Pentecostalisms, Peacemaking, and Social Justice/Righteousness

I'm thrilled to once again be attending the annual meeting of the Society for Pentecostal Studies (SPS).  This year it is being hosted by Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA from March 1-4 (which promises to be much warmer than Karlstad).  The topic is one I find close to my heart -- "Pentecostalisms, Peacemaking, and Social Justice/Righteousness" and this year I will be chairing one of the Bible sessions.  It looks to be an interesting conference.  You can view a PDF of the sessions HERE.  

The two presenters and their respective papers I will be chairing are:
"‘New Treasures and Old’: (Re-)Reading the Old Testament Theologically with Early Pentecostal Mothers and Fathers" -- Chris Green, Bangor University (Wales)
"‘Tell Me the Old, Old Story’: The Hymns and Testimonies of Ancient Israel and American Pentecostals" --
Meghan Musy, Missouri State University

I am thrilled to be able to chair the session (especially as it pertains to the joint topics of Pentecostals and the OT).  Also, its a delight to be able to chair for Chris Green...who I've found helpful in several previous sessions of SPS concerning the integration of the sacraments -- and a sacramental appreciation -- and Pentecostal theology and praxis.


On a related note...I realized I still haven't joined Pentecostals and Charismatics for Peace and Justice, but will have to rectify that this year.  By joining you can elect to receive a PCPJ mug, shirt or book (Pentecostal Pacifism by Jay Beaman).  This group was formed by Paul Alexander (and several others of like mind) of whom I intend in 2012 to read his "Peace to War: Shifting Allegiances in the Assemblies of God".

"Fourteen" Generations?

This week I preached from Matthew 1:1-17 on the genealogy of Jesus.  Talk about a fun text!  Needless to say, one of the elements of this text that is troubling (at a certain level) is the emphasis by Matthew on "fourteen generations" from Abraham to David, then David to the exile in Babylon, then the exile to the Christ.  When one counts the names in each list it becomes readily apparent that there are not fourteen in all three.  The first is fine, but the other two are not. 

There have been a number of proposals for resolving this and I'll just mention them briefly followed by my own proposal.
1) At least one of the names should be counted in both lists.  For instance, David or Jeconiah.
2) The three groups of fourteen are meant to refer to six groups of seven (which is considered a number of completion).
3) Fourteen should be understood as gematria (where the letters of the alphabet represent numbers) and David in the Hebrew (דָּוִד dawid - only the consonants have numeric value) is 4+6+4 which equals 14.  Thus, David and Jesus connection to him as the Christ is the central point.

The first should be rejected because there is actually no clear indication of adding only one name twice.  It fails to work out intelligibly in any counting.  The second proposal fails because Matthew emphatically notes "fourteen" and not seven.  This would also place Jesus within the groups and fails to actually count the names.  The third (being the leading preference for interpreting this passage) falls short (in my opinion) because it requires a Hebrew gematria reading of a Greek text, which seems overly complex.  The use of a name being equal to the number is also not noted (as elsewhere in Scripture - cf. Rev.13:18).

My own proposal is simply to consider the "fourteen" generations for each of the groups as referring to the fulness of time.  This is then taken to point to Jesus as the Christ coming in the line of the promise to Abraham to bless all the nations, and to king David to have a son who would sit on the throne forever.  Thus, making this text a wonderful fit for Advent season (on which also see the post by Dan Thompson concerning "hope").  To be certain, the number "fourteen" in this context is ambiguous at best.  One can only guess that Matthew's original audience understood what was meant.  So what are your thoughts?

Why Amos Is a Downer This Time of Year

Today I opened my blogreader to discover that Dan Thompson was discussing (tongue-in-cheek) why Amos is a real downer to read for advent season.  I personally think he's probably not much fun at parties either, so I wouldn't recommend inviting him to any this season...unless you like being told you are the first to be taken away as a prisoner-of-war because you were living the high-life.

 4 They lie around on beds decorated with ivory, and sprawl out on their couches. They eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the middle of the pen.
 5 They sing to the tune of stringed instruments; like David they invent musical instruments.
 6 They drink wine from sacrificial bowls, and pour the very best oils on themselves. Yet they are not concerned over the ruin of Joseph.
 7 Therefore they will now be the first to go into exile, and the religious banquets where they sprawl on couches will end. (Amos 6:4-7 NET)

 (As an aside, Dan is giving away a free copy of the CEB every week till Christmas for those who comment on his advent readings and link back to them...so if you want a chance at a CEB...)

Abandoning Heaven

As I've worked my way through Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, I've become convinced that the notion of "heaven" should be rejected as falling short of orthodox Christian confession.  What do I mean by such a thing?  It strikes me that our world largely embraces the notion of "heaven," but that is not the confession of the historic Church.  We do not confess belief in "heaven", but in "the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting".  It is not faith in the Christian sense that is necessary to believe in heaven (I don't know that I know almost anyone who doesn't believe in heaven), but it is this kind of faith that is essential for belief in the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting.  These two beliefs should not be confused. 

Now, don't get me wrong.  I'm not abandoning the truth of God's presence and kingdom as now, but not yet.  What I'm abandoning is the contemporary embrace of "heaven" as a place of disembodied existence.  This fails to account for the very bodily resurrection from the dead of which Christ is the first-fruit.  As the Church, we confess, and long for, a bodily existence that is transformed by the life-giving power of the Spirit which is in Christ Jesus.  Our bodies will most assuredly be raised at the last day, even as we already are living resurrected lives of obedience...yielding our very lives to the Spirit.

Talk of "heaven" though is a disembodied talk.  It is a talk of immaterial "spiritual" existence.  It is not the Biblical doctrine of last things.  The end is an end where the dead in Christ are raised because they have died and been buried with Christ.  This has everything to do with bodily life now.  It is not a sloughing off of this body and an immaterial entrance into a better plane of existence.  It is the transformation of this body, because this body belongs to Christ as we yield all that we are to the obedience of Him.

So I reject the notion of "heaven" and embrace the resurrection and life everlasting...where death has been swallowed up in victory!  Come, Lord Jesus!

Women Should Remain Silent (?)

I've been preaching through 1 Corinthians this last year and recently covered chapter 14.  While there are many things which are heavily debated in this chapter, I particularly wondered how to preach verses 34-35.

 34 women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
 35 If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor.14:34-35 NIV84)

 Interestingly, the NIV84 (CEB, CEV, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NET, NJB and NRSV) makes 34a "women should remain silent in the churches" a part of the preceding statement in verse 33 (which in full reads: "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints,").  The KJV, NIV2011 (though see the footnote), NKJV, NLT, and TNIV read the last phrase of verse 33 with the first phrase and then end verse 33 with a period...thus separating 33 from 34.  I personally prefer the reading of the latter. 

Also, how does one preach "women should remain silent in the churches"?  I know the traditional explanations I've heard about women speaking up asking questions but being too far away from their husbands and thus disturbing the congregational meeting, but I find this utterly unsatisfactory on historical grounds for congregational settings.  How does remaining "silent" relate to Paul's earlier instruction that women could publicly pray and prophecy (1 Cor.11:5, 13; 14:31)?  I ended up essentially passing over this text with some comments about its questionable content and thus a need to not make doctrine of it in light of Gordon Fee's arguments (NICNT "The First Epistle to the Corinthians" Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987: pp.705-708) for verses 34-35 being an interpolation (since one of the issues is that in a number of manuscripts this text is placed completely after chapter 14 suggesting their was early question of the placement -- or authenticity???).

So how would you preach this text?

Brief Introduction to the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah (with Bibliography)

Ezra begins his record in 538 BC just after the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus king of Persia (cf. Ezra 1:1) and describes some of the events leading to his own work in Jerusalem some eighty years later (458 BC) where Nehemiah takes up his primary work some twenty more years later (430-424 BC; cf. Ezra 7:7-8; Neh.13:6).  Ezra may have returned to Susa sometime after his initial visit in 458 BC.  Nehemiah arrived in 458 BC as governor of Judah and stayed for approximately twelve years during which time Ezra seems to have returned to Jerusalem.  Nehemiah returned again in 430 BC for further reforms.  It appears that the temple had been initially begun under the governor of Judah Sheshbazzar prior to Ezra’s arrival, but began again following the prophetic ministries of Haggai and Zechariah in about 520BC.  The completion and rededication of the temple occurred about 515 BC (Ezra 6:16-18). 

The nature of Ezra-Nehemiah shows essentially that they are compilations of edicts, lists, letters and the “memoirs” of Ezra and Nehemiah respectively.  The Hebrew text treats the two books of the English Bible as a single work (cf. Babylonian Talmud: Baba Bathra 15a; Jos.Con.Ap.3:8; Melito of Sardis according to Eusebius’ Ecc.Hist.IV.26 ; Jerome Prologue to the Galatians).  They were likely completed sometime ca. 400-300 BC though the earlier, rather than the later date, seems preferable (Williamson xxxvi).  It is likely the books were not originally written as a unity in part because of the repetition of lists (Ezra 2; Neh.7:6-70).  They were, however, early on joined together as a single volume and so should be regarded as such.

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason.  A Survey of Old Testament Introduction.  Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1994. pp.395-401.  Arnold, Bill T., and H. G. M. Williamson, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005.  Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence Fretheim, and David L. Peterson.  A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament.  Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1999. pp. 424-428.  Breneman, Mervin.  Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.  The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, Vol. 10.  Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing, 1993.  Brueggemann, Walter.  An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination.  Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. pp. 363-374.  Childs, Brevard S.  “Ezra and Nehemiah,” An Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.     Philadelphia, PA: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1979.  pp. 624-638.  Fensham, F. Charles.  The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah.  The New International Commentary on the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1982.  Harrison, Ronald K.  “The Book of Ezra-Nehemiah,” Introduction to the Old Testament.  Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1969. pp. 1135-1151.  Kaiser, Jr., Walter C.  Toward an Old Testament Theology.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1991.  pp.258-261.  Kidner, Derek.  Ezra and Nehemiah.  Vol. 12, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries.  Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.  VanGemeren, Willem A., Gen.Ed.  New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.  5 Volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997.  Waltke, Bruce K.  An Old Testament Theology: An Exegetical, Canonical and Thematic Approach.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007. pp.771-802.  Williamson, H. G. M.  Ezra, Nehemiah.  Vol. 16, Word Biblical Commentary.  Nelson Reference & Electronic, 1985.  Young, Edward J.  “Ezra-Nehemiah,” An Introduction to the Old Testament.  London: The Tyndale Press, 1956.  pp. 369-379.

List of Abbreviations

1 Macc      = First Maccabees

1 Esd         = First Esdras

2 Macc      = Second Maccabees

AD             = Anno Domini (the Year of our Lord)

Aram.        = Aramaic

BC             = Before Christ

ca.              = approximately

cf.              = cross reference

Eusebius’

Ecc.Hist.   = Eusebius’ Church History

Heb.           = Hebrew

Josephus

Ant.           = Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews

Con.Ap.     = Josephus’ Against Apion

KJV           = King James Version of the Bible

LXX          = Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible

NASB       = New American Standard Bible (1995)

NET          = New English Translation

NIDOTTE = New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis

NIV           = New International Version (1984)                                          

NRS          = New Revised Standard Version (1989)

NT             = New Testament

OT             = Old Testament

RSV           = Revised Standard Version

The books of the Bible are as follows: Gen. Exo. Lev. Num. Deut. Josh. Jud. 1-2 Sam. 1-2 Kings 1-2 Chron. Ezra Neh. Esther Job Ps. Prov. Ecc. Song Isa. Jer. Lam. Eze. Dan. Hos. Joel Amos Oba. Jonah Mic. Nah. Hab. Zeph. Hag. Zech. Mal. Mt. Mk. Lk. Jn. Acts Rom. 1-2 Cor. Gal. Eph. Phil. Col. 1-2 Thess. 1-2 Tim. Tit. Phile. Heb. James 1-2 Pet. 1-3 Jn. Jude Rev.

The Composition of the Deuteronomistic History

There are three primary schools of thought on the Deuteronomistic History. The first to postulate the DH was Martin Noth, who went against the grain of previous scholars of the Old Testament, and argued that rather than the books of Joshuah-2 Kings being the work of various authors and/or redactors that there was actually only a single author/redactor whom he called the Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr) and whose work he labelled the Deuteronomistic History (DH). Instead of seeing many strands of tradition and compositions, Noth recognized a unification of these works which in his estimation represented five different “histories” of Israel with singular authorial intent. This singular tradent compiled numerous sources (including citing some by name) and composed his work as the theological history of Israel from the end of Moses' life to the end of the monarchy. According to Noth, it was written shortly after the release of Jehoiachin from imprisonment at the hands of the Babylonians and was intended to help Israel reflect upon the reason for their exile and God's just judgment.

Following the work of Noth, several scholars (von Rad and Wolff) noted what they believed to be redactional activity accomplished after the proposed date of the Dtr of Noth's theory. There were also issues with the largely negative assessment of Noth concerning the authorial intent of his Dtr.

This in turn led to two further schools of thought: the so-called “Harvard school” and the “Göttingen school.” The former was led by the work of Frank Moore Cross who postulated a double redaction of the DH. Essentially Cross held to Noth's theory of the more negative view of the Dtr, but added a second view for this author/editor: “grace” (DOT:HB 223). He also believed there was a later author/editor whom he labelled Dtr² in contradistinction to Dtr¹. The work of Dtr¹ was (according to this school) composed sometime around the reign of Josiah and he held to hope for redemption because of the Josainic reforms. While Dtr¹ held to the double message of judgment/grace (with the emphasis on the latter as the hope of Israel); Dtr² was believed to have written during the exile and appended (and inserted into the DH of Dtr¹) passages which indicated the inevitability of exile despite the earlier Josianic reforms. This was an attempt to explain the notions of judgment, hope and finally judgment.

A German scholar, R. Smend Jr., founded the “Göttingen school” of thought on the DH distinct from the “Harvard school” of Cross. Smend and his “school” postulated that Noth's Dtr was an exilic initial and primary compiler whom he called DtrG (or DtrH). This work was added to by a later redactor (whome he called DtrN) who had a particular nomistic intent to his writing and thus emphasized the law and problems of foreign presence and influence in Israel. One of Smend's students felt that Smend's theories did not sufficiently deal with all of the material of the DH and so he added a further (and later) redactor whom he labelled DtrP as the prophetic Deuteronomist. This final redactor made much of the reign of Manasseh according to Dietrich. However, it remains questionable (even among those of the “Göttingen school”) whether there really is any distinction to be made between DtrH and DtrP.

Bibliography

Richter, Sandra L. “Deuteronomistic History,” Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books (Eds. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005): 219-230.