Church Write-Up: Isaiah 6 and Trinity Sunday

At Bible study last Wednesday, at the Missouri Synod Lutheran church, the pastor talked about Isaiah 6.  Isaiah 6 is a text that is read on Trinity Sunday, which is this coming Sunday.  The pastor gave us a history of Trinity Sunday.  He said that Easter and Ascension Sunday focused on Jesus, Rogate Sunday focused on God the Father and creation, and Pentecost was about the Holy Spirit.  Trinity Sunday considered the entire Trinity.

The pastor said that Isaiah 6 is used on Trinity Sunday because the seraphim say “Holy, holy, holy” when talking about God.  They say “Holy” three times, and the Trinity is one God in three persons.  God also asks whom “we” shall send, speaking in the plural, but the pastor mentioned the view that God there may be talking to the heavenly council.  A text that came to my mind was John 12:21, which seems to suggest that the God who filled the Temple in Isaiah’s vision was the pre-incarnate Christ.

The pastor narrated that Isaiah 6 occurred in a time of uncertainty.  King Uzziah had just died.  Uzziah had reigned for fifty-two years (II Kings 15:2), and it was a time of prosperity for Judah.  Egypt and the Hittites were leaving Judah alone because they were dealing with internal insurrections.  The Assyrian empire was just beginning to rise.  The pastor compared Uzziah’s death to the death of FDR, or Reagan leaving office: these were strong leaders, and people wondered what the country would do without them.  When Uzziah died, Judahites were afraid of the rising Assyrian empire.

The pastor said that Isaiah’s vision sent the message that God is supreme and is sovereign, even though Uzziah is not king, and even though the Assyrians pose a threat to Judah.  God is so great that the Temple cannot contain God.  Seraphim cover their faces with two of their wings.  Isaiah feels unclean in God’s presence, so a seraph takes coal from the altar—-which had the ever-burning fire that represented God’s continual presence and consumed the animal sacrifices for atonement—-and touched Isaiah’s lips with it, thereby cleansing them.  God is also called the LORD of hosts, or armies.  The pastor referred to the invisible horses and chariots of God that protected Northern Israel in II Kings 6.  Uzziah may be gone, but God’s army is still present.

Yet, the pastor acknowledged that Isaiah was to spread dismal news.  God indeed was sovereign, but the land of Judah would be devastated.  But, as is often the case, God attaches some good news at the end of the bad news, and the good news was that there would be a remnant and a holy seed, whom the pastor said was Christ.

Jesus refers to Isaiah 6 when he explains the Parable of the Sower to his disciples (Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8).  The pastor said that Jesus was saying that he himself is continuing the mission of Isaiah, only there are differences.  Isaiah’s message was not understood by the Judahites, but Jesus’ message, and that of the apostles, are understood.  Moreover, the seed in the parable was not just the word being scattered but Jesus himself, as Jesus was the seed of Isaiah 6.

I asked the pastor what he made of Jesus’ statements that seem to suggest that Jesus told parables to confuse his audience.  The pastor replied that Jesus said that “He who has ears to ears, let him hear.”  The Spirit would move where he would, and some would understand and be receptive to Jesus’ message, whereas others would not.  The pastor offered an explanation for the Messianic Secret, in which Jesus hid his Messianic identity from the masses.  Much of Judaism had a concept of a Messiah who would be a political leader and liberator, and Jesus did not want to be associated with that concept.  Jesus wanted to take control of the story and to define the nature of the Messiah himself.

Book Write-Up: From Jerusalem to Timbuktu

Brian C. Stiller.  From Jerusalem to Timbuktu: A World Tour of the Spread of Christianity.  IVP Books, 2018.  See here to purchase the book.

Brian C. Stiller serves the World Evangelical Alliance as a global ambassador.  He was President of Tyndale University College and Seminary, which is in Toronto, Canada.  He also founded and edited Faith Today magazine.

This book is about Christianity throughout the world, particularly the Global South, Asia, and the Middle East.  The Western world still looms large in the book, however, since it provides background for the trends and developments that Stiller discusses.

Among the topics that Stiller discusses are:

Pentecostal and charismatic movements: Stiller traces their historical development in the United States and their spread throughout the world.

Vernacular translation of the Bible: Stiller argues that the Bible becomes powerful when it is translated into people’s vernacular.  Not only is this the case spiritually, but it also has contributed to social and political change, providing the colonized with the literacy to challenge their colonizers.

Indigenous Christianity: Stiller is critical of Western missionaries trying to run everything when they spread the Gospel to other countries.  He tells stories of indigenous Christians running their own churches in their own countries.

Different cultural mindsets: Stiller contrasts the secularism of the West with the belief in the supernatural that exists in many other countries.  He believes that they recognize something authentic.

Political and social engagement: Stiller traces the historic conservative Christian aversion to politics and the rise of the social Gospel.  He describes how evangelicals in other countries are challenging oppression, sometimes quietly, and sometimes openly.  Stiller argues that Christianity is about more than the salvation of the soul but includes a concern for the material world.  Stiller does not endorse the prosperity Gospel and recognizes its abuses, but he does believe that it is speaking to real needs and concerns—-the desire of the poor to escape their poverty and have control of their lives—-and that it provides them with tools to do so.

Prayer movements: Stiller discusses the various forms these have taken, as Catholic, Orthodox, and doctrine-focused evangelicals pursue charismatic routes, and Pentecostals study the church fathers.  Stiller also tells a compelling story about the role of prayer in bringing about a smooth transition after the fall of Apartheid in South Africa.

Women in ministry: Not surprisingly, women throughout the world provide the backbone for churches.

Praise and worship: Stiller talks about classic hymns and the emergence of contemporary praise music.  He discusses his own preferences in music, while acknowledging that the Spirit has worked powerfully through other avenues, even through music that he deems rather banal.

Refugees: Stiller discusses the refugees from Syria.  He doubts that they pose a terror threat, but he compares his own country’s (Canada’s) attitude towards them with that of the United States, which experienced 9/11.

Persecution: Stiller talks about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, Asia, Turkey, and Russia.  Does the blood of the martyrs provide the seed of the church?  According to Stiller, it has, but not always.  Stiller also includes under “persecution” the extreme separation of church from state, presumably in the U.S.

This is somewhat of a stream-of consciousness book, yet without too much chaos.  The book is organized by topic.  Yet, Stiller will give historical background, shift somewhere to a personal anecdote, tell stories about Christianity in other countries, and provide statistics.  Reading the book felt like a dream, in a sense, and that added to its appeal.  The book was a bit meandering, but in a reflective way.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.

Book Write-Up: High King of Heaven

John MacArthur, ed.  High King of Heaven: Theological and Practical Perspectives on the Person and Work of Jesus.  Moody, Master’s Seminary Press, 2018.  See here to purchase the book.

John MacArthur is the pastor of Grace Community Church.  As the title indicates, this book reflects on Jesus Christ.  Its contributors include pastors and academics.  A number of them are affiliated with MacArthur’s Master’s Seminary, but not all of them are.

In this review, I will comment on each essay.  Some of the essays I will cluster together.  My comments will not be comprehensive, but hopefully they will provide you with a taste of what the book is like.

“Preface,” “Do You Love Me?: The Essential Response to the King of Heaven, John 21,” by John MacArthur

These were MacArthur’s own contributions to the book.  They offered a compelling picture of knowing and delighting in Christ, discussing how that has proved to be significant in MacArthur’s own Christian walk.  MacArthur talks about how he has grown in this area, moving past presuppositions of his earlier religious background.  In the second essay, MacArthur interacts with John 21.  MacArthur notes that Peter has gone back to fishing, even after knowing that Christ rose from the dead, and he speculates that this is because Peter feels like a spiritual failure.  Jesus asks Peter if Peter loves Jesus more than “these,” and scholars have debated about whether the “these” refers to the other disciples or Peter’s fish.  MacArthur defends the idea that the “these” refers to Peter’s fishing vocation.  While more than one Greek scholar has argued that the Greek words for love, phileo and agape, are synonymous and interchangeable, MacArthur assumes that the former describes affection, whereas the latter is self-giving.  He thoughtfully integrates this into his discussion of Jesus’ interaction with Peter over whether Peter loves him.  This is an insightful contribution, but it is also sympathetic to people in their weaknesses, more so than I would ordinarily expect from MacArthur.

“The Eternal Word: God the Son in Eternity Past, John 1:1-3,” by Michael Reeves

One argument that Reeves makes is that God the Father’s eternal generation of the Son is significant, for that establishes God the Father as an eternally loving Father.  Salvation, according to Reeves, is not simply about us failing to meet God’s holy demands, but it entails being adopted into God’s family by grace.  As Reeves says, “you simply cannot earn your way into a family.”  Reeves contends that Arianism, which holds that God created the Word who became Jesus Christ, undermines God’s grace and love: it depicts Jesus, not as God’s beloved Son, but as God’s workman, who earns God’s favor through performance.

“Son of God and Son of Man, Matthew 26:63-64,” by Paul Twiss

Twiss does not focus on Jesus’ Sonship within the Trinity, but rather states that Jesus was Son of God in the same way that Adam, Israel, and the Davidic king were sons of God: they mediate God to creation.  Twiss offers an intriguing reading of Daniel 7 in light of Genesis 3: in Genesis 3, a beast (the serpent) usurps human authority, but the beasts in Daniel 7 lose before the Son of Man.  Twiss struggles over why the Son of Man is not mentioned in the part of Daniel 7 that explains the vision, and he does not mention the scholarly view that the Most High’s saints are the ones whom the Son of Man symbolizes.  Still, he does offer a reasonable explanation.

“The Son’s Relationship with the Father, Isaiah 50,” by Mark Jones

This essay beautifully highlighted aspects of Jesus, as it drew primarily from Isaiah 50 while also looking at the Gospels.  One can read this essay and feel Jesus’ sensitivity towards people’s rejection of him, while admiring and desiring to emulate Jesus’ hunger and thirst for God’s instruction.

“The Virgin Birth, Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38,” by Keith Essex

Like other essays in this book, Essex criticizes what he considers to be disturbing trends within evangelicalism.  More than one essay in this book laments that hip evangelicals are complaining about the doctrine of penal substitution, the idea that Christ paid the penalty for people’s sins on their behalf.  Essex mentions Andy Stanley’s statement that belief in the virgin birth is non-essential for salvation, and Tim Keller’s response that disbelief in the virgin birth places one outside of the Christian faith.  Essex does not seem to go so far as to suggest that disbelief in the virgin birth means a person is unsaved, but he does believe that Jesus was born of a virgin for a reason, and that those reasons are important.  He goes beyond the usual mantra that the virgin birth was necessary because otherwise Jesus would be born with original sin.  There was not much in this essay that particularly inspired me, and perhaps it would have been better had Essex engaged more the critiques of the virgin birth.  Still, Essex did a decent job in presenting the virgin birth as a reasonable course for God to pursue, in light of God’s goals.

“The Bread of Life, John 6,” by Ligon Duncan

Duncan offers a couple of edifying insights and observations.  First of all, he notes that Jesus claims to be bread and water that provide satisfaction to those who partake.  He contrasts this with the sinful human tendency to seek satisfaction outside of God, which the serpent in Genesis 3 encouraged when he tempted Adam and Eve.  Second, Duncan observes that the Psalmist in Psalm 119 expresses his love for God’s Torah, but also his spiritual wandering, vulnerability, and need for God to seek him.

“The Good Shepherd, John 10,” by Steven J. Lawson

This essay is Calvinistic, like a number of other essays in this book.  Lawson relays an interesting defense that the Puritan John Owen made for limited atonement, the idea that Christ died only for the elect whom God had chosen, not for everyone.  Owen argued that unlimited atonement placed the members of the Trinity on different pages: the Father wants to save the sheep (the elect), while the Son is trying to save everyone.  Limited atonement places the members of the Trinity on the same page: the Father chooses the elect, the Son atones for the elect’s sins, and the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect.

“The Way, the Truth, and the Life, John 14:6” by Miguel Nunez

What stood out to me in this essay was a story about two climbers, who were 8,000 meters high and were too exhausted to help two other climbers who were injured and endangered.  The climbers had enough provisions to share but did not do so.  Nunez attributes this to the climbers not knowing Christ and thus not recognizing the image of God in the injured climbers.  This story raises a lot of questions.  Would I be willing to help in that situation?  Is it fair or accurate to say that all Christians would help, whereas all non-Christians would not?

“The Head of the Church, Colossians 1:18,” by Mark Dever

A story that stood out to me in this essay concerned a picture of church interns whom Dever knows.  Almost all of them went on to do great things for God, except one, who does not believe in God anymore.  Dever used that as an opportunity to exhort Christians to be rooted in Christ.  I think, though, that Christians should reflect more on why people leave the faith, especially when those people seemed to have believed as earnestly and been as zealous as those who stayed.  Unfortunately, I question whether Christians have the resources within their faith to enable them to empathize with those who leave: they can chalk the apostasy up to rebellion against God or a desire to sin.

“He Emptied Himself: The Kenosis, Philippians 2:5-11,” by Mike Riccardi

Riccardi offered an intriguing explanation for why Jesus refused to turn stones into bread at his temptation (see Matthew 4:1-11).  Jesus used his divine powers to serve others, not to lessen his own experience of the human condition (in this case, hunger).

“In Our Place: The Atonement, 2 Corinthians 5:21,” by Matthew Barrett; “Up From the Grave: The Resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:1-20,” by Tom Pennington

I am clustering these essays together.  Both authors believe in penal substitution.  Pennington seems to believe that it is explicit in the Scriptures, however, whereas Barrett appears to maintain that it is more implicit, coincides with other crucial doctrines, and is more reasonable than other atonement models.  Barrett also has a thoughtful discussion about the atonement and divine simplicity, as he decries those who assert that the atonement places God’s wrath in opposition to God’s mercy, or the Son in opposition to the Father.  Moreover, in a footnote, Barrett refers negatively to two Catholic thinkers who attempt to rethink original sin in light of evolution.  Sounds interesting!

“High Above the Heavens: The Ascension, Ephesians 1:15-23,” by H.B. Charles, Jr.; “The Return of the King: The Second Coming, 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10,” by Michael Vlach

I do not have much to say about these essays.  They were edifying, but there was not much in them that was new to me.  Vlach makes an interesting point about glorified Christians not resting on the “heavenly sofa” but being involved in activity (Luke 19:11-27; Revelation 20:4; 22:5).  What will that activity be?

“No Other Gospel: The True Gospel of Christ, Galatians 1:6-7,” by Phil Johnson; “Salt and Light: The Believer’s Witness to Christ in an Ungodly Society, Matthew 5:14-16,” by Albert Mohler; “Counted Worthy: Suffering for Christ in a World That Hates Him, Acts 5:41,” by Paul Washer

These were “tell it like it is” essays: stand firm with the Word, even when it is unpopular, and it will be!  Still, God will bless your faithfulness.  I enjoyed reading the Johnson and Washer essays.  Johnson talked about the Galatians and how the Judaizers actually overlapped with Paul on key doctrines, such as Christ dying for people’s sins; still, they were importing an innovation, which asserted that people could take some credit for their salvation, and Paul deemed that to be intolerable.  Johnson also critiqued churches that seek truth from movies, as well as past Christian trends (Jabez, Passion, etc.).  I disagree with Johnson on the movies part, but his critique was still enjoyable to read.  “Oh yeah,” I thought, “I remember Jabez!”  The Washer essay could be blunt and obnoxious.  Still, it made some interesting points.  For instance, pastors are encouraged to say “we” sin rather than “you” sin in sermons, but Washer defends the latter, pointing to examples in Scripture of the latter.  He believes the latter is more convicting.  I still see value in the former: it highlights that we are all flawed, none is better than the other, we are on this journey together, and we all need a Savior.

“Christ and the Completion of the Canon, John 14-16,” by Brad Klassen

Klassen argues that Jesus anticipated the New Testament and the books of the New Testament canon. This essay does address a significant question.  I agree with Klassen that the apostles in the New Testament believe that they are custodians of the Word of God.  Whether that means that Jesus or Paul anticipated or explicitly predicted the New Testament canon, I do not know.  Maybe that goes too far.

“Seeing Christ in the Old Testament, Luke 24:25-27,” by Abner Chou; “Christ, the Culmination of the Old Testament, Luke 24:27, 44,” by Michael Grisanti; “Beginning with Moses: The OT Witness to the Suffering Messiah,” by Iosif J. Zhakevich

Chou and Grisanti both speak against a Christian approach to the Old Testament that sees virtually every line and story as a type or allegory about Christ.  They still believe that Christ is predicted in the Old Testament, though.  Chou situates themes and books within the Old Testament within a larger Christian context: Proverbs, for example, “explains royal court wisdom that the Messiah will fulfill as the ultimate king.”  Maybe not originally, but perhaps it can, within a larger canonical context.  Something that I appreciated about Grisanti’s essay was that Grisanti interpreted Micah 5:2, not in reference to Christ’s eternity, but rather in reference to God’s restoration of the ancient Davidic kingdom; Grisanti cites Amos 9:11 as a parallel.  Zhakevich thinks that David in II Samuel 7 anticipates the Messiah, even though the chapter mentions a Davidic son who will need to be chastened for sin, whereas Jesus was sinless.  Zhakevich also assumes that Isaiah 53 is Messianic, without engagement of other interpretations.  Still, Zhakevich’s citation of Psalm 22 can get one at least to contemplate the possibility that Psalm 22 is about something large and grand in scale: it predicts that all families will worship God, and Christianity has come close to bringing that about.

“Jesus Is Better: The Final Word, Hebrews 1:1-3,” by Austin Duncan

Duncan takes Hebrews 1:1-3 in a cessationist direction: Jesus is God’s ultimate word, so we do not need any new words from God.  Is that necessarily the case?  Cannot God guide Christians within the context of a relationship, in light of Jesus’ revelation?  Duncan made some compelling points, though.  He referred to Christians in Hebrews losing their property (10:34), and allowed that to illuminate Hebrews’ statement about Jesus being the owner of all things.  Duncan also painted a vivid picture of how the Old Testament system continually sacrificed animals, and how that contrasted with Jesus’ single sacrifice taking away sin.

“Around the Throne: The Heavenly Witness of the Redeemed to the Work of the Lamb, Revelation 4-5,” by Conrad Mbewe

What was most interesting in this essay was how Mbewe appealed to his African culture to illuminate biblical themes, such as the majesty of God.  Approaching a chief in Africa is not done lightly.

This book is a fairly deep read.  Some things in it were not new, but even those parts were edifying.  The book also offered interpretations that were fresh and insightful.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.

Church Write-Up: Reanimating the Demoralized, Forgiveness in II Corinthians 1-7, Zacchaeus the Son of Abraham, Joshuas

Here are some items from the church services and activities that I attended last Sunday.

A.  Last Sunday was Pentecost Sunday.  The pastor at the Missouri Synod Lutheran church was preaching about Ezekiel 37, which is about the valley of the dry bones.  The pastor painted a compelling picture of the exiled Israelites’ situation.  They were exiled and demoralized, feeling dead.  They had lost to the Babylonians.  They were like dry bones on a battlefield.  But God animated them through Ezekiel’s word and God’s Spirit.  Similarly, we may be feeling demoralized or like losers, but God wants to give us abundant life, zoe, which goes beyond mere survival (bios).

The pastor also opened his sermon with a personal anecdote about when one of his daughter’s was born.  He and his wife could actually see her in the womb through technology, and they saw her face.  He could tell by her nose that she was theirs!  But they felt even more joyful when she actually was born.  I do not entirely recall how this fit into the message of the sermon.  I was expecting him to say that we may intellectually know about God, but there is a difference between that and having an experience of God through God’s Spirit.  That may have been his implication.

B.  As is often the case, the Missouri Synod church’s Sunday school class got into a lot of issues.  This particular class is about the topic of forgiveness, and it focuses on II Corinthians 1-7.  Some points that were made:

—-A lady pointed out II Corinthians 1:22, in which Paul affirms that God put God’s seal on the Corinthian Christians and gave them the Spirit in their hearts as a first installment of the redemption that is to come.  Why did Paul mention this?  The teacher speculated that Paul was saying this so that the Corinthians could feel truly forgiven.  Both Paul and the Corinthians hurt one another deeply.  The Corinthians may have wondered if they truly were forgiven, like Joseph’s brothers in Genesis 50 wondered if Joseph truly had forgiven them after the PTSD that they had put them through.  Paul reassured the Corinthian Christians that they were indeed forgiven, sealed by God.

—-Paul in II Corinthians 1:8 refers to affliction that he and his co-workers experienced in Asia.  The teacher said that this may refer to the riot in Ephesus in Acts 19, but he thinks it may also refer to Paul’s eagerness to hear from Titus, who was his go-between with the Corinthian church.  Paul wanted to know that his relationship with the Corinthian Christians had improved: that they knew he was sorry, and that he had forgiven them.  II Corinthians 2:12 and chapter 7 presents these feelings.

—-Paul in II Corinthians 1:12-13 talks about Paul and Corinthians boasting in their forgiveness of each other on the day of Christ Jesus.  In those days, the teacher said, boasting was a good thing: people would show their resumes so that others would know where to place them in society.  Paul said that his resume before God would be, not his preaching or his travels or his miracles, but the mutual forgiveness between him and the Corinthian church.

—-Paul talks in II Corinthians 1 about his sufferings.  The teacher seemed to be suggesting that Paul’s sufferings helped him to forgive, perhaps because they humbled him.  The teacher speculated that at least part of Paul’s sufferings was his feelings of guilt over his persecution of the church.  When Paul in Romans 12:14 exhorts the Roman Christians to bless those who persecute them, he may have had in mind that he had been such a persecutor.  Paul also could reach out to Sosthenes, who had been one of his accusers, because Paul, like Sosthenes, had been a persecutor of Christians (cp. Acts 18:17; I Corinthians 1:1).  The teacher also referred to I Timothy 1:15, in which Paul (or, for liberal scholars, “Paul”) calls himself the chief of sinners.  In our own little universe, we are the chief of sinners.  We only know some of another person’s sins, the teacher said.  But we know all of our own.

—-In II Corinthians 2:5-11, Paul presents forgiveness as somewhat of a communal exercise.  The teacher said that, when the pastor pronounces forgiveness on us in the services, the pastor is speaking for the community.  Our sins can impact the body, sowing offense and division (as Satan desires).  We need healing and forgiveness as and from the Christian community.  The teacher said that this also occurs when the pastor visits a shut-in and pronounces forgiveness: it may occur one-on-one, but it is still public.

—-The teacher reiterated his point from last week that forgiving an embezzler does not mean making him church treasurer.  But it can entail kneeling with him at the communion altar, greeting him after church, and loving him.

—-The teacher referred to the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant in Matthew 18.  The teacher said that the servant was trying to shake down the person who owed him money because the servant wanted the money in order to help pay off the debt that he had owed to the king, the debt that the king had just cancelled.  He was unwilling to accept the king’s forgiveness.  The king’s response was (in the teacher’s telling), “So be it according to your attitude: if you think that you still owe the debt, then I will treat you as if you still owe the debt.”

C.  At the “Word of Faith” church, the pastor preached about the story of Zacchaeus in Luke 19.  Zacchaeus was a hated tax-collector.  He shook people down for their money and kept some of it for himself.  He had a non-Jewish name, indicating, according to the pastor, that he was considered to be outside of the community of Israel; that, according to the pastor, is why Jesus would later call him a son of Abraham.  Zacchaeus climbed up to the tree to see Jesus because we was not interested in merely being “nice” but recognized that he needed change and wanted to know if Jesus could provide it.  Jesus publicly reached out to him and identified himself with him, and, touched by Jesus’ love and generosity, Zacchaeus became generous.  The pastor noticed that, in a sense, the Gospels associate salvation with giving: Jesus affirmed that salvation came to Zacchaeus’ house after Zacchaeus announced his intention to give generously to the poor.  The rich young ruler in Luke 18, by contrast, walked away from the Kingdom of God because he was unwilling to sell all that he had and give to the poor.  The preacher said that our generosity is an indication that we have been personally impacted and touched by the love, generosity, and grace of God.  The pastor also said that God wants people to switch their game: they are playing the game of law and performance, but God wants them to switch to the game of grace.

D.  I went to the “Word of Faith” church’s monthly praise and prayer service.  It had some “Word of Faith” elements: wanting financial increase from God, claiming God’s “promises,” sowing a seed and reaping a harvest.  The pastor talked about the deaths of many prominent church planters, and also Billy Graham.  He said that he believes that God is raising up a new generation of spiritual fathers and mothers, as God raised up Joshua to replace Moses.  Pastors from the church were going out and laying hands on people, praying for them.  One of them prayed for me, asking God that I might have a new beginning, that the desires of my heart might be met in God, that God might give me a thirst for God, and that I might enjoy God’s people.

I’ll stop here.  I hesitantly leave the comments open, in case someone wants to offer feedback.  I can envision people reading (C.) and cynically saying, “That sounds like salvation by works,” or “That sounds like a fund-raising ploy.”  Or reading (A.) and saying, “Is the Missouri-Synod becoming Joel Osteenish these days?”  I relay these items, not out of total agreement, or even having ideas about how I can relate them to my own life and walk with God.  Still, I think that they are getting at something, even if one can take them to unhelpful extremes if one is not careful.

Book Write-Up: Darkness Visible, by Karlo V. Bordjadze

Karlo V. Bordjadze.  Darkness Visible: A Study of Isaiah 14:3-23 as Christian Scripture.  Eugene: Pickwick, 2017.  See here to purchase the book.

Karlo V. Bordjadze has a Ph.D. in Hebrew Bible from Durham University and teaches at Ashland Theological Seminary.  This book is part of the Princeton Theological Monograph series.

Isaiah 14:3-23 prophesies the fall of the oppressive king of Babylon, at which the nations will rejoice.  The fallen king does not receive an honorable burial.  Of particular interest in the history of biblical interpretation is Isaiah 14:12-15.  This passage describes the fall of a being called Helel ben Shachar, translated in the KJV as “Lucifer, son of the morning,” after he attempted to become like the Most High.  Many Christians have interpreted this passage to be a description of the fall of the angel Lucifer, as he became the evil Satan.

The book pursues a variety of tasks.  It engages in a highly-technical analysis of the language used in Isaiah 14:3-23, warning beforehand that readers may wish to skip that section and get to the meat of the book, if they are so inclined.  The book then proceeds to mention and evaluate options for the reference points of Isaiah 14:3-23.  What king of Babylon, or Assyria (which controlled Babylon at some point), is discussed in Isaiah 14:3-23?  What possible mythological sources are there for Helel ben Shachar, a supernatural being who overreaches in an attempt to overthrow or become like a high God?  Bordjadze discusses ancient Near Eastern options and also Greek options that some claim may have influenced the ancient Near East.  Bordjadze finds many of the proposals for the identity of the king and the sources for Helel to be wanting.

The book talks about the approaches of Origen and John Calvin to Isaiah 14:3-23.  Origen applied the passage to the fall of Satan, as that myth came to supplant the sons of God sleeping with human women (Genesis 6) as the explanation for the origin of evil.  Bordjadze states that the latter story declined in influence in the third century C.E. because many Christians did not accept I Enoch, which contains the story, as Scripture.  According to Bordjadze, part of Origen’s agenda in interpreting Isaiah 14:12-15 as he did was to respond to those who claimed that matter was evil, that God created the devil, or that people lacked free will.  Origen asserted that God did not create the devil but created Lucifer, an angel, who sinned through free will; the same choice is available to all people, Origen exhorted.  Tertullian and Augustine also interpreted Isaiah 14:12-15 in reference to the fall of Satan.

John Calvin, however, interpreted Isaiah 14:3-23 in reference to the king of Babylon, rejecting the idea that it related to Satan.  For Calvin, the king of Babylon sought to exalt himself above God by attacking the Jerusalem Temple, and he is a paradigm of all enemies of the church, who will fall.

Bordjadze then describes and evaluates the perspectives of Walter Brueggemann and Christopher Seitz.  Both employ different methodological approaches, as Brueggemann draws from Paul Ricoeur and Seitz follows the canonical criticism of his mentor, Brevard Childs.  Still, both prioritize the view that Isaiah 14:3-23 concerns the king of Babylon, affirming that its message is that God is sovereign against the ambitions of human tyrants.

Bordjadze places Isaiah 14:3-23 in dialogue with the New Testament’s interpretation of the passage.  Jesus in Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15 apply the passage to the city of Capernaum, which rejected Jesus’ message, averring that it will meet the end of the pagan king of Isaiah 14.  Bordjadze briefly engages Luke 10:18, in which Jesus states that he saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

Bordjadze also contrasts the king of Babylon with Jesus Christ, as the former selfishly sought to be like God in power, while the latter selflessly relinquished power for the benefit of others.

Bordjadze then discusses how Isaiah 14:3-23 influenced J.R.R. Tolkien’s description of the fall of Morgoth.

The assets of this book are many.  My description above highlights key points, but these key points emerged within the context of fuller discussions.  Bordjadze, for example, extensively detailed the methodologies of Bruegemann and Seitz, as well as the motivations of Tolkien in crafting the story that he did.

The book is especially informative in surveying scholarly interpretations of Isaiah 14:3-23, specifically the attempts to identify the king and the mythological source for Helel.

Overall, Bordjadze effectively demonstrated that Isaiah 14:3-23 could be about the king of Babylon seeking to become like God.  For instance, in discussing the rejoicing of the cedars of Lebanon at the king’s downfall, Bordjadze referred to the concept of Lebanon being considered a garden of God.  The notion that the king of Babylon sought to be like God through oppression, especially oppression of God’s people, is also plausible.

In Bordjadze’s treatment of Isaiah 14 as Christian Scripture, he focuses on the passage being about the king of Babylon, without really doing anything with the Christian application of the passage to Satan.  I am ambivalent about this.  This marginalization of the “Satan” interpretation is understandable.  Bordjadze wants to respect the historical-critical meaning of Isaiah 14, while allowing that historical-critical meaning to dialogue with the New Testament.  Saying that Isaiah 14 is about Satan is considered anachronistic by many biblical scholars.  Still, can a treatment of Isaiah 14 as Christian Scripture legitimately marginalize the “Satan” interpretation?  It appears in Luke 10:18 and, arguably, Revelation 12 (and, as far as I can recall, Bordjadze did not engage the latter).  Is there a way to respect the historical-critical meaning of Isaiah 14, while also giving the “Satan” interpretation more prominence?  Perhaps one could say that the New Testament sees Satan as being behind oppressive powers, or claim that the New Testament developed themes from Isaiah 14.

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.

Book Write-Up: Israel, the Church, and the Middle East

Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, ed.  Israel, the Church, and the Middle East: A Biblical Response to the Current Conflict.  Kregel, 2018.  See here to purchase the book.

This book comes out in celebration of the state of Israel’s seventieth anniversary.  Scholars and a lawyer contribute essays to this publication.

Here are some of my reactions to the book:

A.  I will get my controversial criticism out of the way first: I thought that the book was one-sided.  Its overall message seems to be that Israel is in the right, whereas the Palestinians who are critical of Israel are in the wrong.  The way that peace can arrive in the Middle East, this book appears to imply, is if Palestinians become Christians and thus acknowledge the Jewish people’s right to the land.  Occasionally, there was an acknowledgement of Palestinians’ grievances.  Michael Brown referred to works that support a one-state solution while still offering ideas as to how Israel can make peace with the Palestinians.  A footnote refers to Darrell Bock’s statement that Israel does not have a right to do anything she wants.  But this was very occasional.  One contributor said that Christians who criticize Israel are hurting Christian attempts to evangelize to Jews.  But do not evangelicals hurt their witness when they side with Israel, as Israel inflicts pain and death on Palestinians?  This is not to suggest that the book lacks arguments that deserve consideration: about Israel’s current inclusion of Arabs into the political system, about Israel’s contribution to science, and about misdeeds among certain leaders in the Arab world.  Still, the book could have been more balanced, in seeking to approach the conflict in a Christ-like manner.

B.  More than one essay in this book argued that the land promises to Israel are still valid in the eyes of God, meaning that Israel has a divine right to her land.  There are indications within the Hebrew Bible that God’s covenant with Abraham is everlasting.  Prophecies paint a picture of Israel playing a prominent role when God establishes God’s reign on earth.  Passages in the New Testament appear to indicate that Israel has a right to her land.  The book cited a number of them, but one that comes to mind is Jesus’ reference to the time of the Gentiles coming to an end (Luke 21:24).  Does that not imply that Gentile domination over the land of Israel will end, and the Jews will possess sovereignty over their land?  And Michael Rydelnik adeptly argues against interpretations of biblical passages that argue that the land promises have been spiritualized under the New Covenant.  The case that this book made was fairly effective.  Still, questions can be asked.  Are there not institutions that are called everlasting in the Hebrew Bible that Christians no longer observe literally?  Phinehas’ priesthood (Numbers 25:13) and circumcision (Genesis 17:13) come to mind.  The New Testament arguably spiritualizes Old Covenant rituals and concepts that are called everlasting or perpetual.  What makes the land promises any different?

C.  The book is informative about a number of issues.  One essay surveys the belief that the land promises are still binding within the history of Christian thought.  Another essay profiles Messianic Judaism in Israel.  Another essay provides an extensive survey of evangelical attitudes towards Israel.  The argument is made that more Christians than classic dispensationalists support the state of Israel.  And the chapter about Palestinian Christians was not only informative but also was moving.

D.  Michael Brown’s essay is thoughtful, even if it is inconclusive.  Essentially, he discusses Joel 3:2, which speaks against dividing the land of Israel, and he asks if that implies that God would disapprove of a two-state solution.  Brown refers to different interpretations of that passage, but he also interacts with other theological issues.  For example, do the Jews residing in Israel have a right to the land, when many of them reject Christ?  Either they are secularist, or they are religious and persecute Messianic Jews.  Brown concludes that they have the land by God’s grace.

E.    The book did well to have a concluding chapter by Darrell Bock that summarized the previous chapters.

F.  The book could have used more editing.  There were some grammatical errors and missing words.  One of the graphs made no sense: Is not thirty-six percent larger than seven percent?  Why, then, is the seven percent bar higher than the thirty-six percent one?

I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher.  My review is honest.

Church Write-Up: More on Forgiveness, Imperfection, the Promise to Ruth

Here is my Church Write-Up about last Sunday.

A.  I’ll start by talking about the Sunday school class.  This is at the Missouri Synod Lutheran church that I attend.  The Sunday school class is about forgiveness, and its main text is II Corinthians 1-7.

The teacher was saying that forgiveness is looking at a person’s sin through the blood of Christ.  There are limits to the ways that we attempt to cope with people’s sins against us.  We may try to understand why a person did what he or she did, but some acts we cannot understand, or they may be so horrible that we do not want to try to understand them.  But if we remember that Christ died for every sin, we will be able to forgive.  Or Christ in us would forgive (Galatians 2:19).  So the teacher said.

The teacher reiterated his point from last week that forgiveness was a banking term and related to the forgiveness of debts.  God is like the head of the bank, but we join God as co-bankers when we forgive.  This was interesting, since some differentiate between God’s forgiveness of sins against God from our forgiveness of sins against us.  Still, why not?  Both spread forgiveness.

The teacher asked what sin is.  He referred to Leviticus, where God commands sin offerings for women who give birth, and for people who recover from skin disease.  What is so naughty about these?  The teacher said that sin is whatever runs counter to the world as God created it.  For instance, God created childbirth, but God did not originally intend for it to hurt as much as it does.  When Jesus came to earth, he was healing the world: he brought people forgiveness but also physical healing.

The teacher appealed to the example of Sosthenes.  Sosthenes was a ruler of a synagogue who was beaten (Acts 18:17).  Even though he may have been among those who were accusing Paul before the Roman governor Gallio, Paul may have reached out to him after he was beaten.  In I Corinthians 1:1, Paul refers to our brother Sosthenes.  According to the teacher, Paul did not see anyone as an enemy, but he regarded everyone as one for whom Christ died.

The teacher said that the reason that Christ was baptized, even though he had not sinned, is that he was repenting on our behalf, the same way that he kept God’s law on our behalf.  We stink at repentance because there will always be a part of us that is unrepentant.

Where does repentance fit in to forgiveness?  The teacher said that we should not bear a grudge against anyone or try to get even.  Still, in our interactions with others, we should desire people’s repentance.  If someone wrongs us, we should tell that person of the hurtful act, for his or her benefit, not so much ours.  An expression of forgiveness is like a life-preserver: a person will not receive or appreciate it if he or she does not realize that he or she is drowning.

The teacher said that we do not need to be friends with those we forgive, though it is beautiful when that happens.  Forgiveness does not necessarily mean everything returning to how it was before the offense.  He referred to a church treasurer who embezzled.  He repented, but he will not be a church treasurer ever again.

The teacher said that civil law can bring a person to repentance.  He talked some about Luther’s Two Kingdoms view: a murderer may repent and be forgiven by God, but he or she should still be executed.  I do not know.  Is not contrition something that even civil judges consider when they are deciding what penalties to give out?

I thought that a lot of what the teacher made sense.  It’s just that I struggle with God’s commands that I feel or not feel a certain way.

B.  The sermon at the Missouri Synod church was about Jesus sending out the disciples.  Jesus does not tell us to change the world dramatically, the pastor said, and he realizes that we are imperfect.  Still, he tells us to “Go” and affirms that he will be with us where we go.  The pastor brought Mother’s Day into the equation, talking about how we (all of us, including himself) have been imperfect parents and imperfect children.

C.  At the “Word of Faith” church, the sermon was about Ruth.  Ruth did not have children at first but later was promised that she would have more children than Rachel and Leah.  God multiplies, the pastor’s daughter said.  She also said that God loves barrenness because that gives God an opportunity to work.  We can offer people ourselves, but that will not help them ultimately.  But we can offer them Jesus, and Jesus can help them.

Ruth would also build Israel, according to Naomi’s promise.  Ruth would fit into a cause larger than herself.  The pastor’s daughter likened that to building the church.  She talked about her son and how he would not destroy a house of legos that he built.  Yet, some people, even those who are involved in the church, may find themselves denigrating the church.

Ruth was a Moabitess, and the pastor’s daughter said that Boaz was taking the risk of demoting his own status by marrying her.  But he did so, and he was remembered, as was his descendant David.  Mr. So-and-So, who decided not to marry Ruth because he wanted his inheritance to stay in his family, was not remembered by name.  The pastor’s daughter said that this highlights the importance of helping the marginalized.

Throughout the sermon, we were shown clips of people in the church.  One helped others find their voice or their talents, remembering that she used to be someone who sat in the back.  Another had a menial job yet managed to make a difference in someone’s life.  Another could not have children but acted as a mentor to people in church.