Kingship

Daniel chapter 4 is about kingship.

The chapter is set in the form of a letter. A royal letter from Nebuchadnezzar to his people. The letter contains a report of a dream, the interpretation of the dream, the fulfilment of the dream (an unusual element) and a confession.

The Possibility of kingship - vv. 10-12+20-21
The great tree to which all peoples are gathered is the kingly reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Good government, good kingship is a gift from God. It is good for people to live in stable, secure, prosperous communities, and this requires good government. Rom 13:1 is relevant here.

The Problem of kingship - v. 30
Power corrupts. The best of government can be twisted by pride and self interest. As Nebuchadnezzar declares his own greatness he is stealing from God the glory which belongs to God alone. Grasping after divine attributes destroys true humanity, we are not lifted up but diminished, we become sub-human, more animal like than human like. Phil 2, the Lord Jesus did not grasp at the image of God. When government, or governmental systems deny and reject God and his authority over them they diminish and become less than they could be and should be.

The Perfecting of kingship - vv. 2-3, 34-37
Only in a robust confession of God as King can any human, or any kingly reign, be perfected. This is an essential element in faith in Jesus Christ and him crucified. God as King has the right to demand such a sacrifice, God as King has the right to be such a sacrifice. Our humanity is made perfect in Christ Jesus and his reign as King in the Kingdom of God.
An acknowledgement of God as King, the Kingdom as God's, leads to a humble submission to the will of God, we will do things his way.

Should we not pray for such Kings, governments, not only for our land but for every land?

God Is Able

Daniel 3 is the first of two conflict stories in Daniel, the other is chapter 6. In both chapters faithful Jews find themselves facing the threat of death. However, in both the real conflict is not between Nebuchadnezzar and some defeated Jewish captives, but between Nebuchadnezzar and the God of Israel.

Daniel 1-6 is a series of court tales, narratives about life in the court of a pagan king. (see the commentary by Ernest C Lucas, Apollos, 2002 for a defense of this analysis.) We need to consider how we learn from stories.
Learning from stories involves the use of our sanctified imagination, an imagination guided by the Holy Spirit in the following ways:
1. we need to let the story grasp, impact us in the same way as it would have affected those who first heard/read the story;
2. we need to imaginatively set our life setting, our questions, our concerns alongside those of the story and find points of contact that the Holy Spirit inspired story might impact our life, and our story.

Nebuchadnezzar is able
In chapter 3 of Daniel Nebuchadnezzar displays all his ability: he can command the construction and worship of a huge image; v. 15 he can challenge the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego - is he able?; he can punish Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, although not very successfully. In the end of the story Nebuchadnezzar is able to acknowledge the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego as being the God who is able.
How often do we allow our abilities, gifts from God, to be used by us to challenge God? All such challenging of God is futile, how can the creature challenge the Creator?

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are able
To confess their faith. They believe that God is able to save them and that he will save them, v. 17. But, even if he chooses not to, they will still believe in this God, still obey his first two commandments and not worship Nebuchadnezzar's image.
Not only do they confess this, they live by it, they believe it. This confession shapes their lives.
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are able to live in humble submission. Not to a pagan king, but to a Heavenly King, a God who saves and intervenes.
By God's Spirit we too can be able to live in humble submission to our God and his gracious purposes.

God is able
This is the point of the chapter.
God is able to be present in the flames with his persecuted people. Nebuchadnezzar describes the fourth man as an angel of the Lord, the figure is God being present with his people.
God is able to save, not even the smell of smoke clung to their clothes.
This God is still the same God, he is still today powerfully able to do all that pleases him to be present with his people and to save his own.
Surely it makes a difference to us that we know and worship and depend upon such a God who is eternally able?

In The Story

Matthew 24 is one of those chapters that has been very badly handled by literalist and dispensationalist interpretations over many years (curiously the same fate has befallen most of Daniel).

Context
The Lord Jesus is in Jerusalem, he has been teaching in the Temple (ch. 22) and has warned the crowd/disciples, Pharisees and Jerusalem (ch. 23). Leaving the Temple, city, the disciples like google-eyed tourists are awestruck by the large stones of the Temple (v. 1). When the Lord Jesus prophetically (that is before it happened) speaks of the destruction of the Temple (v. 2) this leads to two questions which shape the rest of chapter 24 and 25: when will this happen (v. 3a) and what will the signs be of your returning (v. 3b)?
The disciples, and it is not explained how, correctly connect the destruction of the Temple and the coming again of the Lord Jesus.

Endings and Beginnings
It turns out that the destruction of the Temple is one of the signs of the return of the Lord Jesus in glory. The return of the Lord Jesus is at the end of this age. There is a human curiosity about the end: when will it be, what will it be like, will I be ok when it happens? The Lord Jesus responds to the question by not speaking about the end, but about the story up to the end.
We know the beginning of the story: God created all things, humanity rebels against God, God annoints Jesus as Christ and Lord and his death on the cross is the redemption and renewal of all things. We now know something of the end: the Lord Jesus will return and God's Kingdom will be fully established.
Today we do not live in either the beginning or the ending of the story - we live in the story. Matthew 24 and 25 are designed to instruct us in how to live in the story.

Live in the story
a) live with eyes wide open. Don't be deceived by liars claiming to be Christ, or by those who say the end is not coming. Recognise this present tribulation: wars, disasters, persecution as guarantees of the end.
b) live as people of hope. God is in control, the present state of the world is not the final word and is not out with the control of our God.
c) let God be God. v. 36. There are things God has not told us and will not tell us. Do not believe liars who tell you when the end will be, even the Lord Jesus does not know. Resist your inquisitive spirit, do not pry into the things God has not revealed, there is enough to be going on with if you focus upon what he has revealed.
d) because you know the end is coming, live in the light of that end.
e) Share the story of Jesus with everyone, they too need to know that the Lord Jesus is coming again.
f) vv. 45-51. Live doing the will of the Lord, serve him and serve others.

Dreams about kingdoms and a Kingdom

Daniel 2 introduces one of the exegetical challenges of the book of Daniel. At 2:4b the text changes from Hebrew to Aramaic and remains in Aramaic right through to the end of chapter 7. This crosses the major division in the book, 1-6//7-12. The textual history of Daniel is complicated and not fully understood.
It is possible that the Aramaic section works on a chiastic structure:
A                                                            B
ch2: dream                                              ch7: dream
      four earthly kingdoms and God's Kingdom
ch3: story - Jews faithful in face of death  ch6: story - Jew faithful in face of death
ch4: story - royal hubris humbled             ch5: story - royal hubris humbled

If this is an intentional chiasm I still don't know how it takes forward the textual history problem, unless at some time someone had an incomplete Hebrew text and added in the Aramaic section from an already existing Aramaic text. Go on, stop the unsubstantiated suppositions here!

Dreams are never condemned in the OT as a means of revelation. Revelation is one of the key themes of chapter 2, only Daniel's God can reveal mysteries.
vv. 1-13 - Nebuchadnezzar sets a test for his sages which they are unable to meet.
vv. 14-23 - Daniel intervenes to stop the punishment of the sages, he prays and God answer his prayer then Daniel blesses the God who is in control and answers prayer.
vv. 24-28a - Daniel's first 'but'. I can't tell you, no wise man can tell you, 'but' there is a God who can.
vv. 28b-35 - a second and third 'but'. The purpose of God revealing the dream is to instruct the king. There may be a series of human kingdoms 'but' God's eternal Kingdom is coming and cannot be stopped.
vv. 36-45 - Daniel explains the dream where the main point is the coming superiority of God's Kingdom over all other kingdoms
vv. 46-49 - Nebuchadnezzar blesses the God of Daniel. Not as a monotheist, God above all other gods. He recognises God's ability to reveal - cf. v. 22.

But
a) what is unknown to humans is known and revealed by God alone.
b) there is a God in heaven, which does not mean he is removed from us, but that he chooses to reveal himself and his purposes to us.
c) this God is establishing his Kingdom - cf. Isa 2:2, 6:3, 11:9 and other parallel references to stones and mountains for God's Kingdom.

Viral Bibles

At church tomorrow we are launching our first two Viral Bibles.

The idea is to underline your favourite bible verse and record this on the web site - http://www.viralbibleproject.com/ The Viral Bible is a Biblefresh project launched during 2011.

Once you have done this you are invited to pass on the bible to someone else and they mark and record their verse before passing it on.

Tomorrow we have one bible for each congregation: Portpatrick and Stranraer: St Ninians; in coming weeks we will be asking members to register a bible they have to set off some other viral bibles.

What a great way to share the Word of God, let's see how far they can go!

Luther and Scripture

Another volume from last year. I bought this one at a Rutherford House Dogmatics Conference a few years ago and was really pleased to have read it last autumn. I've got a number of pages of notes from this book which will appear in time.

Lohse, responding to the many volumes on Luther and his theology, opens with a section on presuppositions relative to a description of Luther's theology. Part 2 sets Luther's theology in its historical development and then Part 3 Luther's theology in its systematic context.

Writing on the psalms lectures:
The sginificance of Scripture for Luther is particularly evident in this word: "The strength of Scripture is this, that it is not changed into him who studies it, but that it transforms its lover into itself and its strengths ... Because you will not change me into what you are .. but you will be changed into what I am." (page 52 - the quote from Luther is from his comments on Ps 67:14)

We, the reader, do not transform the words on the page of Scripture into God's word when it suits us, or when they 'speak to me'. The nature of Scripture is such that contact with Scripture will change the one who loves it. I like this bit, reading Scripture as one who does not love it will not result in change, there is an appropriate way to read, to approach Scripture. The lover of Scripture is transformed by it.
The last bit may cause concern, however, what is Scripture? Scripture is God's gracious self-revelation. So, if Scripture changes its lovers into itself, it will change us into the likeness of the God who is revealed in Scripture. It makes us like Christ. We do not worship Scripture but the God revealed in Scripture and so by Scripture we become like him - his image increasingly clearly displayed in us.

On Why You Don't Read The Bible

I've copied this from the EA web site because I think it is a helpful analysis.

Three reasons why you don't read your Bible

From the earliest years of your Christian life- whether as a child raised in a Christian home, or as somebody brought to faith and discipled in a church group- you will have been told how important it is to read your Bible regularly. You decided to try some sort of Bible read through and set to reading four chapters a day. Early zeal meant you tore through the Gospels and enjoyed the drama of Genesis, but before long you ran into rock solid Romans, or life-draining Leviticus. You missed a few days out, and then… well, it's been a while since you found the will to pick your Bible up again.
Why is that? There are three very common reasons, and they all have solutions that aren't so much to do with how well disciplined your are, but more about the way you think about the Bible.
1) You don't have time

This may be the most common 'reason' we give to explain to ourselves why we've not read the Bible for a while: events of the day got on top of me, my feet have hardly touched the ground, I overslept. The fact is that our priorities reveal what we truly value, and the 'not enough time' excuse is most likely a cover-up of one of the two reasons below.
2) You think the Bible is about you

The first is that deep down, you feel your Bible reading isn't 'working'- and it's really because you read the Bible with your eyes on yourself. As you read it, you're looking for practical lessons on life, instructions on how to behave, and commands to go away and do right now. And you find that the Bible doesn't provide these particularly well!
The solution to this problem is to see that the Bible is about Jesus and not us. The solution is to take our eyes off ourselves and begin to look at Jesus in the Bible...You will find that far from dutifully going to the Bible for handy hints for the day, you will gladly run to it so that Christ will conquer your heart afresh; so that you will take your gaze off yourself and obsess over him instead.
3) You think your Bible reading is for God's benefit

Everyone will be familiar with this situation: you've been going strong with your Bible reading, enjoying it and feeling your love for the Lord grow. But something comes up (perhaps opportunity for a Saturday morning lie in) and you miss a day. Somehow the next day gets dropped too and, before you know it, it's been a week.
The feeling you get isn't a stomach-rumbling or a dry throat; not a spiritual hunger or thirst. It's a nagging guilt which tells you that if you really cared about God then you would have read the Bible, that you really should have finished Jeremiah by now...The diagnosis for you is that you imagine your Bible reading to be doing God a favour. The crushing guilt you feel when you miss it is your heart telling you God is displeased, and the slightly haughty contentment you feel when knocking out five chapters instead of your usual four is your heart telling you that God is now smiling on you...
The solution is to recognise and live in God's grace. You are eternally loved and accepted by the Father because of Jesus...In this context the Bible is given to us as a gift to feast on, rather than a project to complete before judgment day. We will find we go to it to savour and enjoy, and when we miss a day we might feel hunger pangs, but we could never feel guilt, fear, or condemnation.
Conclusion

The Bible has been given to us to help us know and love Christ. Our Father is generous and loving, and loves to communicate with us; the Spirit has inspired the scriptures so that they bring life, joy, and fullness to the Christian walk. If you have misunderstood or abused the Bible up until now, making it about you and your efforts, simply look to Jesus instead: the One of whom the Bible speaks, and the One on whom your salvation rests. Read it to love and trust him more.
Daniel Hames is training for ordination at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. He is also an Associate Staff Worker for Theology Network.
Used with permission from the author. This is an extract from a longer article produced on Theology Network.

Reading Together

As I suggested in an earlier post - Reading in Community - I've set up another blog.

Encouraged by responses I'm going to try posting on passages of Scripture and inviting comments. Please do visit this blog, I've called it Reading Together.

Pray with me that God will use this blog to bring into being a reading community where we can hear God speaking to us as we read and share around his word.

Another Cake Day

It might sound like I'm grasping at any excuse for cake (well, so what if I am?), but today is International Septuagint Day.

A day to remember the 70 scholars who translated the OT from Hebrew into Greek in Alexandria in 70 days. (It makes a good story)

More seriously, the text of the Septuagint establishes the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Scriptures back to somewhere around 200 years bc. When we add to this the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, with a Hebrew text from around the time of Christ, why do English versions of the bible continue the dubious practice of conjectural emendation of the text?

I think this is supposed to mean, 'The Hebrew Text is uncertain so I'll make an educated guess as to what I think it might have been.' However, with such a well established Hebrew text conjectural emendation ends up being something more like, 'I don't want the text to say what it says so I'll change it.'

If you want to read the bible then read the bible - we know what the text says, our only difficulty is in obedience and submission.

Bible Fresh Launch

I hope to see you at the bible fresh launch Monday 25 January at the ICC, Glasgow at 2 p.m. finished by 4 p.m.

Krish Kandiah will speak on bible fresh and there will be a real consultation about how we in Scotland can make best use of this opportunity to transform our nation through the bible.

Pentecost is coming

We move so quickly from Easter into Pentecost. I came across this quote in von Balthasar,

It makes a great difference to the act of contemplation whether I see myself as an isolated subject, who, albeit assisted by God's grace, endeavours to understand something of the mysteries of revelation; or whether, in faith, I have the conviction that my inadequate attempt to understand is supported by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit dwelling within me, that my acts of worship, petition and thanksgiving are borne along and remodeled by the Spirit's infinite and eternal acts, in that ineffable union by which all human doing and being has been lifted up and plunged into the river of eternal life and love. (page 76)

Two things here. First of all it is good to be reminded of the inner working of the Holy Spirit in the life of all Christians as we try to pray and live as Christian disciples of the Lord Jesus.
However, I also note here that von Balthasar views prayer as an exercise in 'understanding something of the mysteries of revelation'. Such a view of prayer saves us from thinking of our best prayers persuading God to change his mind and do what we want. It also, however, surely changes how we think about trying to understand what God has revealed of himself. Do we give ourselves to prayer - contemplative prayer - when reflecting upon God's revelation in creation, in Scripture, in Jesus Christ? Or do we have very wise and very clever methods of study which take priority over such prayer?

Bible Fresh

I was in London yesterday. The meeting I was attending was at the Salvation Army Internatinal HQ, from which you got this view of St Paul's from the south.

The meeting was part of the planning and preparation for 2011, a year of celebration at the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible.

This initiative is to be called Bible Fresh and will encourage the church to re-engage with the bible and seek to help many people encounter the bible for the first time. No doubt I'll have more on this is blog posts to come.

Codex Sinaiticus

With thanks to Jane, I've found this site for the Codex Sinaiticus. What a lot of wonderful information there is on this site and great images of the Codex. Well worth a visit.

Red Letter Bibles/Christians

I suppose following my blog conversation with Peter, see my earlier post, the whole idea of red letter bibles/Christians has been in my mind.

At our Holy Week service last night, led by Eric Boyle from Kirkcowan and Wigtown, we were reading in John 12. The bible I was following the reading in is a red letter edition and I noticed the following passage:


John 12:27-28 27 "Now is my soul troubled. And what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? But for this purpose I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name." Then a voice came from heaven: "I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again." (ESV)

Now I understand the thinking behind highlighting the words of the Lord Jesus in red. But what about the words I've underlined? Whose words are these? Are they not the words of God? In what sense is it appropriate to highlight the words of the Lord Jesus but not to highlight the words of God?

By extension, since I believe the words of the bible to be breathed out by God, 2 Tim 3:16, I generally have a problem with red letter bibles. A passage like this one merely brings the point into sharp focus.

By using the term red letter Christians I wonder what someone using this designation would make of such a passage? Are they saying they are more committed to the words printed in red, giving them priority over the words printed in black? But what happens when the words printed in black are the words of God?

I'm re reading N T Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God. If you haven't read it then give it a try, it is well worth it.

His section on Burton L Mack (and the Question of Q) pages 35-44 is interesting as it connects with a post on reading the bible I made earlier.

Wright suggests that Mack has allowed his antipathy towards late 20th Century American Christianity colour his reading of the gospel of Mark in a major way. Mack reconstructs a Jesus who resembles a 'Cynic sage, spinning aphorisms designed to subert his hearers social and cultural worlds' (p. 37) Mack achieves this by excluding from his consideration of Jesus any material that is apocalyptic or eschatological. Well if you leave out half the gospel material no wonder you end up with a view of Jesus quite different from that presented in the gospels!

In my earler post - On Bible Reading, Sat 7 March - I was challenging that way of reading the bible which ignores passages or material which the reader doesn't like, or doesn't want to submit to. One of my Professors, the late Bob Carroll, was fond of saying 'Read the text', all of the text. If at the end of an exposition there was surplus text left lying on the table Bob would be hugely critical. (And those who knew Bob would not know him as a conservative Biblical scholar!).

We simply cannot read the parts of the bible we want to read and ignore all the rest and then claim to be scholarly, or historical, or whatever. This is not to exclude the valuable work of textual criticism which highlights for us passages we should rightly be suspicious of, e.g. the endings of Mark's gospel. What the Church has always needed is a commitment from her members to the whole word of God: to read with faith and reverence, to study with all the tools and ability God has given us, to obey in lives given to following this Jesus who is both Christ and Lord.

On bible reading

This week I’ve been reading through Romans 9 to 11. This is surely a very challenging passage of Scripture which must raise some serious questions for us about our God, our relationship to him and the text in which we read these things.

For many any thought of election is an abomination, to be rejected out of hand. However, this is something that is taught in Scripture, even if we might want to argue about what it means. At the very least we should agree that this is what the Scripture teaches.

As a result of just over 100 years of very thorough textual research we can say with something approaching 97% accuracy that the text of the New Testament is settled and well attested. It is just not reasonable to suppose that at some point the actual words of the New Testament are in doubt.

However, while not saying this, or challenging this outcome of scholarly study, there are many who without a backward glance will excise some passage of the New Testament on the grounds that they don’t like it, or it doesn’t fit in with their understanding of God.

In the Reformed tradition we have agreed to place Scripture above human reason and above human tradition. Not above the need for Spirit led interpretation, we are to study the Scriptures with all the skill and wisdom God has given us aided by his Spirit. What we have agreed is to being our study with a humble and reverent submission to Scripture. God has spoken. It is not up to us to ignore or reject God’s word on the basis that we don’t like it, or it doesn’t fit in with our understanding of God. It is up to us to remain before the Scripture until God blesses us in it.

What is needed in our churches, in our Christian living as we seek to be disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the living word of God, is a holy submission before the written word of God that it might be the light shinning in our darkness to lead us into the way of the cross.

Listening to Brian McLaren (2)

More from 24 hours with Brian McLaren

Before you read my thoughts, take a moment to read Brian's meditation on this inauguartion week - Inaugural Week Meditation: So Happy

Let's keep on praying for Obama and the USA.

Brian McLaren on the Biblical Narrative
Brian holds that Western Christianity (i.e. Northern Europe and North America) is not the religion of Jesus but a synthesis of Judaism and Greek-Roman philosophy. In particular the Biblical narrative many of us have grown up with is flawed by this influence. Our received Biblical narrative is in six parts: Eden, Fall, History, Redemption, Heaven, Hell. This narrative pattern is read in terms of Platonic/Aristotelian ideals. Brian suggests that the Exodus provides a more Biblical narrative shape: Creation – Liberation – the Peaceable Kingdom. The question then is what happens to Jesus and the message of Jesus when we read it in this narrative shape? The characteristic message of Jesus about the Kingdom of God suddenly takes a more central place than in the received six line Biblical narrative in which the Kingdom is pushed forward in to Heaven.

I am grateful to Brian for this challenge to think more deeply about the received shape of the Biblical narrative which is so prevalent within our evangelicalism. However, Brian is very anxious to remove the Fall from his narrative shape and I would prefer he spoke more clearly about what we call Redemption. Even if we talk about Liberation on what basis is someone liberated and what about those who resist or reject any offered liberation? We might not like the answers Brian gives, but if we are to hold onto this traditional form of understanding the Biblical narrative we can’t do that because this is the way it has always been, we have been challenged to articulate a more meaningful and Biblical reason for reading the Bible in this way.

No one reads the bible without prior influences or presuppositions. It is time to be honest about this. What are our presuppositions as we approach the bible? How does our cultural background influence our reading of Scripture? These questions have been brought with increasing force before us over the past 30 years or so, it is time to work out some answers.

Listening to Brian McLaren

24 Hours with Brian McLaren

At the beginning of December around 30 of us gathered in Perth to meet and discuss theology with Brian McLaren. Brian is a theologian who arouses strong passions and opinions all over the world; no one it seems is lukewarm towards Brian. I found him to be a most gracious and humble scholar, in this a real example to us all as we engage with one another, especially when we disagree with one another.

Brian McLaren on the Bible
For many evangelical this is the shibboleth question, what do you say about the Bible? Brian spoke of three ways in which the Bible can be read and suggested a forth which he preferred. Some people read the Bible flat, like a legal constitution; it doesn’t matter which bit you pick up it all has the same value and legal significance. Some people allow the Old Testament to set the framework within which the whole Bible is read, others allow the New Testament to dominate and read the whole Bible through this lens of the New Testament. What happens if we recognise the unique role of Jesus as the Word of God and read both the Old and New Testament in the light of Jesus and his revelation of God?

This is a real challenge to us, do we allow Jesus to be the hermeneutic which governs our reading of the Bible or do we allow the Bible and our way of reading the Bible to govern what we think about Jesus? I would have liked to have more time to hear Brian giving examples of how this different hermeneutic works out in handling specific passages and across the sweep of the whole Bible.

For example, how do you read the OT with Jesus as the controlling hermeneutic without abusing the OT? Certainly the OT finds its fulfilment in Jesus but how do we read that in the OT?

The major question for me here is this, which is the touchstone for us the bible or Jesus? The principal element in our Christian faith must be this Jesus who is proclaimed as Christ and Lord, to whom the Scriptures bear witness. No one is saved by what they believe about the bible, but by Christ.