The Use of Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4:A Typological Approach Toward a Solution

Tags

Exposition of Ephesians, expository hermeneutics, Hermeneutics at Moody Bible Institute, Moses Typology in Paul, Pauline Hermeneutics, Pauline Typology, Preaching Ephesians 4, Southeastern Theological Review, Typology

Southeastern Theological Review 13.2 has published my essay, “The Use of Psalm 68 in Ephesians 4: A Typological Approach Toward a Solution.” Many thanks go to the journal’s editor, Dr. Ben Merkle, and his team, for making my work available. I hope you will enjoy the article and subscribe to digital alerts for the journal.

It’s A Sad Moment When an Evangelical Preacher Misses the Point of the Passage

Tags

Big Idea of Preaching, Evangelical Preaching, expository listening, expository preaching, God's Voice in Preaching, Gospel Preaching, Haddon Robinson Big Idea, Listening to a Sermon, the goal of preaching

I listened to a sermon preached this weekend at a large evangelical church in the suburbs of Chicago. It was not my own church, nor was the speaker an elder or member of the pastoral staff of our church. The congregation and their edifice were much larger and much more suburban than my own assembly. I had high expectations based on the size of the church, for I hoped that the word of God was drawing people to the thousands of seats in this sanctuary. However, I could not have been more disappointed in what I heard. I will not mention the passage or church so as to hide the identity of the speaker in my brief review. First, the person preaching totally missed the Big Idea of the passage — the main idea, the central idea —and substituted his own. His own idea was clever and drew from the personal significance of the textual words in English rather than from the meaning of the combined words, structure, theology, and tone of the text. 

That preacher’s struggle to find the central idea in this narrative passage reminded me of the great importance of my task in teaching hermeneutics to my students: We must discern what God has said through the human author and not communicate our own extrinsic idea as the main idea. We are not preaching God’s words if we are not communicating his main idea through the author, no matter how clever, creative, or cool our idea sounds.

Second, for a theological issue in the passage he did not understand, the preacher attempted to explain it by means of an analogy. It was a good attempt, but it showed little concern for his people’s need for a correct theological understanding. It would have been good for him to give more thought and study to the issue and present accurate theology to those he served. Who knows if his listeners ever will have this theological error corrected even as they attempt to build their lives and theological knowledge on the error?

Third, the preacher ignored the issue of nationalism that was part of the meaning of the passage. On a particular point of application, he expressed agreement with striving for “social justice” (even though what he described was not social justice but social service; the wrong identity reinforces false ideas about social justice). He followed his expression by saying that the gospel is a proclamation not simply a demonstration. 

Sigh. 

Was that false distinction even necessary? 

Apparently, it was necessary based on his audience’s response, for he received a hearty “Amen!” from many people. He could not hide that he was playing to the sentiments of the membership rather than applying what the biblical text means.

Again, the preacher skipped the nationalistic thrust of the passage, misspoke about social justice, and then separated the so-called “gospel” from serving people socially. I was witnessing the soft reinforcing of Christian nationalism or at least the ignoring of it. It is no wonder so many evangelicals are not confronted on sins related to their preferred political ideologies if this preaching is representative of the typical evangelical pulpit, which I fear it is. I should not have been surprised, though, since there was an American flag posted in the sanctuary.

I was thankful that the preacher later explained the gospel in a succinct form. He preached the wrath of God as God’s just judgment against sin. He exalted Christ’s death and resurrection as God’s solution for sin and wrath. He challenged the listeners to repent and trust Christ. Christ was preached, and for this I rejoiced!

Still, I am sad for that congregation. I am sad over a preacher who substituted his own idea for God’s idea in the passage, over a congregation that received that message as the word of God, and over the missed opportunity to challenge believers to pursue God-glorifying life-change based on God’s meaning in the passage. There were several other misgivings in the preaching of this passage, including the building of a point of application from an admittedly speculative interpretation by some scholars. However, the three aforementioned concerns stood out as most significant.

Finally, may I encourage believers in the pews to remove any and all expectations for the preacher to make you feel good about your faith, to say what is familiar or agreeable, to affirm your values or political views, or to make sure you leave the worship service without critical spiritual and theological challenge? It is not the preacher’s job to do anything other than preach the word of God in love with a view toward calling all hearers to the obedience of faith. The preacher I heard gave the evangelical form of scratching itchy ears, making people laugh at jokes and nod at error cloaked as Theology Lite. As preachers, our calling is to herald the gospel and all of its implications for living life before our Savior and King. We have one grand opportunity to do so each week. We need to be the best stewards possible over that calling and not send people away in disobedience or ignorance but with smiles on their faces. The gospel also is education, not job-preservation.

Instead, members should expect to leave the preaching event with a robust sense of conviction, correction, instruction, humility, hope, anticipation, and celebration of Christ. We should walk away feeling the gravity, grace, and gladness of having met with God and heard his voice.

Resources

Phil Ryken, “How to Listen to a Sermon.”

Christopher Ash, “7 Ways to Become a Better Sermon Listener.“

“If it Walks Like a Duck?” Everything that Claims to be “Expositional Preaching” is not Expositional Preaching

Tags

Charles Simeon Trust, Christ-Centered Exposition Series, David Helm, expositional preaching, Hermeneutics of Preaching, Judges 13, Preaching Judges, Tony Merida

I had a brief social media exchange with people I do not know about a well known preacher’s expositions of Scripture. I remarked that the preacher in question is a highly competent expositor of NT Letters –  which, if trained in evangelical academies that affirm inerrancy, is almost a given. (As Jonathan Pennington says, “For Protestants, especially evangelicals, especially Reformed, doctrine-oriented ones, we love Paul. Give us Romans and thirteen years to preach through it phrase by phrase, and we will be in heaven!” [Reading the Gospels Wisely, Baker Academic, 2012], 37.) However, I also mentioned that the same preacher is not a competent expositor of NT Gospels and Acts, or the OT. I made no comment on the person’s abilities with the book of Revelation because I did not want a debate over views of interpreting the Apocalypse.

The comments related to the NT Letters and the other biblical literature recognizes that many expositors use hermeneutics intended for NT Letters to interpret the Fourfold Gospel, Acts, Revelation, and the OT. When they do so, they yield sermons that do not respect the biblical writer’s combined theology, structure, tone, and argument even if they might respect the use of the original languages. Yet even that respect for the languages is only to a certain degree if one does not place the grammar and syntax of the language back into the structured theological content of the passage’s tone and flow of the argument of the words.

Expositional preaching takes the biblical author’s central idea in a passage and communicates that idea to a contemporary audience, while respecting the biblical author’s language, structure, theology, tone, and argument. To do otherwise in preaching is not exposition, even if one is a highly respected expositor of the NT Letters.

For example, the subject of Judges 13 is, “Manoah’s increasing understanding of the identity of the Angel of the Lord in the revelation of the child to be born to his barren wife.” While there are typology and echo related to the child to be born, the passage moves from Manoah’s ignorance related to the words of the Angel to Manaoah and his nameless wife bowing in worship before the Angel as the Angel reveals his divine identity. If one preaches a sermon on Judges 13 without the above subject being the central idea behind the homiletical idea, the sermon will not be an exposition of this passage no matter how well studied, crafted, and delivered.

A good adage to insert here might be the one that begins, “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck….” However, having moved to Chicago, I have noticed how many people identify Canadian Geese as ducks.

Although our methods differ ever so slightly, I highly respect the work of David Helm and what his team at Charles Simeon Trust is doing to train preachers to give expositions of Scripture in various genres according to the conventions of the genre. Tony Merida and his team of writers are doing the same in the Christ-Centered Exposition series; (see this resource too). Also, if one is looking to approach the exposition of 1 and 2 Chronicles, some helps are offered here, there, and there.

Photo image address: https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-xj69ljw63/images/stencil/935×701/uploaded_images/bigstock-canadian-geese-at-a-michigan-m-372253762.jpg?t=1596650070.

Application of Narrative

Preaching Source blog graciously published a small piece I wrote on the application of biblical narrative. The word count limitation does not allow for other items I include in my classroom lectures on application. However, I hope this small piece gets us thinking about individual narratives within the larger canonical narrative.

Be Perfect – The Meaning of Matthew 5:43-48

Tags

Biblical Exposition, Biblical Preaching, expository hermeneutics, expository listening, expository preaching, Love your enemies, Moody Bible Institute, Moody Theological Seminary, Sermon on the Mount

[43] “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ [44] But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, [45] so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. [46] For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? [47] And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? [48] You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

The Meaning of Matthew 5:43-48:

Jesus’ authoritative teaching on love for one’s enemies corrects the disciples’ practice from reciprocation of sinners to imitation of the Father.

Why do I say this is the author’s intended meaning of this passage?

First, “Jesus’ authoritative teaching” reflects “But I say to you” (44). The content of what he says takes up the most space and unifies the passage, so it is the Subject of the passage. That content concerns “love for one’s enemies.” Jesus gives an imperative on loving enemies (44b), with a reasoning related to sonship before the Father (45), and two examples of wrongly reciprocating love and greetings (46-47).

Second, “corrects” reflects the contrast between what the disciples have been taught and believe to be right and what Jesus now teaches. “Corrects” is what Jesus is doing within the entire passage. His “authoritative teaching” is correcting.

Third, “the disciples’ practice from reciprocation of sinners to imitation of the Father” concerns the remainder of the passage. There were some in the listening crowd who were returning love only to those who demonstrated love toward them, and not toward those who did not. Similarly, there were those in the crowd of listeners who greeted only their fellow Jewish brethren and ignored the Gentiles with their greetings. Those are practices of reciprocation: I will give to you only if and what you give to me. Reciprocation concerns justice, i.e., “I will give you what is fair, what is equal, what you are deserving based on your treatment of me or status in life, and no more.” Any “tax collector” and any “Gentile” – both for whom the first century Jewish people had great disdain – could reciprocate, and did so. So any Jewish listener in the crowd was not being righteous by reciprocating, but was acting no better than any thieving tax-collector or any other non-Jew.

However, Jesus intends for citizens of the kingdom of God to be like our heavenly Father—to imitate his works and not the practices of sinners. Unlike the listeners, tax collectors, and Gentiles, the Father does something vastly different than reciprocating. He gives the sun (and all of its benefits) to people who are evil before him. If he gave the sun as reciprocation, no one would get sunlight, heat, or all of the other benefits of the sun! In the same way, the Lord gives rain to people unrighteous in his sight in the same measure that he gives it to people who stand righteous before him. When it comes to sun and rain, the Lord does not give better treatment to his followers than he does to his haters.

What do such actions by the Father show? They show love toward the sinful; his love toward the good and just is assumed.

So then what is “perfect?” To be perfect is to show love – the Father’s love – to those underserving of your love rather than responding to people on the basis of what a just treatment of their behavior or status toward you would deserve. To do so is to be a son of the Heavenly Father (and to do otherwise is to be like a first century Jewish tax collector and Gentile). To be perfect, is to prioritize love over justice in your personal treatment of people.

So this is a passage that calls us to act with mercy and grace toward all. Go pour out sun and rain on those you deem undeserving of such love, even as the Father is doing for each of us this very moment. The cross of Christ and his resurrection from the dead provide the Son and the reign of God for us, in mercy, at the cost of justice poured out on Christ instead of us.

_________________________

I talk more on the above theory and method of interpretation employed above in Say It! Celebrating Expository Preaching in the African American Tradition (Moody 2020).

Anticipating Avengers: Endgame with an Analysis of Avengers: Infinity War

Tags

Aristotle's Poetics, Christian Review of Avengers, Christian Worldview, Dispensational Eschatology, Dispensational Rapture, Doctrine of Election, E. D. Hirsch Meaning and Significance, Hans Frei's Archetypes, Hermeneutics, Interpreting Movies, Literary Analysis, Moody Bible Institute, Movie Analysis Avengers, Thanos as god

I am looking forward to Avengers: Endgame with excitement. I am eager to see how the decade-long Avengers’ series comes to a close, including how the Avengers will defeat Thanos, return those killed by him, and exalt the heroics of Captain Marvel. I want to see how the Hulk redeems himself, if James Rhodes (War Machine) will regain the use of his legs, and how Wakanda will factor into the victory of the Avengers.

However, I am not looking forward to what I anticipate to be another movie explicitly directed against Christian belief and practice. That is, if the previous movie scoffs at Thanos’ election doctrine and practice, and the defeat of Thanos is the key to avenging the earth and the entire universe, then the Avengers will have to dispose of Thanos and his form of “mercy.” In short, the Avengers will have to dispose of “god.” In fact, I anticipate they will have to kill him.

It is sad that the writers of the Avengers’ series misunderstand the glory of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the love communicated by his salvation, and the richness of his mercy. God the Son partakes in human flesh because we lack innate righteousness and need his righteousness in order to enjoy God, not because we enjoy starving on an overpopulated planet.

I have attached my brief analysis of Avengers: Infinity War, offering my thoughts about the movie’s critique of the doctrine of election. The analysis helps explain why I anticipate further denigration of the Christian faith in this movie — a denigration far worse than the belittling of elect pilots and drivers being raptured out of cars and helicopters.

0002 Avengers Infinity War Analysis

#endgame

 

Artistry and Application in Luke 22:54-65: Applying Narrative Texts

Tags

#hermeneuitcs, Application of Biblical Narrative, Hermeneutics of Application, Peter's Denials of Jesus, The Art of Interpretation

(Duccio di Buoninsegna, Christ Accused by the Pharisees [scene 12], 1308-11)

[54] Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance. [55] And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them. [56] Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.” [57] But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.” [58] And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.” [59] And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.” [60] But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed. [61] And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.” [62] And he went out and wept bitterly.

[63] Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him as they beat him. [64] They also blindfolded him and kept asking him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?” [65] And they said many other things against him, blaspheming him. (Luke 22:54–65, ESV)

In my undergraduate Hermeneutics course of the Spring 2018 semester, students diligently worked on the “art” of interpretation as much as the “science.” The art part involves discernment by the reader as much as it involves appreciation of the literary artistry of a writer. Artistically, Luke places the mocking and beating of Jesus immediately after the episode of Peter’s denial. One can discern that Luke intends for the reader to understand that Peter’s refusal to identify himself with Jesus as a follower allows the guards to beat and mock Jesus without hindrance.

What might have happened if Peter, instead, had followed Jesus closely, had anticipated a question about his identity with respect to Jesus, and had said, “I am a follower of Jesus, because he is the Christ. Now let me in the house with him, for I am ready to die for him!” Such a bold, unashamed response might have been so shocking to others that its story would have reverberated around the house. One of the guards might have asked, “Is there really someone who thinks this Jewish troublemaker is worth dying for? Does someone really believe he is the so-called ‘Messiah?’” Consider the responses to the unashamed Peter in Acts 4:17-31 and 5:17-42—that the Jewish leadership had to hear the Gospel and witness its power displayed through the Apostles because of their bold, unashamed testimony.

In addition to emphasizing the artistry of hermeneutics, the students spent much time thinking deeply about the right application of texts. I encouraged them to stay away from overemphasizing cognitive responses to passages – e.g., “remember,” “understand,” “know,” “stand in the truth of,” and the like – because, as believers, we are more than just our heads. If application is only for our heads (thinking) and not for our hearts (goals, motives, intentions, emotions, and affections), mouths (speech), hands and feet (actions and works), eyes and ears (as windows and receptors for our minds and souls), and our whole body (control of appetites, desires, and passions), then Christian practice will remain only a mental exercise, and not an exercise of our full embodiment for the glory of God in Christ. As I said to one student, “The world is not changed by thinking alone, even if ideas do have consequences. It is when ideas make practices that things are changed.”

In the Lukan passage before us, we concluded that one application of this passage might be for hearers of this passage to develop an anticipatory phrase (like my hypothetical phrase for Peter above)—one that is their own and that they can be prepared to say every time they are tempted to deny being a follower of Christ. Can you imagine what this will do for the Christian entering a spiritually-antagonistic university setting, or what it would do for the professional who is tempted to tone down his/her faith in the workplace for the sake of being accepted into or team or group of office friends, or for the sake of a promotion?

In contrast to the above application, I do not see an application of this passage related to forgiving those who have abandoned me (as Christ later forgave Peter). The subject of this passage is not, “The believer’s response to abandonment,” or “the imitation of Christ in the face of failure.” We are off the reservation if we see Christ looking at Peter and Peter subsequently weeping because of his shameful responses in the courtyard, and then tell our people, “Now go forgive those who abandoned you.” There is a disconnect between the subject of the passage and what we are drawing as an application of the passage. Yet application must derive from the subject, for we are applying the meaning of the passage—putting into practice what the passage talks about. At best, and without spite, Christ’s look is a reminder of his prophetic words about Peter’s failure; at worst the look is one of disappointment. Either way, the look invokes grief in Peter rather than a sense of relief from guilt. The idea of forgiveness does not enter this passage.

In order to make such an application (or rather, misapplication) of this passage, one must introduce into the story in Luke 22 Christ’s forgiveness of Peter in John 21 and the succeeding shameless preaching of Peter in the Acts narrative. However, our goal as preachers and teachers of the Scriptures is to tell our hearers what the passage in focus wants us to do in order to please the Lord, and our goal for ourselves as readers is the same (cf. Deut. 12:28; Pss. 119:105, 109-111; Acts 20:32; 2 Tim. 3:15-4:4; Heb. 5:14; Ja. 1:19-25). It is common practice for Christian preaching and teaching to punt the ball from one passage into another passage for application, especially when attempting to apply narrative literature. But we need to pretend we are going for it on 4 and 1 in every passage with right application from the verses in focus rather than immediately appealing elsewhere in Scripture for application.

Thus, sticking to the subject of Luke 22:54-65, I would suggest that you tell me to examine past episodes in which I have sought ease or comfort rather than accepting humiliation for naming the name of Christ. Tell me to look at those comfort points in order to see what sort of comforts are most attractive to me when people around me are hostile to Christ: Is it that I want acceptance among family members, inclusion in a group of popular students, no chance of having to be alone on my team as the “Jesus lover” or the object of scorn in my office, or no possibility of being the one who does not get the large-paying project on a contract because of my Christian ethical stance, etc…? Then tell me to confess my last failure to God, a spiritual mentor, a close Christian friend, and my small group, and to ask the latter three for prayer, wisdom, and loving inquiry into my faithfulness to stand for Christ going forward. Challenge me to pray for grace to be bold and courageous at the next temptation to deny Christ, and to visualize Jesus being beaten if I start moving toward the comfortable option(s) rather than the humiliating choice(s). Now you are telling me what to do in light of this passage. Or ask me how I felt the last time I acted as one ashamed of Jesus. Ask me if I want to wear those feelings again and again even as I watch people in need of Christ stand in jeopardy of his wrath (cf. John 3:36; Eph. 2:3). Ask me what feeling I would rather have (i.e., a sense of Jesus’ approval with my choice to follow him closely even if I will be beaten). Tell me that a way to ensure I have Jesus’ approval is to reply to a scoffer, “I gladly identify a myself as a Christian because I do believe Christ is the only Savior of the World.” Now remind me that all faithfulness is wholly of the grace of God.

Here is an outline of my very brief analysis of the structure and meaning of Luke 22:54-65:

Plot Goal, Conflict, and Resolution

Plot Goal                    

For Peter to move closer to Jesus in his arrest so as to be identified with him,

Plot Conflict                

in conflict with Peter’s three-times denial of Christ –

Plot Resolution

is resolved as Peter weeps at the remembrance of the saying of Christ, and the guards are allowed to beat and blaspheme Jesus.

Full Plot Statement

The Plot of Luke 22:54-65 is for Peter to move closer to Jesus in his arrest so as to be identified with him in conflict with Peter’s three-time denial of being a follower of Christ is resolved as Peter weeps at the remembrance of the saying of Christ, and the guards are allowed to beat and blaspheme Jesus.

Meaning of 22:54 (Pre-Denial)

Subject:            Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ

Complement:   begins by following Jesus at a distance (rather than going with him into the house [i.e. the place of suffering]) and sitting with others in the courtyard at the fire. (Note: There might be a Psalm 1 echo here.)

Meaning of 22:55-57 (Denial 1)

Subject:            Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ

Complement:   continues as a servant girl rightly and closely identifies him with Jesus and he chooses denounce Jesus (in order to avoid either a) leaving the warmth of the fire, b) causing others at the fire to attack him or reveal him to the authorities in the house, or c) having to go into the house). (Note: The servant girl gave Peter an open door to speak of Christ when she identified him, but he used the opportunity to deny Christ rather than proclaim him. The next two persons who identify Peter give him those same opportunities. This thought also could contribute to further applications of this passage.)

Meaning of 22:58-60a (Denial 2)

Subject:            Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ

Complement:   continues as a man near the fire identifies him with Jesus and Peter chooses to denounce Jesus.

Meaning of 22:60b-62 (Denial 3)

Subject:           Peter’s forceful denial of being a disciple of Christ

Complement:   continues as another identifies him with Jesus with certainty based on his Galilean background and Peter chooses to denounce Jesus, and results in personal sorrow when Peter is confronted with his sinfulness by the Lord.

Meaning of 22:63-65

Subject:            The guards’ mocking and beating of Jesus

Complement:   follows Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ and weeping departure.

Meaning of Luke 22:54-65

Subject:            Peter’s increasing denial of being a disciple of Christ in the courtyard,

Complement:   despite being identified as a disciple with certainty, suffers defeat for Peter at the words of Christ, and suffers beating for Jesus at the hands of the guards.

 

The Application of the Meaning of Luke 22:54-65 (with the steps from “Meaning” to “Application” being skipped here):

A disciple’s rejection of being associated with Jesus for need of personal comfort harms both the disciple and the Gospel.

Historical Note

This is the Thursday immediately before Good Friday (22:66; 23:26).

 

 

CRI Online Film Review: The Church without Claws? A Figurative Reading of the Film Black Panther

 

I am grateful to Melanie Cogdill and CRI for posting “The Church without Claws? A Figurative Reading of the Film Black Panther.”

Lisa Robinson and Esau McCaulley previously made significant contributions to Gospel-thinking on the Black Panther movie.

My Attempt at a Leithartian Reading of Exodus 24:15

Tags

Figurative Exegesis, Peter Leithart, Typology of Moses and Joshua

I enjoy reading Peter Leithart on exegesis and hermeneutics, even though I often find slight disagreement with his readings. His writing is most lucid, and his thinking about passages of Scripture often challenges me to ponder deeper the assumptions I bring to the interpretive table.

At last year’s Center for Pastor Theologians conference, I remember Leithart speaking on Revelation 17 and saying that we cannot start with grammatical-historical analysis when approaching Scripture because of the unity of Scripture—that the Author knew the end from the beginning. He went on to say that the “fragmented Bible” is not the Bible of the church, and that we need to learn again to read the Bible as one book.

I am not ready to jettison grammatical-historical analysis as the third step – after prayer, and multiple readings of the text – in approaching Scripture—no more than I am ready to abandon it in reading Leithart, such that I understand by his words that he means we should read all Scripture in light of the whole story of Scripture, and that he does not mean that I should throw away my BHS, NA 28, or UBS 5. If I get rid of grammatical-historical analysis, “fragmented Bible” might become a Bible with missing books or pages rather than a way of speaking of atomistic reading or reading without Biblical Theology lenses.

I am developing a presentation on the relationship between Augustine’s Christology, his hermeneutics, and three of his tractates in John 16 and 19. The related research has led me into the figurative readings of Augustine and the fathers—readings similar to Leithart’s. I am gaining a greater appreciation of what Leithart is attempting to do in exegesis – so much so that I found myself attempting a Leithartian reading of Ex. 24:15 (the subject of another paper on which I am working).

The LXX of Ex. 24:13 reads, καὶ ἀναστὰς Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς ὁ παρεστηκὼς αὐτῷ ἀνέβησαν εἰς τὸ ὄρος τοῦ θεοῦ – “And arising, Moses and Joshua, his assistant, went up into the mountain of God” (or, the ESV – “So Moses rose with his assistant Joshua, and Moses went up into the mountain of God”). Similarly, two verses later, the ESV reads, “Then Moses went up on the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain.” The ESV is reflective of the Hebrew text. However, the LXX reads, καὶ ἀνέβη Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ὄρος, καὶ ἐκάλυψεν ἡ νεφέλη τὸ ὄρος – “And Moses and Joshua went up the mountain, and the cloud covered the mountain.”

I think the Spirit was doing something through the LXX writer/editor at this point so that the first century believers, reading the LXX of Ex. 24:15, would say, “And Moses and Jesus went up the mountain.” I also think their reading would be right.

Recommended Resource: Peter Leithart, Deep Exegesis (Baylor).

 

Eating Dry Bouillon or Reading the Gospels Wisely?

Tags

How to Read the Gospels, The Gospels and Biblical Theology

I just finished Jonathan Pennington’s, Reading the Gospels Wisely, (currently a steal at only $4.99 in the Kindle edition). I highly recommend this text for gaining a greater appreciation of the role the Gospels should play in one’s reading of the entirety of the canon. Pennington and I differ on our hermeneutical approaches to reading texts, but as a whole, his thesis is outstanding.

I was struck by one of the word pictures at the end of the book he uses to highlight the significance the Gospels should play in our corporate worship:

“A rediscovery of the central role of the Gospels in the church will affect our worship services and preaching…. [M]ost liturgical traditions maintain a special regard for readings and expositions from the Gospels…. But in general, the Gospels have tended to play a lesser role in much of American evangelicalism. There ‘the gospel’ has often been boiled down to ‘justification by faith,’ which is then fed to people in moralism-dusted bouillon cubes on a pilaf of pietism. If indeed the Gospels are significant in the ways I have argued in this chapter, this approach will not do if the church is to thrive. Both in our worship-service Scripture readings and in the content of our preaching, the Gospels themselves must play the dominant role. And when the Gospels are read and preached, they must not be used merely as springboards to other doctrinal ideas. Rather, honoring the narrative form of the Gospels, we must enter into the power and tension of the story and apply this to the lives of believers by focusing on the final Word, Jesus the Christ.”

Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 2012): 256; emphasis mine.

Think about the word picture. Endeavor to eat something vastly different. Get a copy of Pennington’s work.

_______________________

Related Resource: P. T. Smuts, Mark by the Book: A New Multidirectional Method for Understanding the Synoptic Gospels (P&R); I reviewed here.