New Year’s resolutions usually don’t work.  A 2008 study by Steve Shapiro (available here: http://www.steveshapiro.com/2008/12/11/interesting-new-years-resolution-statistics/) shows that 75% of Americans “almost never” keep their resolutions. Furthermore, the small minority that claim to meet their goals do not attest to being any happier.  We all believe that we can do things to improve ourselves, thus becoming healthier and happier.  If I just lose the weight.  If I just could find the time to read more.  If I had quiet times on a regular basis.  If I ran that race.  If, if, if, if…. 

The fact is that New Year’s resolutions profoundly misunderstand human nature. As the English reformer and archbishop Thomas Cranmer said: “What the heart loves, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.” We often think that we can will our way into happiness, that we can decide to be more committed, that we can rigorously rearrange our schedule to love Jesus more.  But, true change starts in the heart, rather than the mind.  Jesus is not a resolution to be checked off; He is a person to be loved. Time and time again, we find ourselves at the well of self-reliance when Jesus has offered a bubbling, flowing, living spring.

We are familiar with the story of the “woman at the well.”  I propose, however, that we file for a name change.  Although she was “the woman at the well” when she first met Jesus, she became “the woman at the spring” after their encounter. Jesus left the province of Judea and headed to the province of Galilee.  He had to leave because some of the Pharisees were upset that He was gaining and baptizing many disciples. 

The region of Samaria was directly between where Jesus was and where He was going.  Most Jews used alternate routes to avoid passing through the region.  The Samaritans were considered to be “half-breeds” and “mongrels” by the Jews.  After King Solomon’s reign, Israel divided into two separate kingdoms.  The Northern kingdom eventually fell to the Assyrians who brought in foreigners to settle the land.  The conquered Jews of the Northern Kingdom intermarried with pagan foreigners.  The result was the Samaritan race.  In New Testament times, the Samaritan faith had evolved into a blend of Jewish monotheism and pagan superstition.  The conflict between the Jews and Samaritans is convoluted and multi-faceted and could fill pages.  But suffice it to say: these two groups of people hated each other.  The Samaritans lived on the “other side of the tracks,” and respectable Jews avoided contact with them.  As usual, Jesus did not allow Jewish rules and customs to deter him from mission.  Our passage says that He had to go through Samaria.  Jesus was motivated by mission rather than geography.  He had to find the lost, thirsty Samaritan woman

After a long journey, He stopped for a rest at Jacob’s Well outside the town of Sychar, also known as Shechem.  Jacob was the Father of Israel and was revered by Jews and Samaritans alike. At noon, a woman came to draw some water from the well. Noon was a strange time to come for water.  People usually came to the well in the morning or in the evening.  Maybe she was an outcast and did not want to see others. Maybe she had an immediate need for water.  The point isn’t why she came but that she came.  She was running an ordinary, mundane errand when she met the man that would change her life. She wasn’t at a conference.  She wasn’t in a healing line or on a victory march.  She was just living, doing the things that people did every day.  And Jesus met her there.  You see, Jesus came to seek and save those which were lost.  He came to find her; she was not looking for Him.  He comes to find us even when we are not looking for Him.  This thirsty person approaching was a Samaritan woman with a horrible reputation.  We find out later in the story that she had been married five times and was living with number six at the time.  According to some sources, a Jewish rabbi would not even speak to his own wife in public because she was a woman.  Jesus ignored the religious rules and started a conversation that would result in salvation.

“Will you give me a drink?” Jesus asked. This could have been the first time that a Jewish man had addressed the Samaritan woman in a friendly fashion. She was shocked.  She responded by saying, “You are a Jew, and I am a Samaritan.  How can you ask me for a drink?”  Jews would be declared ceremonially unclean if they drank from the same vessel as a Samaritan.  Why would this Jewish man want to take a drink from her vessel?  And as a Samaritan, why should she be willing to share with this Jewish stranger?  Jesus completely disregarded this ethno-religious controversy.  He didn’t give it the time of day; he went straight to the Gospel message.  He said, “If you knew the gift of God and who it was that asked you for a drink, you would have asked him, and He would have given you living water.” This is Salvation 101. Jesus told her about the things of God, who He was, and what He can do.

Jesus is not only willing to “defile” himself by drinking from the Samaritan’s cup.  He is willing to allow this unworthy, sinful half-breed to share in His inheritance.  He offers her living water.  In ancient times, “living water” was used to describe a stream or a fountain. It was “living” because it was always moving and bubbling up.  Let’s contrast that to the water found in Jacob’s Well.  By definition a well is “an artificial shaft sunk to reach underground water, percolating or collected, or to reach a natural underground spring.”  Archaeologists have discovered Jacob’s well to be 138 feet, and it only collects rain water and dew. There is no aquifer or underground stream that feeds the well.  The water that Jesus was offering was fresh and flowing; it was not a stagnant build-up of rain water.  Later in the conversation, Jesus adds: “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 

So here we have it: Jesus offers us a spring instead of a well.  At the well, the woman came on daily basis to labor for something that would only satisfy her needs temporarily.  She toiled for stagnant rain water.  As human beings, we can all relate to this.  This is why the bars have “regulars” and the xxx websites have “members.”  Sin is a repeat business; you will never be completely satisfied.  You will come to the well again and again. No matter how hard you toil to become wealthy; money will not be enough.  No matter how long you go to school; education will not be enough. No matter how many partners you go through; sex will not be enough.  Our fellow members of the animal kingdom remain content if they can acquire enough food, water, a stable environment, shelter, and opportunity to breed.  Humans, on the other hand, have infinite desires that can not be filled with this world’s finite resources.  We were made by God in love and for love.  Our desires can only be filled by Him. 

So, this year, don’t buy into the lie that you have to work harder to be happier, that you need to frequent the well more often to find your purpose.  Put down the water bucket and pick up the garden hose.  Drink freely and deeply of his love. 

Last week’s blog introduced an interesting tension in our Christian life.  The heart of the Protestant Reformation (and, at this point, we are all Protestants) was the claim sola scriptura—Scripture alone!  Every believer should have access to Scripture, and the right to interpret Scripture.  Creeds, councils, and clergy could no longer dictate Christian belief. Since we are all wired differently with varying worldviews and intellectual capacities, how do we establish what a particular text means?  Does a new Christian with no background in the Bible have the same “right” to interpret Scripture as a life-long pastor or accomplished scholar?  And, if everyone has a different interpretation, then who is right?  Is it possible to be right?

In some ways, it would be easier if there were no grey areas.  This is why strict denominations sometimes have success.  Just tell me exactly how to live, how to dress, and how to think so I can go to heaven.  Some days, I would love to have a manual.  Is salvation primarily a manner of divine determinism or human choice? Check page 873.  Is it ok for infants to be baptized?  Look at page 94.   I could browse the table of contents and discover how to think about: secular media, social drinking, and spiritual gifts.  It just doesn’t work that way, though. Scripture is God’s eternal word, but was delivered at specific times in specific contexts to specific people. As our context changes, we must attempt to decide what the Bible speaks in our situations, in our lives.

Many Christians summarily dismiss the question.  I am just led by the Spirit; or, I just pray about it and God tells me, they say. I believe that the Holy Spirit is integral to the hermeneutical process.  However, what happens when loving Spirit-filled Christians differ?  Is one hearing the Spirit, and the other in rebellion?  In sum, we all hear the voice of God through our broken paradigms.  We all know only in part because we are ultimately fallen, which clouds our reason.  Rightly dividing the word of truth is an imperative.  The Word of God is too rich, too meaningful, and too beautifully complex for us to butcher because of our fragile understanding. 

Now, that we have sufficiently diagnosed the problem.  Here is my approach to responsibly interpreting Scripture.  I, by no means, have it all figured out. But, I’ll share what I do know in the hope that is helpful to your ministry.  

Be a student. It is impossible to really be “The Bible Answer Man” (Sorry, Hank Hanegraaf).  The more you study, the more you realize that you don’t know.  You can’t expect to know the meaning of every verse.  The key, then, is having a “working knowledge of Scripture.”  A good mechanic can fix a problem with your car that he has never encountered because he has a working knowledge of cars in general.  The best way to understand a passage of Scripture is to have a comprehensive understanding of the Bible in general.

The only way to obtain this “working knowledge” is the hard work of reading and studying.  Read the Bible for devotional purposes. Then read the footnotes.  Browse commentaries, biblical dictionaries, and concordances. Stretch yourself beyond popular Christian books, like “90 Minutes in Heaven” and “The Shack.”  Read those if you want, but also try more substantive things.  Set a goal of at least one substantive book per month.  I am currently reading books covering Church History (Christianity’s Dangerous Idea by Alister McGrath), Biblical Studies (Reading Luke-Acts in the Pentecostal Tradition by Martin Middlestadt), and Christian Apologetics (Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli).  Though I am more interested in some areas of Biblical Studies/ Theology than others, I try to read enough to maintain a robust understanding of Scripture.

Go through the responsible steps.  We have discussed hermeneutics at length, so I can be brief here. Every passage of Scripture requires careful and intentional study.  Determine the context, the genre, the historical and cultural background, etc.

Find a couple of leaders/teachers that you trust.  But, know them—both their fruit and their presuppositions. When I am preparing to preach/teach something and need understanding, I normally consult ministers that I respect.  Have they taught on this passage before?  What did they say?  Some of them I know personally, such as my father and Dr. Brassfield. There are others that I have never met, such as John Piper and Mark Driscoll.  I access their printed material online, download their sermons from iTunes, or browse through their books that I own.

When consulting others, consider their lifestyles and their presuppositions.  I can’t view someone as an “authority” on Scripture if his life does not reflect Christian character. Similarly, I research his presuppositions and perspectives.  We all see the world through our biases.  Know the “biases” of the teacher, and try to filter through them.

The blog returns.

I have been reading the book, “Christianity’s Dangerous Idea” by Alister McGrath.  It is a history (and a commentary) on the Protestant Movement from the Reformation period until the present.  I love the Reformation era, and McGrath tells the story as a skilled and insightful historian.  Martin Luther and the other reformers revolutionized the shape of Christianity by their duel insistence that the Bible should be available in the vernacular (the native tongue) of the people and that each Christian has a right to interpret the Bible.  Prior to the Reformation, the Bible was only available in Latin. Thus, only the educated clergy had access to the Scripture.  The Church also reserved the right to interpret Scripture.  Since the Bible can be interpreted differently, the Church saw itself as the standard.  Luther insisted, however, since all Christians belong to “a priesthood of believers,” they should all have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves.  He seemed to be surprised by the ramifications of his conclusions.  Soon, some of his followers engaged in a dangerous and irresponsible battle, that became known as “The Peasants War of 1525.”  When Luther tried to convince them that Scripture taught subjection the governing authorities, the peasants responded: “That’s your interpretation, not ours.”  In Switzerland, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin worked to reform the Church. They came to some different conclusions than Luther and their respective followers eventually developed serious animosity towards one another.  The story continues today.  Because we all have the right to interpret Scripture, we continue to split and schism and start new denominations and new churches.

I had a chance to ponder this topic with a few pastors over breakfast recently.  Somehow, the movie “Twilight” came up in conversation (Grown men talking about Twilight.  I know.  Take a break from reading and laugh.  Done laughing yet? Ok, let’s move on).  Some guys felt strongly against it—others thought it was harmless.  And the Bible doesn’t really deal with teenage vamplre and werewolf movies.  Then, we started to talk about movies, music, and literature.  How do we know what is right and what is wrong?  There are a million issues about which reasonable and devoted Christians disagree.   So, I ask you—who gets to set the standard? How do you understand the Bible? Do you completely trust a pastor or a mentor?  Do you insist on the right to draw your own conclusions?  Do you read or listen to certain people who have earned your respect? 

Let’s discuss these issues for a week or so.  Then, I will post my method of ensuring that I am rightly understanding and applying Scripture.

Go. 

Recently, my father and I took a little vacation out west.  We travelled from Phoenix to the Grand Canyon, through the Mojave Desert, to the Bay of San Francisco, down the Pacific Coast to sunny Los Angeles.  It was a week full of once-in-a-lifetime experiences.  We took a 4X4 Jeep through the mountains, hiked the Grand Canyon, sailed around the Golden Gate and Alcatraz, cruised through Pebble Beach, and walked the streets of Hollywood. 

Of all the exciting moments, one event stands out.  We were in Sedona, AZ at the Chapel of the Holy Cross.  It is a small sanctuary snuggly situated in the mountains, overlooking some of the finest scenery nature has to offer.  Dad and I reverently entered the chapel and briefly bowed at the prayer bench.  The serenity of the moment was interrupted by the sobbing of a woman seated nearby.  We quietly moved outside to allow her some privacy and to take in the breathtaking view, which can neither be described in words nor captured in images.

The lady from the chapel soon came outside, her makeup smeared and her eyes swollen.  She took a seat close to us and gazed ahead with a melancholy stare.  Soon, the tears resumed.  A little later, the stream of tears transformed to a river and her body shook as she wept.  My dad, who is nonintrusive by nature, could no longer remain idle.  He took a seat beside her, introduced himself as a pastor, and asked if he could help her pray.  I eavesdropped on the conversation and my heart slowly broke as she began to tell her story.

“Two years ago,” the lady explained, “my daughter was murdered.  I need closure, to move on. I just don’t know how.  I have this box of her belongings, and I want to bury it.  But, I don’t know where.  I have been all over town, and I can’t find the right place.  I’m a Christian, but I have no peace in this situation.  I just don’t know what to do.  Will you pray that God will give me direction?”

As I listened in on the conversation, I continued to breathe in the crisp air and stare across the beautiful landscape.  The gravity of the moment struck me, and I began to theologize. I reflected on our beautiful and broken world.  I recalled how God made the world good, and how Adam and Eve lived in utopian paradise. They were whole physically, spiritually, emotionally, and relationally.  Then sin entered in and broke God’s good world.  The beauty remains, but it is tarnished by brokenness.  Thus, this poor soul can gaze across the most beautiful scenery in the world while simultaneously experiencing the most intense grief in the world.  Indescribable beauty.  Indescribable brokenness.

We have to accept this reality—we live in a beautifully broken world.  Some Christians focus on the brokenness and depravity of the world, haplessly waiting on a “gospel ship” to take them to the “other side of Jordan.”  They fail to appreciate the natural grace granted by God and miss the beauty of this world.  Other Christians deny the brokenness of this world.  They believe that their faith will keep all sickness, suffering, and sorrow far away.  They fail to acknowledge that this world is imperfect.  They don’t understand that the battle cry of the early church was “Maranatha (Lord come!)” because the Spirit-filled followers of Jesus recognized that this world is seriously flawed and awaits the final redemption of the Son. 

The streams of beauty and brokenness that implicitly define our reality explicitly converged in Sedona. 

What do you think? Do you have a “theology of suffering”?  How do you explain bad things that happen to good people?  How do you counsel a sincere Christian that is going through an especially difficult trial?

It has been said, “When it all is said and done, more gets said than done.” I guess this has been the frustration of millions of leaders since the first tribal chieftain held the first campfire council. It has been my experience that Leaders as a rule have plenty of vision. We love to dream. But learning to take a vision and manage the process toward its completion is something else. So it is all right to ask, even shout the question, “How in the world do you get a vision from the drawing board to the boardroom, and from there to the people who are going to be benefited by it?” The answer is found in the partnership that must be made between Leadership and Management. 

Leadership can cast a vision, motivate, even inspire, but management must put the action, materials, and manpower into motion to produce the desired result. Leadership and management are not the same thing, and I think we have yet to understand that in ministry. Therefore, small ministries with big dreams seem to be the best that many can produce. In ministry today we often have truckloads of vision and spoonfuls of management skills. As a result, our impact is negligible at best and destructive at worst, leaving us with our leadership numbers in decline. Why? Because when a visionary leader fails to partner with people who possess management abilities, he quickly overheats and burns out as a result of the flaming passion for his vision and no mechanism by which to bring it to pass. 

Leadership and Management…

While both leadership and management are executive functions, leadership is about where you are going, management is about how you get there; leadership is about progress, and management is about performance. We must have them both to achieve, and they must work together and not against each other. How? I’m glad you asked.

 The process of leadership in an organization normally involves several steps, including:

 •   A foundational set of guiding and defining values.

•   A clear vision that answers the “why do you exist?” question.

•   A mission that answers the “what are you going to do?” question.

•   A strategic plan that answers the “how and when are you going to do it?” questions.

 The first three are essentially leadership responsibilities. But the fourth, the strategic plan, is the step where management becomes urgent to the process. It is the strategic plan step where people must now engage in purposeful action if success is to be achieved. Here the process ceases to be visionary and abstract, and now becomes measurable. Here the subjective becomes objective and it is time for management to step in and execute. This is the pivotal place where leadership must shift to management, and management must put the nuts and bolts together to make the vision vehicle run down the road to achievement.  Often it is in this step that ministry vision comes apart at the seams because visionary leaders are often poor managers. If you are a visionary leader you must recruit managers who can assist you in implementation.

 The challenge of ministry management…

In business the vision of a company is a type of vehicle. It is a vehicle made up of supply and demand, leverage, margins, and materials combined to produce results, and ultimately upward movement in the bottom line. This nuts and bolts metaphor is a good analogy in most arenas, but not in ministry. There is a difference between getting the job done in the secular and getting the job done in the sacred. While I’m preaching, we must have management type people. We must train them with a ministry mindset and keep them filled with the Spirit. I don’t want to paint with too broad a brush here, but often management types bring with them their own set of challenges. Management people tend to be more analyst than leadership types. Therefore they tend to be fairly detail oriented, can be possessive, territorial, and lack the people skills needed to motivate the troops. That may be OK in manufacturing, but not in ministry. Let me explain.

For example, in businesses like manufacturing, if there is a problem with the leadership or with production, the assembly line or in sales, you can take the system apart, isolate the defective component and fix it. Then you can put it back together and get going again. But you can’t always do that in ministry. Why? Because when we talk about ministry we are really talking about the Body of Christ. In other words, it is a living thing. Everything relates to something else. I tell pastors all the time, ministry is more like medicine than business. We must always remember that when a doctor treats a patient he is well aware that everything he does affects something else. Treat one area and the other areas experience the pain, or even the side effects of the medication. And often while treating one illness we can create another.

In all, the relationship between visionary leadership and executive level management can be a challenging one because we see things through different lens. The first, progress  (forward movement through change); the second, performance (systematic operations and maintenance of the status quo). It can be very difficult to be constantly moving into new territory while performing at a high level. But if both are committed to the vision and understand the real value that each brings to the team, balance can be achieved. When it happens it is a beautiful thing.

Coaching Tips For Leaders & Managers:

1.  Share the vision and the passion for the goal! Focusing on the same goal helps, even if you see it from different perspectives.

2.  Collaborate: consistent communication is the first priority in every effective and productive relationship.

3.  Celebrate wins together, carefully highlighting the part each role played in the success.

4. Practice looking at goals and systems through the lens of the other team member’s perspectives. Understanding is critical to cooperation.

I come to you with yet another thought-provoking blog post.  Below is an article that I have recently written which examines one of Jesus' most difficult sayings.  Note how I used the principles the Dr. Brassfield and I taught in our latest webinar:

Both Matthew 8:22 and Luke 9:60 record a particularly challenging statement given by Jesus.  A disciple is willing to follow Jesus but asks permission to bury his dead father first.  Jesus retorts either: “Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead. (Mt 8:18)” or “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God. (Lk 9:60). For obvious reasons, the plain meaning of this text was as offensive to the original audience as it is to modern readers today.  In Jesus’ eyes, his mission was important and urgent enough to preempt any other concern.  Burying a parent was no excuse for neglecting to immediately follow him. Commentators have attempted to explain away this passage in a myriad of ways.  However, any effort to avoid the implications of the plain meaning of the passage essentially waters down the effect of the powerful saying. 

Some scholars believe that his verse represents Jesus boldly proclaiming superiority over the Mosaic Law.   To a Jewish audience, the fifth commandment implicitly demands that a child is responsible for burying his parent.  According to Oral Tradition, honoring father and mother required being present with them at death and giving them a proper burial. Caring for the burial of relatives is found throughout the Old Testament with the first instance being found in Gen. 25:9 where the beloved patriarch, Abraham seeks a place to lay Sarah to rest.

It seems like such a simple request: Can I grieve the death of my father and then follow you?  In first century Palestine, the internment period between death and burial was short.  In most cases, the deceased was buried the same day that he died.  The original audience would have certainly recalled the account of Elijah’s call to Elisha.  According to 1 Kings 19, the latter requested permission to bid his parents farewell before he followed the former.  Both the Septuagint and Josephus imply that Elijah’s answer was affirmative.  In lieu of this, Jesus’ response surely would have seemed unethical and cruel. If the man was merely asking for a few hours to bury his father, how could Jesus reject such a request? 

Perhaps, Jesus’ saying makes more sense in the context of a first-century custom known as the “secondary burial.” (Much of what follows derives from: Byron R. McCane, “Let the dead bury their own dead”: Secondary burial and Matt 8:21-22. Harvard Theological Review 83, no. 1 (January 1990): 31-43.)  The term “secondary burial” refers to practice of reburying the bones of the deceased after the flesh of the body has decomposed.  Archaeological evidence attests that it was a common practice among first century Jews. The deceased was placed on a bench inside the family tomb almost immediately after death. Approximately one year later, relatives entered the tomb and reburied the bones in an ossuary. 

            Since this practice was so widespread, this should inform our discussion.  When a loved one died, Jews spent seven days in intense mourning and were separated from society.  This time period was known as the shivah, and it was immediately followed by the shloshim, which was thirty more days of less severe mourning.  When one’s parent died, the mourning process was extended and lasted for one year and was completed at the second reburial.  It is highly unlikely that the conversation in question would have occurred during the shivah since the mourners were separated from society.  As the son, he would have been personally responsible for tending to his father’s body and preparing it for the burial.  The response “Let my bury my father” then almost certainly refers to the second burial.  Thus, the man was delaying the call to discipleship for several months. 

In lieu of this information, Jesus’ saying is both ironic and urgent. The humorous irony is that the man’s deceased father is lying in a tomb surrounded by his dead ancestors. Jesus is making light of the secondary burial and softly rejecting the disciple’s request.  His humor serves to lighten the mood about the cost of discipleship.  The Jesus pictured here is far from the heartless, radical antinomian that denied one of his followers the opportunity to bury his father. 

            Jesus’ saying is urgent, because he insisted that there was no time to wait for the second burial; if the man wanted to be a disciple, he must follow immediately.  The secondary burial explanation does not remove the urgency from the message. Since the kingdom had drawn near, time was at a premium and could not be wasted.  This sense of urgency should characterize Jesus’ followers today. Don’t dwell on past tragedies. Don’t allow yesterday’s failure to hijack today.  Don’t let grievous circumstances sideline you long.  Let those things take care of themselves—You follow Jesus. 

So.. What do you think?  Does this article help you understand Jesus' hard saying better?  Read the passage again (Luke 9:57-62, Matthew 8:18-22) -- What else would like to know?  Are there key words you would study?  What is the literary context-- what comes before and what comes next?  Any other historical or cultural nuance that might elucidate the passage?

Hey Guys.  I am live on site in Houston, TX for the “Thinking Out Loud” event.  I am pretty excited and hope that you all can tune in.

We have something a little off-the-cuff for this week’s blog.  One of your peers, Jon Segatto from Jamestown, TN, took issue with something in the 30 Days to Understanding the Bible text. Here is what he wrote:

"After reading our 1st book 30 Day to understanding the Bible, I have some disagreement on the "placement" that it gives man.  The book claims that were a lower that angels.  Here is my stand on that topic:

Psalm Ch 8 starting at verse 4 reads, "What is man that You are mindful of him, And the Son of Man that You visit him?  For You made him a little lower than the angels?"  When you look at the word angels, most Bibles I have seen have a footnote and translate the word angels into Elohim, which is the Hebrew word for God.  So the verse reads For You made him a little lower that Elohim (or God).  When you look at supporting verses in the Bible of our placement you begin to fully see where God has placed us and how much love He has for us.  1 John 4:4 tells you "He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world."  That He is Jesus! Galatians 2:20-"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."  Christ lives inside you! So now if you believe that we are a little lower that angels, are you not saying that angels are above Jesus because He lives inside us?

First of all, I love this dialogue and encourage you all to forward questions or disagreements so that we might discuss.  I know that we are all mature enough to discuss controversial issues in an edifying manner.  Iron sharpening iron and what not.

Here are a couple of points that I want to make about Jon’s stance:

First of all, Jon brings up some very insightful points.  And I believe America’s greatest theologian, Jonathon Edwards would at least agree with the sentiment (See: http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4xMjo0OjE6MTQyLndqZW8).  Edwards argues that men have a higher “end” or “purpose” than angels, while angels have a “more excellent nature.”  In other words, man’s value is attested by the fact that heaven and the angels were created on behalf of man.  Furthermore, Jesus Christ assumed the flesh of a man, and God’s ultimate plan is the redemption and glorification of man.  However, in the present, angels have a certain wisdom and strength that has not been denigrated by sin, and are, thus, uniquely qualified to be God’s messengers.  Therefore, angels may be ontologically (in essence or being) greater but are by no means more valuable.

2.   Secondly, elohim usually refers to God in the Hebrew Bible.  However, it is sometimes used to refer to “gods” or even “heavenly beings.”  Therefore, it does not have to mean God.  Further, the author of Hebrews quotes the psalm in Heb. 2:7 and uses the Greek word “angelos (angels).”  This indicates that the author of Hebrews understood the psalm to refer to angels, not God.

3.   In conclusion, I believe that Jon has a legitimate point.  Man is indeed God’s “first love” for whom He created the world and ultimately sent His Son for their redemption.  However, angels are ontologically and functionally greater because their abilities are not tainted by sin.  Although the redeemed Christian has the indwelling presence of Christ, he holds this treasure in fallible vessels made of clay (2 Cor. 4:7).

What say you, class?    

Below you will find an article that I wrote for Destiny Magazine last quarter.  I know that some of you have already read it, and I have also preached a sermon based on the article that many of you might have heard.  Nonetheless, I would like to present it to you as an example of scriptural interpretation and relate it to the Introduction to the Bible course.  The goal of this course is to introduce you to the broad storyline of the Bible and to challenge you to responsibly exegete (to critically explain/interpret) the Bible. In our webinar in a couple of weeks, we will discuss the various methods of biblical interpretation.  Read my article as a sample to whet your appetite.  At the end of the post, you will find some questions, which require your response: 

The Gospels were written for particular audiences at particular times for particular purposes.  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John carefully composed their accounts to stress their particular emphases, and to address the needs of the communities to which they were writing.  The individual Gospels were designed to be read in one setting, so that the reader could follow the storyline.  The point of this article is to show how individual Gospel stories become more meaningful when we take the surrounding context into account.  We will use Luke’s story of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:1-10) as an example.

 The Gospel of Luke should be read as a persuasive story, rather than a theological tract or biographical essay. Stories possess a dramatic structure inherently characterized by flow, change, and conflict.  The story-line progresses and develops from one event, or speech, to another.  Noted Bible scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson argues that the author of the Third Gospel is a “master storyteller,” and that the “influence of the story-line as a clue to understanding a particular passage can not be overstated. (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Literary Function of Possessions in Luke-Acts. Missoula, MO: Scholar’s Press, 1977, 22-25.)”   A passage must be located within the context of the narrative, because the author has intentionally placed it there. The Gospel is not a recording of loosely related occurrences, but a carefully composed account that moves toward the fulfillment of a broader purpose. Thus, it is possible to detect intra-textual parallels and echoes.  Early accounts prepare readers for later events, and later events reflect back on earlier accounts.

 The story of Zacchaeus is only found in Luke, and is often dismissed as merely a cute, but innocuous Sunday School story. However, the account is particularly powerful when viewed in the context of Luke’s narrative.  I could write pages and pages about the short tax, collector from Jericho (and I did in my Master’s Thesis).  But, for now, let’s focus only on Luke’s introduction of Zacchaeus.  “And there was a man named Zacchaeus.  He was a chief tax collector, and he was rich (Luke 19:2).”  Upon first glance, nothing seems spectacular about these words.  I mean, I have never seen a youth group t-shirt with “Luke 19:2” pasted across the front.  The verse, however, provides us with two important facts about Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector, and he was rich.  Both of these descriptors are very meaningful in the context of Luke’s story.

 Tax-collectors were generally despised in antiquity. The general system of taxation in the Roman Empire was known as “tax farming.”  Government officials would lease the right of taxation to a class of publicans.  The state required the publicans to pay the amount to be collected in advance, so that the government had sufficient funds to operate.  This method of operation required the tax collector to gather much more than actually required by the Empire.  He had to collect enough to cover all of his expenses and generate a profit.  The process was obviously susceptible to wide-spread exploitation and extortion.

 Though the revenue system was unpopular with all ancient peoples, Judaism reacted against it with exceptional vigor. Jews, such as Zacchaeus and Levi, who entered the profession were subject to ex-communication.  They were not allowed to serve as witnesses in any lawsuit.   One Mishnah (a first-century document that recorded Jewish oral law) passage classifies tax-gatherers alongside robbers and murderers (m. Ned. 3.4).  Another reads: “If taxgatherers entered a house (all this is within it) becomes unclean.”  However, “if thieves entered a house, only that part is unclean that was trodden by the feet of thieves” (m. Tohar 7.6). Therefore, Jesus’ acceptance of tax collectors ran counter to normative Jewish behavior.

 The reader of Luke has encountered several other tax collectors before Zacchaeus.  John the Baptist baptizes tax collectors and admonishes them to only collect that which they are authorized to collect (Lk 3:12-13). Jesus calls Levi the tax collector to be His disciple, and then attends a party teeming with tax collectors. He defends his actions by explaining to the Pharisees that the sick, rather than the healthy, need a physician (Lk. 5:27-32).  In Luke 15:2, Jesus is rightfully accused of being “a friend of tax collectors and sinners.  Jesus told a parable in Luke 18 that honored the humble, penitent tax collector and shamed the haughty and boastful Pharisee.  Luke’s readers have been amply prepared to view tax collectors favorably.  When they discover that Zacchaeus is a “chief tax collector,” they expect that this story will end like the others.   The story has a predictable end—Jesus will overcome the protests of the self-righteous and welcome the lowly tax collector.

 The next adjective, however, throws the reader for a loop.  Zacchaeus is “rich.”  The wealthy have not been treated kindly in Luke’s Gospel to this point. In his Sermon on the Plain, Jesus chastises the wealthy: “Woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.”  The stingy, wealthy man of Luke 16 clothes himself with the finest apparel but will not spare a crumb for the poor and pitiful Lazarus.  The parable ends with the rich man suffering torment while the poor Lazarus enjoys paradise.  The wealthy, young ruler of Luke 18 is prevented from following Jesus by his many possessions, causing Jesus to jest that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” 

 The careful reader of Luke is faced with an interesting dilemma in Zacchaeus.  This subtle irony is missed if we fail to read Luke’s Gospel as a single, continuous story.  Zacchaeus is “good” because he is a tax collector.  But, he is “bad” because he is wealthy.  Luke’s readers must then ask: “Will this story follow the tax-collector prototype or the rich man prototype?”  Will Jesus receive and restore the sinful tax collector, like He has done so many times before?  Or, will he condemn the wealthy man as He has often done?  I am sure that you know how the story ends—a repentant Zacchaeus welcomes Jesus into home.  Jesus concludes that the rich, tax collector is, indeed, a Son of Abraham.  He is one of the lost, whom Jesus came to seek and to save (Lk. 19:9-10).  Luke’s readers from every generation are left to conclude that the Gospel disabuses us of our categorizations and stereotypes. After all, Zacchaeus was that camel that made it through the eye of the needle.

What did you find most interesting?

What would you like to know more about?

How important is it historical/cultural context in interpreting a passage?  Can someone rightly understand a passage of Scripture if they haven’t studied the background information?

 I can’t wait to read your responses.

The semester is finally underway!  We have 27 new students from 8 different states and 14 different churches! Now it is time to get to know one another.

My name is Landon, and I currently live in Tulsa, OK. Obviously, I am the Director of Education and Development at Destiny and oversee Destiny Leadership Institute. My beautiful wife’s name is April, and she is a behavioral therapist.  We have been married almost 4 years—no kids but 2 annoying dogs.

I enjoy reading—I read mostly biblical studies and theology, but I also enjoy philosophy and history.  I love football, especially my Alma Mater, Mississippi State University.  I also love long distance running and am currently training for my first marathon.

I am passionate about educating and empowering Christian leaders to reach their full potential.  I know many educated leaders that lack the passion and spirit-empowerment. I also know many fiery, Spirit-filled leaders that lack basic biblical and theological knowledge.  It is my dream to bring balance to both of these camps. 

What about you?  Who are you?  Where do you live? Where do you serve?  Tell us about your family, your interests and hobbies, and your perceived ministry calling. 

I can’t wait to get to know you all better.

I want to welcome you all to Destiny Leadership Institute.  I really believe that we are going to do something great together.  Thank you for partnering with us in this endeavor. Here are the next steps:

1.  Your books and handbook will be mailed out soon.  When you receive the package, please make sure that everything is present.

2.  Download the Internship Contract. Arrange a time with your pastor to discuss your internship responsibilities.  I have sent them some information as well, so they are expecting to hear from you. You both should sign the contract and return it to our office. You may either scan it and e-mail to me or mail it to Destiny Vision Center, P.O Box 341 Heber Springs, AR 72543.  It is important to return this as soon as possible.

3.  Review the academic calendar.  Note especially that the semester starts, Monday, Sept. 12 and that the Orientation Webinar is on Sept. 13.  The webinar will ensure that we are all on the same page to start the semester.  You will be emailed instructions about how to access the webinar. 

4.  The key to success for any distance education program is good communication.  Please check your e-mail often, like Destiny Leadership Institute on Facebook, and follow @destinydli on Twitter.  Similarly, know that I am available to help you.  Feel free to contact me as questions/issues arise.

5. I will publish and send you all a final class roster before the semester begins.  I encourage you to team up with other students in your church/region, meet when your schedules permit, and view the webinars together.

6.  Also, remember, that if you chose to pay your tuition through the three payment plan, your card will be automatically charged again on Sept. 15th and Oct. 15th. 

Comment below with any questions you might have.