian church was discerning. They recognized the error of both.
Whatever the exact problem the Nicolaitans (probably sexual immorality and idolatry as we will see in future oracles) and false apostles exemplified, Ephesus is commended for its intolerance. I don’t think we should read “hate” as a kind of maliciousness but rather as an ethical resistance to immorality. This is no commendation for malice, abuse, or violence, but a commendation for commitment to the values of the kingdom of God in opposition to what might subvert those values.
The Nicolaitans are identified as an independent group in Ephesus. They have been excluded from the Christian community there and the Christians are commended for it. Ignatius alluded to groups against which the church must guard itself (cf. Ephesians 7:1). The struggle in Ephesus against such groups has been a long one from Paul’s warnings (Acts 20:28-31) to Timothy’s struggles with insidious teachings (1 Timothy 6:3-5). The church, it appears from Revelation 2, had remained faithful in their teaching and their works.
Problem: “you have abandoned the love you had at first.”
It is difficult to know how to interpret what it means to “abandon” or “leave behind” your “first love” or the “love you had at first.” We do not have much in the way of context to identify the specific problem. Love, however, is the key. Given the orthodoxy and orthopraxy for which they are commended, some think their teachings and practices had lost a sense of loving fervor and had degenerated into a kind of formality. They lost their “love.” Perhaps they failed to love each other as tensions rose in discerning false teaching and external pressures. Perhaps it is about whom they love. In other words, perhaps they had lost their focus in terms of loving Christ. Whatever the case their faithful teaching and works were insufficient. The church also needed “love.” Multiple positives do not balance out a loss of “love.”
Warning: Remember and repent.
There are two imperatives in the text: remember and repent. The church is to regain its original vision and return to their original (“at the first”) practices (works). Presumably this means, in some sense, an infusion of “love” in their practices and communal life.
True to the prophetic genre, the call to repent is significant to the future of the community. The explicit warning is that Jesus will “come” and remove the lampstand from his presence if they do not repent. It is, in effect, a casting out of the church. Though their orthodoxy and orthopraxy is laudable, their lost “love” (should it continue) means that they can no longer expect the comforting presence of the Lord. In that situation, the Lord’s coming is neither redemptive nor eschatological (“end-time”)–it is the present loss of Christ’s presence. They would be cast from his presence when their lampstand is removed.
Admonition: ”he who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”
Are you listening? Do you hear me? The Spirit of God is speaking through the oracle in order to form the church, but the church must listen and respond to effect the kind of spiritual formation envisioned by the oracle. Other “churches” are also overhearing the message to Ephesus–it is not for them alone but for all believers.
Promise: ”I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.”
The promise anticipates the eschatological picture of Revelation 21-22. The “tree of life” is located in the Garden of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 22:2 (cf. 22:14, 19). Here the oracle locates the “tree of life” in “Paradise” which means “garden.” This is a clear allusion to the Garden of Eden in Genesis, but it is not a longing for a return to the Garden of Eden. Rather , it is a promise of entrance into the eschatological Garden in the New Jerusalem. The promise is a peaceful and satisfying life. No matter what the Empire threatens, Jesus will give to life to the one who “overcomes.”
The term “conquer” or “overcome” is an important one in Revelation. The promised is conditioned on “overcoming.” The verb is nikao which we know in our culture as Nike (or, victory). To overcome is to gain the victory; it is to successfully persevere or patiently endure as a faithful witness.
Oster (Seven Congregations, 109-113) calls attention to the pervasive symbolism of the goddess Nike (Latin, Victoria) present in the Greco-Roman world. While the term certainly embraced the idea of martyrdom (cf. 4 Maccabees 1:11), Oster suggests that the larger Greco-Roman spirituality of victory is a more important backdrop. The goddess was the source of success, wealth, health, power, and victorious battles. She handed the victors of athletic contests their laurel wreath. 
Those who wanted victory (wanted to “overcome”) sought her blessings. [Nike is here pictured holding a wreath--from a monument in Ephesus.] But for the church at Ephesus “overcoming” is resisting cultural assimilation; it is resisting the cultural turn to the goddess Nike. To “overcome” is faithful witness whether it leads to martyrdom or not. The victory wreath does not come from Nike but from the Lord Jesus. To “overcome” is to persevere in faith.
In the case of Ephesus, victory lies in returning to their beginnings and renewing their “love” while maintaining their orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Resisting cultural assimilation and syncretism, they will share in the victory of the one who has himself overcome (Revelation 5:5).
Like this:
Like Loading...
3 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Ephesus, Revelation 2:1-7 | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 29, 2013
Though almost universally called “letters” to the seven churches of Asia, this is rather insufficient to capture the urgency and message of these words from the risen and enthroned Messiah. The salutation of the Apocalypse (Revelation 1:4-8) bears all the earmarks of a letter, but the subsequent visionary markers (“in the Spirit”) remind us that this is no letter. It is, as identified in the superscription, a “prophecy” (Revelation 1:3).
As a prophecy located in the tradition of the canonical Hebrew prophets but at the same time an Apocalypse, we expect prophetic oracles that address the situation of the original hearers. This is exactly what we have in the “letters” to the seven churches. They are prophetic oracles rather than simple letters (though, of course, they appear in the genre of letters). They are filled with apocalyptic imagery, allusions to prophetic literature, and confront and/or comfort the people of God in an increasingly hostile environment. John, through the voice of the risen Messiah, speaks like an Amos, or an Isaiah, or a Jeremiah. He calls the people of God to account even as he also offers them hope.
Almost every commentary on these “letters” notes their repetitive structure, and rightly so as the structure highlights (1) the authority of the risen Messiah, (2) the situation of each church (whether good or bad), and (3) the hope of the new heaven and new earth. This is all couched in the language of an apocalyptic prophet.
In his recent commentary on Revelation 1-3, Richard E. Oster, Jr. discerns a sevenfold pattern for each of the prophetic oracles (Seven Congregations, 91-92). I have adapted his arrangement in this way:
- “To the angel of the church” (2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14)
- Command to “write” (2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7; 3:14)
- Christophany connection (2:1; 2:8; 2:12; 2:18; 3:1; 3:7 (?))
- Acknowledge–”I know” (2:2; 2:9; 2:13; 2:19; 3:1; 3:8; 3:15)
- Warnings and Imperatives (2:2-6; 2:9-10; 2:13-16; 2:19-25; 3:1-4; 3:8-11; 3:15-20)
- Eschatological Promise (2:7; 2:11; 2:17; 2:26; 3:5; 3:12; 3:21)
- Admonition–Call to Hear (2:7; 2:11; 2:17; 2:29; 3:6; 3:13; 3:22)
It is important to note several significant features of this sevenfold pattern in the light of their function as prophetic oracles. First, the oracle arises from the divine council, that is, from a heavenly figure who delivers a message from the divine throne room. The risen Messiah received a “revelation” from God and now delivers it to the (angel of the) churches through John. This, in effect, is like the Hebrew prophets to whom “the word of the Lord came” (Hosea 1:1; Zechariah 1:1) or the “vision” they saw (Isaiah 1:1).
Second, the message of the prophet confronts the people of God. The overwhelming danger for the churches in Asia is cultural assimilation through idolatry, syncretism, and heterodoxy. This is the same problem Israel faced throughout its history and which the prophets constantly addressed. The emphatic and mostly climactic line in the oracles is the call to listen–whoever has an ear. let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. It is important to notice the plural (churches; cf. 2:7). This indicates the audience is wider than simply the particular church addressed. Rather, whoever has an ear–whoever is within earshot, whoever hears the words read–they should listen to the message. The warnings, promises and imperatives apply to every church and not simply to the specific one addressed (though, of course, it has an acute relevance to the community addressed). The prophetic message, then, is for a broad audience though socially and contextually located.
Third, while the prophet commends and warns, Jesus through John also offers hope through the promise of a future eschatological reality. This binds Revelation 2-3 with Revelation 21-22 as the language of the former anticipates the latter. Hope changes everything and hope enables endurance as a faithful witness. It does not minimize faithful witness but provides a horizon for ordering our lives as disciples of Jesus. Greg Stevenson in his new book A Slaughtered Lamb (p. 120) summarizes it well:
Some have criticized the idea of an end-time resolution to the problem of human suffering, believing that it downplays the need to remedy injustice in the here and now. Eschatology, however, is not about taking our eyes off the needs of this world and focusing them instead on some ultimate consolation. One who embodies the pattern of the Christ must also embody his compassion for the poor, his concern for justice, his outrage at evil, and his actions to reduce human suffering. What eschatology does, what the seven promises concluding these letters do, is challenge our assumptions that God is not faithful unless he provides blessing and comfort in this life. They are a reminder that God’s vision encompasses much more than ours and this material world–as important as it is–is not the totality of existence. The messages of the seven letters are strongly counter-cultural in that they dare to suggest that it is not wealth or comfort or pleasure achieved within the kingdom of the world that matters, but a life lived according to the pattern of a crucified messiah, a slaughtered Lamb, and that that pattern reinterprets all our cultural assumptions.
Though I think Greg introduces the image of the slaughtered Lamb too early (it does not appear till Revelation 5), the point is on target given the whole of the theology of Revelation. The function of hope is not to diminish the present or release us from our commitment to care for others. Rather, its function is to open a window into the fuller nature of reality and glimpse the goal God has for the creation. This hope empowers discipleship and comforts the afflicted.
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 Comment | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Homiletics, Letters, Oracles, Preaching, Prophecy, Prophets, Revelation 2-3 | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 28, 2013
The Christophany–the appearance of Jesus to John–sets the tone for the letters to the churches (Revelation 2 & 3) and provides the ground for patient endurance through the dramatic conflict that the Apocalypse will unfold in the second and third visions (Revelation 4-16 and Revelation 17-21). It is, therefore, important to pay close attention to how Christ comes to his churches as the first vision opens.
This introduction to the letters to the seven churches easily falls into three sections: (1) Prophetic Commission (1:9-11); (2) Christophany Described (1:12-16); and (3) Divine Speech (1:17-20).
1. John is commissioned to write what he sees “in a book” (or on a scroll) and send it to the seven churches.
John has shared in the suffering of the Christians in Asia Minor. The language of “tribulation” and “patient endurance” reflects the shared experience of cultural hostility. John is on Patmos because he was willing to bear witness to the word of God and Jesus. There is no need to speculate about the horrors of Patmos (or mines, etc.). Rather, John probably suffered from the common practice of exiling or deporting anti-government prophets and astrologers (see Oster, Seven Congregations, 66). John’s insistence on allegiance to the kingdom of God, his warnings about assimilation, and his prophetic denouncement of idolatrous Roman imperialism (all seen in the Apocalypse itself) probably landed him in exile (deportation or banishment). Partners in the kingdom of God will share in its tribulations and will need to persevere in faith. John identifies with his audience.
On a particular “Lord’s day,” John was “in the Spirit.” Since the “Lord’s day” has a specific referent–his audience would know what that is, it appears that it is the common day of worship among Christians. Second century Christians identified this as Sunday (cf. Didache 14.1; Ignatius, Magnesians 9.1; Gospel of Peter 12.50; Barnabas 15.9). Calling it the “Lord’s day” probably contrasts with other days associated with the Emperor or cultic rituals. John fell into a trance on the day of the Lord’s resurrection which is quite appropriate for what he will see.
Given John’s description of his work as a “prophecy” (Revelation 1:3), “in the Spirit” refers to a prophetic vision or experience. The model is Ezekiel who received a prophetic visions while he was “in the Spirit” (Ezekiel 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1; 37:1).
But John hears something before he sees anything. A loud voice sounded like a trumpet behind him. The imagery is important here since trumpets were both Jewish and Greco-Roman symbols for the entrance of the divine. Trumpets are associated with theophanies in the Hebrew Scriptures (cf. Isaiah 18:3; Joel 2:1; Zechariah 9:14; Exodus 19:16; 20:18) and in Greco-Roman literature the voices of the gods are compared with the sounding of trumpets (see Aune, Revelation). This language, then, announces a theophany (in this case a Christophany).
What John hears is a commission to write a book. John the prophet (“in the Spirit”) is commissioned to write a prophecy (1:3) based on what he sees. The book, however, has a specific audience, that is, the seven churches of Asia. The message of this prophecy is specifically tied to the experience and life of the churches in Asia (the “seven” probably represents the whole church in Asia). Several of these cities were part of the Koinon (Fellowhsip or League) of cities in Asia that were particularly dedicated to “the local practices of the imperial cult, emperor veneration, and patriotic enthusiasm, ” specifically Laodicea, Pergamum (with imperial temple), Ephesus (with imperial temple), Smyrna (with imperial temple), and Sardis (Oster, Seven Congregations, 71-2). The cultural pressure to participate in the guilds, the processions, the oaths of allegiance, and the sacrifices would have been enormous within this Koinon. The prophecy of this book is designed for and geared toward the situation of these seven churches in Asia.
2. John describes the first thing he “sees” and it is an appearance of the risen Christ among his churches.
It is important to appreciate the dramatic nature of the Christophany. The description of the risen Christ is both connected to the authority with which he addresses the churches and his appearance as a divine figure. Jesus is the Lord who addresses his congregations in contrast to the Emperor; the church must listen to their Lord rather than to Caesar.
Concerning the first point, parts of the description of Jesus appear in the introduction to each letter to the seven churches as we will see in future posts. But the second point is more significant in terms of the overall impact upon the original audience.
The risen Christ appears in symbols that are heavily grounded in the Hebrew Scriptures and Greco-Roman cultural forms. The Hebrew symbols are drawn from various visionary and theophanic texts, that is, where God appears to the prophets (cf. Zechariah 4:2, 12; Daniel 7:9, 13; 10:5-6; Isaiah 11:4; 49:2). The Hebrew contexts identify what John sees as a heavenly (even divine) figure who bears great authority (speaks with a “great voice”). The Greco-Roman connections, from depictions of Caesar’s own brilliant radiance emanating from his crown (or the Sun-god Helios) and the deity of the Emperor represented by “seven stars” on coinage, depict a reigning god whose authority is unquestioned (Oster, Seven Congregations, pp. 77-80). Consequently, what John sees radiates divine authority and presence that contrasts with that of Caesar and the Greco-Roman gods.
The risen Christ is the “Son of Man.” This is not an allusion to his humanity, but to his glory. The Son of Man is an eschatological title; it belongs to the one who will bring judgment to the earth and set things right. This is the one who comes on the clouds with the power to subdue the enemies of God. The Christophany is a judgment scene. Christ has come to judge the churches and then the empire. 
This picture of Jesus, represented on the left by Albrecht Durer (d. 1528), is no cuddly friend or a shepherd who carries a lamb on his shoulders. On the contrary, this is an imperial figure–the Messianic Lord Jesus–who comes to address the congregations of Asia.
3. John is reassured and recommissioned by the living Christ.
The Christophany was terrifying. Like other prophets who encountered the divine, John–perhaps involuntarily–fell down as if he had fainted (cf. Isaiah 6:5; Ezekiel 1:28; Daniel 8:17; 10:9-11). In this instance the glory of the risen Christ was not intended to comfort the churches but to confront them. The vision and John’s response, like Isaiah’s before him (Isaiah 6), prepares us to hear the prophetic oracles (the letters to the seven churches) that will follow. They are, in large measure, judgment oracles that call for repentance, non-conformity, and a counter-cultural commitment to the kingdom of God.
The theological announcement is astounding. There is no reason to fear because the risen Christ is the “first and the last, and the living one.” The first claim associates him with Yahweh, the one who was, is and is to come (cf. Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; Revelation 22:13). The second is theological elaboration of what it means to be “firstborn from the dead”–the foundation of new creation itself. He is the one who lives! 
The resurrection of Jesus is the ground of eternal life. The resurrection inaugurated a new creation where death no longer reigns but Christ reigns. He has the keys–the power to open the doors (gates)–of Hades (the realm of the dead) and Death itself. The “gates of Hades” had a well-known portal (called Plutonium) in what is now southwestern Turkey (see also this re-creation). On sarcophagi and other depictions, the “Gates of Hades” are locked and closed. Whoever enters never returns. But the risen Christ announces that he has returned and he has the keys to unlock Hades.
The powers of Hades and Death symbolize the cosmic forces arrayed against the kingdom of God. But they have no ultimate power anymore. The risen Christ has authority over the principalities and powers that presently engulf the earth.
On the authority of the risen Christ, John will write his prophetic message. He will confront the churches and the empire, and he will announce the judgment that is to come against both.
As if to reinforce both the authority of the message and the specificity of the audience, Jesus identifies the seven stars and the seven lampstands. The risen Christ walks among his churches; he is present among them (the seven lampstands). And he holds “the angels of the seven churches” in his hand. The seven stars are some times identified with church leaders (bishops?), or the messengers that brought the letters to the churches, or (most probably) the angelic representatives of the churches before the throne of God. Whatever the case may be, the emotive impact is that the risen Christ has a vested interest in these congregations. They are his and he has come to deal with them.
The function of this Christophany is similar to function of the theophany in Psalm 50. There Yahweh shows up among the assembled people of Israel, but Yahweh does not come to comfort but to judge. Yahweh calls Israel to faithfulness. That is the point of the Christophany.
The opening vision of Revelation is not the slaughtered Lamb who redeems but the Imperial (Lordship) presence that holds the church accountable.
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Apocalypse, Christology, Christophany, Death, Judgment, Resurrection, Revelation 1:9-20, Seven Churches, Theophany | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 24, 2013
I have been blogging for over five years. My purpose in blogging has been basically two-fold: (1) to provide resources for Stone-Campbell history and biblical study that are connected to what I am researching at the time (or teaching in my Bible classes at Woodmont Hills) and (2) to reflect our common journey of faith through the various trials we all experience (pastoral theology).
I have never thought of my blog as one where I engage contemporary controversies, debates or “hot topics” (though I have occasionally ventured there only to confirm that I need to stay focused on my original purposes).
Given my five years of blogging that so many have encouraged (and I thank you!), here are the top five blogs since February 2008.
5. A Reflection on Psalm 84 for those Grieving Loss
4. The Egyptian Hallel and the Lord’s Supper (Psalm 113-118)
3. “I Will Change Your Name”
2. Women in the Assembly: 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
1. Psalm Lines that Comfort Me
Thank you for reading, but most often I write for my own benefit rather than others. I’m kind of selfish in that way. :-)
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 Comments | Personal | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 24, 2013
Interpreters have offered varied “outlines” of Revelation as they attempt to understand how the drama of the Apocalypse unfolds. There are some significant areas of consensus (such as recognizing the cohesive nature of the septets, particularly the seals, trumpets and bowls). Given the diversity of “outlines,” no single outline can claim certainty and certainly not my own.
Nevertheless, readers organize what they read as a way of making sense of the movement within the drama, seeking its coherence, and understanding its prophetic call. This is unavoidable. Sometimes the recognition of formal structures helps us to hear the message more clearly. There is value, then, in recognizing a structure and paying attention to how others have understood the structure.
In previous posts, we have noted how the book has begun with (1) an entitled superscription (1:1-3) and (2) an extended salutation (1:4-8). While these both set the tone for hearing the book and root us theologically, the body of the book begins with the first vision.
My own sense of the structure is based upon four-fold use of “in the Spirit” as it appears in the Apocalypse. The “revelation” is something John “saw” while he was “in the Spirit.” This language identifies four distinct (but overlapping) visions similar to how Ezekiel’s vision of dry bones is introduced with the same language (Ezekiel 37:1).
“In the Spirit” appears in the following places in Revelation:
- Revelation 1:10 — John sees the risen Christ on the isle of Patmos.
- Revelation 4:2 — John watches events unfold from the heavenly throne room
- Revelation 17:3 — John watches events unfold from an earthly wilderness
- Revelation 21:10 — John inspects the New Jerusalem from a high mountain on the New Earth.
This visionary notation structures the Apocalypse into four visions (a fuller schematic outline is available here):
- Vision One - The Kingdom Begun: Jesus Has Overcome (Revelation 1:9-3:22)
- Vision Two — The Kingdom Comes: The Heavenly Perspective (Revelation 4-16)
- Vision Three – The Kingdom Comes: The Earthly Perspective (Revelation 17-21:8)
- Vision Four — The Kingdom Fully Realized in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-22:7)
In the first vision John, exiled on the isle of Patmos, encounters the risen Christ who gives him a message for the seven churches. John records the messages and sends them to the seven churches. The vision calls the church to repentance, commitment and faithful endurance.
In the second vision John is transported into the heavenly throne room of God. There he sees the one who sits on the throne and the Lamb who enters the throne room to open the sealed book in the right hand of God. The drama of the book unfolds through the opening of the seven seals, the sounding of the seven trumpets, and the pouring out of the seven bowls of wrath. The seventh bowl is the climax of the vision. John watches the whole series of events from the throne room of God; he has a front row seat in the heavenlies.
In the third vision John is placed in an earthly wilderness. No longer in the divine throne room, John is now on the earth. He sees (and identifies) the whore of Babylon, the complicity of the kings and merchants in her rape of the earth, rejoices over the destruction of earthly powers and the binding of Satan in anticipation of the final judgment. The climax of the immediate drama is the millennium preceded by the defeat of the enemies of God and followed by the Great Judgment.
In the fourth vision John is placed on a high mountain in the new heaven and new earth. From this lofty vantage point, John sees and is thus able to describe the New Jerusalem where God dwells with humanity.
We might think of these four visions as four acts in a play or four movements in a piece of music. They each contribute to the full effect of the work but they also have a certain independence, that is, they are to be read in a self-contained way. They each tell their own story that contributes to the whole.
However, we should not read them as autonomous. Rather, they are intimately integrated with each other. For example, the first and fourth visions have many overlapping themes, shared language, and similar points. In the same way, the second and third visions are actually two perspectives on the same reality, that is, they overlap or the second tells the same story from a different perspective. The second vision views the drama “from above” while the third vision views it “from below.”
So, we might think of it this way:
- Vision 1: Addresses the specific concerns of the seven churches and calls for their commitment to the kingdom of God in the hope of the New Heavens and New Earth.
- Vision 2: God acts in justice against the kingdoms of the earth as the seven seals, trumpets and bowls of wrath are released.
- Vision 3: The kingdoms of the earth are described in terms of their sins and destruction as the kingdom of God rejoices and reigns.
- Vision 4: The new heaven and new earth are opened for those among the seven churches who have overcome and defeated the powers in their own lives and communities.
Visions 2 & 3 are not disconnected from 1 & 4. On the contrary, John’s address to the churches is assumed in 2 & 3 as the call for faithful witness and endurance are repeated. It is the seven churches of Asia that will endure the drama that is about to unfold. They hear the call in the first vision and embrace the hope of the fourth vision, but they must live through the drama of the second and third visions.
This does not mean that these visions have no significance or meaning for the contemporary church. Quite the contrary, the position that the seven churches of Asia occupy in relation to their culture is the same position the present church occupies in relation to her culture. The dangers, temptations, and powers are the same. The conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the earth is ongoing and incessant until the fullness of the reign of God is realized upon the earth. The drama continues as it repeats itself in culture after culture, in epoch after epoch.
Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Apocalypse, Outline of Revelation, Revelation, Visions | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 21, 2013
Hebel
That is an important word for the writer of Ecclesiastes. It is a word that comes to mind on May 21 every year since 2001. That was the day Joshua died. It was also the day John Robert died in 2008. Indeed, it is a day on which many people have died.
Hebel
You may not recognize the word, but it is used 37 times in Ecclesiastes (only 70x in the whole Hebrew Bible). At a literal and formal level it might be rendered “breath” and thus allude to the brevity of life. At a metaphorical level it might be rendered “vanity, empty, meaningless” and thus allude to the pointlessness of life.
Hebel
The word has much more of a punch than even “meaningless” or “vanity” in Ecclesiastes. It encompasses the unfathomable nature of life, the deep impenetrable mystery of life….and death. Bartholomew’s commentary suggests “enigma.” Life is enigmatic because we simply don’t know; we are limited in perspective and we can’t figure it out.
Hebel
But the word has more punch than that. This is why some, like Michael Fox and Peter Enns, suggest “absurd.” Life is frustrating. The seemingly ceaseless, circular, and pointless merry-go-round of life has no goal, no meaning, and no worth. Life–because of death–is simply absurd.
Hebel
What lies behind Ecclesiastes is a whole Hebrew tradition, including the Torah, and more particularly the opening narrative of Genesis 1-11. When Qohelet probes life he finds the narrative world of Abel (the same Hebrew word hebel). The seemingly pointless, absurd and unjust death of Abel at the hands of Cain is a symbol for human existence. Our lives are like Abel’s.
Hebel
We have to give Qohelet his due. We must sit with him–and it would do us good to sit with him for a season rather than move on too quickly. Sometimes we are forced to sit with him as we are overwhelmed with the horror of human existence. We recoil at death of children at nature’s hand in Oklahoma as well as the hand of the mentally ill in Connecticut. Sometimes all we can do is agree with Qohelet, “Everything is absolutely absurd!”
Hebel
Paul alludes to this word (Romans 8:20). He uses the term that the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible used to translate hebel. He recognizes the frustration and futility of the present bondage which enslaves the creation. Life is not as it should be. The creation groans and the children of God lament. We lament days like May 21.
Hebel
And, without forgetting that life is hebel, we also recognize the good and the joys God has provided today. Life is both hebel and filled with the gifts of the Creator.
So today, we lament and we remember that life is hebel.
But we also, today, accept God’s gifts with gratitude and joy.
How do we do both? Some days, I don’t know. Other days, it is obvious. Ask me tomorrow.
Like this:
Like Loading...
14 Comments | Pastoral Care, Theology | Tagged: Creation, Death, Eccleisastes, Eschatology, Hebel, John Robert Dobbs, Joshua Mark Hicks, Lament, Suffering | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 20, 2013
Titled as an “Apocalypse” and described as a “prophecy” in the superscription, the text begins like a letter. It has all the typical elements of standard letter openings from that era but it is also thoroughly Christian, even with a Triune salutation.
Author: John
Audience: Seven Churches of Asia
Salutation: Grace and Peace from
- the One
- the Seven Spirits
- Jesus the Messiah
Doxology: Eternal Glory and Power to Jesus
Theme: Jesus is coming
Declaration: Thus says the Lord God, the All-Powerful
The audience knows the author. He simply introduces himself as “John” which means that he was well known in the Roman province of Asia. Early Christian tradition in the second century identifies him as the Apostle John, the beloved disciple (e.g., Irenaeus, Justin Martyr [according to Eusebius], Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian). That is impressive late second and early third century evidence and geographically diverse. But other early Christians (e.g., Dionysius in the mid-third century and Eusebius in the 4th century) thought the language wasso different from the Gospel of John that it could not be the same person. Whatever the conclusion, it does not substantially affect how we read the Apocalypse. John–known in Asia Minor–is a fellow-sufferer, a leader of the Christian movement who has seen a vision, and has been given the Apocalypse of Jesus the Messiah.
The audience situates the context of the Apocalypse in the Roman province of Asia Minor. The seven churches are identified in chapters two and three, but these are not the only churches in the province (e.g., Colossae). Why these seven? Some suggest it because they were all connected by a circular road or perhaps they were particularly under fire in ways others were not. But it seems more consistent with the nature of an Apocalypse that seven churches were chosen because the number is symbolic (one of many septets in the book)–these seven churches represent the whole church in Asia Minor, perhaps the universal church itself. The Apocalypse, in effect, is addressed to the whole church though specifically contextualized by the life and experience of the churches in Asia Minor.
The salutation, unlike any other in the New Testament, is triune: Father, Son and Spirit (cf. Bauckham, Theology of Revelation). Each is characterized in a plurality of ways.
- “The one who is, who was and who is coming” (ESV). The Greek is not standard grammar (apo should be followed by a genitive rather than a nominative), but John does this in order to reproduce the Greek translation of the divine name in Exodus 3:14. In other words, John identifies the Father with Yahweh, the God of Israel. The threefold characterization underscores that Yahweh knows the beginning from the end (the Alpha and the Omega in 1:8), eternally God and eternally present.
- The identity of the “seven spirits before His throne” is more disputed though I think the Triune context clarifies it. While some identify the spirits with the seven angels of the churches or the seven principal angels around the throne (as in some early Jewish literature) the context here–as part of the inner divine circle (cf. Revelation 4:5) and sandwhiched between Father and Son–points us to the Holy Spirit (cf. the language of Isaiah 11:2-3; Zechariah 4:2, 6. 10). “Seven” reminds us of the fullness of the divine presence in the person of the Spirit.
- Jesus the Messiah is characterized in three ways. The total effect is to underscore the significance of his death (martyrdom), resurrection (firstborn from the death), and ascension (present reign). This is the firm ground upon which the drama is built–the identity of Jesus means that the kingdoms of the earth have no power over him, and ultimately over his followers. While Ceasar may claim power, it is the Messiah who truly exercises divine power.
- “the faithful witness” — while “witness” (martus) certainly includes his death, it also points to the living witness of his faithful obedience to the Father. He was faithful even unto death (cf. 2:10).
- “firstborn from the dead” — this does not necessarily mean he was the first one to be raised from the dead (though that is true in terms of new creation), but may also mean that among those raised from the dead he is the preeminent one. He is the “firstborn” in terms of inheritance, authority, and power as well as the first to emerge from the grave as a new creation.
- “ruler of the kings of the earth” — probably an allusion to Psalm 89:27, Yahweh’s “firstborn” king rules over all other kings. This description is particularly apt as the conflict within the Apocalypse is between the reign of God and earthly powers (kings). Jesus is the true king, not Caesar.
The doxology is offered to Jesus which reflects an early worship of Jesus as a participant in the divine fellowship. Jesus is praised because he is the one who has acted redemptively on behalf of the people of God. He is the one who loved, freed (by his blood), and appointed us a kingdom of priests. The eternal (“forever and ever”) glory and dominion (power) belong to him. The focus of the doxology is Christocentric though the goal (telos) is the Father. Jesus acts so that he might offer (or, we might become) a kingdom of priests to “His God and Father.” The ultimate goal is the Father but this is accomplished through Jesus the Messiah. The doxology draws attention to Jesus as a central figure in the drama of redemption.
The language of love, freedom (release from sin), and constituting a priestly kingdom stand in contrast to the kingdoms of the earth. While Caesar may claim a benevolent disposition toward his subjects, praise belongs to the one who has actually loved, freed, and created us. This is something Jesus did by “his blood” (that is, by his faithful witness). The church is a priestly kingdom just as was Israel (Exodus 19:6). The language assumes a continuity between Israel and the Church as the reign of God within the world.
Revelation 1:8 (the thus “says the Lord God” or declaration) functions as an inclusio as it repeats the identity of Yahweh (“who is, who was, and who is coming”). But it also serves to ground the reality and certainty of the “motto” or “theme” present in Revelation 1:7. Yahweh, the eternal God, is the beginning (Alpha) and the end (Omega). Yahweh is sovereign and will accomplish whatever is promised. God is Almighty (pantokrator); the Lord is all-powerful who rules all other powers. Revelation 1:7 is the promise guarenteed by God’s omnipotence.
The dramatic (and thus thematic) nature of the oracle is announced by the interjection–”Behold!” In other words, pay attention to this! Watch this! The presence of the interjection in the salutation underscores the significance of what follows for not only for this section but for the whole book. This is a thematic announcement soleminized by the word of the Lord God Almighty.
John constructs a poetic announcement built on Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 12:10. Jesus is coming with glory (clouds) and the tribes of the earth will mourn. The motto is as simple as this: Jesus is coming. But that is also complicated. What does the text mean by “coming” and how is this played out in the rest of the Apocalypse?
When Jesus addresses the seven churches, twice he promises to come in judgment upon their sins–not in a distant eschatological future, but in the immediate present (Revelation 2:5, 16). The present coming of Jesus anticipates the future coming, but it appears that the “coming of Jesus” is, as Beale (Revelation, 197) argues, “a process occurring throughout history” that culminates in the final eschatological coming of Jesus. Each coming (or visitation) within history, however, is a proleptic experience of the final one (what Christians normally call the “second coming”). Each coming, then, as Fair notes in his commentary, is described in eschatological language as a prolepsis of what is to come.
The theme (motto) is focused on the coming of Jesus in judgment against the “tribes of the earth.” They will lament his appearance, and the “tribes” lament the judgment of God throughout the Apocalypse (cf. Revelation 11:9; 13:7; 14:6) though there are also “tribes” that rejoice in the victory of the Lamb (cf. Revelation 5:9; 7:9). This fits with the context of Zechariah 12 since it envisions a day when God will judge the nations and pour out grace on the righteous.
The motto, then, anticipates the final eschatological coming of Jesus, but also prepares us to hear the Apocalypse in its setting. When God comes in judgment–whether against the church or the “tribes of the earth” within history–it is a proleptic experience of the final coming of Jesus. The seven churches, then, will experience within their own history the mercy and judgment of God in the present as a manifestation of God’s ultimate goal–to cleanse the earth and redeem it. The nations of the earth, particularly imperial Rome within the situation of the seven churches, will also experience the mercy and judgment of God. Each of these, however, bear witness to the final victory of God in the promised eschatological return of Jesus.
Yahweh–who was, is, and is coming–is coming in the person of Jesus who is the resurrected, ascended, and enthroned Lord that rules the kings of the earth. God is continually coming, visiting, acting, judging, and redeeming. As Jesus executes his reign, he comes again and again. No one will escape his notice (eveyone will experience this continual presence of God) and he will judge all the tribes of the earth.
The one who loved us, freed us and made us a priestly kingdom is also the one who judges the earth. His people will praise him and the nations will lament “on account of him.”
Living in a hostile culture, threatened on every side, and tempted to accomodate the pressure through compromise and syncretism, the church may have felt abanonded. God’s response is the “Apocalypse of Jesus,” and the primary theme is: Jesus is coming. This is no mere distant future promise to a struggling chruch in the late first century. Rather, it is the assurance that Jesus is and will continue to act on behalf of his people as he exercises the reign of God in the world and will ultimately set things right in the creation despoiled by evil.
“Jesus is coming” is a theodic statement–God is present within history and God will set things right. The church can trust this promise both now and for the future.
Like this:
Like Loading...
6 Comments | Biblical Texts, Theology | Tagged: Apocalypse, Christology, Doxology, Promise, Revelation 1:4-8, Trinity | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 18, 2013
I have two good friends who have invested time, money and effort in making some valuable texts and tools available to researchers and those who are interested in reading original texts of significant Stone-Campbell works.
Barry Jones has made available the following texts for PDF searching. You can find them here.
- Bible Banner
- Christian Baptist
- Millennial Harbinger
- Gospel Guardian
- Lard’s Quarterly
- Millennial Harbinger
I have used his PDF files in recent weeks. I have found them extremely helpful and could quickly find material that otherwise would have taken me weeks to discover through reading hard copies or microfilm. The state of the scanning is quite good and searchable though with the usual problems of searching these kinds of files. Nevertheless I have found the PDF files invaluable.
Bob Lewis is another longtime friend who has been publishing Stone-Campbell original texts through the Web or on Kindle for several years now. His Stone-Campbell e-Print Library provides Kindle access for several significant works (such as Ketcherside, Leroy Garrett, Richardson’s Memoirs of Alexander Campbell and W. T. Moore’s Comprehensive History of the Disciples of Christ).
Bod has links to significant journals and works on his Stone-Campbell.org website (including Stone’s Christian Messenger).
I recommend supporting and patronizing both of Dr. Jones and Dr. Lewis. They are providing a wonderful service for researchers and those who love reading in Stone-Campbell history and theology.
Blessings on both their efforts!
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 Comment | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: Barry Jones, Bob D. Lewis, Christian Messenger, Firm Foundation, Stone-Campbell | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 17, 2013
The title, “Revelation of Jesus the Messiah,” is ambiguous, perhaps intentionally so. It may mean the revelation about Jesus, that is, the unveiling of the story at which Jesus stands at the center. Or, it may mean the revelation that belongs to Jesus, that is, the Father has given this story to Jesus for the purpose of disclosure. Perhaps, however, we overanalyze the grammar when it is likely that the point encompasses both: the story the Father gave Jesus to disclose to the churches is about the central role Jesus plays in the cosmic drama of redemption.
Something once hidden is now–in this drama–revealed. The book unveils what lies behind the scenes. We get to peek (more than peek!) behind the curtain. The drama discloses that the Messiah, by the will of the Father, is actively redeeming, claiming, and moving within the world even when the world appears Godforsaken.
The Messiah’s servants (slaves) are oppressed and marginalized. Some of them lament, others compromise. Some are martyred, others accommodate the culture for economic profit. While the martyrs bear witness, others drink the wine of Babylon’s adulteries.
John, however, is a faithful witness. He is the slave to whom the Messiah sent an angel to reveal what is to come. John has testified, as in a courtroom, to the “word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.” He has endured a trial and faithfully testified to the truth. Exiled for his faith, he has participated in the witness (marturian; martyrdom) of Jesus Christ. He has suffered with the Messiah and he has joined the witness of Jesus to persevering obedience.
John has seen the Apocalypse, the drama; it was shown to him. And now, through writing it down, he shows it the servants or the churches of God and his Christ.
Revelation 1:1-3 functions as a superscription to the whole document. It was, it seems, tacked on to the front of the finished product to identify its nature. It is an Apocalypse; it unveils the drama of the Messiah’s reign to the oppressed and marginalized servants of God. It is like a movie played on a cosmic stage. Originally, John had a private viewing, but now–written–the movie is available to the whole church, starting with the seven churches of Asia Minor.
The story is not for private consumption. On contrary, the superscription assumes it will be read orally to a community of hearers. We might imagine a public reading of the drama in the assembly of Christians at Ephesus, or Smyrna, or any of the seven churches of Asia and beyond. The Apocalypse is intended to be heard, even performed by a virtuoso of oral interpretation (a lector).
The first of seven beatitudes in the book blesses the oral reader/interpreter as well as the hearers. Blessing, of course, is not a state of self-actualized happiness but the reception of divine grace that empowers us to bless others. The hearers are blessed as keepers–they do what they hear.
The Apocalypse intends transformation. The reading does not bless the status quo, but the obedient. The Revelator calls the hearers to action, to faithful obedience. This is no mere message of comfort and hope but a demanding call to discipleship, that is, to follow the Lamb.
The blessing, however, has a sense of urgency rather than complacency. This is no time to stand around, watch and wait. “The time is at hand.” The drama will happen “soon” (or, when it happens, it will happen “quickly”).
Exegetes and interpreters have haggled over the meaning of this “nearness” for centuries. Some think it means that everything in the Apocalypse will happen within, say, a generation. Others, think it is simply about imminence as we are always standing on the precipe of the cliff ready to fall off (even though we have been “on edge” for almost 2000 years). Neither seems to entirely fit.
Clearly, as preterists are quick to point out, the drama of Apocalypse impinges on the lives of the seven churches of the Roman province of Asia. Whatever is unveiled applies to them and this is why John (unlike Daniel, cf. Daniel 12:9) is forbidden to seal the Apocalypse as if its events are distant (Revelation 22:10). Something about this Apocalypse is about to happen right then in the experience of these seven churches. In other words, the drama is about to begin or has already begun. [Fair (Conquering with Christ) calls this proleptic eschatological language.]
That appears to be the major force of the double emphasis (“soon” and “near,” which also occurs in Revelation 22:8, 10, 12). The drama is no distant fairy-tale or meaningless hope in the present. The drama has begun; the curtain has opened. This functions not only to mark time in some sense but, more importantly, calls the church to action. They must hear and obey precisely because the drama has already begun. The church cannot sit on the bench but must enter the game and play out the story as it unfolds. The church is called to urgent action.
The Apocalypse is a “prophecy” not only in the sense of describing events future to the original hearers but in confronting those hearers with the demands of discipleship.While the prophets of Israel peeked behind the scenes and saw the future in some cases, their main function was to prosecute, rebuke, and confront the people of God. They called Israel to renewal and recommitment; they called them out of their injustices and idolatries (cf. Amos). And so does the Apocalypse.
The superscription reminds the oppressed and marginalized church that they don’t know everything (thus they need a “revelation”) while also offering them the hope that God will yet reveal something to them in the hearing of the “revelation of Jesus the Messiah.” But this hearing will demand something from them. Hearing the drama holds the promise of blessing but only for those who follow the Messiah in faithful obedience. The church must decide, and there is no time to wait. The drama has already begun!
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Apocalypse, Beatitude, Prophecy, Revelation 1:1-3 | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 16, 2013
Last Sunday I began an extended study of the Apocalypse of Jesus the Messiah with a studious, gracious, and interested group of Bible students at the Woodmont Hills Church of Christ in Nashville, Tennessee. It will be a long journey but, I’m convinced, a fruitful one. I will post along the way as I have other texts we have studied (e.g., Mark, Amos, Zechariah; these and others are available through the “Serial Index” menu).
In this initial post I will address three major questions that shape how one reads the last book of the Christian canon.
First, when reading Revelation, we are reading an “Apocalypse.” It is the first word in the Greek text and it identifies the genre of the document. We should read not this as a historical narrative (like Luke-Acts). It is neither history, poetry, or even letter, though it may contain aspects of it. It is an Apocalypse which is an identifiable and popular genre of Jewish literature from 200 BCE to 200 CE. There are many examples of this genre outside of Scripture and even in some parts of Scripture (e.g., Daniel).
When we recognize that Revelation is apocalyptic literature then we are able to read it within its own literary conventions. Every genre of literature has such. Historical fiction, for example, creates certain expectations–it is not academic history but the story is set in an authentic historical situation. In the same way, readers of apocalyptic literature have certain expectations.
At the literary level, it uses symbols and drama to convey its message. These symbols are drawn from cultural (Jewish and Greco-Roman) and canonical images. If we do not understand the literary function of these images then we will make connections that are as distant from the intent of the text as reading a newspaper is from fiction. The symbols, contrary to some interpreters, are not intended to hide the message but actually convey the message. But one must understand the symbols to get the intended meaning.
At the level of its message, it assumes an apocalyptic worldview that shapes the drama of the text. The apocalyptic worldview assumes the transcendent sovereignty of God over the events of history, a dualist conflict between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan in which the people of God experience oppression, and the ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God in the world. This triumph, however, is eschatological in character, that is, it is a vision of the triumph of the reign of God when the will of God is done on earth as it is heaven.
Recognizing the literary and mythic (meaning “worldview”) character of apocalyptic literature, the symbols and images portray the ultimate victory of the kingdom of God over the kingdom of Satan.
Second, when reading Revelation, we read from a particular vantage point. We read it 1900 years after its publication, but the original recipients in Asia Minor (the seven churches of Asia) read it from within the own social location. I’m convinced that we cannot legitimately read the Apocalypse without first reading it with the original hearers and then through that reading see its significance for us in the present. We must read it, as my friend W. B. West used to say, with “first century glasses.”
But even when we do so contemporary readers have used various interpretative strategies to understand the contemporary message of the document. There are, in the most simple (even simplistic) terms, four major reading strategies or hermeneutical vantage points, and each of them has their own different flavors.
- Preterist Readings. Radical preterists believe that everything in the Apocalypse has happened or was supposed to happen within the generation of the original hearers. Even the “new heavens and new earth” was either the new covenant of the Christian dispensation or a new political order rather than an eternal state yet to arrive. Moderate preterists believe that the major substance of the book pertains to the events, culture, and life circumstances of the original hearers though the ending of the book pertains to the eternal state described as a hope that all believers embrace.
- Continuous-Histoprical Readings. Once more common than it is now, this reading sees the whole history of the church dramatically played out in the Apocalypse from its beginning in the ascension of Jesus to the final act of history. These interpreters seek to correlate 1900 years of history with particular scenes in Revelation and often believe that their generation is the last or near the last (whether they lived in the Medieval, Reformation, or Modern eras).
- Futurist. This reading, taking its cue from 4:1-3, understands the major drama of the book as describing the “last days” of the present era with the result that much–if not all–of the book is still future to present readers, or perhaps that certain events within the drama are currently taking place and the end is near. Interpreters, then, seek to correlate present events with the drama of the book from 4:1-19:1 as they look for the second coming of Jesus which they believe is described in Revelation 19 (followed by the millennium in Revelation 20). Interpreters have done this no matter what era in which they lived with the varied results that the beast of Revelation has been the Ottoman Empire, the Pope, Henry VIII, Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Sadam Hussein, etc.
- Idealist. This reading locates the described drama within the context of its original recipients but recognizes a larger story playing in the background. While this Apocalypse reflects the cultural, religious and social dynamics of the struggles of early Christians within a Greco-Roman setting, this is but one slice of a larger dramatic pie. The described conflict has happened before (between Israel and Canaanite culture, for example) and will happen again (evil will always find cultural, political and social expression as it assaults the Kingdom of God). Generally, idealists do not see any specific predictions or futurist dramas in the text. Rather, the drama present in the text is symbolic of repeated assaults on the kingdom of God throughout human history in different social, political and cultural contexts.
Choosing between these various reading strategies is complicated but ultimately unavoidable. While the correct approach may not lie in only one but in some combination, one will tend to emerge as dominant. Readers will have to choose which perspective best suits the text and there will be occasion to consider the options as we walk through it. Presently, I lean toward the Idealist strategy with a strong tint of moderate preterism.
Third, what is the major problem that gave rise to the Apocalypse itself? Why did the seven churches of Asia need a “revelation”?
The most popular and historic answer to that question is that the seven churches needed encouragement, comfort, and hope in the face of persecution. Clearly this is part of the story as the presence of martyrs in the text indicates, and this should not be underestimated. The church lived in a hostile culture if not always hostile empire (in terms of imperial persecutions). The church was commonly subject to economic boycotts as well as mob and official regional violence. The strains and stresses upon the believing community were tremendous. The Apocalypse certainly offers a hope that encourages them to persevere in faith.
But some contemporary interpreters have questioned whether this was the main problem. For example, in the seven letters to the churches martyrdom is not a prominent topic. Instead, the most consistent point is the failure of most of the churches to maintain a viable, faithful witness in the midst of a cultural pressure to compromise their faith. All the churches, save two, are rebuked.
It appears the more significant problem is how Christians were compromising their faith. They were struggling to live faithfully in a hostile culture. One can imagine–and in some parts of the world today it is a reality–how economic boycotts and threats of mob violence might move believers to accommodate their faith to their surroundings in order to remove or mitigate the hostility.
So perhaps the message of Revelation is not so much about comfort and hope in the face of persecution (though that message is there) but the call to radical discipleship that refuses to make peace with the surrounding culture for the sake of respectability and economic benefit. And the siren call of the latter is much more seductive than the stark reality of the former. Perhaps that is the more demanding message for Western Christians while the former is one faced daily by other Christians in various parts of the world.
Stone-Campbell Note: in recent years we have been blessed with literature on Revelation from several authors, including Archer & Ridgell, Oster, Stevenson, and Fair (all of which I have read with profit).
Like this:
Like Loading...
6 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Apocalypse, Apocalyptic Literature, Continuous-Historical, Futurist, Idealist, Martyrdom, Preterist, Revelation | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 15, 2013
The last verse of Amos promises Israel that once they are planted in the land they will never again be uprooted. The “never again” language is striking and parallels other promises such as the “new heaven and new earth” text in Isaiah 65 where “never again” (same Hebrew terms) will anyone weep or infants die. “Never again” is eschatological language which fulfills the Abrahamic promise that Israel would inherit the land as an “everlasting possession” (Genesis 17:8).
The problem is identifying when this will happen or has happened. Here are a few options.
- Some believe the Abrahamic land promise was fulfilled when Joshua conquered the land and Israel took possession. [But this cannot apply to Amos 9:15 since this is a further promise if not a continuation of the Abrahamic promise.]
- Some believe the Abrahamic land promise as given Amos 9:15 was fulfilled when Judah returned from Babylonian exile. [But the prosperity envisioned in Amos 9:13-15 does not fit well with the postexilic situation. Further, Israel was not part of the restoration when Judah returned, and clearly the postexilic community was uprooted.]
- Some believe that Amos 9:15 is a conditional prophecy, but since Israel never returned to God, so God never returned to them. [Conditional prophecy is part of the Hebrew prophetic tradition but there is no indication that this is assumed here. Rather, Amos 9:15 appears as an effect of the rebuilding of the "tent of David" and the inclusion of the Gentiles, and these are assumed fulfilled or in process by James in Acts 15:13-18.]
- Some believe the Abrahamic land promise (such as Amos 9:15) was fulfilled when the Gentiles were included among the people of God. Consequently, the land promise is spiritualized as equivalent to the church or, at least, spiritualized as referring to the heavenly (celestial) land called “heaven.” [But in Acts 15 James did not quote this section of Amos and was only talking about the inclusion of the Gentiles. The land promise was not up for discussion. To spiritualize the text as referring to either church or heaven is to stand to far outside the Hebrew text and actually subvert the promise itself.]
- Some believe the Abrahamic promise began to be fulfilled when the modern nation state of Israel was established in 1948. It can only be a beginning because the type of prosperity described in Amos 9:13-15 are yet future it would seem. [But it is unclear whether the modern state has any relation to biblical Israel other than a majority Jewish ethnicity. The modern state is certainly not the land of justice, peace and prosperity that is envisioned for a renewed Israel.]
- Some believe that the Abrahamic promise will be fulfilled eschatologically, that is, Israel will inherit the land in the new heavens and new earth. [This is my own view.]
It seems to me that the Abrahamic promise is not limited to ethnic Israel but rather also includes the nations. The inclusion of the nations among the people of God prepares the earth for its renewal. Whether ethnic Israel will inhabit Palestine as it appears in the new heavens and new earth (whatever that might look like) is possible (perhaps probable) but it is unnecessary to theorize about that in order to affirm the larger theological point.
In the article below, reproduced from a previous post, I offer my own perspective on the land promise and its eschatological fulfillment.
The Land as Our Inheritance
When God called Abraham, he promised blessings through which all the nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:2-3). Included in those blessings is the land promise (Genesis 12:6-7). The promised land is part of the Abrahamic promise.
This land promise is both overplayed as some identify the contemporary state of Israel with this land promise and undervalued as others see no fulfillment of this promise in Israel’s Messiah who is Abraham’s seed. The former think that the state of Israel is the fulfillment (or at least the beginning of the fulfillment) of God’s promise to Israel while the later believe the land promise no longer obtains after Israel was returned from Babylonian exile. I would like to propose an alternative as I don’t think either of the above options are viable.
Israel is described as the “people of [God’s} inheritance” (Deuteronomy 4:20; cf. 1 Kings 8:53) The land was part of Israel’s inheritance as the firstborn son of God among the nations (Exodus 32:13; Leviticus 20:24; Deuteronomy 4:21). One need only to skim the Torah, especially Deuteronomy, to recognize the central role the land plays as the inheritance Israel receives from Yahweh as God’s children.
Psalm 37 is a good example how the hope of inheriting the land, living in the land, and experiencing the goodness of God in the land is intergral to Israel’s joy in the Lord. Disturbed by the prosperity of the wicked, the Psalmist assures Israel that those who hope in and wait on the Lord will inherit the land. Six times the Psalmist promises–and Israel liturgically rehearses promise–that Israel will ultimately receive its promised inheritance. They will “inherit the land.” Jesus himself practically quotes Psalm 37:11 when he announces: “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).
As part of the Abrahamic promise, the land is not conditioned by the Mosaic covenant. This means that the intent of God to fulfill his promise to Abraham is not conditioned by Torah-obedience. Whether the nation of Israel at any particular time or individuals within Israel at any particular time possess the land is conditioned on Torah-obedience, but the ultimate fulfillment that Israel would inherit the land is unqualified. It is as unconditonal as the promise of the Messiah is.
On the analogy of Paul’s argument in Galatians 3, the promise was before the law and is therefore not ultimately conditioned by the law. Israel will inherit the land as God promised Abraham. It is a divine promise and God keeps his promises. More explicitly, Paul notes that “it was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise” (Romans 4:13).
This is a significant point–a critical juncture. The Abrahamic promise belongs to the children of Israel. The land is part of the Abrahamic promise. The children of Israel will possess the land; it is their inheritance.
But who is Israel? Who are the children of Abraham? Paul is, I think, clear. Since the “promise comes by faith,” it is “guarenteed to all Abraham’s offspring–not only to those who are of the law” (e.g., Torah-obeying ethnic Israel) “but also to those who have the faith of Abraham” (e.g., including the nations). In this sense Abraham is the “father of many nations;” he is the “father of us all” (Romans 4:16-17). The Gentiles (nations) have been grafted into Israel through faith (Romans 11:17). Those who belong to Messiah–those in Christ–are the children of Abraham and thus heirs of the promise (Galatians 3:29).
But does this include the land? Yes, indeed. As Paul phrases it, Abraham was the “heir of the world” (kosmos)….not just the land of Palestine (Romans 4:13). The inheritance of the children of Abraham is the world–the whole cosmos.
This is not a land we possess by violence or by purchase. Rather, we receive it by faith in the Messiah and on the ground of the faithfulness of the Messiah. The “faith(fulness) of Jesus” secures the inheritance for Israel and we participate in it through faith (Galatians 3:22). The Messiah is the heir of the all things and we are co-heirs with the Messiah through faith (Romans 8:17).
The creation is the inheritance of the people of God. We yet await, according to Romans 8:18-25, the full adoption into the family of God when we our bodies are redeemed (resurrection) and the creation is liberated (new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21:1-4). That is our inheritance. John reminds of the whole Abrahamic trajectory (Genesis 17:8) with this language himself in Revelation: “Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children” (22:7).
The Abrahamic promise was first given to ethnic Israel but, by faith and because of the Messiah, it includes the nations as well. Perhaps on the new heaven and new earth the redeemed of ethnic Israel will dwell in Palestine–in the land between the rivers of Egypt and Babylon–but the whole earth will belong to the people of God as they again reign on the earth with God. The kingdom of God will fill the earth!
I think this accounts for Paul’s language about inheritance. He writes about inheriting “the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; cf. James 2:5). He praises God for the gifting us with the Spirit as a downpayment of our inheritance which will arrive when God has fully redeemed his possession (people; Ephesians 1:14–that phraseology is loaded with Hebraic expression and thought). Through faith, Paul writes, we are “qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light” (Colossians 1:12).
The fullness of the kingdom of God, which is yet future, is our inheritance. It is the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise through which God will make Israel a great nation, a great name and bless all the nations. That promise includes the land–the whole cosmos, and it belongs to all those who place their hope in Yahweh’s Messiah.
Consequently, the new heaven and new earth as the renewed (new) creation is integral to the plot line of the story of God from Abraham to the eschaton. The earth is the inheritance of God’s people and one day the reign of God will fill it from the east to the west, from the north to the south. The whole earth, unlike its present condition, will be “Holy to the Lord.”
May your kingdom come, may your will be done, on earth as it is heaven!
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 Comments | Biblical Texts, Theology | Tagged: Abrahamic Promise, Amos 9:15, Israel, Land, Promise | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 14, 2013
The above title is the first line in the refrain of Andrew Peterson’s “Come Back Soon.” On Sunday my old and dear friend Dean Barham, in his morning sermon at Woodmont Hills, alerted me to Peterson’s music and particularly this line. It has stuck with me for a few days now.
Yesterday I read Keith Brenton’s funeral eulogy for his wife. He has decided with faith and courage to grieve with hope. I grieved with my friend, prayed for his family, and protested her death.
April 30 to May 22 has become a season of lament for me. April 30th is the anniversary of my first wife’s death (Sheila), May 10 is my deceased father’s birthday, May 21 is the anniversary of the death of my son (Joshua), and May 22 is the anniversary of my first marriage. In the last five years my emotions during this time have been particularly evident to me as I have attempted to face my grief.
But I recognize that my lament is only a small part of the larger dimensions of sorrow within the world. The Psalms evidence this range of lament–lament for evil and injustice and lament over our own sins as well as lament over disease and death. It is not only the lament of an individual but the lament of communities, ethnicities, nations, and, indeed, the whole world.
We all “awake in the night.” At some point we all lose our innocence, and we realize the world is often a dark, lonely, and broken place. “Every death,” Peterson sings, “is a question mark.”
“We awake in the night,” and the refrain continues,
We beat our fists on the door
We cannot breathe in this sea that swirls
So we groan in this great darkness
For deliverance
Deliverance, O Lord.
Peterson’s language evokes Biblical images of chaos (sea and darkness) against which humanity protests (fists). “We awake in the night” when we lose our innocence and experience creation’s chaos.
Existentially, I had my awakening on April 30, 1980. I’ve had several since then as well–some due to tragedy, some due to my own sin and brokenness. But the groan remains the same….”we groan in the darkness” and we cry “for deliverance.” “So,” Peterson sings, “we kick in the womb and we beg to be born.”
We beg to be born. It is “in the womb of the world” where we awake, where we beg, where we groan. We cry for this broken creation to give birth to a new one.
The last song, “Don’t You Want to Thank Someone For This,” on the CD (“Light for the Lost Boy”) brings this yearning to a climax.
There is lament. “Can’t you feel it in your bones, something isn’t right here.”
But there is also joy. The sun comes up every morning, Spring follows Winter, and “beauty abounds.”
There is awakening. Though it is in the night, it is in the womb. Though we cry “How long?” we also pray “Come back soon.” And “when the world is new again,” then the children of the King will sing on, and their mourning will be turned to dancing.
“Hallelujah, Hallelujah.
Come back soon!”
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Pastoral Care | Tagged: Andrew Peterson, Eschatology, Grief, Hope, Lament, Suffering | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 13, 2013
In 1889, James A. Harding conducted an eight week meeting in Nashville, Tennessee. A total of 123 would be immersed over the eight weeks. Here is the Daily American‘s account of the meeting (August 9, 1889).
Successful Revival
Rev. James A. Harding Pleading for Christ.
The Tent Meeting in Edgefield and Its Progress
Eighty-Seven Conversions and the Interest Continually Increasing–A Gold Harvest
The tent meeting of the North Edgefield Christian Church is now closing its seventh week. Interest in the revival has been constantly growing. All the neighborhood is thoroughly aroused, and large crowds come from other parts of the city,especially from the South Nashville and Woodland street churches.
The tent contains 500 chairs, but the audiences far exceed its capacity. There were 800 last Sunday night. Other denominations are taking part with enthusiasm. There have been 87 accessions to the church, eight professing the faith on Wednesday night.
It is a Grand Harvest
for the Christian Church. At all times wisely conservative, they have nevertheless braved public comment to carry the true gospel into this hitherto uncultivated field. As a result a substantial and handsome brick building has been erected on the same lot with the tent. A mission has been established there for several years, but this is its first meeting of any importance. Rev. J. C. McQuiddy is in charge.
The audience last night was composed of ladies for the most part. Rev. R. Lin Cave and Elders Corbin and Hall were in the pulpit. The minister’s text was Paul’s definition of faith. He treated it in a dispassionate, analytical manner, striving evidently to clearly expound the Apostle’s meaning. He was listened to with the most interested attention. There was one conversion.
Rev. James A. Harding
of Winchester, Ky., has been laboring in this city for some time. The morning meetings, with which the revival was begun, have been discontinued so that he could supervise the publication of his recent controversy with Rev. Mr. Moody in South Nashville. His health is declining under the severe strain, but he intends to continue so long as there is the lest interest manifested. He has covered very nearly the whole ground of Christian faith and duty.
His Preaching
is eminently thorough, plan and practical. His winning points are his earnestness and his perseverance. He is superior to most revivalists in the fact that he is never discouraged. The titles of some of his best sermons are as follows: The True Vine and the Branches, Will Christ Come Again? If So, When and How?, Heaven, The Eunuch’s Conversion, The Conversion of Saul, and the Christian’s Armor. The common verdict is that his success is most wonderful.
JMH Comment Begins
The sermons on the Second Coming and Heaven are interesting in that his views on both of those points are rather unusual for contemporary Churches of Christ. His view of the second coming was premillennial and his view of heaven was a renewed earth. I only wish we had the transcripts of some of those sermons.
The North Edgefield congregation began meeting in 1887 under the preaching of Elder T. J. Stevenson, M.D. as a mission of the Woodland Street church. J. C. McQuiddy began preaching at the church in 1889–a graduate of Mars Hill Academy in Florence and office editor of the Gospel Advocate. The building was dedicated in December 1889 and housed a congregation of about 200 (115 of whom were baptized in this meeting). — This data comes from an article in the Daily American (January 26, 1890).
The debate with J.B. Moody, held in the Central Baptist Church where up to 2000 attended, began on May 27, 1889 and extended for sixteen days.
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 Comment | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: James A. Harding, Nashville, Revivalism | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 10, 2013
The previous post explored the meaning of the only fundamentally positive text in Amos–its ending, Amos 9:11-15. The text of Amos envisions a future time when Yahweh would rebuild the “tent of David” with the result that Israel would “possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called” by Yahweh’s “name.” This would involve permanently replanting Israel in the land God gave them and blessing them with prosperity.
At least four significant questions emerge from Amos 9:11-15. First, what is the “tent of David”? Second, what is the meaning of “possess” (militaristic or inheritance) in relation to the nations? Third, what is the meaning of the land promise? Fourth, when did or will this happen?
One might imagine that this was fulfilled when Judah returned from exile. But Amos seems to include Israel in this promise (rather than just Judah), and the post-exilic community never experienced the prosperity or the security that Amos envisioned. This is one reason Second Temple Judaism sometimes thought of themselves as still in exile.
In Acts 15:13-18 elder James applies Amos 9:11-12 to the situation of the early Christian community. Is his application a fulfillment? Does Amos 9:11-15 find its terminus in the reality of the Christian movement in Jerusalem? This is where I want to focus this post.
If one compares Acts 15:116-18 with Amos 9:11-12 several significant differences are apparent (highlighted in italics).
|
Amos 9:11-12
|
Acts 15:16-17
|
| In that day |
After this |
|
I will return |
| I will raise up |
and I will rebuild |
| the tent of David |
the tent of David |
| that is fallen |
that has fallen |
| and repair its breaches |
|
| and raise up its ruins |
I will rebuild its ruins |
| and rebuild it |
and I will restore it |
| as in the days of old |
|
| That they may possess the remnant of Edom |
That the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord |
| and all the nations who are called by my name |
and all the Gentiles who are called by my name |
| declares the Lord |
says the Lord |
| who does this |
who makes these things |
|
known from of old |
While there are several differences between the Hebrew text of Amos and James’s citation (which is primarily from the Septuagint), the most significant is found in Acts 15:17. Whereas Amos announces that “they may possess the remnant of Edom,” the LXX reads “the remnant of humanity may seek the Lord.” Whereas one understanding of Amos is that Israel will possess the land of Edom, James announces that the remnant of humanity will seek the Lord. While Amos may intend the possession of the land of Palestine (including Edom and other nations contiguous with it), James connects the text with the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Christian community.
What happened? How does one move from the Hebrew text of Amos 9 to this Christian text in Acts 15? This is an instructive question as it illuminates the hermeneutical method of the early church as well as early Judaism (see W. Edward Glenny, BBR [2012] 1-26).
At one level, it is possible that James is not simply thinking about Amos though this is the substance of his quotation. James endorses Peter’s testimony about Cornelius as God’s gracious “visitation” upon the Gentiles so as to include them among the people of God. The “words of the prophets,” James says, “agree” with this (Acts 15:15). The quotation is not an exact reproduction of the LXX as we know it (neither is it an exact quotation of the Hebrew Amos 9:11-12). Rather, James–as Luke records it–may conflate several prophets in order to focus his point.
Glenny suggests that Acts 15:16-18 evidence the influence of other prophet texts, including:
- “After this” is from Hosea 3:5 with a reference to Israel’s return to Yahweh and the Davidic king
- “I will return” is from Zechariah 8:3 or Jeremiah 12:15 in which context the nations will learn the ways of God.
- “will seek” may reflect Zechariah 8:22-23 where nations seek Yahweh in Jerusalem
- Zechariah 2:14-17 lies in the background with the emphasis on the “nations” who become the people of God.
- “makes these things” may come from Isaiah 45:21 which also alludes to the inclusion of the nations.
These connections reveal that Luke’s summary of James’s speech reflects a wide-ranging interpretation of the prophets regarding the nations–using a word connections that was part of Jewish hermeneutics of the time (called gezerah shavah). The point (and the quotation) is not solely dependent upon Amos 9. James argues that the Scriptures–the prophets–agree with the witness of Paul, Barnabas, and Peter.
Theologically, experience is insufficient for the early Christian community. Rather, James argues that the prophets agree with said experience and thus confirms its truth of the experience. Scripture must “agree” with the experience of the church if she is to pursue God’s mission instead of our imagination.
At another level, the LXX version of Amos 9 is reflected in the text of Acts 15 which is rather different from standard English translations of Amos. How does the LXX get “remnant of humanity” from “remnant of Edom” as well as changing “possess” to “seek”? In both cases it may be a simple revocalization of the Hebrew text, that is, supplying different vowels to the Hebrew consonants. Edom is close to Adam, for example. Further, Edom may function as a metaphor for hostile nations that are now included among the people of God. “Possess” has the similar consonants as “seek.” The Greek translators, for whatever reason (perhaps a different Hebrew reading or a deliberate hermeneutical strategy like what is evidenced at Qumran; cf. Richard Bauckham, “Jews and Gentiles [Acts 15:13-21]” in History, Literature and Society in the Book of Acts), substitute “seek” for “possess.” Whatever the case the LXX makes clear that some Jewish readers of Amos understood the text to mean the inclusion of the Gentiles rather than a “possession” (militaristic) of the nations. Even the original reading of “possess” may have included a sense of inclusion as evidenced that the nations would be called by the name of Yahweh. Either way, James’s point stands: the inclusion of the Gentiles is something with which “the prophets agree”.
How, then, does James (within the context of Luke-Acts) understand the “tent of David”? He appears to understand it as already restored and rebuilt in the context of the inclusion of the Gentiles. So, what is the “tent of David”?
Many interpreters link it to the Davidic kingdom or dynasty, specifically in the exalted reign of the resurrected Lord Jesus. Whatever the “tent of David” is it is effected before the inclusion of the Gentiles. God rebuilds the “tent” with the result or for the purpose of including the nations. In other words, God renews the Davidic dynasty in the reign of Jesus the Messiah who inaugurates the Gentile mission in order to include them among the people of God (Israel). The prominence of “David” in the sermons in Acts is an important clue (cf. Acts 2:24-36; 13:22-23, 34-35) to this meaning. In those “sermons” Peter and then Paul directly connect the promise of David with the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as the promised Davidic king.
But does this do justice to the “tent of David”? Elsewhere in Acts, the term “tent” refers to worship sanctuaries such as the temple or tabernacle (cf. Acts 7:43, 44, 46). The term is consistently used of the tabernacle in the LXX. Does James use this language in order to recall the temple or sanctuary? Perhaps we might best understand this, with G. K. Beale does (The Temple and the Church’s Mission), as the resurrected Messiah has erected a new temple (sanctuary). In some ways this may be identified with the church, but in other ways it may anticipate the eschatological temple of God which is the heavenly temple which descends as the new Jerusalem upon the new heaven and new earth.
In one sense, James identifies Amos 9 with the inclusion of the Gentiles and thus the reality of the rebuilt “tent of David.” A new temple has been built and/or the Davidic dynasty has been restored. So, is this the fulfillment of Amos 9:11-15? Or, does Amos 9:11-12 simply “agree ” (in harmony with) with the development or progress of redemption? Does Amos 9:11-15 find its terminus in the establishment of the church (Jew & Gentile) through the reign of exalted Lord? And what of the land promise?
I think we will need yet another post to address those last questions.
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Acts 15:13-21, Amos, Amos 9:11-15, David, Eschatology, Israel, Prophecy, Prophets | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
May 2, 2013
Up to this point the text of Amos has announced judgment. The “day of the Lord,” which Israel thought would bring redemption (Amos 5:18), is a divine visitation that will bring disaster (evil) to Israel (Amos 3:14; 5:20; 8:9). Amos 9:11-15, however, announces a startling reversal.
The contrast is pronounced. Whereas “in that day” of judgment Israel’s youth will “faint for thirst” as the nation experiences mourning (Amos 8:13; cf. 8:10), “in that day” of the rebuilding of the “tent of David” the ruins will be repaired (Amos 9:11). “Behold, the days are coming” declares God, but the days entail very different scenarios. Whereas some “days are coming” in which Israel will hear no word from the Lord (Amos 8:11), the “days are coming” in which the fortunes of Israel will be fully restored (Amos 9:13-14). The text parallels the language (“that day” as well as “days are coming”) but contrasts the results.
Despair, at the end of Amos, has turned to hope. Bad news (disastrous curses) has become good news (blessings). What happened? Why this movement here at the end of the book of Amos?
Some suggest that this is an exilic or post-exilic addition to the message of Amos. The reference to David suggests that Judah’s exile and the destruction of Jerusalem lies in the background. Others suggest that Amos has previously given us some indications of hope. For example, there is remnant language in Amos 9:9 as well as the promise that God would not totally destroy “the house of Jacob” (Amos 9:8). Whatever the case may be, the canonical text of Amos ends with hope (and that text dates at least prior to the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible several hundred years before Christ).
Hope changes everything. It means that God is not finished with Israel and that God will remember his covenant promises to Abraham despite their sins. And hope is inclusive. The text of Amos is quoted by the James in Acts 15 in defense of the inclusion of the Gentiles with the new faith community called the “church.” Both texts, Amos 9:11-15 and Acts 15:15-18, demand attention. I will address Amos 9:11-15 in this post and address Acts 15:15-18 in the next.
In broad strokes, the hoped announced is clear. At some point in the unspecified future Yahweh will rebuild the “tent of David” so that they might “possess” the land given them and prosper in it. it is a promise of restoration where the “tent of David” is rebuilt, the land replanted, and prosperity abounds.
Amos 9:13-15 is a clear portrayal of the restored fortunes of Israel. They will settle in their land again and plant their crops. They will “rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them.” This is the land that Yahweh gave to them and they will never be “uprooted” from it again. Their prosperity is overwhelming. As soon as they begin to reap their crops, the sower (plowman) will begin his work again. Though the harvest and sowing are separated by months, it will appear that they will overlap–both in terms of grain and grapes. The image that the mountains will “drip sweet wine” and the hills will “all flow with it” provides a luxurious metaphor. The prosperity of this restored Israel will far exceed the luxury and prosperity that Israel knew under Jeroboam II.
The more difficult text is Amos 9:11-12. Several questions arise, including how the text is applied in Acts 15 (which I shall leave for my next post). Two primary questions emerge from the text itself: (1) the meaning of the “tent of David” and (2) what it means to “possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations” called by the name of Yahweh.
The relation between the two questions is clear. The “tent of David” is restored so that or with the result that Israel will “possess the remnant of Edom…” One leads to the other or we might say that one is done for the purpose of the other. Whether purpose or result it is at least an intended result as it is Yahweh who will do it (much like the determination of God in Isaiah 9:6).
But what is the “tent of David”? The introduction of “David” brings Judah into view rather than the northern kingdom alone. The text of Amos has not totally ignored Judah. Indeed, Judah’s own destruction is envisioned in Amos 2:4-5. Yet, the introduction of David (for the first time!) is unanticipated. The “tent of David” raises the interpretative horizon beyond the immediacy of the northern kingdom and points us toward a future for the whole of the nation (as under the past Davidic kingdom).
Most identify the “tent of David” with the Davidic dynasty or the “house” of David. In other words, it refers to the Davidic kingdom, reign, or throne, perhaps even the Davidic empire that subjugated the “nations” mentioned in Amos 1-2. This has merit, but the term “tent,” or “booth,” or “hut” does not really suit this interpretation. Nowhere else is the Davidic dynasty referred to as a “tent,” though it is often called a “house” (1 Samuel 7:11, 13, 15, 27). Further, “tent” has broader ramifications here. It involves walls breached, ruins, and something to “rebuild.” It seems to refer to a city or at least something surrounded by walls.
Another alternative, which seems more likely to me, is that the “tent of David” refers to the temple, its walls, and the city in which it resided, that is, Jerusalem (cf. Dunne, WThJ [2011] 363-367]. The Hebrew term often refers to the “booths” that worshippers would build during the Feast of Tabernacles (Booths). Sometimes the term refers to Yahweh’s heavenly dwelling (cf. “canopy” in Psalms 18:11; 31:20) as well as the “canopy” that will cover Mt. Zion (Isaiah 4:5-6) . Jerusalem itself is identified as “booth” in Isaiah 1:8. Here David’s “booth” (worship dwelling) functions “as a synecdoche for all of Jerusalem” (Dunne, 367) which is the dwelling place of God. This, of course, would not exclude dynastic overtones or even a broader inclusion of the Davidic kingdom. But the focus is on the rebuilding the temple and the city of Jerusalem as a center of worship among the rebuilt cities of the land.
God’s rebuilding project will result in Israel’s possession of the “remnant of Edom” and “all the nations” called by Yahweh’s name. But what does that mean? Up to this point in Amos, both Edom and all the nations are hostile to Israel (cf. Amos 1). Assyria is on the verge of enslaving Israel. Edom, as Israel’s ancient archenemy, symbolizes the nations themselves. The future, however, will reverse this picture. Israel will “possess” the nations.
The critical question is the meaning of “possession.” Some think it Amos envisions a military conquest. Israel’s restoration will include the reconquest of the land promised them through Abraham. This land will include the territories of the nations noted in Amos 1-2 and thereby restore the Davidic and Solomonic proportions of Israel’s empire. To “possess” the land, therefore, is to seize control over it.
But there is another option.The possessed nations are those who are called by Yahweh’s name. “Possession” is closely link to the Hebrew term for “inheritance” or “heir.” The language may point to the reality that nations will also share in the inheritance of the land and thus fulfill the promise to Abraham since he is the “heir of the cosmos” (Romans 4:13).
To be called by the name of Yahweh is equivalent to covenant relationship (cf. Deuteronomy 28:10; Jeremiah 15:16; 25:29; 2 Chronicles 6:33; 1 Chronicles 13:16), and there is only one example of its militaristic use (2 Samuel 12:28 where it is Joab’s name rather than Yahweh’s at issue). Rather than conquering the nations of Amos 1-2 the promise envisions their inclusion in the Abrahamic land promise as well as worshipping Yahweh at the temple in Jerusalem. This is what we see in other prophetic literature (Isaiah 25:6; 56:6-8; 66:23; Zechariah 14:16-19 among many others).
Amos 9:11-15 offers hope not only to Israel but to the nations. The restoration of the “tent of David” will result in the inclusion of the nations. They too will be called by the name of Yahweh. When those days arrive the whole earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord and the meek will inherit the earth (land). The Abrahamic land promise will be fulfilled when the whole earth becomes the Lord’s both in fact as well as by right. Both Israel and the nations will enjoy the land, the blessings of the covenant, and the presence of Yahweh as the “tent of David” is restored.
But what is this “tent of David”? Does it refer to a literal temple rebuilt in the land of Palestine as some expect? Or does it refer to an eschatological temple in the new creation, the new Jerusalem? I’ll save that one for the next post.
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Theology | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 25, 2013
The fifth and last vision the Lord gives to Amos (Amos 9:1-4) is, like the previous two visions, followed by an extended comment on its significance (Amos 9:5-10). This last one envisions the total annihilation of an idolatrous sanctuary in the northern kingdom of Israel, perhaps at Bethel (3:14; 4:4; 5:5-6; 7:10, 13). Amos prophesied in the region of Bethel, was opposed by the priest of Bethel, and Bethel was Amos’s primary idolatrous target.
The basic message of the vision is that “not one of them shall escape” (9:1). This was probably occasioned by how Israel responded to the preaching of Amos. Some were saying, “Disaster will not overtake us” (9:10). The prosperous proud nation did not believe that judgment was coming or that their nation and sanctuaries would tumble. This accounts for the emphasis in this section of Amos (chapters 7:1-9:10). The dire warnings were aimed at an unbelieving and stubborn nation puffed up in the pride of their prosperity.
Amos sees the Lord standing by the Bethel altar and announcing its destruction. With the sanctuary demolished as the capitals of the columns fall upon the worshippers’ heads and everyone who is left is killed by the sword, there is no escape. Without the sanctuary there is no god to whom the people could appeal. Without protection they are slaughtered. Indeed, the image reminds us of Samson who destroy the temple of the Philistines by pushing over its load-bearing columns. What Samson did to the Philistines, God will do to Israel.
Israel may think it can escape and the vision imagines potential escape routes.
- to Sheol (grave)
- to heaven (sky)
- to the top of Carmel (mountain)
- at the bottom of the sea (depths of sea)
- and…in captivity… (Assyria)
In every place God finds them and executes punishment. Twice Amos uses the term “take” (9:2, 3). Previously Amos had used this term to describe Israel’s leaders “taking” taxes and “taking bribes” (Amos 5:11) as well as their boast that they “took” Karnaim (Amos 6:13). Now, God will take them. If they dig to Sheol (deep into the grave), God will grab them or if they hide on the top of Carmel (the beautiful peak within Israel proper), God will grab them. Even if they ascend to the sky or descend into the sea, God will find them. The imagery of the sea–a place of fear and chaos where the serpent frolics–is terrifying. To escape into Sheol or hide in the sea signals their desperation. In the sea, the serpent (sea monster) will devour them even as earlier in Amos this metaphor reminded Israel that even when they feel safe danger looms (Amos 5:19).
Captivity, however, is where many will go. But this is no escape from God’s judgment either. It is, indeed, part of divine judgment, but it is no place of safety. Rather, death awaits Israel there as well. For Israel exile–a new Egyptian (Assyrian) bondage–will result in death.
But the ominous line in this vision is the last. It is, in fact, a kind of summary of God’s present disposition towards Israel: ”I will fix my eyes upon them for evil and not for good.” It seems a rather astounding statement that God intends “evil” (ra’ah) instead of good for Israel.
The term “evil” has a wide range of meaning. It may refer to what some call “moral evil,” but it may refer only to disaster (cf. Amos 3:6) or calamity, even “natural evil.” It is what happened to Job (Job 2:11; 42:11). The “evil” intended here is the disaster that will shortly overwhelm Israel is Assyrian captivity. It is the “disaster” (evil; same word in Amos 9:10) they hope to avoid, but they will not. God has determined to bring disaster or calamity (evil) upon the nation; to curse them rather than bless them (as per the Deuteronomic promises of blessing [good] and curses [evil] in Deuteronomy 27-28).
Amos follows this stunning statement with an affirmation of divine sovereignty. Is it appropriate for God to intend “evil” rather than “good” for the covenant people? Can God justify himself? Amos’s response is fundamentally that Yahweh rules the cosmos (Amos 9:5-7). Yahweh is God.
Amos draws a picture of God as one who controls the chaotic features of the cosmos. Earth dwellers may mourn in response to the chaos that surrounds them, but it is God who “touches the earth,” “builds…and founds,” and “calls..and pours.” God is an active agent within the chaos.
The chaotic results of these divine acts are evident from the language. The Lord earth melts (and the people mourn). The earth rises and falls like the Nile of Egypt which is probably a metaphor for earthquakes. Yahweh calls the waters present in the upper chambers in the heavens and the waters in the vaults of the earth; God commands them. “Waters” are chaotic in Hebrew theology, but Yahweh controls them. The Lord will pour them out upon the earth. Chaos will devour Israel at the Lord’s command.
This is flood imagery that echoes the great Noahic flood itself. Just as God flooded the earth from the windows of heaven and from the vaults of the deep in order to cleanse its evil in Genesis 6, so God will pour out the waters upon Israel in order bring “evil” (disaster) upon them.
But are we not your people? One can almost hear the response of the people as they listen to Amos. In one sense Yahweh is the Lord of all nations. Just as God brought Israel out of Egypt, so God also brought the Philistines from Caphtor (Crete) and the Syrians from Kir (Mesopotamia). The Ethiopians (Cushites) are important to God. Yahweh also cared for all nations, not just Israel. Yet at this moment Yahweh is focused on Israel because of their sin…but he will not totally destroy them. Israel will yet have a remnant. Amos leaves room for hope.
The hope, however, does not avert judgment and the execution of justice. God will shake Israel like a sieve–the grain (the remnant) will fall through but nary a pebble. Sinners will not escape judgment but there will be a remnant. This is the hope of Israel, but even the remnant will experience the “evil” (disaster) that will overwhelm the nation. The innocent will suffer alongside the sinful.
As Deuteronomy 4:26-31 outlines, God promised that he would not hesitate to remove Israel from the land if their sins multiplied like the Canaanites before them. At the same time, the covenant promise remains–God will faithfully act to receive them again. ”For the Lord your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath” (Deuteronomy 4:31).
What does God do with a “sinful kingdom”? God is active among the nations. Just as Israel came from Egypt, so the Philistines came from Crete. God’s hand was present in the movement of the nations. The covenant relationship Israel had with God heightens their responsibility, but all nations are accountable to Yahweh. God even yet judges sinful kingdoms (evident from the Apocalypse).
Israel was judged for its economic injustice and idolatry. The nations should pay heed. God’s relationship with Israel was a witness to God’s intent for the creation. The nations, including the United States, should listen, learn, and heed the message of Amos. Just as Israel was not alone among the nations in God’s movement of Peoples, so Israel is not alone when it comes to God’s judgment either.
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 Comment | Theology | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 19, 2013
The dialogue between Amos and Amaziah (7:10-17), which interprets the third vision (7:7-9), is followed by a fourth vision (8:1-3) with a further interpretative comment (8:4-14). Ripe for judgment, Yahweh reminds Israel exactly why they will face eventual calamity. God judges them for their economic practices and the greatest calamity they will experience is divine silence.
In the third vision Amos sees a basket of ripened summer fruit ready to eat (or sell). The fruit must be sold or eaten soon. The time for waiting has passed.
The “end” (the extremity, the end of the road) has arrived. Their sins have brought them to this point and God “will never again pass by them.” There is no more recourse; there will be no more delay. The decision has been made. Their festive temple songs will now become howls of distress and hurt as the dead bodies pile around them and are strewn over the land.
What is the appropriate human response in the midst of such horror? When the ”end” arrives, the prophet calls for “stillness” or “silence.” “Hush,” says the prophet. Perhaps the silence is a reverence for God, maybe even an avoidance. Perhaps it is shock as people look at the devastation around them. Whatever the case, horror begets silence as there is literally nothing to say in the face of such tragic circumstances. It is over; there is nothing more to say.
But Amos does not want to leave Israel without a rationale or some idea of what to expect. The third vision is interpreted by a chiastic oracle (“Hear this,” 8:4).
Rationale for Judgment (8:4-6): Economic Injustice
Description of Judgment (8:7-8): Land Trembles.
From Feasting to Mourning (8:9-10): Lament
Description of Judgment (8:11-12): Divine Silence
Rationale for Judgment (8:13-14): Idolatry
Two rationales for judgment, seemingly always present in Amos, resurface in this interpretation. One is economic injustice and the other is idolatry.
Amos complains that Israel’s economic practices oppressed the poor. The prophet identifies the specific practice of lightening the ephah (which measures grain) and weighting the shekel (which measures silver). When merchants use unfair weights and measures, they buy and sell to their own interests. Archeological remains in Tirzah demonstrate that sometimes merchants used two different weights–one for selling and one for buying (cf. Mays, Amos, 144). Prohibitions in the Torah, as well as in Ancient Near Eastern codes, demonstrate that this was a common practice (cf. Leviticus 19:35-36; Deuteronomy 25:13-16).
With such economic advantages, merchants did not like to close their shops on New Moons or Sabbaths. They were more interested in economic gain than they were worship or devotion. Indeed, they targeted the poor and needy as the object of their greed. As Shank (pp. 282-3) points out in his College Press commentary, the merchants short-changed the poor, charged excessive prices, cheated with false measures and weights, forced the poor into slavery who could not pay their debts, and sold inferior quality goods (even the “sweepings” along with the grain). This is called the “pride of Jacob” (Amos 8:7).
“I will never forget their deeds.” I wonder if this should not give the American economic system, or any economic system, pause for introspection. If God will never forget how the poor and needy were oppressed, cheated, and sold inferior goods for the sake of profit or gain, Americana–including global economics–should “hear this word” of the Lord. If economic practices bring judgment–and this is what Amos specifies rather than sexual immorality–American Evangelicals should heed the warning as they protest the demise of “Christian America” while the poor are caught in the middle of the American economic machine.
Amos, however, does identify a further sin other than economic injustice. The bottom of the chiasm references idolatry. As the people thirst for water due to the judgment of God (ironic in that the judgment is pictured as a flood), the people who swear by the gods (“Guilt”) of Samaria from Dan to Beersheba will know the terror of the Lord. Idolaters will fall, “and never rise again.” Dan in the north and Beersheba in the south (Amos 5:5) were idolatrous worship centers much like Bethel (located in the middle of Palestine). Divine judgment will cleanse Israel of its idolatry. Those who swear by these false gods may look to them, but they will receive no help…either from them or from Yahweh who is now silent.
Amos uses two metaphors to describe the judgment. First, the land will tremble as it is flooded with judgment. Just as the Nile rises and falls every year in Egypt, so the flood of judgment will pour over the land of Israel. The result will be mourning and lamentation.
The second metaphor Amos uses is a famine, but this is not a lack of bread or water. Rather, it is the silence of God. Israel will get its wish. Just as Amaziah told Amos to leave as they had no interest in his message, so Yahweh will no longer send prophets among the people to warn them of the coming judgment. The flood of judgment will be accompanied by the silence of God. They will want to hear from God and they will seek a word, but God has already spoken and will speak no more to Israel in the context of this judgment.
The middle of the chiasm is striking. Judgment day is a day of mourning. The day is catastrophic–darkness will envelop the land at noon and their festive celebrations will turn into mourning. Everyone will wear the sackcloth of lamentation and shave their heads as they weep. The mourning will be so great it will be as if everyone in the nation is mourning the death of an only son. Lament and bitterness will fill the day; nothing will alleviate the pain and hurt. Israel, which should have mourned for its sins, will now mourn its dead.
The northern kingdom’s sins–unjust economic practices and idolatry–spelled its doom as a national entity. Those categories are important to God–it is about the poor and justice as well as about loyalty and allegiance. “I will never forget any of their deeds” should ring in our ears as a warning to all nations that economic justice and allegiance to the kingdom of God are primary concerns for God.
The Christian Faith, instead of absorbing the cultural values of its context, should embrace the message of Amos and speak prophetically to a culture for whom economics and allegiance are more about self and the nation than about the poor and God.
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Amos, Amos 8:1-13, Economic Justice, Judgment, Prophet, social justice | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 18, 2013
We need more lament songs.
I was reminded of of this while studying Amos 8:9. The prophet offers the most chilling metaphor for lament imaginable for an ancient Israelite: ”I will make it like the mourning of an only son.”
Children killed in their schools, on the streets of a sporting event, by abuse at home, by terminal diseases, and by tragic accidents. And there is much more than that to lament.
There is so much to lament, and we need more lament songs. Our assemblies, devotions, and private prayers should voice lament just as ancient Israel did (almost half of the Psalms are lament).
I am grateful that my good friends Konstantin Zhigulin, a Russian believer in St. Petersberg (Russia), and Jeff Matteson (a citizen of the United States) have produced a “Lament For the Innocents.” Konstantin leads and Jeff sings in a group called Psalom (Facebook page). Click on the link and listen to the beautiful tones and words (taken from Biblical texts of lament and hope).
We need lament to voice our anger, bewilderment, misgivings, doubt…and, yes, even praise and hope. Lament is spiritual therapy by which we process our grief and hurt as we sit on God’s lap…even as we protest, yell, and accuse. God listens and responds.
At the same time, there is so much for which to be grateful. We are blessed more than we could ever realize or grasp.
So, we give thanks and we lament. That is the life of faith.
Like this:
Like Loading...
5 Comments | Pastoral Care | Tagged: Hymnology, Hymns, Lament, Prayer, Psalms, Songs | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 17, 2013
(The fourth chapter of my book on the Shack. I publish it here in light of the lament over terror, school shootings and the presence of tragic evil in the world.)
Dear God.
I hate you.
Love,
Madeleine (L’Engle)
I meditated on this brief prayer for months after I read it. Initially, I was horrified by how much I identified with the prayer and I was troubled by the prayer’s resonance in my soul. My first reaction, however, was “I get the point.”
So did Mack. He had become “sick of God” over the years since Missy’s death (p. 66). But he went to the shack at God’s invitation, doubting whether it really was God. As he entered the shack for the first time in over three years his emotions exploded (p. 78).
Mack bellowed the questions most sufferers ask and most often they begin with the word “Why?” “Why did you let this happen? Why did you bring me here? Of all the places to meet you—why here?” In a “blind rage” he threw a chair at the window and began smashing everything in sight with one of its legs. He vented his anger. His body released the emotions he had stored up in it.
Anger, if not resolved or healed, simmers inside of us. It becomes part of our body and we feel it in our chest, stomachs, shoulders, or neck. It destroys us from within. One day it will explode. For over three years Mack had suppressed this anger but now alone in the shack it poured out with a vengeance. “Groans and moans of despair and fury spat through his lips as he beat his wrath into this terrible place.”
Fatigue ended his rampage, but not his anger or despair. The pain remained; it was familiar to him, “almost like a friend.” This darkness was Mack’s “closest friend” just as it was for Heman in Psalm 88:18. “The Great Sadness” burdened him and there was no escape (p. 79). There was no one to whom he could turn, so he thought. Even God did not show up at the shack.
It would be better to be dead, to just get it over with, right? When great sadness descends on us, sometimes—like Mack—we think it is better to simply die and be rid of the pain. We think we would be better off dead if for no other reason than that the hurting would stop. Or, like Job, we might wish we had never been born (Job 3). Contemplating suicide, Mack cried himself to sleep on the floor of the shack.
Rising after what “was probably only minutes,” Mack, still seething with anger and berating his own seeming idiocy, walked out of the shack. “I’m done, God.” He was worn out and “tired of trying to find [God] in all of this” (p. 80).
This scene is Mack’s true self. It is Mack in the shack. It is the pent-up, growing and cancerous feelings of anger, bitterness and resentment toward God. God, after all, did not protect Missy. God was no “Papa” to Missy in her deepest distress and need. The journey to discover God is not worth it. It is too hard, too gut-wrenching, and useless!
In his rage Mack expressed the words that seethed underneath the anger, resentment, disappointment and pain. “I hate you!” he shouted.
“I hate you.” Them’s fighting words, it seems to me. It expresses our fight (or, as in the case of Jacob, wrestling) with God. Sometimes we flee our shacks but at other times we may go to our shacks to find God only to discover we have a fight on our hands because God did not show up. This is Mack’s initial experience.
The word “hate” stands for all the frustration, agitation, disgust, exasperation, and bewilderment we experience in the seeming absence of God as we live in a suffering, painful and hurting world. “Hate” is a fightin’ word—a representation of the inexplicable pain in our lives; a word that is used as a weapon to inflict pain on the one whom we judge to be the source of the pain. Sometimes, perhaps, we are too polite with God. Sometimes we are not “real” with the Creator. Sometimes, like Jacob in Genesis 32, we need to wrestle with God.
I hear God’s suffering servant Job in this word though he never uses the specific term in his prayers. God has denied Job fairness and justice, and Job is bitter (Job 23:1; 27:2). God is silent. God “throws” Job “into the mud” and treats him as an enemy (Job 30:19-20). God has attacked him and death is his only prospect (Job 30:21, 23). Job is thoroughly frustrated, bitter in his soul, and hopeless about his future (Job 7:11, 21). He does not believe he will ever see happiness again (Job 7:7). God was a friend who turned on him—“hate” might be an accurate description of Job’s feelings as he sits on the dung heap.
And yet, just as Madeleine’s brief prayer, Job ends with “Love, Job.” He speaks to God; Job is not silent. He does not turn from his commitment to God; he does not curse God or deny him. He seeks God even if only to speak to him though he may slay him. He laments, complains, wails, and angrily (even sarcastically) addresses the Creator, but he will not turn his back on God (Job 23:10-12; 21:16).
The contrast between “I hate you” and “Love, Madeleine” is powerful. It bears witness to the tension within lament and our experience of the world’s brokenness. Though deeply frustrated with the reality that surrounds us (whether it is divorce, the death of a son, the death of a wife, the plight of the poor, AIDS in Africa, etc.) and with the sovereign God who does whatever he pleases (Psalm 115:3; 135:6), we continue to sign our prayers (laments) with love. We have no one else to whom we can turn and there is no else worthy of our love or laments.
We can all get to the point that we are “done” with God, that is, where we are “done” trying to “find God” in our shacks. The search for meaning, relationship, and love is often frustratingly slow and fruitless. “I hate you” may be the most simple and shocking way to express our feelings about the whole mess.
Sometimes we blurt out language that expresses our feelings but does not line up with our faith. This can happen when our faith is shaken, confused, threatened, or slipping away. It is a common experience among believers when they go to their shacks.
We go to our shacks because we yearn for love, for relationship, for healing, or perhaps because we are desperate and there is nowhere else to go. We sign our prayers with love–”Love, Madeleine” or “Love, John Mark”—as an expression of hope. We want to love, to know love, and experience love. It is out of this yearning we pray; it is out of this love we lament.
It is with love we say “I hate you.”
The poignant irony of that last sentence is, it seems to me, the essence of honest lament in a broken world.
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Pastoral Care, Theology | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 13, 2013
This Psalm uses the language of love poetry; it has an “erotic intensity” (Robert Atler, The Book of Psalms, 297). “How lovely are your dwelling places,” the Psalmist exclaims.
The term “lovely” is related to the Hebrew terms for “lover” and “lovemaking.” It describes the “love song” between the King and his wife in Psalm 45. Yahweh sings to ”beloved” Israel is Isaiah 5. It is the language of the Song of Solomon as the wife seeks the “love” of her “beloved” (1:2, 4, 13-14, 16). The Psalm expresses the erotic relationship between God and Israel that “happens” in the courts of praise. It is a moment when we love on God and God loves on us.
This is the voice of a people who love–intensely enjoy–to assemble and sing in Yahweh’s tempple courts. The superscription locates the Psalm among the temple musicians and singers. Associated with the “sons of Korah” who are best known as temple singers, the choirmaster (or chief musician) is directed to perform the music with the lyre. This seems particularly appropriate for a love song.
As a love song, it expresses the intense desire to be present with the beloved. Indeed, the Psalmist is jealous of the sparrow whose nest is near the altar of God (probably nesting in the crevices of the temple stones). They make their home at the center of God’s presence where they find rest and peace. They are close, and the Psalmist is envious. Worshippers want to live near the beloved and find their home in the divine presence.
The intensity is also expressed in somatic language. The singers so long for the courts of God that their energy is totally spent (they faint). This is no silent anguish but rather their hearts and “flesh” cry out. The Hebrew verb indicates a loud and ringing cry. The desire is so intense that the heart and body moan in anticipation and yearning.
The Psalm, then, opens with a lover’s yearning for her beloved. This is what Assembly means for worshippers. It is an experience of love; it is a relational encounter.
Psalm 84, as love poetry, is also a pilgrimage piece. The singers begin their journey to the temple where the covenant people of God assemble to worship through the sacrifice of praise. Their journey is energized by their love and by the anticipation of “seeing” their beloved. In this way, as Mays writes (Psalms, Interpretation, 275), “every visit to the temple or church [assembly, JMH] or meeting of believers is in a profound sense a pilgrimage.” It is a journey into the love and life of God.
This is the context for the three beatitudes that punctuate the Psalm. Three times the Psalm pronounces the pilgrim singers as “happy” or “blessed” (84:4, 5, 12).
The first beatitutde summarizes the opening of the Psalm and provides a context for the second beatitude. The third beatitude rounds out, like a bookend, the point of the second beatitude. The point of “happy” or “blessed,” of course, is not some kind of self-security but rather a movement of God toward the person. These are people upon God acts so that they experience joy and peace.
“Blessed are those who dwell in your house.” Like the sparrow, those who make their home in the temple as participants in the Great Assembly are blessed. They are “blessed” as they continually praise God. Living in the presence of God at the temple, they never cease to experience the loving relationship with Yahweh.
The next two beatitutdes (84:5, 12) complement each other. They are contextualized by the first one. In other words, the beatitutdes and the extended comment that separates them (84:6-11) are true in the context of the Assembly. They are a function of the worshipping assembly itself.
Worshippers find their strength or power in God as their hearts are determined to make the journey into the assembly of God. They have pilgrim hearts that are set on entering the gates of the temple to praise God. They have decided to worship God. And this worship, as the third beatitude notes, arises out of their trust in the covenant God of Israel.
So, what characterizes this pilgrimage, the journey from outside assemby into the assembly? At least three perspectives are present which may shape how we approach assembly ourselves.
First, the pilgrimage is sometimes a movement from sorrow to joy (84:6-7). Pilgrims often move through the “Valley of Becca” or the valley of sorrows or weeping. The desolate valley becomes a refreshing pool of water. This happens by the strength of the Lord. God empowers worshippers to move through lament into the praise of God’s renewing life. Worship transforms mourning into dancing. Strengthened by God, worshippers learn to move through the tears into the bright sunshine of God’s presence.
Second, pilgrims petition God to protect them and lead them into the joy of assembling in the temple courts (84:8-10). The petition expresses the desire to assemble and is grounded in the preference that pilgrims have for assembly over everything else. This functions at two levels–there is no better place than praising God in the assembly of the saints and being with the assembled saints expresses their fundamental commitment to follow the covenant. They choose assembly over any other place and they choose the tent of Yahweh over tents of the wicked.
Third, pilgrims trust God’s faithful goodness. Pilgrims’ lives are characterized by “blamelessness” or better rendered something like “wholeness” or “integrity.” Pilgrims approach God faithfully; they approach Yahweh with covenantal integrity. This approach is rooted in God’s own faithfulness and the divine predisposition to bless the covenant people. Worshippers enter the divine presence with confidence in the goodness and faithfulness of their covenant God.
Believers love to assemble because they not only love each other but they love the God who draws near in those moments of assembly. The passion expressed here models the intensity that worshippers might share as they approach God with integrity. They know that God is faithful and as they approach God will show up to love on them.
“Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth–
for your love is more delightful than wine.”
Song of Songs 1:2
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 Comment | Biblical Texts, Theology | Tagged: Assembly, Beatitudes, Blessed, Psalm 84, Psalms | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 12, 2013
The ancient compilation Apostolic Constitutions (2.59) advises believers to gather for daily worship and to open their service with Psalm 63. Reflecting the same time period (ca. 400 CE), Chrysostom reports that believers sang this Psalm at the begining of their morning assemblies (Commentary on Psalms, cv. 63). It is still part of the communal daily morning prayers of the Greek Orthodox Church. The church, through this Psalm, has expressed the fervant yearning to assemble with the saints in the presence of God.
The use of the Psalm at morning gatherings is rooted in the Hebrew verb “seek.” The term projects an image of one who rises at dawn to seek God. The early Greek translation (LXX) rendered it, “I rise early for you.” In other words, God–or gathering with the saints to seek God–is the first thought on the mind when the Psalmist rises every morning. Our first thoughts, if we follow the model here, are about God. We rise to meet God. We yearn to meet with other believers to share in the prayers and praises.
The Psalm, however, is set in the wilderness; it is prayed by one whose life is threatened by the wilderness or the circumstances that created the wilderness. The wilderness is not only a concrete reality for the Psalmist but also a metaphor for the spiritual anxiety permeating the author’s soul. The felt need is deeply rooted in the psyche of the Psalmist. We hear the voice of lament in these opening lines.
Separated from community and from the presence of God at the sanctuary, the Psalmist thirsts for God’s presence like a parched wanderer in the desert. This yearning is so deeply felt that it is like an unquenched thirst. The deep need to experience God reverberates through the body; the spiritual desire has a somatic effect. The body trembles, even faints, due to the lack of spiritual nourishment.
This thirst, however, is not created merely by the seeming absence of God but by the concrete absence of community in the presence of God. It is the absence of assembly before God with other believers that spiritually troubles the Psalmist. Without assembly the Psalmist is restless, distressed, and dissatisfied.
So, what the Psalmist longs for is not an individual experience but a corporate one. The Psalmist longs for the sanctuary of God, the place where God dwells. Divine encounter is like a drink for a thirsty person; it is a satisfying meal of rich (fatty) food! Assembling for worship in the presence of God is spiritual nourishment.
The Psalmist remembers a time, and longs for future moments, when the glory of God was experienced. To “see” God–to behold divine power and glory–is an experiential metaphor. God is revealed in the congregational experience of worship. We hear, see, and taste God there.
Through such worship, the Psalmist learned to confess: “your hesed (love) is better than life.” Believers confess this in the midst of worship and it is worship which forms and shapes that confession. The early church heard this on the lips of its martyrs, but this is not simply about physical life or delieverance from death. Rather, it is fundamentally about a divine relationality who faithfully (loyally) loves. It is covenantal language. This love (covenant loyalty) or divine faithfulness is true life. Authentic life leans into that divine faithfulness and comittment. We confess through worship that God is the center of authentic life.
The experience of hesed in the temple (sanctuary) is a practical and spiritual obsession for the Psalmist. Nights are filled with meditations as well as the recognition that this hesed has perserved the Psalmist’s life in the wilderness. Consequently, praise falls from the lips as well as up-lifted palms. Both lips and hand express our worship.
Worship reminds us that God is with us. We rejoice under the shadow of God’s wings even as we sleep with our fears throughout the night. While the Psalmist is pursued by enemies, we are often pursued by our fears. Fear subverts faith; unbelief gives birth to fear. We often fail to trust.
The Psalmist expects those fears to dissipate as enemies disappear. Nan Merrill (Psalms for Praying, 116) offers this dynamic equivalent for contemporary readers of this Psalm. What the enemy was to the Psalmist is what our fears are to us. But worship–divine encounter–transforms fears. “The fears that seem to separate me from You shall be transformed and disappear; As they are faced, each fear is diminished; they shall be gone as in a dream when I awaken.”
We pursue God in the wilderness and we yearn for the satisfying feast–both drink and food–in which our restless souls find peace in union with God. To encounter God in the sanctuary as part of a community with other believers is to experience joy and satisfying peace.
This experience is not dependent upon how well the songs are sung or even which songs are sung. It is not dependent upon whether the service is “boring” or “exciting.” It is not even dependent upon the excellence of the leaders though we value the giftedness of the community. Rather, it is dependent upon the gracious presence of God who comes to us through the praises of the saints. Worship is authentic because God is present and not because we have performed so well.
Only God’s presence satisfies thirst and dispels fears. This is for what humanity longs–peace, rest, satisfaction. Psalm 63 leads to the fountain that quenches thirst.
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Assembly, Psalm 63, Psalms, Sacraments | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 11, 2013
In the first two visions (locusts and fire, 7:1-6) Amos interceded and Yahweh relented: “This will not happen.” Then Yahweh shows Amos a third vision (Amos 7:7-9). This time Amos does not intercede (as far as the text reveals) and Yahweh is resolute in judgment. Yahweh will destroy the idolatrous sanctuaries of Israel and put the sword to the house (dynasty) of Jeroboam II.
Amos sees Yahweh measuring a wall with a plumb line. This is a tool that measures how straight a wall has been built. It is a line to which a weight is attached. As the weight is lowered to the ground from the top of the wall, one can measure how well-built the wall is. Does it lean? Will it stand? Is it perpendicular?
In the vision Yahweh is measuring Israel’s justice and righteousnes, their devotion and covenant loyalty, by a standard. Israel is not what it was designed to be. We may assume that the Torah is the standard and righteousness is the desired outcome. Instead of justice, Yaweh finds injustice among the people. The wall is not standing straight and strong. Instead, it is faltering and leaning. The wall was not properly built and Israel was nothing like it was supposed to be.
The effect is that the wall must be torn down as it is unsuitable; Israel does not represent God to the nations but has become like the nations. Consequently, God will no longer bear with their injustices. God has decided to act. In particular, God will destory the north’s religious sanctuaries (high places) and raise the sword of Yahweh against the royal dynasty of Jeroboam II. Nevertheless, even within the divine judgment is the divine acknowledge that Israel yet remains “my people.” The covenant language remains and the covenant is excecuted according to the cursings promised in the covenant (Deuteronomy).
The message is so final and disturbing that Amos’s visionary reports are interrupted (even interpreted) by a dialogue between the priest (Amaziah) of one of these religious sanctuaries (Bethel) and Amos the prophet (7:10-17). It is not so much, actually, an interruption as a comment on the seriousness and determination of Yahweh to carry out the word of Amos. The prophet emphasizes the gravity of the prophetic warning by reporting the dialogue between an idolatrous priest and the Yahwehist prophet. The final word of the prophet reiterates the announced word of Yahweh from the vision (compare 7:9 with 7:17).
The dialogue also alerts us to the opposition Amos faced as a Yahwehist prophet in the northern kingdom. Amaziah reports the message of Amos to king Jeroboam II (Amos 7:10-11) and then forbids Amos–presumably on the authority of the king–to prophesy again (Amos 7:12-13). Amos responds with a prophecy (Amos 7:14-17).
Prophet, priest, and king–all of whom should represent Yahweh before the nations–are found in conflict with each other. The priest attempts to preserve his unique role at Bethel. The king supports, presumably, the priest as it is the “king’s sanctuary” against which Amos prophesies. The prophet reaffirms his message against the sancutary despite its royal and priestly support. Prophet, priest, and king are engaged in a religious contest for the hearts of God’s people.
Amaziah, the priest, appeals to the highest court, that is, to king Jeroboam II. Reporting Amos’s message in terms of the death of Jeroboam II and Israel’s exile in a distant land (removed from their own land of promise), he describes Amos as a political conspirator. Amos intends, according to Amazriah, to overthrow the royal authority and implement a different religious program that would unseat both priest and king.
Amos attacks the religious and political heart of Israel–Bethel. This was the worship center that was situated on the southern border of Israel next to Judah (the southern kingdom). It was a political act as well as a religioius one since the sancturay was an alternative worship site to Jerusalem (which was also a religioius and political center). Bethel’s political function was to unite the northern kingdom religiously and prevent a return to Yahweh at the temple in Jerusalem. Amaziah describes Bethel as the “temple of the kingdom.” To prophesy against Bethel was to prophesy against the religio-political state of Israel. Amaziah saw the threat, reported him, and presumably on the authority of Jeroboam commanded him to cease and desist.
Amos is ordered out of the country and back to Judah. He should pursue his prophetic career (and earn his money [bread]) there; A maziah presumes that Amos is a career prophet seeking monetary gain. He is forbideen to prophesy in Bethel ever again. Amos is neither one of the king’s priests nor the king’s prophets. He is not welcome in Israel.
Amos never wanted to be a prophet. In Judah he was neither a prophet nor training to be a prophet (the probable meaning of “prophet’s son”). He did not go to prophet seminary. Instead, he was a shepherd and a migrant worker. He was not part a royal prophetic tradition in Judah nor was he an urban royal counselor (as other prophets were like Isaiah later). Instead, he was a simple believer who was called to speak a word of prophecy to Israel. We might imagine that he may have even been reluctant to prophesy as others were (e.g., Moses, Jeremiah, Jonah).
In so many words Amos said, “Yahweh told me to prophesy to Israel and that is what I am here to do.” Like Luther later, he can do nothing else–he must speak the word of the Lord. “Therefore,” Amos says, “I will tell you what Yahweh has said.” Amos must speak; he cannot remain silent.
Amos has a word for Amaziah specifically. His children will “fall by the sword,” he will go into exile with Israel and die in a distant land, and his spouse will (we may presume) join him in exile where she will serve as a prostitute. His familly–his joy and future–will be decimated. His descendants will have no future as even his land is divided and given to others. In essence, Amaziah, as a priest in Israel, represents Israel as a whole. What will happen to him will happen to Israel. His future is Israel’s future as Israel will go into exile. The land grant–one of the great blessings promised to Abraham’s descendents–is rescinded. The hope of Israel evaportes as it has no future without land.
Amos does not back down from his message. He will not stop preaching the message Yahweh gave him. Royal and priestly opposition do not deter him even though he is but a shepherd from the backwater town of Tekoa.
Amos was a lone voice, it seems, at the Bethel sanctuary. He faced tremendous religious and political pressures. The dominant culture opposed him and yet he steadfastly proclaimed the word of the Lord. Perhaps such is our task as well.
May we ever be so faithful!
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Amaziah, Amos 7:7-10, Bible-Amos, Exile, Jeroboam II, Prophets | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 5, 2013
Brother “J. R. W.” of Kentucky tossed Tolbert Fanning a softball in the June 1858 issue of the Gospel Advocate (pp. 170-171). It was a subject he had constantly addressed as an editor and evangelist. It was one of the great themes of his life beginning with his time as an evangelist supported by the Nashville (TN) church from 1832 to 1836.
Question: Are the disciples authorized to perform the service without an Evangelist?
The question contains several. What is the “service” to perform on the Lord’s Day? What is the function of an evangelist? Does the evangelist have a clerical function such that without an ordained evangelist the congregation could not “perform the service”?
Concerning the function of an evangelist, Fanning writes:
it is the duty of the Evangelist to preach the Gospel to the world, plant the taught with Christ in Baptism, congregate the converts, teach them all things in which they are to walk, to see that they keep the ordinances, ordain the Elders in the congregation, and set in order everything wanting for the perfection of the body.
In other words, the evangelist evangelizes the lost, plants the congregation, equipts members, and appoints leaders. Then an evangelist moves on to a new field and repeats the process. The evangelist should not linger and serve as a priestly mediator for the congregation. “It is not the work of the Evangelist to perform the service of the congregation.” Rather, the evangelist equips the congregation so that they might “perform the service” themselves.
When the disciples give the worship into the hand of a hired preacher, as one who works merely for the profit or place, to lord it over God’s heritage, they abandon, in fact, the religion of the Bible. The healthful soul invigorating life giving and life sustaining ordinances, have been given into the hands not entitled to them. The hired, or voluntary services of the church in the hands of preachers, enrich not them spiritually, and make the disciples poor indeed.
To hand the service over to “a hired preacher” is a form of “Popish” clericalism, according to Fanning. It destroys the faith of the congregation as they become passive receivers rather than active participants. The legitimate field for evangelists (preachers) is within the “world” rather than in the established congregation. Let the congregation do its own work, including the work of sending out evangelists to plant new congregations.
What the evangelist should do, however, is plant the congregation, equip the members, and appoint elders to lead the church. Fanning is quite insistent that evangelists appoint bishops or elders. On what authority, another querist asks? “In the Apostolic times Evangelists were consecrated by the hands of the seniors” (Acts 13:3; 1 Timothy 5:14; 2 Timothy 1:16), “and Elders were set apart to the Bishop’s office by Evangelist” (1 Timothy 3; 5:22). Remember, however, that the evangelist does not settle into the congregation but is sent to other places. Consequently, it is the elders who lead the church rather than the evangelist.
But what is the “service” that members are to perform on the Lord’s Day? Fanning lists seven particulars:
1. The assemblage and Christian greetings on the Lord’s day.
2. Prayers of the Saints.
3. The teaching, reading of the Divine oracles.
4. The exhortations and confessions of the disciples.
5. The Lord’s supper.
6. The songs of praise.
7. Communicating, or putting money into the treasury, a sacrifice with which God is well pleased.
“We cannot see how it is possible,” Fanning adds, “for disciples to neglect any of these parts, and still maintain a position in the church of Christ.”
No Evangelist necessary; no clerics needed. It Is the priesthood of (male?) believers; there are no clerics, only the gathering of disciples. It is simply the gathering of Christians to greet, pray, teach, read, exhort, eat & drink, sing, and give. This is the fellowship of the saints on the Lord’s day. No preacher required; just committed, active disciples who gather to listen to each other and the word, sing their praises, share their resources, pray, and sit at the table together. Ad all that to the glory of God and the building up of the body.
Like this:
Like Loading...
16 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: Assembly, Bishops, Church Planting, Ecclesiology, Elders, Evangelists, Polity, Tolbert Fanning | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 4, 2013
This text begins the fourth major section of Amos which contains five visions (Amos 7:1-9:10). While the structure of this part of Amos is variously understood, the five visions form the heart of its message:
1. Locust (7:1-3)
2. Fire (7:4-6)
3. Plumb Line (7:7-9).
4. Summer Fruit (8:1-3).
5. Pillars (9:1).
Amos “sees” the future, intercedes for Israel, and Yahweh responds. The vision of the future Yahweh gives Amos is negative, filled with loss, and destruction. Amos pleads for Israel in the hope that Yahweh may yet relent.
As a result this section of Amos is dialogical and autobiographical. Amos exercises the covenant privilege of intercession. Yahweh honors that faithful address. Yahweh listens, considers, and responds. A major point of this last section, then, hears Amos’s fervent pleas for Israel as Amos laments the future and seeks to intercede for Israel. This last part of Amos, therefore, evidences the relational nature of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel as one of Yahweh’s prophets represents Israel rather than prosecuting them. While previously Amos was Yahweh’s prosecutor as Amos indicted them for their sins and announced their judgment, now Amos pleads with Yahweh for mercy on Israel’s behalf. The prophet mediates the relationship between Yahweh and Israel.
In these first two visions Yahweh responds positively to Amos’s intercession. Yahweh relents and decides to forego the implementation of the visions he showed Amos. Yahweh opens the future to Amos and reveals what the Lord of the covenant is about to do. In both cases Amos pleads for forgiveness and Yahweh relents. Yahweh changes the future.
In the first vision Amos sees a swarm of locust devour the spring crop just as the king has been given the first fruits. Locust (grasshoppers) eat the crops that were intended for humans and they appear at the most hopeful moment–the king has his share (to support the state and military) and the people are about to receive their portion. At this point Amos sees the arrival of an army of locust to devastate the land. A famine will ensue as their is no crop and no grass for the livestock.
In the second vision Amos sees a fiery judgment that consumes the land. “Fire” was a common judgment metaphor in Amos 1-2 and here it probably refers to a heat wave that will dry up the water in the land. In other words, this is not a Sodom and Gomorrah event, but rather than drought that will thoroughly dry up life in the land.
In response to both visions Amos pleads, “Yahweh God, please forgive (or cease)” because Jacob is too “small.” Jacob will not survive such an onslaught. “Small” is an interesting word has it has a semantic range of young or insignificant as well as referring to size. Probably size is the main reference such that an extensive famine or drought would totally annihilate the population of Israel. Does not the God of Israel want Israel to survive? Implicitly, there may be an allusion to the covenant promises of God.
The intercession makes a case, as did Moses in Exodus 32. Israel will not survive because it is too small. God, don’t you want Israel to survive? Do you intend to totally annihilate your people, the remnant of the house of Israel? The intercession pleads for another way, and God chooses another option which yet might leave a remnant in the land. He chooses to send Assyria rather than a famine or drought (as Amos 1-6 testifies).
In response to both intercessions Yahweh “relented,” declaring that what Amos saw will not happen. The future will be different from what Yahweh showed Amos. The future is open in some sense as Yahweh shows Amos two possible ways in which the Lord might judge Israel. Amos’s intercession moves God to go a different route.
“Relented” (7:3, 6) is an important word in the Hebrew Scriptures. It describes Yahweh’s grief over the sinfulness of the antediluvian world (Genesis 6:6-7; cf. 1 Samuel 15:35), part of Moses’s intercession that God would adjust the end that was decided for Israel (Exodus 32:14; cf. Jeremiah 26:3, 19; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), that Yahweh would have compassion on Israel (Deuteronomy 32:36; cf. Judges 21:15; Psalm 135:14), that Yahweh decided against an earlier intent to destroy Jerusalem (2 Samuel 24:16; 1 Chronicles 21:15), that Yahweh would show pity by adjusting the present predicament (Psalm 90:13), and that Yahweh does not change the determination made (1 Samuel 15:11; Psalm 110:4; Ezekiel 24:14).
The Hebrew term basically means “change.” The context must determine the nature of the change or the kind of change. For example, God changed from delighting in the good creation to grieving the sinful Noahic world (Genesis 6:6-7). God changed from a determination to destroy Israel and renew it through Moses in response to the prayer of Moses (Exodus 32:14). God changed from anger to compassion (Deuteronomy 32:36). And sometimes Yahweh remains committed to a previous intent and the Lord will not change or choose a different course (1 Samuel 15:11).
The intercessions of Amos presume that, as far as Amos is concerned and as far as we can see from our limited and finite perspective, Yahweh listens and that Yahweh might relent (change). The vision was not determinative, but a possibility. Yahweh showed Amos the future, but then Yahweh changed the future. Yahweh was going to do one thing but now, in response to prayer, Yahweh does something different.
Whatever our theories about the divine nature, we pray like Amos prays. We intercede in the hope that God might act in certain ways. We pray in the hope that God might listen and respond to our prayers. We pray with the real possibility that God might say, “Yes.” We make our case in prayer and leave it in the hands of God, trusting that God will work out the divine purpose in whatever happens.
But does not God always know what is best? Should we not simply pray, “your will be done” and accept whatever comes? That is certainly possible, but it does not appear to be the way God made the world or us. This Amos text indicates the prayer (intercession) has meaning and power. It can change God’s mind.
Maybe it is better to think of this covenantal relationship in the context of God’s creative intent. God created us as partners (junior partners, to be sure) in the world. We co-rule with God; we co-create with God. We create the future with God. The relational nature of this journey is cooperative though we always acknowledge God as the sovereign Lord (as Amos does).
Prayer is one of the ways history moves forward; it is one of the ways we create the future with God. This is part of the honor and glory God has given to humanity as we represent (image) God within the creation.
Like this:
Like Loading...
7 Comments | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Amos, Amos 7:1-6, Immutability, Intercession, Prayer | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
April 2, 2013
This Easter, before assembling with other believers, I did something that I had never done before.
I visited Joshua’s grave.
For me visiting graves has rarely been comforting. In fact, it was the opposite. The graveyard seemed too permanent. It contained too many granite stones which testified to both the pervasiveness and intransigence of death.
I have found in recent years that visiting graves is good grief therapy for me. It can become a moment of spiritual encounter with God as I learn to face the grief and live through it rather than avoid it.
As I drove to the grave on Sunday morning early, I listed to some lament Psalms (including several musical versions of Psalm 13). I imagined the journey of the women to the grave that morning. I felt the lament, the sadness, and the disappointment (lost years, what could have been, he’d be 28 now). The women and I shared something.
At the grave I remembered, prayed and protested.
But the grave does not have the final word. It seems like it does. Death overwhelms us–it looks permanent, immutable, and hopeless.
But that is why I assemble with believers on Easter (but also every Resurrection day, every Sunday). When we assemble, we profess our hope, encourage each other, and draw near to God. We encounter the living God who is (yet still, even now, and forevermore) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The hope of the resurrection is a future one. God did not leave us without a witness to the future. The resurrection of Jesus is our resurrection. His victory is our hope. His empty tomb is the promise of our own.
That hope, for me, is experienced not so much at the grave (though God may be encountered there as well), but in the assembly. When I assemble with other believers to praise, pray, and profess. In that moment the assembly of believers becomes one–one with the past, present and future, heaven and earth become one, and God loves on those gathered. In that moment, I stand to praise with Joshua rather than without him; we are one for that moment at least.
We continue to lament–both Joshua and I. We both yearn for the new heavens and new earth. We both pray for the day, like the souls under the altar in Revelation 6, when God will put things back to right and make everything new.
But for now the journey from the grave to the assembly is no easy one. It is filled with obstacles. Faith is a struggle and the walk is arduous. But at the end of the journey is an empty grave rather than a filled one.
Like this:
Like Loading...
9 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Death, Easter, Graves, Joshua Mark Hicks, Resurrection | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 29, 2013
Good Friday and then Easter!
But a day is missing in that story. To move from Friday to Sunday we must walk through Saturday.
Saturday, however, is a lonely day. Death has won. Hope is lost. Jesus of Nazareth lies in a tomb. His disciples are afraid, hiding, and deeply depressed. Everything they had invested in for the past three years seems pointless now. They forsook their Master; they lost faith in that moment. They are leaderless, hopeless, and aimless.
Holy Saturday is the day we sit by the grave. It is the day to feel the gloom of the grave, to face the reality of death itself. It is a day to weep, fast and mourn. The late second century church (e.g., Irenaeus) fasted from all food on this day because it was a day of mourning. They did not break the fast till Easter morning.
Those of us who have spent time at graves–in my case the grave of a parent, wife and child–understand this grief, the despair of the grave. I have spent much of my life running away from graves, and have rarely spent much time thinking about Holy Saturday.
It is much easier to skip from Friday to Easter than to dwell on Holy Saturday. It is like, as happened in my life, skipping grief as much as possible. It is easier to run from grief. We prefer to escape it rather than face it.
Holy Saturday reminds me to grieve, to lament. It reminds me to rail against death, the enemy of both God and humanity. It reminds to protest death and renew my hatred for it. It reminds to feel again and sit with the disciples in their despair.
Indeed, to sit with the disciples in their despair is to sit with humanity in the face of death. When we sit at the grave we recognize our powerlessness. We cannot reverse death; we cannot defeat this enemy. Holy Saturday creates a yearning for Easter. We need Easter for without it we are dead.
Today (Friday) we remember the death, tomorrow we sit at the grave, but on Sunday we are renewed by the hope of the resurrection.
Jesus walked that path and we follow him. We, too, will have our Friday, one day we will be entombed in a grave, and–by the grace and mercy of God–on that great day we will rise again to walk with Jesus upon the new heaven and new earth.
That is the meaning of Good Friday, Holy Saturday and Easter.
Like this:
Like Loading...
7 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Christology, Easter, Good Friday, Gospel, Holy Saturday | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 28, 2013
This is the second of two woe oracles in Amos. The first (5:18-20) was followed by a legal indictment (5:21-27). The second (6:1-7) is followed by a judgment pronouncement (6:8-14). Together, as the third major section of Amos, they lament Israel’s sin and warn the nation about impending doom.
The woe oracle in Amos 6 itself falls into three parts: (1) woe to those at ease in Zion and Samaria (1-3), (2) woe to those who live in luxury; and (3) the consequence of exile for their ease and luxury. The “woes” are describing the same group of people, but now includes not only Israel (“Samaria”) but Judah (“Zion”). The “woes” address those who live in ease and security, that is, they sleep on ivory beds, lounge on couches, eat choice meat from their livestock (lamb and veal), sing idle songs, drink wine in bowls rather than cups, anoint themselves with expensive oils, and pay no attention to the injustices within Israel and Israel’s imminent demise. Despite their replescent circumstances the “day of disaster” will come upon them and they will go into “exile.”
It is important to remember the historical setting of the eighth century B.C. The imperial powers early in the century were consumed with their own internal problems which permitted Israel and Judah to rise once again to heights that rivaled Solomon himself. It appears that just as Solomon had controlled Hamath (150 miles north of Dan in modern Syria), extended his influence near the Euphrates (where Calneh [Calno?] was probably located; cf. Isaiah 10:9), and dominated the Philistines located to the southwest of Israel along the coast (including Gath), so Israel and Judah’s influence exerted a similar influence. The early eighth century was a prosperous period. The powerful grew rich and the nation was secure The rise of the Assyrian empire in the mid-eighth century will threaten this “ease” and “security.”
However, these regions are presently or soon to be subject to distress. The Assyrians will conquer these territories as they experience their days of “disaster” and “violence.” Israel is neither “better” nor “greater” than any of these regions though a healthy covenantal relationship would have ensured their greatness and better position. Instead, despite their ease and false sense of security, they, too, like the other regions, will experience the Assyrian onslaught.
This first woe is addressed to both Zion (Judah) and Samaria (Israel), but is particularly directed at their rich and powerful leaders living in the capital cities (Jerusalem and Samaria). Metaphorically, they live high on the heights in their great houses. They are the leaders (notable or distinguished men) to whom Israel “comes” for justice. They occupy the positions of power that discern and execute justice in the land.
The second woe expands on the situation of these leaders. Amos paints a luxurious picture. They soak in the pleasure of their wealth while at the same time neglect the injustice that surrounds them. They revel in their riches and are unmoved by the “ruin of Joseph” (which indicates that Israel is the main target despite the inclusion of Judah in the address).
The description drips with sarcasm. As Niehaus (Minor Prophets, 439) writes, “The privileged classes of Israel were living like kings, and Amos even likens them to a king–David.” They enjoy the leisure, food and comforts that the poor cannot imagine. They flaunt their wealth as they sing “idle songs” (only time this Hebrew word is used in Scripture) and strum their harps. Their lives are frivolous and self-serving. They have no heart for justice but only for their own comforts. They consume and do not share.
“Therefore,” Amos says, “they shall now be the first of those who go into exile.” The leaders (heads) of the nation (6:1) will be at the head of the exilic line. The Assyrians are coming! Exile will extinguish their “revelry.” The party is over. Dancing will turn into mourning.
The judgment pronouncement begins in Amos 6:8 with an three-fold declaration from the mouth of Yahweh:
I abhor the pride of Jacob, and
I hate his strongholds. and
I will deliver up the city.
The word of the Lord begins the judgment announcement followed by the prophet’s comments. The “I’ language is quite strong. The parallel between pride and strongholds reflects the “ease” (pride) and “security” (citadels) Israel felt within the walls of Samaria. God hates the nation’s luxury and its military confidence. The woes against the ease and security reflect God’s abhorrence of their luxury and neglect.
The brief scenario of Amos 6:9-11 underscores how thorough God’s judgment will be. Everyone in the house will die and those who remain will either bury their relatives or cower in fear at the very mention of Yahweh. There is no escape and there is no hiding in the Day of the Lord.
“Behold,” Amos writes. He highlights the reality of the disaster to come. Both great and small houses will tumble–neither the rich nor the poor will escape the judgment to come.
But why will such devastation come upon Israel? Amos provides the rationale in 6:11-14. It is two-fold: (1) because they perverted justice, and (2) because they boasted in their military capabilities.
Amos uses a metaphor to describe the unexpected (even unnatural) situation in Israel. As the people whom God choose from among the whole earth, Israel’s injustice and unrighteousness was as unnatural to their calling as horses running on or oxen plowing a rocky crag. Everyone would be shocked to see horses running or oxen plowing in such circumstances but yet Israel has no fear of God regarding their injustice and unrighteousness. Israel has poisoned the well of God’s kingdom upon the earth. This is a mockery and it must be judged.
Moreover, Israel takes pride in its military power. It appears that Israel had, in its recent prosperity and expansion under the reign of Jeroboam II, captured Lo-debar (meaning, “no thing/word”) and Karnaim (meaning “pair of horns”). The former was located in Gilead a few miles south of the Sea of Galilee while the latter was located on the plain of Bashan between Damascus and the Sea of Galilee. These towns symbolize Israel’s ability to regain territory. They rejoiced in their victory and boasted in their military accomplishments.
But those who boast in such military feats and take pride in their abilities also poisoned the land with injustice. They rejoiced in their military might but failed to grieve over the ruins of their judicial system.
So, judgment is coming. For the second time the prophet uses the conjunction “because” followed by “Behold.” Pay attention! This is the reason God will raise up an empire to swallow you whole. The declaration of Yahweh in 6:8 is paralleled by the declaration in 6:14. A nation will destroy the source of your pride by taking away your wealth and demolishing your citadels. Assyria will “oppress” you just as you have oppressed the poor in your own nation, and the whole of the nation will be engulfed from Lebo-hamath (northern regions of Israel) to the wadi Arabah (the chasm that separates Moab and Edom on the east side of the Dead Sea). No part of Israel will escape; it will experience divine judgment from north to south.
Luxury, military pride and the neglect of the poor are themes that should ring in the ears of a superpower such as the United States. Do we fare any better than Israel under the scrutiny of Yahweh, the God of hosts?
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Amos 6:1-14, Bible-Amos, Israel, Judah, justice, Luxury, Poor, Prophets, Rich, Righteousness, Wealth | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 27, 2013
During the summer of 1858 Tolbert Fanning, President of Franklin College and a leader in Middle Tennessee for over twenty-five years, toured the congregations surrounding Nashville. He recounts this tour in the September 1858 edition of the Gospel Advocate (“Prospects in Middle Tennessee,” pp. 257-263).
He visited Hartsville and Bledsoe’s Creek congregations in Sumner county; Lebanon and Bethel in Wilson county; New Hope in Canon county; Ebenezer, Millersburg and Murfreesboro in Rutherford county, Shelbyville in Bedford county; Fayetteville in Lincoln county; Petersburg, Berea and Lewisburg in Marshall county; Williamsport and Columbia in Maury county; and Nolensville, Hillsboro, Thompson’s Station and Boston in Davidson county.
He drew three conclusions from his tour (pp. 262-263):
1. We have labored in Tennessee in word and teaching for twenty-nine years, and we never witnessed half the anxiety generally to hear and examine the Truth.
2. We never before saw half so many brethren determined to labor for the Lord. More churches are meeting for worship than have been at any previous date engaged.
3. We conscientiously believe that the brethren no where on earth possess a higher appreciation of the Truth, and of spiritual life, than in Tennessee, and with all our reverses the prospects are flattering. A faithful perseverence [sic] in well doing will remove mountains.
The recent “reverses” is an allusion to the devolution of the Nashville church under the leadership of Jesse B. Ferguson who embraced “spiritualism” as a theological method. His youth, popularity, and rhetorical flourish led the church away from its 1820s-1830s roots, according to Fanning.
However, this has occasioned a revival of sorts.
The apostacy and opposition of several popular men, who were numbered with us, have doubtless had the effect to induce the brethren to re-examine the foundation on which we are building, and the result is, that an unusual degree of intelligence is evinced by all who read and study, especially the Divine oracles. We regard it not the least flattery to intimate the probability that there are perhaps more independent thinkers, and devoted and intelligent Christians in Tenn., in proportion to the numbers professing faith, than in any other State in the Union. Our church afflictions have had the effect to weaken the confidence in the infallibility of men, to teach us humility, and we are not sure but they have had an influence to better qualify us for grappling with difficult questions.
Fanning reports that he has seen evidence of a great growth in the “spiritual life” of congregations in Middle Tennessee (p. 257). One of the major pieces of evidence for him was the growing practice of “meeting weekly to worship” (p. 262). It was more common, as Fanning notes, for churches to meet only once a month or only when an Evangelist was in town (as was still the case for some communities like Lebanon). For Fanning the “Lord’s Day” is a critical part of what it means to be a church, to cooperate in the work of the Lord, and to fulfill the mission of Christ.
In future blogs I hope, as time permits, to explore this theological idea as Fanning seeks to inculcate a reverence for the Lord’s Day on the part of Middle Tennessee congregations.
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: Acts of Worship, Assembly, Churches of Christ, Liturgy, Lord's Day, Nashville, Sunday, Tennessee, Tolbert Fanning | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 26, 2013
David Lipscomb wrote a wonderful biography of Tolbert Fanning which was published in Franklin College and Its Influences (Nashville: McQuiddy Printing, 1906). There are many historical gems in this piece, especially concerning the history of the Nashville Church. One particular theme struck me as I read through it again.
After Philip Slater Fall, who had led the church into the Restoration Movement in 1827, left the Nashville Church in 1831, it was led by the elders of the church. The congregation practiced mutual edification and equipped while Tolbert Fanning and Absalom Adams were supported as Evangelists from 1832 to 1836. An “Evangelist” at that time was not the “local preacher,” but one supported to evangelize in the community and region. They were supported to plant churches. The Nashville Church planted, through Fanning, Adams, its elders and others, congregations at Franklin, South Harpeth, Hannah’s Ford, Sam’s Creek, Burnet, Philippi, Sycamore, and other places in the surrounding counties (pp. 48-49).
One of the disappointing aspects of the hiring of Jesse B. Ferguson in 1846 the church became consumed with their lead pastor and the congregation lost its equipping and church planting fervor, according to Lipscomb and Fanning.
When the congregation fell apart–falling from 600 members–it was reorganized with only a couple of dozen members. They asked P. S. Fall to return and he arrived in 1858. By the Civil War the congregation was around 200 about half of what it was when Fall left in 1831. Fall assumed the role of Pastor in th church such that, as Lipscomb remembers it, there were few who would even lead a prayer or give thanks at the table in the congregation. Fall did all the “public work” (p. 58).
This focus is problematic for Lipscomb. To his knowledge in the forty years since the end of the Civil War this pastor-led church “has not sent out a preacher or planted a church” (p. 60). In contrast, Lipscomb began meeting with others in the “suburbs of the city” in 1865 (p. 59). This congregation and its daughters have since established “about twenty churches in the city and suburbs.” The old, established congregation failed to multiply whereas the new plants multiplied.
How did Lipscomb account for the difference? The established downtown church employed a pastor who “preached to it, conducted the worship, and [drew] large audiences composed of talented, wealthy, and fashionable people.” This situation encourages a passivity such that “a church with wealth and numbers and talent and social position and attractive entertainments will be a helpless church” (p. 60).
Lipscomb thinks there is a better model. He planted churches among the “working classes, accustomed to doing their own work at home, and ready to do what was needed to keep te worship alive in their midst.” If churches are to grow and mature spiritually, they must do their own work rather than support “a preacher to minister to and for them” (p. 59). Church planting results when congregations focus on equipping members rather than supporting preachers, according to Lipscomb.
If a congregation among the “common people” is to support a preacher, then they will never “become self-supporting,” and this is unacceptable. “Christ intended his religion for the poor, adapted it to their necessities, and it is a perversion of the church of Christ to so change its character that it cannot live without money from wealthy churches” (pp. 59-60).
Let the church be the church, Lipscomb pleads. “The common people can do their own work at home and can sound the gospel out as no other people can” (p. 60).
Lipscomb believed that he followed Fanning on this points. He summarizes Fanning’s church planting method in this way:
The result of his teaching on the subject of the members doing the work of the church without a regular preaching or pastor was the establishment of a great number of churches in the towns and counties of Tennessee in which the entire services were conducted by the members of the churches; and a preacher was called in only to hold a protracted meeting. This in its beginning does not make a show before the world, nor is it attractive to those who seek entertainment; but it educates the members of the church in the study of the Bible and the practical performance of all the duties connected with the worship and work of the church. This is the best education of the members of the church that they can receive. No one can be said to properly understand a thing until he puts it into practice. No idea or sentiment is made his own until he practices it. The best and most sacred truths, although he may approve and admire them, do not enter into the make up of his character until he practices them in his life; so the reading, commenting on the Scriptures, praying, exhorting, and teaching others is much more effective teaching to those doing this work than hearing others.
Like this:
Like Loading...
7 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: Church Planting, David Lipscomb, Ecclesiology, Ministry, Mutual Edification, Philip S. Fall, Tolbert Fanning | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 22, 2013
Peter Jay Martin, following in the footsteps of his father Joseph Lemuel Martin, authored a book that surveyed Revelation. Published by the McQuiddy Company (the Gospel Advocate publisher) in 1913, it was entitled The Mystery Finished, or The New Heavens and the New Earth. Peter’s book is not as well known as his father’s (The Voice of the Seven Thunders), but it was published in Nashville and advertised in Wallace’s Bible Banner as late as the early 1940s. Both Martins read Revelation, like Alexander Campbell, in the continuous-historical tradition, that is, Revelation is a “historfy of the church of Christ from A. D. 98 to its final trimuph” (Mystery, v).
Both were postmillennialists, like Alexander Campbell. They both envisioned a triumphant church upon the earth before the second coming of Christ.When Satan is released at the end of the 1000 years and the nations gather to assault the Church, then Christ will come to defeat Satan, raise the dead and judge humanity.
But they differed on the nature of the “new heavens and new earth.” P. J. identified the new earth with the postmillennial reign of Christ through the church while J. L. believed the new earth is the new creation of God after the first earth was “gone.” J. L. was uncertain whether the new earth would be created out of the materials of the old or out of nothing, but he was convinced that the new material earth would be the eternal dwelling place of God with humanity.
P. J.’s understanding is more political than J. L.’s. The story of the emerging “new earth” is a “political” one where the “everlasting kingdom cut out of the mountain without hands shall fill the whole earth” (Mystery, 9). According to P.J., the present “political conditions” are demonic (Mystery, 174):
A government of the reich, by the rich, and for the rich, in which women and children, little children, slave in the cruelest form, for the most menial wage; exploited without voice, & forever beyond the hope of redress, because the courts of injustice are moved by the rich, and legislation, desired to control and limit exploitation, is, as was understood before the enactment of these laws, held as unconstitutional, or by injunction without law, leaves the poor wage worker in the position of an outlaw; while, in addition to receiving the lowest remuneration(!) for his labor, he is also made to pay the highest price for the poorest quality of all necessities of life.
The postmillennial kingdom of Christ–which is the new heavens and new earth– will involve a “radical change” such that there will be “no exploitation; no separation of parents and children, no foreclosing of mortgages, no sorrow nor crying” (Mystery, 179). P. J. Martin hopes for a political culture governed by the gospel as the church rather than the nations becomes “the political organization” that is “for the uplifting of the poor and needy and that stands for justice between man and man and between the rich and the poor” (Mystery, 180). In this way Christians will “posses the earth” (Mystery, 183) because in that postmillenial reign “the church has absorbed the world” (Mystery, 196).
P. J. has no confidence that the nations as political entities will serve the poor or place others first. Only people transformed by the gospel are able to serve out the self-emptying spirit that energizes the gospel itself. He writes (Mystery, 199):
…when this old world has been gospelized; ‘when every man seeks not his own, but another’s wealth;’ when men do unto others thus; every man seeking the welfare of the other man, thus fulfiling in acts, in actuality, the Golden Rule in doing unto other as you would have the other do to you, the gospel triumphant from the rivers to the ends of the earth, his will done on earth as in heaven, for which the writer ever prays in an absolute faith, then he has as lief live in Okalahoma as to go to heaven.
When the “whole world,” this world, becomes the “habitation of God” in the postmillennial kingdom, “surely [even] Oklahoma will be good enough for us” (Mystery, 215). This is the “blessed hope of a redeemed earth–’the new heaven and new earth’” (Mystery, 221).
The millennium–which precedes the second coming of Jesus–is a political embodiment of the gospel. There all the hopes of the prophets are fulfilled in the reign of Christ through the triumphant church. The gospel, in this vision, is both “political” and “religious.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
10 Comments | Stone-Campbell, Theology | Tagged: Bible-Revelation, Christology, Church, Gospel, Kingdom, Millennialism, New Heavens and New Earth, Politics, Postmillennialism, Revelation | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 21, 2013
This text begins the third major section of Amos. In the first section (Amos 1-2) the prophet addressed eight nations and climaxed his message with an extended application to Israel. In the second section (Amos 3:1-5:17) the prophet declares the word of the Lord in three brief speeches (“hear this word” in 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1) as he focused on the coming divine visitation, its rationale, and lament. Now, in this third section, Amos offers two prophetic woes against Israel. The first is found in Amos 5:18-27 and the second in Amos 6:1-14.
Each Woe oracle contains two components. Each begins with the Woe itself and is then followed by a further pronouncement. The first Woe (5:18-20) is followed by an indictment (5:21-27) while the second Woe (6:1-7) is followed by a judgment proclamation (6:8-14).
Woe oracles function as either curses, warnings, or both. Woes pronounce judgment but at the same time warn about participation in the community to which the Woe is addressed. Woes, then, are both exhortations and imprecations.
The Woe (5:18-20). The first Woe declares the nature of the “day of Yahweh.” Apparently many are hoping and yearning for that day. They are under the illusion that the day will be good for them. Perhaps they believe that the “day of Yahweh” will be the day when God defeats the nations that surround them or that day will secure their safety, wealth, or power. Whatever they imagined that day to be or its circumstances, they believed its arrival would be in their own self-interest. But they are mistaken and deluded.
For Israel the “day of Yahweh” is darkness rather than light. It will not be redemption but judgment. It will not be a day of light as in the day of creation when everything is new or renewed. Rather, it will be a day of darkness, a day of chaos, death and destruction. This is uncreation, the reversal of creation itself. Though God created Israel, he will now uncreate them.
Further, the effects of the day, like the day itself, will be unavoidable. One might think they could run from it like they might run from a lion, but they will only meet a bear instead. They may even arrive home and think the danger has passed only to be bitten by a snake in the security of their own home. There is no escape. Yahweh’s day will come and it will complete its work despite all human attempts to avoid, flee, or escape it.
The Indictment (5:21-27). The structure of the indictment is: “I hate this…but I want this!” God hates their festive celebrations of divine grace through the sacrificial system, but he wants justice and righteousness to flow over the nation like an everlasting life-giving stream of water.
What does God hate? We must be careful that we do not miss the rhetorical intent here. We could literalize this in such a way that God hates all (1) assemblies, (2) sacrifices, and (3) music. Of course, God does not hate any of these per se. Each of these are present in the life of Israel as prescribed responses to God’s grace in their lives. The Torah directs Israel to assemble (Leviticus 23:26) and sacrifice (Leviticus 1-7). The use of music–both singing and playing–was present at least from the time of David forward (2 Chronicles 7:6; Amos 6:5) and is part of the Psalter (Psalm 150). God did not literally hate or despise these; indeed, God enjoyed them as Israel assembled in the presence of God (Deuteronomy 27:6-7).
So, what does God hate? The contrast answers the question. God hates assemblies that lack justice. He hates Israel’s assemblies because they approach God with hands stained with injustice. God refuses sacrifices from those who do not practice righteousness. God stops his ears to music played by a community that neglects or oppresses the poor. God desires assemblies, sacrifices and music, but they must flow from a people who practice justice and righteousness.
But what is “justice” and “righteousness” in this context? This is the language of Amos 5:7. The words are primarily focused on how the community treats the poor and needy among them. The larger meaning is ethical. Justice has a broad sense of practicing the ethical intent of the Torah while righteousness has the sense of doing what is right (ethical). In general, God desires a people whose ethic reflects God’s own and the practical effects of that lived ethic flows like water through a thirsty community.
The practice of injustice subverts true religion and invalidates religiosity . Assemblies, sacrifices and music offered by those who fail to practice righteousness are rejected.
The rhetorical question of Amos 5:25 solidifies the point. The expected answer to the question is “No.” Amos believes that during the forty years of wilderness wandering Israel offered no sacrifices. It appears the sacrificial system was designed for living in the land of promise and not for the wilderness experience. Whatever the history, Amos’s point is rather obvious. God’s covenantal relationship with Israel did not depend on their assemblies, sacrifices and music. Rather, it is expressed through covenant faithfulness to justice and righteousness.
Indeed, Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness is not only about injustice and unrighteousness but also their idolatry. Whether Israel in the wilderness (Acts 7:42-43), in the present, in the future exile “beyond Damascus” (Assyria) worshipped the Babylonian gods Sikkuth and Kaiwan, they will be exiled because of their covenant unfaithfulness. They did not honor the name of Yahweh who is the God of the armies of heaven. Yahweh is the Creator God who rules the nations. To worship any other god is to break covenant.
This Woe oracle speaks to the heart of worship. God delights in assemblies, sacrifices of praise, and music, but these are expressions of worship rather than its heart. The heart of worship is the practice of justice and righteousness; it is a sacrificed life devoted to good works. God delights in praise and sacrifices of assembled practitioners of justice, but despises those who assemble before him with spoils gained from the neglect or the oppression of the poor.
Let whoever has an ear to hear, listen to the word of the Lord.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Amos, Amos 5:18-27, Assembly, Bible-Amos, justice, Music, Poor, Righteousness, Sacraments, Sacrifices, Worship | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 19, 2013
1938-1939 were significant years for the Churches of Christ. In 1938 E. W. McMillan, one time chair of the Bible department at Abilene Christian College, began preaching for the Central Church of Christ in Nashville, TN and in January 1939 assumed the editorship of the Christian Leader which was now under new management (Clinton Davidson). The journal intended to reflect a kinder, gentler approach to Christian thought, practice and fellowship. In October 1938 the 20th Century Christian began in Nashville under the leadership of Norvel Young among others. J. P. Sanders, the preacher for the Hillsboro Church of Christ, was the first editor. The magazine intended to promote undenominational Christianity but it a kind spirit that emphasized the practical as well as the pietistic spirituality. Even further, the Gospel Advocate was under new editorship as B. C. Goodpasture took the reins in 1939.
In July 1938, Foy E. Wallace launched the Bible Banner which intended to combat the “general softness” which pervades among the “plus-mouthed and velvet-tongued moderns among us” (Bible Banner [July 1938] 2). Wallace was set for the defense of the gospel and would leave no stone unturned as he rooted out “Bollites” (among others) from the schools and leading churches of the Restoration Movement. In the spring of 1939 Wallace held a meeting at the Chapel Avenue Church of Christ in Nashville. One of his sermons was entitled “What Must the Church in Nashville Do to be Saved?” Part of his answer was that they must dismiss the Bollites from their colleges (aiming at David Lipscomb College where Ijams was president) and stop practicing the Social Gospel (aiming at the Central Church of Christ where McMillan preached).
Further, in 1938 N. B. Hardeman returned to Nashville for another “Tabernacle Meeting” at the Ryman Auditorium. Unlike previous meetings where the target audience was the community-at-large, this time the audience was the Churches of Christ. Hardeman dealt with issues that faced the “brotherhood,” particularly premillennialism.
This brief background provides the context for the article by J. D. Tant copied below. (For more information about this background, see Richard Hughes, Reviving the Ancient Faith, chapter 9.) Tant’s article is illuminating on several counts if one remembers its context.
In particular, Tant sees the issue of “sect baptism” or “Baptist baptism” (the rebaptism question) is still alive. In fact, it needs to be publicly debated in Nashville in order to silence its promoters. Far from being put to rest back in the 1910s, the issue still festers, at least in the eyes of Tant.
Further I would suggest that the tensions present here are the vestiges of the conflict between the Tennessee Tradition and the Texas Tradition. Many of those associated with the new Christian Leader had their roots in the Nashville Bible School and the Tennessee Tradition.
Here is the article. Soak in a bit of history. Brackets [] are my own comments added to the article.
J. D. Tant, “On the Firing Line Again,” Firm Foundation 56 (6 June 1939) 3.
After being out of work for seven months, by paralysis, I am glad to state that I am on the firing line again.
Just closed my second meeting in Oklahoma, and am booked for one more meeting in Oklahoma, three in Tennessee, one in Texas, one meeting and two debates in California. Then back to the farm.
This letter will also inform my old time friend, Brother [F. B.] Srygley, that I am still able to kick with both feet, and if he had been kicking with both feet all the tie, we would not now have the departures from God’s word in Tennessee that we have.
I notice we now have in Tennessee a new paper which wants to be soft and not preach it straight like the Advocate once did [referring to 20th Century Christian]. I also heard that one church [Central Church] and their preacher [McMillian] in Nashville absolutely refused to announce Hardeman’s great meeting in that city. But through some means the meeting leaked out, and more than six thousand people heard Hardeman preach the gospel. If that preacher and that large church had announced the meeting and worked in it, no doubt, ten thousand would have attended. We are taught in the word of the Lord not to put a tumbling block in a brother’s way. But many good brethren forget that when they oppose a meeting.
I am also receiving another paper with a soft pedal to drown out the Advocate [referring to the Christian Leader]. As Brethren Sam Hall, G. C. Brewer, Dr. Ijams, A. B. Lipscomb, Adamson, J. P. Sewell, and others are all gone over to the new paper they will not give such strong medicine now.
Look out for Brothers Boll and Klingman [both premillennialists] to come next. In five years I look for the new paper and Word and Work to be consolidated. Now if we can get Jim Allen [editor of the Apostolic Times in Nashville, JMH] and Goodpasture [editor of the Gospel Advocate, JMH] to consolidate it will be fine.
As some of the contributors to the new paper are now endorsing sect baptism, and calling on Baptists to lead prayer in their meetings, it will be necessary for me and all lovers of the truth to kick with both feet when I get back to Tennessee.
So I am making a standing challenge to all you boys: Will any, or all of you affirm that baptism as taught and practiced by the Baptist church is scriptural, and all who have it should be welcomed into fellowship of the church of Christ? I want one debate held in the Central Church of Christ, and one in the Russell Street church in Nashville. Will these boys defend their practice? I’ll wait and see.
After my last meeting in Oklahoma, wife and I had a kind invitation from the Highland church in Abilene, where Homer Hailey preaches, to attend their meeting, and hear our son, Yater Tant, in a gospel meeting. We both went, and were treated kindly along all lines, and shall ever cherish with love and appreciation the members of the church there.
Yater is a strong gospel preaching, yet young. In ten years he will stand up with N. B. Hardeman, A. G. Freed, F. W. Smith, Foy Wallace as one of our sgtronges men.
I was invited while at Abilene, to preach one sermon, and I did so to a large congregation. When I saw such men as Charles Roberson, J. F. Cox, President of Abilene Christian College, Harvey Scott, Homer Hailey, and fifteen to twenty more up-to-date preachers sit at my feet and learn wisdom from me, I felt like if only had my degree in penmanship, I would be in the ring as a big preacher. But such is life.
I used to be a preacher, but I am a farmer now. But I am not too good to go back to preaching if I can get me a degree and find a located job that suits me.
But withal I had a find [sic] time and hope to visit the college again at Abilene.
I hear that Foy Wallace’s write-up of Abilene College had a wonderful influence for good [referring to Wallace's opposition to put Colleges in church budgets and his response to a circular letter defending Abilene on several counts], and we should rejoice and give God the glory.
San Benito, Texas.
Like this:
Like Loading...
6 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Bible Banner, Christian Leader, E. W. McMillan, Foy E. Wallace Jr., J. D. Tant, N. B. Hardeman, Nashville, Rebaptism, Tennessee, Tennessee Tradition, Texas Tradition | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 18, 2013
Nancy Koester’s The History of Christianity in the United States (Fortress, 2007) is my current supplementary text in my undergraudate Stone-Campbell Movement course at Lipscomb University. I use it to provide the American context for Stone-Campbell history.
I was surprised to read this sentence in the book (p. 61): ”[Alexander Campbell] also rejected the doctrine of Trinity because he did not find it in the Bible.” She would have been more accurate if she had written that he rejected the term “Trinity,” but Campbell did not reject the theological idea of the tri-unity of the Christian God.
For example, in a series entitled “Elementary Views,” Campbell summarizes what he thinks is the heart of the Christian faith (Millennial Harbinger [July 1854] 367):
One Jehovah in three personalities, and one Mediator in three offices constitute the true faith and the true religion of the Christian Church, or the Reign of Heaven. And these are the centres [sic] of the Jewish and Christian dispensations of the doctrine of human redemption, in its typical and anti-typical manifestations. This is·the Alpha and the Omega of the Bible. On this broad, and strong, and enduring basis, the new heavens and the new earth, and all their tenantry will rest forever.
Campbell’s Protestant “orthodoxy” on Trinity and Christology is also obvious in this selection from “Millennium” (MH [December 1856] 700-701):
Our creed as christians is drawn up by a council of thirteen apostles presided over by the Lord Jesus Christ, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is in contrast with the Theocracy, properly set forth as the Christocracy. The central idea of the Jewish Religion is one Jehovah—absolute in all his perfections, self-existent, eternal and immutable—of whom are all things. The central idea of christianity is “one Lord Jesus the Christ; by and for whom are all things.” He is infinitely Divine and perfectly human, possessing all Divinity and all humanity in one personality. A perfect God man, “the only begotten of the father full of grace and Truth.” His sacrifice “expiated” and took out of God’s way and out man’s way “the sin of the world.” “By offering up of himself” on the cross on Mount Calvery [sic], “he made an end of all sin offerings,” introduced “an everlasting justification” or righteousness for fallen humanity; and “perfected forever all them that are sanctified through the faith” in his person, offices, and work.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God in another personality, equally Divine, and equally co-operant with the Father and the word incarnate, who illuminates, sanctifies, and perfects every sinner in whose heart he becomes the Holy Guest; sometimes improperly called, in our common vernacular, “Holy Ghost.”
It is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ that any sinner, can be pardoned, justified, sanctified, and perfected in holiness and in happiness—for his blood alone can justify God in justifying any penitent, believing sinner.
In these views, the whole Revelation of God centres [sic]. Jesus the Christ being the centre of that circle, which is itself the centre of all the spiritual systems of the universe. His blood, alone, which is his human life, on the altar of Jehovah, becomes the justifying cause of the justifying grace vouchsafed to fallen man, through the gospel of the reign of heaven.
Alexander Campbell considered himself in the mainline of Protestant “Orthodoxy” on the traditional questions of Trinity and Christology. His problems with Protestantism were significant, but these were not among them except the use of scholastic and creedal terminology as tests of communion and modes of understanding.
Like this:
Like Loading...
6 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: Alexander Campbell, Christology, Creed, Creeds, Stone-Campbell Movement, Trinity | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 16, 2013
I’m seeking some help regarding G. C. Brewer’s (1884-1956) undertstanding of the earth. Concerning Isaiah 65, 66, 2 Peter 3 and Revelation 21, Brewer wrote (Gospel Advocate [4 April 1946], 314):
“The New Testament references describe a condition that will come after the destruction of the present heaven and earth. That this earth—this existing order of things, including the material earth—is to be destroyed, Peter tells us in terms we cannot misunderstand. That this earth was cursed because of sin and that thorns and briars and noxious weeds came as a result of the curse seems plain also. (Gen. 3:17-19.) Beasts of prey—ferocious and destructive animals—seem to have come after the curse also (Gen. 2:18-20.) And that the earth itself is to be redeemed from the curse seems to be the teaching of the Bible—seems to be the promise of God. (Rom. 8:20-22; 2 Peter 3:13; Daniel 7:14-22.) Man was given dominion over the earth, but transferred his allegiance to Satan, and the curse came, bringing suffering, sorrow, and death. But Christ came to remove the curse and to bring “joy to the earth.” When the earth is redeemed, it will first be renovated by fire. Then there will be a new heaven and a new earth. Then the meek shall inherit the earth. (Ps. 37:9-11; Matt. 5:5; Rev. 5:10; 21:1-7; 2 Peter 3:10-13.)”
That is the summary at the beginning of the article where he asserts, what seems to him, obvious realities in Scripture. He is responding to a question about the meaning of the “new heavens and new earth.” The rest of the article pursues several trajectories. I have reproduced below his final paragraph which contains his conclusion:
“But there is another view as to when the promise that Peter mentions was given. This view is that the promise of a new heaven and a new earth was included in the /322/ promises God made to Abraham and that Isaiah and all others who mention the new heavens and new earth were simply referring to what had been the hope and expectation of God’s people from Abraham down; that this is the heavenly country that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were seeking.
“But now we must try to find where and when that promise of a heavenly country and the city that hath the foundations was given to Abraham. It must have been in that land promise (Gen. 15:18; 17:7, 8), though it would be hard for us to see it without the aide of the New Testament. The city promise must be that made in these words: ‘Thy seed shall possess the gate [the city] of his enemies.” (Gen. 22:17.)”
“Paul says (Rom. 4:13-16) that the promise to Abraham was that he and his seed should be heirs of the world, and he says this promise must be made sure to all his spiritual seed. We, then, who are by faith children of Abraham and heirs of the promise (Gal. 3:28-29) are yet to inherit the world, though it must be the new earth. We will never get this one. Even Abraham himself was a pilgrim and a stranger on this earth.”
It appears to me that Brewer believes that the Abrahamic inheritance is fulfilled when the saints inhabit a renovated earth. This is consistent with Lipscomb and Harding. I did not expect this from Brewer, so I wonder if I am misreading in some way.
What do you think? And do you know of other occasions when Brewer discusses this?
Like this:
Like Loading...
7 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: Eschatology, G. C. Brewer, New Creation, New Heavens and New Earth, Stone-Campbell Movement | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 14, 2013
This is the third of Amos’s three prophetic speeches against Israel. They each begin with “Hear this word” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). The first announced God’s coming visit in judgment against Israel. The second highlighted divine patience and persistence in seeking to turn Israel from its sins. The third is a divine admonition and lament for Israel.
Harold Shank (College Press NIV Commentary), adapting a chiastic outline from Waard in Vetus Testamentum (1997) 170-177, suggests this structure for Amos’s oracle:
First Lament (1-3)
First Admonition (4-6)
First Accusation (7)
Hymn (8a)
Yahweh is the Name (8b)
Hymn (9)
Second Accusation (10-13)
Second Admonition (14-15)
Second Lament (16-17)
This chiastic structure climaxes in the announcement of the name of Israel’s God in 5:8b. This the centerpiece of the oracle. “Yahweh is his name!” In effect, this is a doxological battle cry. The language is exactly the same as in Exodus 15:3: ”Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.” This is the God of the Exodus who delivered Israel from Egyptian slavery (cf. Amos 3:1). The Warrior God who fought to deliver Israel now warns Israel about the coming disaster.
Hymns. “Yahweh is his name” is also a doxological praise (cf. Amos 9:6). The exclamation is surrounded by hymnic lines that remind Israel that Yahweh creates both good and evil (disaster; cf. Isaiah 45:7; Amos 9:4). Yahweh made the constellations that appear in the heavens–Pleiades is part of the constellation Taurus and Orion (also known as “the hunter”) is a bright constellation. Both are visible to the naked eye (Job 9:9; 38:31). Yahweh also rules over the morning and night–God turns the darkness into morning and the day into night. God rules over good and evil (chaos), over light and darkness. Yahweh also rules over the chaos of the seas; indeed, Yahweh pours out the water upon the earth. God is sovereign over chaos. With chaos Yahweh destroys the strong, even those fortified behind their seemingly impregnable walls (fortresses). The chaos that will envelope Israel is no coincidence; it is the work of the Creator God who releases the forces of chaos against Israel.
Accusations. Israel’s problem is “justice” and “righteousness.” Just as God “turns deep darkness into the morning” (5:8), so Israel “turns justice in wormwood” or bitterness (5:7)–the same Hebrew verb is used in both instances. Israel’s core problem is injustice; this is the accusation upon which their destruction turns. But what is the injustice? While the first accusation introduces the idea (5:7), the second accusation articulates the specifics (5:10-13).
The second Hebrew term in Amos 5:10 is the next to last Hebrew term in Amos 5:12–”gate.” Everything Amos notes between those two terms happens at the “gate.” The city gate is the place where the elders and other leaders met to consider issues of justice and adjudicate legal problems (cf. Deuteronomy 21:19; 22:15; 25:7; Job 5:4; 31:21; Psalm 127:5). But justice does not prevail in the gates of Israel. Rather, they
hate whoever reproves them
abhor whoever speaks the truth
trample on the poor
exact portions [taxes?] on grain from the poor
afflict the righteous
turn aside the needy
The above six lines appear in three pairs. The first pair emphasizes the inability of the leaders to hear the truth; they cannot stand to be corrected. They are not interested in the truth but in profit. The second pair specifies a particular way in which the poor are mistreated. The leaders exact “portions” from the poor. In some way, they demand the poor make payments of grain in order to continue in their livelihood. This may be excessive rents on land owned, perhaps previously seized through unjust means, by the wealthy. It may be excessive taxation that hurts the poor. The third pair reminds the reader of Amos 2:7 where the poor are trampled and the afflicted are turned aside (same Hebrew verb as here in 5:12). The same pair of words–righteous and needy–also appear in Amos 2:6 and 8:6. “Needy” is a general synonym for poor (cf. Isaiah 14:30; Jeremiah 29:16). The city leaders are not willing to hear the plight of the poor and give them justice. Instead, they take bribes from the wealthy and dismiss the poor.
These conditions create societal chaos at many levels. One is specifically noted in Amos 5:13. The prudent (or wise) will remain silent during such chaotic and unpredictable times. When justice does not prevail–when evil reigns–the wise will keep to themselves. It is too dangerous to speak and speaking is ineffective. This is a social consequence of pervasive injustice. This silence is not necessarily sanctioned, but it is acknowledged. This is descriptive rather than prescriptive.
The accusation includes consequences. Though they have built “hewn” stone houses and planted extravagant or desirable vineyards, they will never enjoy them. Their wealth and power enabled them to build houses out of “hewn” stone which assumes skilled labor. Such homes and vineyards were status symbols in ancient Israel. But, ultimately, their injustices will not pay out. Their sins will found them out.
Admonitions. ”Seek” is the key word in the admonitions. It is used four times in Amos 5:4-6, 14. It is an aggressive term that reflects orientation and direction. What or whom will one seek? The choice is laid out for Israel: seek Yahweh or seek Bethel (including its complements–Gilgal and Beersheba). The former leads to life, but the latter leads to exile, destruction, and death. The fire of destruction that characterized the consequences described in Amos 1-2 returns in Amos 5:6.
Life, however, is offered. The verb is used three times in Amos 5:4, 6, 14. While the nation has no hope, this does not translate into hopelessness. The Lord may yet be gracious in astounding ways, especially to the “remnant of Joseph.” Even as the Lord passes through Israel and leaves destruction in the wake, God’s grace will overflow to the remnant that seeks God. Amos once again reminds Israel of God’s faithfulness by using language that evokes memories of the Patriarchs. Just as God was present among them, so he will be “with” those who seek him (cf. Genesis 12:4; 17:3; 26:24; 39:3). This is the covenantal promise to which God is faithful.
Seeking Yahweh, however, is not merely avoiding idolatrous worship at Bethel. It is to love good and hate evil (Amos 5:15). Specifically, it is to “establish justice in the gate.” In other words, Israel must practice justice in its courts, uphold the rights of the poor, and serve the needy. One cannot seek Yahweh when they ignore or neglect the needs of the poor. Seeking Yahweh includes practicing social justice.
Laments. Israel will weep and mourn because, Yahweh declares, “I will pass through your midst” (5:17; cf. Amos 8:10). This is ominous language. In Israel’s past history, Yahweh “passed through the land of Egypt” in order to kill Egypt’s firstborn (Exodus 12:12, 23). Now Yahweh will pass through Israel with devastating effect. Every vineyard, farm, street and square (open spaces near the city gate) will be filled with lamentation.
But Amos himself, as the mouthpiece of Yahweh, begins the lament. The speech opens with God’s own lament over Israel. Even though Israel yet exists as a nation, the prophetic lament assumes its fall is a reality. Israel will not rise again as there is no one to help her. 90% of Israel–a metaphorical number–will disappear. Though they send out an army of 1000, only 100 will return. Israel is about to face a slaughter.
Yahweh does not deliver this message with a smile. God is not happy about these circumstances. Nevertheless, the God who loves righteousness must prosecute injustice in the land. God will act; God will set things right. Though patient and longsuffering, God ultimately does what is right.
God’s own lament evidences the divine pain as Yahweh grieves over Israel and, at the same time, Yahweh grieves for the poor and needy who have suffered at the hands of the powerful in Israel.
Amos calls us to grieve with him over both the sins and destruction of the wicked. The prophet calls us to social justice. “Seek good and hate evil” is to “seek” Yahweh.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Biblical Texts | Tagged: Amos, Amos 5:1-17, Bible-Amos, Injustice, justice, Minor Prophets, Needy, Poor, Prophets, Righteousness, social justice | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 12, 2013
In a previous blog I copied a 1933 article by J. D. Tant in which he honored the work of the Firm Foundation over its first fifty years. He believed the FF had served the church well in winning the battle over rebaptism among other issues.
Fanning Yater Tant, J. D.’s son, wrote a similar article in 1957. He believd that the FF was instrumental in the battle over rebaptism and that “sect baptism” was defeated because the “truth” was rather obvious. Below is his article (Fanning Yater Tant, “‘Pride, Prejudice, and Papers’,” Gospel Guardian 9.11 [18 July 1957] 4):
Elsewhere in this issue, and under the above caption, will be found an editorial from the Firm Foundation of May 28, 1957. This is the kind of writing that made this great paper a bulwark of strength in days gone by; it is the kind of Christian journalism that is all too rare in our generation. Brother Reuel Lemmons, editor of the paper, has sounded an appeal to truth, common sense, and straight thinking that ought to challenge every Christian in the land.
It should be remembered that the Firm Foundation was born for this very thing. Old brother “Aus” McGary became convinced that Brother David Lipscomb and brethren east of the river generally were in error in their teaching and practice in the matter of “sect” baptism. While the pages of the Gospel Advocate were open to McGary to refute this teaching, he nevertheless felt that a more effective campaign for truth could be waged if he had his own medium. In the heat of controversy, the Firm Foundaiton had her “baptism” into the realms of Christian journalism. (This editor has some reason to know about that battle: His maternal grandmother, Fannie Mills Yater, living at Hartsville, Tennessee, was an ardent admirer of David Lipscomb and Tolbert Fanning, even naming one of her sons Tolbert Fanning Yater. The family moved to Bosque County, Texas in 1878, just when the “sect baptism” issue was beginning to get hot. When the Firm Foundation began, Grandmother Yater read every issue of it, as well as continuing to read the Gospel Advocate. She became convinced, totally and forever, that A. McGary had the better of the argument with Lipscomb — and persuaded the brethren in the little congregation where she worshipped to get a preacher named J. D. Tant, who shared McGary’s views on “sect” baptism, to hold a meeting. He came, met Nannie Yater, married her a couple of years later, and raised a family — of whom this editor is one of which.)
That battle over “sect baptism” raged for years — through the papers, in public and private debates, in gospel meetings, and just about everywhere else that brethren got together for any length of time. And out of controversy — came TRUTH! As a matter of fact, the extreme elements in both groups gave a little. The Gospel Advocate brethren gradually got away from their insistence that “the vast majority” of people who had been immersed had been scripturally baptized; and the brethren who were with Brother McGary little by little, began to concede that in some rare, isolated case it might conceivably be possible that an individual had understood God’s teaching on baptism, and had been scripturally baptized by a denominational preacher, if he could have found such a preacher with sufficient courage to defy denominational doctrine and practice.
But the Firm Foundation almost certainly saved the day in that battle. By her courageous stand for truth, and her insistence on free, open, and unfettered discussion of the issue, the church was finally brought to a general agreement and understanding as to Bible teaching on this vital matter. Let it be devoutly hoped that this editorial by Brother Lemmons will be the clarion call, sounding the opening of a new phase in current discussions; and that once again we will see this great, old paper stand like a bulwark against the threatening tidal wave of innovations and human organizations in the church which some are so ardently defending and promoting.
Three generations of Tants testify to the influence of the FF in the rebaptism question. Fannie Mills Yater, raised in the heartland of Tennessee, was convinced by the FF, J. D. Tant waged the battle through the FF, and Fanning Yater Tant observed its conclusion. What was a minority position in 1878 had become the majority position by 1957.
It seems to me, contrary to Fanning Yater Tant, that neither side (extremists on either end) gave very much ground. On the contested point–must one know that baptism is for the remission of sins for an acceptable immersion–neither gave ground.
Like this:
Like Loading...
3 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: Austin McGary, Fanning Yater Tant, Firm Foundation, Gospel Guardian, J. D. Tant, Rebaptism | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 11, 2013
While reading parts of the Firm Foundation for a research project, I rediscovered the following article by J. D. Tant (“Looking Back Fifty Years,” Firm Foundation 50.3 [17 January 1933] 2).
In this article he highlights how the Firm Foundation had served the church over the past fifty years. In his view, the periodical saved the church from extremes–the extreme of the “digressives” and also “sect baptism” as well as the extreme of those who oppose Sunday schools and multiple cups for the Lord’s Supper. He stresses opposition to digressives and sect baptism as the origins of the polemical advocacy of the Firm Foundation.
In his estimation, “[Austin] McGary was to Texas what D[avid] Lipscomb was to Tennessee when the society tried to capture Tennessee.”
It is an interesting brief analysis from one who lived through those first fifty years of the Firm Foundation. Here is the article:
I notice last issue of the Firm Foundation shows fifty years on the firing line.
Few of our gospel preachers today have any conception of the work and battles the pioneer preachers had fifty years ago.
I remember well the first issue of the Foundation. It was brought out in pamphlet form–five hundred copies by A. McGary, and after mailing out copies to all he cold think of he pushed the rest under his bed as he had no one to send them to.
The doctrine of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism created as much stir among my brethren as Campbell did among the denominations when he began to argue to drop all creeds and come back to the Bible.
For years and years my brethren had been teaching in Texas that man instead of God must be the judge of man’s baptism, and all who had been baptized by immersion and were satisfied were fit subjects for the kingdom of heaven.
When McGarvy began to teach that all laws, human or devine [sic], are predicated upon design, and for man to change the design God had placed upon his laws caused said law to cease to be a law of God, a cannon seemed turned loose.
About this time I. C. Stone of Indiana, A. J. MCarty, John S. Durst, J. W. Strode, “Weeping Joe” Harding, E. Hansbroough, Jack Larimore, J. W. Jackson, Brice Wilmeth, J. R.Will,A. J. Clark, William McIntire, D. Pennington, J. W. Denton and a host of other strong preachers took up the battle cry, and none on the side of sect baptism were able to meet their arguments. Later on, among the younger set, Joe S. Warlick (the ablest debater we ever had in the South) H. G. Oliver, J. W. Chism, W. L. Swiney, Will Stafford, U. G. Wilkerson, J. F. Grubbs, W. F. Ledlow, anda large number of younger men saw the consistancy [sic] of McGary’s position and fell into line. None of these the world could meet in debate.
As I had come into the church of Christ (as I thought) on my Methodist baptism I lined up with T. R. Burnett, D. Lipscomb, J. A. Harding, A. J. Bush, W. K. Homan and others to fight on the other side, trying to show that McGary was wrong.
When J. F. Grubbs showed me that I could not make a Bible argument in favor of sect baptism I then deserted those brethren who held to it and rode a Texas pony one hundred and twenty-seven miles to get John Durst to baptize me.
About this time the church of Christ was divided in Texas by the digressives pulling off at the state meeting in Austin in 1886. and starting to build up a sister church among other human churches where they could have hired pastors, missionary societies, instrumental music, and other human devices to pull disciples after them.
About that time Brother W. J. Rice, who had been excluded from the church at Covington, Indiana, so I heard, came to Texas and stared his “order of worship,” and pulled off many disciples.
Later on Brother J. P. Nall and Brother Ament started their “formal confession” faction which operated for a while, killed a few churches and then died.
N. L. Clark, one of the ablest Bible teachers in Texas, and Brother J. N. Cowen started their hobby about anti-Sunday school, and anti-class and anti-literature foolishness, divided many churches, did much harm, and no good. But they have divided into the one cup and the two-cup, the grape juice, and the fermented-wine worshippers, and are kept so busy trying to straighten out the kinks in each other that it will be a few years until they will be forgotten and their baleful influence will be in the past.
Fifty years ago we had fewer than fifty preachers in Texas, including all the digressive preachers, and fewer than twenty thousand members, and not a located preacher among the loyal members. Many predicted that the Bible principles as advocated by these godly men would soon cease. When the digressive thought they would capture all the churches in Texas and pull them over to the society McGary and the other loyal preachers met them on all parts of the battle field [sic]. McGary was to Texas what D. Lipscomb was to Tennessee when the society tried to capture Tennessee.
But McGary, Jackson, Durst, McCarty, Dr. Herndon, and Handsborough have all crossed the divide and gone on, yet I am glad their work continues. With fifteen hundred churches of Christ in Texas today and almost a thousand loyal preachers I am impressed that their labors were not in vain and that God is on their side.
While I have been on the firing line fifty-one years, and am perhaps the only old-time preacher now living who fought side by side with those godly men, I do not think it amiss to remind the young men many of whom are hunting for located jobs, that you know nothing of hardships to be a gospel preacher as we “old timers” do. Many, many nights I have slept on the ground by the side of A. McGary, or Jack McCarty going to or from our appointments. I have had to swim the creek as many as seven times in order to reach my appointment to preach. I have traveled horseback forty miles a night, laid down my saddle blanket, slept two or three hours and wold get up and go on.
The first three years of my preaching life I was not paid one cent. The fourth year was paid $9.75, the fifty year $92.00 and the sixth year 0235 [sic], yet I continued to preach. Have held a number of meetings and pick as much as three hundred pounds of cotton every day, preach every night cut out cotton picking on Saturday afternoon to baptize all who had made the confession.Had to pick cotton and do all kinds of work to support my father and mother and sister. Yet I continued to preach. Have walked fifty miles to meet my appointment because I had nothing to ride, and gone hungry many times because I did not have twenty-five cents to buy my dinner. But through all these things God has preserved me wonderfully, and my physical health and my mental powers are a [sic] good as thirty years ago.
I hope my experience will be an inspiration to some young preacher, and help him to keep on against obstacles, knowing for whom he is laboring. Also hope our job hunting preachers many see that much good can be accomplished without a “located job.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Stone-Campbell | Tagged: Austin McGary, Churches of Christ, David Lipscomb, Firm Foundation, J. D. Tant, Missionary Society, Rebaptism, Stone-Campbell, Stone-Campbell Movement | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 8, 2013
While David Lipscomb, editor the Gospel Advocate after the Civil War (beginning in 1866), opposed rebaptizing those who were immersed to obey God though they did not understand its design for the remission of sins, the original editors of the GA thought differently. While reading through the 1855-1861 GA, I ran across the following two statements from Tolbert Fanning (David Lipscomb’s mentor) and William Lipscomb (David Lipscomb’s older brother).
1. Fanning, “Immersion of Baptists,” Gospel Advocate 5 (November 1859) 346
Bro. N. W. Smith, of Georgia, recently immersed some eleven Baptists into Christ. This he did because their first immersion was only intended to bring them into the Baptist church. Whilst we do not desire to debate the necessity of re-baptism, we have no doubt it is as fully the duty of persons who are baptized without understanding the truth, as it was for the twelve who were taught, and no doubt, baptized by Apollos, to be baptized by the authority of Jesus Christ after they heard Paul preach. We do not intimate that the candidate must understand every thing regarding the ordinance of baptism to render the act valid in the sight of heaven; but our position is, that he must know some scriptural statement of the matter in order to acceptable obedience. If he should not know baptism is in order to the remission of sins, it may answer to understand that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved, or in being buried in Christ and rising again, we put off the old man and put on Christ; but he who is put into the water because he is pardoned, has got religion–been regenerated and made and heir of God, evidently does not honor Jesus Christ, or in any sense obey the gospel. No one in profound ignorance can walk in the light; but there is neither occasion of darkness or stumbling, if we follow the dictates of the Good Spirit.
2. William Lipscomb, “Re-Immersion,” Gospel Advocate 4 (June 1858) 187-188.
Asked whether one “baptised [sic] by a baptism in the baptist faith, in the full sense of the term” is also “baptised [sic] into Christ,” William Lipscomb–the brother of David Lipscomb and co-editor of the Gospel Advocate–replied:
Reply.–No service is acceptable to Heaven which is not performed with a full understanding of its purposes. No individual who goes through the form of immersion without understanding its meaning is in the least profitted [sic] thereby. While we are disposed to think that many who are under the various systems taught in our land are better than the systems themselves, and many are frequently immersed under them who do believe that immersion is for the remission of sins, yet the authority of Scripture is for re-immersion where the intention of act was not clearly understood. It is for each individual to determine for him or herself whether the performance was in obedience to the word of God, or according to the theory of some human party.
This is fascinating on a couple points. First, though Fanning was quite aware of John Thomas’s controversy with Alexander Campbell over rebaptism in the 1830s–even noticing his visit to Nashville in the 1850s, he sided with Thomas on the rebaptism question. This was a minority position within the Stone-Campbell Movement at the time. Second, this highlights the fact that David Lipscomb did not simply uncritically inherit his position. It would seem his position was forged in an environment where his older brother and his mentor were on the opposite side of the question. Lipscomb’s position was no untested “denominational” hangover or lag. It was his considered conviction.
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Baptism, Churches of Christ, David Lipscomb, Gospel Advocate, Rebaptism, Tolbert Fanning, William Lipscomb | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 5, 2013
Ever since the emergence of open theism on the evangelical scene in the 1990s, there have been several attempts to saddle Arminianism with the theological interests of open theism. On the one hand, Reformed theologians find it to their advantage to identify Arminianism and open theism, if for no other reason than the slippery slope argument has a concrete example. Open theists, on the other hand, seek some historical legitimacy through identification with Arminianism if not also some kind of theological cover. As a result, whether one is seeking to delegitimize open theism (as Reformed theologians intend) or to legitimize it (as open theists intend), it is to the mutual benefit of Reformed theology and open theism to classify Arminianism and open theism together.
Arminius affirms with Reformed theology a “meticulous providence” where God has such sovereignty over evil such that no evil act is autonomous and uncircumscribed by God’s intent for good. God is so sovereign that God concurs with the act itself such that its effect has specific meaning and significance. This is a critical difference between classic Arminianism and open theism.
On the other hand, classic Arminianism and open thesim share a common conviction that human freedom is, in some sense, libertarian rather than compatibilist. God permits sin; God is not the primary cause of sin. In the permission of sin, according to Arminius, God does not concur in the efficacy of the act though God does concur in the ontology and capacity of the act. Here open theists and classic Arminians stand together.
Historically, there are at least three positions in this discussion with Classic Arminianism holding the “middle ground.” (1) The Sovereignty of the Divine Decrees where God has decreed from eternity what will happen within human history (Reformed scholasticism); (2) The Sovereignty of Divine Engagement where God is active, or concurs, in every event within human history such that every event has divine purpose and meaning though without divine decrees determining what will happen within human history (classic Arminianism); and (3) The Sovereignty of the Divine Project where God, for the sake of the divine project risks the effects and meaning of human history in such a way that it is beyond divine management for the greater good but does not endanger God’s ultimate goal or project (open theism).
These are some paragraphs taken from my article published last year as “Classical Arminianism and Open Theism: A Substantial Difference in Their Theologies of Providence,” Trinity Journal 33ns (2012) 3-18. The article is now available for reading through the above link.
Like this:
Like Loading...
2 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Arminianism, Arminius, Calvinism, Concurrence, Evil, Governance, Jacobus Arminius, Open Theism, Providence, Reformed Theology, Suffering | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 4, 2013
This is the second of Amos’s three prophetic speeches against Israel. They each begin with “Hear this word” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). The first announced God’s coming visit in judgment against Israel while the third will voice lament. The second highlights divine patience and persistence in seeking to turn Israel from its sins.
While this second speech remembers Yahweh’s incessant attempts to hinder Israel’s sins, it also boldly announces that God’s patience has reached a limit. Even as Yahweh, through the prophet Amos, runs through a series of divine acts (4:6-11) intended to produce repentance, Yahweh sarcastically encourages Israel to continue its opulent lifestyle and idolatrous worship (4:1-5). God has had enough. The time for repentance is finished. Judgment is coming (4:12-13).
Yahweh Addresses Israel’s Wealthy Elite (4:1-5).
Amos begins where his last sermon ended–at Bethel and in the summer/winter homes (3:14-15)–but in reverse order. The connection between the end of the previous oracle and the beginning of the present one forms a B-A-A’-B’ structure. Amos moves from Bethel to “winter/summer homes” and then from “Bashan/Samaria” to Bethel. The allusions of 3:14-15 are explicit in 4:1-5.
Wealthy women who live in their winter and summer homes are like “cows of Bashan.” They are well-fed and lounging in luxury where their husbands or servants are pictured as wait on them. It is a life of ease in their “great houses” filled with ivory. But this wealth was acquired through the cruel oppression of the poor and needy. They have much because they have taken from those who have little (cf. Amos 2:7).
Amos mocks their religious observances. Bethel (Jeroboam I’s new worship center where he erected a golden calf) and Gilgal (apparently a worship center at the very place where Israel first camped in Canaan; Joshua 5:9) are places where Israel assembled to worship Yahweh though in idolatrous fashion. They practiced Torah. In fact, they practiced Torah in hyper-fashion.
Animal sacrifices were not required every morning, but they brought them every day. Tithes were only required every three years but they brought some every third day (Deuteronomy 14:28). They even burned leavened bread for their Thanksgiving sacrifices when only unleavened was required (Leviticus 2:11; 7:12-15). They publicly announced their Freewill offerings when that was not required (Leviticus 22:18-25). Whether Israel actually practiced this hyper-”obedience” is immaterial or whether Amos is mocking their devotion, Amos’s description ridicules their motive.
Israel worships Yahweh in this manner only to display their wealth. Yahweh rejects their worship, at least in part, because they gained their wealth by oppressing the poor. Their worship–even hyper-worship–had become a form of rebellion (transgression). They feigned the love of God while at the same time they failed to love their neighbor (poor).
Consequently, the women who now luxuriously recline in their great houses will be taken by fishhooks into captivity through openings in Samaria’s breached wall (4:2-3). Assyrians were known for using hooks in the noses of their captives to lead them into exile (cf. 2 Chronicles 33:11). The metaphor, however, is even more chilling. These women will be dragged out their great houses like fish out of the sea. They will be “cast out into Harmon” (Amos 4:3). Harmon is apparently some distant and unwelcome place, but contemporary scholarship has not been able to identify it. Some, however, think the name is a version of “Hermon” which would then refer to the peak that overlooks the fields of Bashan. It might mean that the women who, metaphorically, grazed Bashan in peace and splendor are now removed to the desolate peak of Hermon.
Yahweh Remembers the Warnings (4:6-11).
Five times Amos repeats the formulaic phrase: “yet you did not return to me, declares the Lord” (Amos 4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11). It is the final two lines in each of the descriptions of God’s interaction with Israel as Yahweh attempted to turn Israel from their sins. But Israel would not return to God.
Yahweh used famine (4:6), drought (4:7-8), crop devastation (4:9), disease and war (4:10), and tragic disasters (4:11) to persuade Israel. Each of these events originated in the will of God. “I gave” (4:6), “I withheld” (4:7), “I struck” (4:9), “I sent” (4:10), and “I overthrew” (4:11) clarify that God is responsible for these “evils” (cf. Amos 3:6).
While Yahweh intended them as warnings, Israel did not heed them. Perhaps they did not even recognize them as such. Israel failed to see the hand of God in these disasters and discern their meaning. The “evils,” however, should have reminded them of God’s past dealings with the nations in their own history. Such disasters should have become occasions for self-evaluation and introspection. Instead, they look elsewhere for their meaning.
Famine, drought, locust, pestilence like in Egypt and disasters like Sodom and Gomorrah are signals for how God has previously engaged nations as their own history recounts. The memories of Egypt and Sodom underscore God’s acts. Israel should have known but failed to listen to the voice of God in these moments.
God acted in Israel, as Yahweh had among the nations at various times, in order to lead them to repentance. The Apocalypse reminds us that God still moves among the nations for similar purposes (cf. Revelation 9:20-21; 16:9-11). Though we are unable to discern without prophetic insight the nature of God’s actions in the world, moments of pain and hurt are always appropriate for prayer, fasting and introspection. Being with God or returning to God are redemptive responses to “evils” in our lives.
Yahweh Announces Judgment (4:12-13).
As if to relieve all doubt, Yahweh announces that this is a divine judgment. “I will do this to you,” says the Lord. The coming disaster is no mere coincidence or freak of nature. It is an act of God.
The time for repentance , however, is now over. When the Lord says “prepare to meet your God, O Israel,” this is no invitation to repentance or even covenant renewal. Rather, as Paul notes in the Hermeneia series (p. 151), this is “a summons to a final battle.” Every previous attempt by Yahweh to turn Israel and renew the covenant with them was ineffective. This final encounter is not redemptive but punitive. When Israel meets God in this moment there will be no parley, no truce, and no delay. Judgment is imminent.
The successive uses of the “declares Yahweh” followed by the summons to meet God issues in a doxology (Amos 4:13). The praise articulates the majesty and power of God. Yahweh is the Creator who formed the mountains and the winds. Yahweh is the most high God who walks upon the hills. Yahweh created them and reigns upon them.
The concluding reference to the one who “treads upon the hills” is a metaphor for a conquering king. God moves along the ridge line of the greatest heights and watches the battle. The Creator God has summoned Israel to battle and God will see it to its final end. The God who created the mountains will turn morning into darkness for the nation of Israel. [Some translations read the dawn breaks the darkness.
Yahweh did not hide this from Israel. Over and over again, Yahweh warned Israel about her fate. But she did not listen. Now the prophet, speaking for Yahweh, announces what Yahweh intends to do.
The Creator God who formed Israel, her covenant God Yahweh, will now destroy her.
Her destruction is a warning to Judah…and to us.
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Amos, Amos 4:1-13, Bible-Amos, Disasters, Israel, Judgment, Natural Evil, Oppression, Poor, Prophets, Repentance, Wealth | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
March 3, 2013
Daniel Sommer, the leader of northern conservatives within the Stone-Campbell Movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century, shared his mentor’s (Benjamin Franklin) perspective on the rebaptism questin within the Restoration Movement. He regarded the rebaptists as divisive and sectarian, and their position he judges as “unscriptural” and “inconsistent.” In 1904 he wrote that he began openly opposing this “extreme” view in 1887 (“Bro. Hutson’s Wonder,” Octographic Review 47.9 [1 March 1904] 1).
As early as 1891 Sommer published a tract defending the following proposition: “Single immersion performed in the name of the Godhead even by a sectarian and even in connection with certain sectarian errors is valid baptism when rendered for the purpose of obeying Christ.” He published it because the FF was intent on “working division in the brotherhood” and consequently he permitted “no discussion of the rebaptism question” in Octographic Review (“Let Patience Have Her Perfect Work,” Octographic Review 40 (29 June 1897) 1, 8.
Since a reader has requested more about Sommer’s position, here are some representative statements.
Daniel Sommer, “Items of Interest,” Octographic Review 40 (23 March 1897) 1.
“Why I am Not an Apologist for Sect Baptism” is the title of a tract now on our table. Such a title assumes that such a something as ‘sect baptism’ exists. But neither the author of that title nor any one else on that side of the question, so far as we have learned, has ever had the courage to define that so-called “sect baptism” and affirm his definition for debate. Those who denounce what they call “sect baptism” and assume that to be validly baptized one must understand what they call “the design of baptism” have been fully tested, and we have not found one of them who will affirm his position and meet a well informed opponent in debate. After having fully tested them we have offered on e of their champions this proposition: “Those who preach that single immersion received in the name of the God-head, and in connection with certain sectarian errors is ‘sect baptism,’ and who preach that valid baptism requires that each person when baptized shall understand ‘the design of baptism’ and yet who refuse thus to affirm in debate occupy a position which is illogical, unscriptural, inconsistent and cowardly.” But this proposition was refused by the author of the tract now before us when it was offered to him in private correspondence. In refusing to affirm for debate what he preaches, and in refusing to deny a proposition which charges him with occupying a position which is “illogical, unscriptural, inconsistent and cowardly” the author of the mentioned tract shows himself less honorable than many of the sectarians whom he denounces. As for the mentioned trace, its foundation statement is that the expression “for the remission of sins” in Acts 2:38 “is part of THE COMMAND.” If this could be so then “for the remission of sins” is no longer a promise, of it cannot be both a command and a promise at the same time and in the same sentence. Moreover, then the expression “that your sins may be blotted out” in Acts 3:19, is “a part” of the command, “Repent ye therefore and be converted.” But the absurity [sic] of this is evident as soon as stated to every one except those who oppose sectism so extremely and unreasonably that they place themselves in the position of sectarians. As the fundamental proposition of the tract before us is an absurdity it follows that the trat itself is a blunder.”
Daniel Sommer, “Nineteenth Century Efforts to Restore the Bible to Mankind,” Octographic Review 44 (10 September 1901) 1.
“But all rebaptism hobbyists, wherever found among disciples show more or less of his disposition. In their zeal against sectism they become sectarians, and in principle take the identical position of those Baptists who insist on rebaptism of those baptized believers who wish to unite with them after having been immersed by others than preachers of that particular Baptist society [see my blog on this point, JMH]….on account of their valid baptism ideas they are, to say the least, a very disturbing element in the disciple brotherhood. They have done much toward dividing and destroying churches, but have seldom been known to build up a church.”
Daniel Sommer, “A Letter with Comments,” Octographic Review 47 (2 Feb 1904) 1-2.
“I further say, if rebaptism extremists were right in every other particular, nevertheless they do enough false reasoning in behalf of that one extreme to endanger themselves in the judgment, unless I have misread my Bible in regard to truth and honesty. I also state this: I have yet to find a rebaptism extremist who does not hate what he regards as error more than he loves truth. Again, I have yet to find one of that class who does not hate what he calls “sect baptism” more than he loves the oneness of those who profess to be apostolic disciples….Finally, all rebaptism extremists adopt the sectarian plan of sitting in judgment on the fitness of persons for baptism. The only difference between them and genuine sectarians is that a sectarian sits in judgment on fitness for baptism BEFORE candidates are baptized, while the hater of what he calls “sect baptism” sits in judgment on their fitness for baptism AFTER they have been baptized!!”
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Theology | Tagged: Baptist, Daniel Sommer, Rebaptism, Sectarianism, Stone-Campbell | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
February 28, 2013
The second major section of Amos (chapters 3-5) contains three oracles describing the punishment, sin and lament of the northern kingdom of Israel. Each begins with “Hear this word!” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). In many ways, this is the heart of Amos’s work as it lays out Yahweh’s case against Israel. We might even imagine Amos as a prosecutor who presses the case against Israel as a defendant.
The first oracle is titled by a superscription (3:1) followed by the divine announcement of punish exactly because they are God’s elect nation (3:2). The rest of the oracle describes the nature and rationale for this divine punishment (3:3-15).
Superscription: Yahweh Addresses Redeemed Israel (3:1).
Premise: Yahweh punishes Israel because they are elect (3:2).
1. Yahweh is responsible for the coming disaster (3:3-8).
2. The nations will witness Israel’s destruction (3:9-12).
3. Israels economic and religious centers will topple (3:13-15).
In the first post on this oracle, Amos–compelled by the voice of God–announces that the coming disaster is from Yahweh. God has decided to “visit” (or punish) Israel in judgment rather than grace (Amos 3:3-8). God intends disaster rather than blessing. Amos is a roaring lion that warns Israel that God is coming.
The second movement in this oracle announces that the nations will witness and execute God’s plan against Israel (3:9-12). The nations are first called to assemble and “see.” Specifically,
Proclaim
to the strongholds in Ashdod
to the strongholds in Egypt
say [to them], “Assemble on the ridges of Samaria and
see the great tumults in her,
see the oppressed in her.”
Why are Ashdod (Philistia) and Egypt specified? Egypt is missing from the previous list of nations in Amos 1-2. There is probably something about them that remind Israel of their history. Perhaps it is the memory of slavery in Egypt (already noted in Amos 3:1) and the idolatrous reputation of Ashdod (1 Samuel 5:1-6). Perhaps, as Harold Shank suggests in his NIV College Press Commentary, their reputations for cruelty are in play. Yahweh summons barbarous nations to see the ruthlessness of Israel. These malicious nations will testify to the presence of evil within Israel. As Shank notes, “Amos pictures the Hitlers and Stalins of the ancient world shaking their heads at the atrocities in Samaria” (p. 233).
What do they see? They see confusion (“unrest”) and oppression within Israel. The term “unrest” or “tumults” is a Hebrew term that denotes panic or terror that is the opposite of shalom (cf. 2 Chronicles 15:5). Israel is filled with fear; they are terrorized. The term “oppression” describes the burdens about which humans cry out and desperately seek help (cf. Job 35:9). Given that Amos plays out these themes of fear and oppression later in this work, the picture portrays a city whose poor are filled with fear and cry out for relief (cf. Amos 6:3-6; 8:4-6).
The nature of this fear and oppression is partly explained by Yahweh’s comment on the situation in Amos 3:10. ”Violence and robbery” (NRSV) or “violence and extortion” (NJB) characterize Samaria, according to Yahweh. “They do not know how to do right.” Instead of justice (cf.Isaiah 59:14), they treasure up the spoils of their violence in their citadels so that they might live in splendor and ease. Their only concern is for themselves; they have no mercy for the poor and needy.
Yet, what they have stored up will be “plundered” (Amos 3:12). Because they have not pursued justice but have looted the poor, an unidentified hostile nation will plunder their strongholds. Egypt and Ashdod will bear witness to this. Israel will not be able to resist the onslaught of the adversary that will come to loot and dispossess it. Israel will face divine judgment because it did “not know how to do right,” that is, it did not practice justice.
The destruction will be so thorough that it is compared to a shepherd who returns from the fields with the evidence that a sheep was eaten by an animal rather than stolen by a human. The lion–the national adversary–will completely devour its prey–Israel–so that there is little left. The latter part of Amos 3:12 contains a translation difficulty that involves how to point the Hebrew text (the vowels supplied to the Hebrew consonants) among other matters. This need not detain us but the difference is evident when one reads the NIV (“Damascus”) compared with the NRSV (“bed”). Whatever the case, the rhetorical significance is clear: only a marginal part of those who “sit” or “dwell” in Samaria will be rescued from the lion that will devour the nation. The nation itself will not survive.
The third movement of this first oracle identifies the primary culprits of this inability to “do right” in the land (Amos 3:13-15). They are those who worship at the “altars of Bethel” and live in the “great houses” of Israel. The idolators and powerful enjoy their wealth while the poor languish in oppression.
The courtroom metaphor is explicit here. Amos is to “testify” against Israel. This is a legal attestation (cf. Isaiah 8:2; Jeremiah 32:10, 25; Malachi 2:14; Psalm 50:7). It functions as a legal warning. Devastation awaits Israel.
Their religious centers will disappear. The “horns of the altar,” which are a last place of refuge, will be “cut off” and thrown to the ground. To cut the horns off an altar is to desecrate it so that it became useless for religious purposes. Bethel–the religious center which Jeroboam, the first king of Israel, erected–will cease to exist. [The image pictures a reconstruction of the altar that was found at Beersheba.] The altar was also a place where people would seek refuge (Exodus 21:13-14; 1 Kings 1:50; 2:28). With their altars destroyed, there will be no refuge for Israel.
Not only will the religious centers fall, but the “great houses” will fall. Such houses are described as “large and beautiful” (cf. Isaiah 5:9). They are filled with luxury, including ivory. They are not merely the homes needed for shelter and warmth, but they are the homes of the wealthy. The have “winter” and “summer” houses. The poor experienced fear and oppression through violence and extortion that the wealthy might live comfortably in their multiple homes and worship at their idolatrous altars.
These are the sins for which God will “visit” Israel in judgment. God will bring disaster upon the nation. He will punish rather than bless.
The call to “hear” the word of the Lord rings as true today as it did then. God still loves the poor and “visits” oppressors.
O people of God, “hear the word of the Lord.”
Like this:
Like Loading...
3 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Amos, Amos 3:9-15, Bible-Amos, Israel, Oppression, Poor, Prophets, Punishment, Wealth | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
February 27, 2013
The Slanderer (Diabolos) knows his target well. He has some understanding of the mission to which Jesus has been called. He knows why Jesus is here.
The key terms are kingdoms, authority and glory. The Slanderer offers Jesus what he seeks; he offers Jesus a similar vision but a different mission. The price? A new allegiance.
Kingdom is at the heart of Jesus’s ministry. Jesus was sent into the world to herald the good news of the kingdom of God which subverts the kingdoms of the world and bring the whole earth under his reign of God.
Authority is an issue in the ministry of Jesus. He has authority to cast our demons, forgive sin, and to heal diseases. His authority subverts the authorities of the world that oppose his mission. It is a contest between the “power (authority) of darkness” and the kingdom of God (Luke 22:53).
Glory is the high stake of this contest. Jesus anticipates the glory of the Son of Man when he comes again which was pictured for him in the glory of the transfiguration. But it is a glory that only comes after first suffering (Luke 24:26).
Kingdom, authority and glory. The Slanderer offers what the ministry of Jesus will achieve. The key, however, is that the Slanderer offers it without suffering. His only condition is worship. If Jesus would only bow down before the Slanderer, then he could have all he desires–everything his accomplished mission would achieve for him–without suffering. Jesus could be king without a cross.
Worship is about allegiance. Switch allegiances, and you can have your heart’s desire without carrying a cross. The Slanderer will give it without cost, without pain, without struggle.
Ambitions can turn our allegiance. The easier path often seems like the better one. Forks in the road demand a choice, and Jesus has the choice to secure his reign through a pledge of allegiance to the Slanderer or fulfill the mission given by God.
Lent reminds us that the mission is more important than the cost.
Like this:
Like Loading...
4 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Allegiance, Ambition, Bible-Luke, Lent, Luke 4:5-8, Temptation | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
February 26, 2013
God tests Jesus in the wilderness and Satan tempts him to satisfy his desires by inappropriate means.
One need is hunger. It would seem that satisfying hunger should not be characterized as inappropriate. Food is a created good to be enjoyed.
The Slanderer (Diabolos) suggests that Jesus should create his own food. If he really is the Son of God then he should provide his own bread. He should satisfy his hunger. There is nothing that prevents him from doing this if he really is the Son of God.
Jesus does not respond by saying, “I could make bread from these stones if I wanted to.” Rather, he addresses the Slanderer’s presumption about what the purpose of his wilderness experience is. While the Slanderer wanted to minimize the wilderness experience by reducing it to physical hunger, Jesus reminds him about its real purpose.
The purpose of the wilderness is not a physical endurance test as if acetic practices are about how much a human being can physically endure. Rather, the wilderness is about a hunger for God; it is about depending on God for strength for the soul. Jesus is in the wilderness to clarify his mission and deepen his dependence on the Father.
The wilderness reminds us that we can’t live on bread alone. Our material ambitions–from food to clothing to housing to video games–cannot satisfy the deepest longings of the human soul. When we live at this level we ultimately feel empty and this emptiness will kill our souls. When we live at this level, the mission of God takes a back seat.
In the wilderness we hunger and thirst for God. Fasting reminds us that the fullness of life is not found through pizza and beer, but eating the bread of God. Authentic life feasts on communion with God and embraces, by God’s strength, the mission of God.
Fasting leads to feasting. When we fast from the idolatry of instant gratification, we learn to feast on God for true life.
Like this:
Like Loading...
3 Comments | Theology | Tagged: Bible-Luke, Communion, Fasting, Feasting, Jesus, Lent, Luke 4:3-4, Mission, Temptation, Testing, Wilderness | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
February 25, 2013
Led by the Spirit Jesus follows Israel into the wilderness for a period of testing and humbling. It is time to prepare for ministry.
Confronted by the Diabolos (Devil) Jesus is tested/tempted three times. God tests Jesus, but the Diabolos tempts him. While God tests the Son’s obedience, the Devil preys on Jesus’s desires and needs.
The Diabolos (Devil) is a slanderer. Diabolos is derived from the verb “to slander” (diaballo). His intent is subversive. He seeks to sabotage a submissive life. He defames God’s people through subterfuge.
God may lead us into circumstances where we are tested just as he led Jesus into the wilderness, but temptation arises from within us as our desires conceive a way to satisfy themselves in disobedient ways.
The Diabolos dangles a carrot in front of Jesus that targets his distressed situation. Jesus is tempted because there is the potential for immediate gratification of his desires. These are real temptations as the desires and needs are real and Jesus had the option to satisfy them in sinful ways.
God tests us to refine us. The Diabolos tempts us to destroy us.
Lent is a time of testing but it also opens us to the potential for self-destruction. Any test can become a temptation.
Warning! Lent can make you or break you.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Leave a Comment » | Theology | Tagged: Devil, Lent, Luke 4:2, Temptation, Testing, Wilderness | Permalink
Posted by John Mark Hicks
