Faith in biblical context: part 1

Something valuable that I have learned over the past two years concerns the concept of faith in the Bible. The gist of it is that very often the Bible is speaking of faithfulness and trust, rather than the kind of 'faith' so strongly and widely emphasized in charismatic churches and the Word of Faith movement. Faithfulness is about being faithful on an ongoing basis. Trust is what I would call a 'resting belief'; it's not about winding oneself up to believe harder, it's about resting in the belief that the LORD will answer one's prayer.

In the Hebrew scriptures, there is no word that corresponds exactly to our English word 'faith'. Rather, the words used to convey a similar meaning are the verb אָמַן (aman, roughly pronounced uh-mun) and its cognates -- related words from the same root. Aman, in one of its forms (hifil), means 'to believe, put faith, trust, have confidence... believe to be true, be confident of' [1]. It is related to the word 'amen', which we typically use to affirm our prayers. The cognates of aman are אֵמוּן emun: eh-muhn) and אֱמוּנָה (emunah: eh-moo-nah). Emun can be an adjective meaning 'faithful, reliable, trustworthy', or a noun meaning 'faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness', and emunah is a noun primarily meaning 'faithfulness, trustworthiness, steadiness' [2]. And there is yet another word with essentially the same meaning, אֱמֶת (emet: eh-met): 'faithfulness, reliability, trustworthiness' [2]. Emet and emunah occur 'in the context of moral language (steadfast love, righteousness, justice, etc.) and [are] used to reveal God's character, often in the language of praise.' There are many worship songs which praise God's faithfulness to us, or his faithfulness to his promises or covenants, with scriptures to support them like Lamentations 3:23 and Deuteronomy 32:4. Habakkuk 2:4 is worthy of special mention, as it is quoted three times in the New Testament (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; Hebrews 10:38). Traditionally the second half of the verse is translated 'the just [or righteous] shall live by his faith', but some newer translations are using 'faithfulness'. The NET is one example, as its translators' notes explain,

Or “loyalty”; or “integrity.” The Hebrew word אֱמוּנָה (’emunah) has traditionally been translated “faith,” but the term nowhere else refers to “belief” as such. When used of human character and conduct it carries the notion of “honesty, integrity, reliability, faithfulness.”... In this case the LORD is assuring Habakkuk that those who are truly innocent will be preserved through the coming oppression and judgment by their godly lifestyle, for God ultimately rewards this type of conduct. [3, colour added]

Interestingly, the word 'faith' is hardly found in English translations of the Hebrew scriptures: 10 times in the NET, 28 times in the ESV. (The difference is largely explained in the ESV's preference to say 'breach of faith' or 'break faith' instead of 'unfaithful' (NET), for example, and 'acted in good faith' (ESV) instead of 'shown loyalty' (NET).)

The New Testament writers (except perhaps Luke) were living, thinking, and writing from a foundation of the Hebrew scriptures, even when writing in Greek, so there ought to be a continuity of meaning that flows into the New Testament. That is, the three quotations made of Habakkuk 2:4 I mentioned above should likely be interpreted, 'the righteous [person] shall live by his faithfulness'. In the NET it is, 'the person of integrity will live because of his faithfulness.' Certainly faith is needed, but the emphasis is on faithfulness.

The biblical Greek word for faith is πίστις (pistis), meaning trust, trustworthiness, belief, confidence, faith or faithfulness. So, are we saved by faith or by faithfulness? And if by faithfulness, whose faithfulness -- ours, or the Lords? The answer to both questions is: Yes! Amen! If that doesn't make sense to you, consider that we are saved by faith in Jesus, which is expressed through faithfulness to him throughout the rest of our days; yet we are also saved by his faithfulness to us, and to the covenant that binds us to him. Consider Romans 3:22; Galatians 3:22; Ephesians 3:12 and Philippians 3:9 which all speak of the faithfulness of Jesus. Many Bibles have translated the phrase as 'faith in Jesus' which has merit in that we are required to believe in him, but it doesn't seem to be what the text is saying in those places. Rather, it is saying 'that we may be justified... by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ' (Galatians 2:16 NET).

The next post will discuss what I think is the wrong use of the concept of faith promoted in many churches today, particularly those aligned with the Word of Faith movement.

---

[1] Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

[2] Mounce, W. D. (2006). Mounce's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old & New Testament Words. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[3] Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (Hab 2:4). Biblical Studies Press.

A sheet full of treif

Acts 10:1 - 11:18 covers the story of Peter's thrice-repeated vision of the sheet full of unclean animals and its interpretation. This exegesis concludes that the meaning of the vision is only about Gentiles - that they are not to be regarded as unclean by Jewish believers - and that it has nothing to do with them eating unclean foods or with the Law of Moses supposedly being terminated. It should, therefore, not be used to substantiate the claim that the Law is obsolete since it does not address that topic. One of the demands of good hermeneutics is to see how one's exegesis fits in with the overall sweep of scripture but I am going to restrict the discussion to the selected passage because I'm trying to show that Acts 10:1 - 11:18 on its own does not support the claim that the Law is done away with.

You can read through this article briefly and get the gist of what I am saying, but I suggest you set aside a couple of hours to do it thoroughly and resolve all the issues. This study requires absolute honesty of interpretation. I encourage you to put aside your own theology and join me in looking simply at what the text says. If you come with the idea that you already know what the story is about before studying it, you may fall into the trap of eisegesis - reading into the text what you think (and perhaps want) it to say, instead of exegesis - reading the meaning out of the text.

To start, read the entire passage. The story describes:

• Peter’s visions of the sheet during his stay with “Simon the tanner” in Joppa, 
• his mission and preaching to Gentiles in Caesarea (Cornelius and his household), 
• their reception of the gospel and baptism in Spirit and water, and 
• Peter’s defence of his actions to believers in Jerusalem leading to the revelation of God’s inclusion of the Gentiles in his Kingdom.

I say "visions" (plural) because Peter saw the same vision three times over. Repetition in the Bible is a technique to emphasise a message strongly, and a triple declaration is the strongest possible statement. In Isaiah and Revelation, for example, God is praised with the cry, "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD God Almighty!" (Revelation 4:8, almost verbatim in Isaiah 6:3) By saying "holy" three times in succession, the creatures are emphatically stating that God could not be more holy. So Peter's triple vision was something of great importance.

The narrative is a crucial part in the historical spread of the gospel (hence, the Kingdom) to every nation. First it went from Jews alone to semi-Jews (outcast Samaritan “half-breeds”) in Acts 8 and then, in the same chapter, to the Ethiopian eunuch. (He was either a proselyte to Judaism or a God-fearer, but in either case unable to enter the Temple due to his emasculation, Deuteronomy 23:1). In Acts 10, the gospel is preached to God-fearers (Gentiles who worshiped the God of Israel together with the Jews) and by Acts 11 it was being presented to all Gentiles - even pagans! Peter's vision of the sheet was pivotal to this development. In Acts 15:14, Jacob ("James") affirms to the Jerusalem Council Peter's claim that Israel itself was selected by God "from among the Gentiles". The vision Peter saw was God's directive to the chief apostle to open wide the door to the Gentiles, and it changed the course of history forever.

Purim: a time for thanksgiving and a call to intercession

Did you see the full moon last night? It's the Jewish feast of Purim this weekend, a celebration of the salvation of the Jewish people from the satanic attack of their enemies during their exile in Babylon in the 6th century BC. The story is recorded in the book of Esther, a young Jewish lady who was married to Xerxes, the king of the Persia. One night she put her life on the line to appeal to her husband to spare her life, and the lives of her people. Xerxes, whose empire stretched all the way from Egypt to India (!), could not annul the decree to kill all the Jews in the empire but he did authorize them to defend themselves on the day planned for their extermination -- and even to kill their attackers. Thus the Jews survived one of the greatest threats to their existence, and now celebrate their victory in the feast of Purim.

Purim is a time for us to read the book of Esther. It has incredible relevance in our day, even as radical Islamists seek to exterminate the Jewish people worldwide. Read these words by Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah:

We have discovered how to hit the Jews where they are most vulnerable. The Jews love life, so that is what we will take from them. We are going to win, because they love life and we love death. [Source]

Purim is a time for us to pray for the Jewish people to come to know their own Messiah, Yeshua (Jesus). Circumcision is not enough; it never saved anyone from his sins. People need Jesus! Jews are loved by God on account of the patriarchs, but they are enemies of the gospel for our (Gentiles') sake (Romans 11:28) and unsaved (11:14). This is the Church that has persecuted them for 19 centuries, instead of loving them and interceding for them as it should have.

Purim is a time for us to pray for Messianic Jews (Jewish believers in Jesus). They are generally rejected by mainstream Judaism and by mainstream Christianity (unless the "de-Judaize" themselves by forsaking all things Jewish). Messianic Jews are facing increasing persecution, especially in Israel, as this short video shows.

Purim is a time for us to give thanks for the Jewish people, through whom we have received the Bible and the Saviour of the world! It was with Israel that the New Covenant was made (Jeremiah 31:31-34), and by their preaching to the Gentiles that we came to share in the wonderful gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44). It is into the Olive Tree (Israel) that Christians have been grafted, connecting us to the blessings of Abraham (Romans 11:17), through whom all nations have been blessed (Genesis 18:18, 22:18, 26:4). Purim is a time for Christians to:

remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Ephesians 2:12-13)

Purim is a time for us to stand up for the rights of Jews to life and to their homeland, Israel. Esther put her life at risk to save her people. The ultimate outcome of this is that Jesus was born! Similarly, the Jews -- and particularly the religious establishment in Jerusalem -- have a crucial role to play in bringing about Jesus' return (Matthew 23:37-39). This is why Hitler was, and Ahmadinejad is, inspired by Satan to exterminate the Jews -- just like Haman in the story of Esther. Haman was hanged and you know what became of Hitler. Internationally, pressure is mounting for Christians to condemn Israel regarding the Palestinian conflict, but we who form the bride of the King are to speak up for Israel and to intercede for the Jews. If we fail to do so, deliverance for them will rise from another place, but we will have failed to fulfil God's calling on us. It is time for the Church to take up the challenge of Mordecai to Esther (4:13-14):

Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, "Do not think to yourself that in the king's palace you will escape any more than all the other Jews. For if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?"

More great biblical language resources online

In addition to the New Testament resources I pointed to in my post last week (SBLGNT, HEB and more), I just discovered some super Greek and Hebrew study resources at Lionel Windsor's interesting blog Forget the Channel. These include spreadsheets listing:

1. the entire vocabulary of the Greek New Testament (5393 root words) together with an English "gloss" (not a full definition but a couple of words explaining the most common meaning);
2. over 800 root words from the Hebrew Old Testament*.

The great thing about the spreadsheet format is that you can manipulate the data; you're not stuck with having to copy it from a PDF and losing the field delimiters.

*Note: I had to install the obsolete SIL Ezra font to get the Hebrew spreadsheets to work, even though I had the newer Ezra SIL font installed. All the instructions are given, however.

What's in a word: διακρίνω (diakrino) - doubt, discrimination or distinction?

Bible translators have a tough job. In fact, in some ways they can never win. There is just no 1:1 mapping between words and phrases of one language and those of another. Bill Mounce, an expert in biblical Greek who was on the Translation Oversight Committee of the ESV, offers a brilliant lecture on this in his free course, Greek for the Rest of Us. (Go to www.teknia.com, create an account and then look for lecture 1b of this course.) Mounce emphasises,

All translations are interpretive

and goes on to explain that all translators are biased. Bible publishers have to decide in advance what kind of translation they are aiming for.

For example, do they want to use gender-inclusive language? If so, they might translate "your sons" as "your sons and daughters", since that appears to be what is meant in many places of the text (because men were representative of the whole population). Today we no longer see men as representing the general population so it may make more sense to say "your sons and daughters" in a modern English translation. Translators constantly have to wrestle with the issue of whether to interpret words or meanings, and we should not be quick to accuse them of deliberately mistranslating certain texts. If they translate those same texts differently, then other people will be clamouring against them. The only way to win is for every Christian to become thoroughly competent in the biblical languages -- and that ain't gonna happen!

With that background in place I do want to raise a challenging question for the translators of several modern translations, the English Standard Version (ESV, 2001) in particular. It seems to me that they have imposed their theology on a word in Acts 11:12, theology that they probably drew out of other parts of the Bible.

Great New Testament resources online

I recently discovered the new (2010) Lexham English Bible (LEB, New Testament only) which I am very excited about, not least of all because of everything that comes with it. And, like the best things in life, it's free (in electronic format, including PDF and e-Sword).

You can find the LEB at http://www.lexhamenglishbible.com/. Here's what I like about it:

• from a quick scan, it looks a great translation to modern English. See the "About" page on the LEB website for some examples. I noticed the translators are amongst the few to dare to change the traditional "For God so loved the world..." in John 3:16. (See my post on this not-so-good interpretation here: http://templeswallow.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-do-john-316-and-romans-1126-have.html.)
• the LEB is based on good source material: the latest (27th) edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (GNT), or NA27;
• and, like the New English Translation (NET), it's free. Here's a quote from the licence agreement: "You can give away the Lexham English Bible, but you can't sell it on its own."

I found the LEB in PDF format through a search engine, but there is currently no link to the PDF format (only to the other formats), so I am putting a copy here for you: Lexham English Bible in PDF. It's 2.7MB.

Things get better when you follow the link from the LEB downloads page to the website of the Society for Biblical Literature (SBL) to get the LEB Reverse Interlinear (woohoo!) - that's an interlinear Bible which uses the English word order. The English text is from the LEB and the Greek is from the SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT). It also gives the transliteration for those who don't read Greek, and the Strong's number for each word. Every English word is linked to the original Greek, so you can see where it's coming from. Here's what it looks like (click on it for detail):

Any biblical Greek student has got to be excited about this!

Now that we're onto the SBL website, let me point out some of its great treasures:

1. the SBLGNT is free in various electronic formats (including PDF), and it has critical apparatus to let you know where every word is coming from (i.e. which manuscript compilation);
2. the reverse interlinear New Testament (mentioned above);
3. a fantastic Greek-English 'glossary' as an appendix to the reverse interlinear. Click here for the Strongs Greek-English Glossary.
4. SBL Hebrew keyboard drivers. The one called SIL is the best thing since sliced bread! It's terrific because it matches the Hebrew letters and vowel points logically to the letters of our alphabet. For example, if you want a dalet you press D, and for a lamed you press L. The silent letters aleph and ayin take silent characters (> and < respectively), and the vowels also make sense: press I for a chiriq, O for a cholam, and so on.
5. Book reviews (free e-mail subscription) - a great way to keep abreast of books published;
6. SBL academic journal (not free);
7. SBL Greek and Hebrew fonts.

Use of the cross as a symbol

In a recent forum discussion at the South African Theological Seminary a student expressed concern that: "There is an emerging theology discrediting the display of the cross as a symbol of the Christian faith..." He tackled the following four common objections to the use of the cross to symbolise Christianity:

1. that the cross had pagan and even occultist origins;
2. that the cross brings credit to Satan;
3. that a crucifix detracts from Jesus' victory over death by portraying him as defeated;
4. that salvation is in Christ, not the cross itself.

His answers to these arguments respectively were as follows:

1. true, but this does not detract from the fact that God's greatest work took place at the cross;
2. Jesus died in our place "not to Satan but to God";
3. don't use the crucifix [the cross with Jesus on it] to discredit an empty cross [without Jesus, because he is no longer on it!];
4. this is a mute point because evangelical Christians don't put their faith in the cross, but rather in Christ. If a pastor discovers people in his congregation trusting in the cross itself, then the solution is "exegetical teaching and preaching".

I think he got it right. The following was my own response:

It's all well that people are questioning, but it seems that many are not doing any real investigation, possibly for lack of time - but then they should reserve judgment till they have done so. ( ... There is a kind of apathy to first-hand investigation; it's easier to hear and pass on a rumour. This, I think, highlights the lack of true discipleship in the modern Church.)

I have been reviewing a lot of our traditions and came to similar conclusions as you on the cross as a Christian symbol. However, I am not enamoured of the symbol, and its use by the Church will always bear some risk of idolatory - yet if someone is inclined to idolatory then he will find an idol in anything, whether it's a cross or something else. Moreover, the cross is a symbol of death; the paradox of our faith is the life that comes from Christ's death - but not everyone sees that. A symbol of life might be more appealing! I can't say I see any need of the cross as a symbol; I can and do quite happily abide in the Vine without it. The reality of the indwelling Holy Spirit eclipses the need for a symbolic reminder.

The cross has been used as a symbol of Christianity since the 2nd century (see Wikipedia: 'Christian Cross'). That can't really be used to argue either way, since there were plenty of heresies around by then. But, as Dan Juster says so emphatically,

The meaning of a symbol is its use in the community that defines and practises it – not some deep dark secret. In logic, that is called the genetic fallacy, which means that you define the meaning of a practice from a deep, dark secret that nobody is thinking about when they do it!

I also noticed that Frank Viola, in his book Pagan Christianity, didn't mention the cross at all. That's significant, because Pagan Christianity questions and criticises (rightly or wrongly) practically every tradition of Christianity, from the pulpit to the usher. It is unthinkable that he did not investigate the possibility of the cross being a pagan symbol, so one has to conclude that he could not find such a link.

In summary, I think the use of the cross by the Church is acceptable; it should be unnecessary for our faith, but it can also be useful, e.g. as an explicit sign of Christianity that is recognised in every nation, language and form of writing.

What do John 3:16 and Romans 11:26 have in common?

What do John 3:16 and Romans 11:26 have in common? Most Christians are familiar with John 3:16 which in the NIV reads,

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Romans 11:26 in the NIV reads,

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
   “The deliverer will come from Zion;
    he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

Look only at the words to see what is in common; don't worry about anything else. There is one very innocent little word these two verses share in most English translations, including this 1994 NIV: "so". It seems a rather insignificant word. But now look at the 2010 NIV for the latter verse (emphasis added):

and in this way all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
   “The deliverer will come from Zion;
   he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

The NIV has changed. So what? Who gives a houtos? Let's take a closer look at the word so which just changed to in this way.

The Greek word here is οὕτως (houtos) which is an adverb meaning "in this manner". Sometimes the word "so" is used for this in English. For example, "Do it like so" means "Do it in this manner." The correct reading of John 3:16 should therefore begin, "For in this manner God loved the world..." In what manner? The answer comes from the previous two verses! In the same manner that Moses lifted up on a pole the serpent in the wilderness and everyone who looked to it was saved from the serpents (see Numbers 21:8-9), God would have Jesus lifted up on a cross, and everyone who looks to him will be saved from his sins.

So (no pun intended), John 3:16 is not saying that God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. It is saying that God loved the world so! (in the manner described in verses 14-15), giving his one and only Son in the same way. Yet the overwhelming majority of English translations continue with the traditional "For God so loved..." which is misleading to modern English speakers. The LEB and NET are two examples of modern translations that have forsaken the "so", producing "For in this way God loved..." and "For this is the way God loved..." respectively.

How do we apply this to Romans 11:26? We saw above that the 2010 NIV has made the change to "in this way" here, though not in John 3:16. Paul is arguing that the manner in which all Israel will be saved is through the partial hardening of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in (into the Kingdom of God, that is, verse 25). I am not going to expound the scripture here, but the nutshell version is that the church in Rome was not to boast over Jews who didn't believe in Jesus and therefore had not entered into the Kingdom (verses 17-22). He says that God is able to restore Israel (bringing them to faith in Jesus), and that this will happen through the fullness of the Gentiles coming in (verses 23-25).

It is sad to see so many English Bibles using the word so when in this manner is clearly a better translation. One little word can make a world of difference!

Theology in the Park: The mystery of Romans 11:25

Yesterday I attended an all-day Theology in the Park conference organised by Messianic Good News, an organisation directed by Peter Cohen and Kevin Daly "who are both actively involved in writing and spreading the good news" (see their website), most especially to the Jewish people. In spite of some theological differences I have with them, I really think they do great work; their articles are thoroughly researched and they know what they believe, and why.

One of the exercises the conference participants were given was to identify the 'mystery' (Greek: μυστήριον, 'mysterion') mentioned by Paul in Romans 11:25. Immediately I felt embarrassed because I should know the answer off the top of my head (since it is closely related to my Masters topic), but I didn't. So I quickly looked up the verse and read the surrounding verses before my turn came up. As we went around the circle of about 20 people, we had an equal number of different answers though of course many overlapped. Nevertheless, there were some very different answers. Some people offered great biblical truths as the meaning of the mystery that Paul was writing to the church in Rome about. They really were wonderful gospel truths, but they were not the right answer to the question.

I feel there were two critical oversights that were made by most participants. Firstly, Paul says he does not want his readers to be ignorant of this mystery, and then he goes on to tell them what the mystery is in the same sentence! (The explanation also runs into the next verse, which in some translations is the same sentence.) Both the demonstrative pronoun this (τοῦτο, 'touto') and the conjunction that ('in order that': ἵνα, 'hina') appear in Greek text - the translators did not 'supply' them (that is, add them in, as is sometimes necessary in interpretation): "I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery... that..." and then Paul spells it out.

The second oversight was equally significant. The 'answer' to the question was supposedly given in Paul's letter to the Ephesians. Now I do believe that the Bible is an integrated whole -- that it is internally consistent, that apparent contradictions are solvable, and that one passage of scripture may be vital to unlocking the meaning of another. And certainly the mystery mentioned in Ephesians is related to the one in Romans 11, but the church in Rome did not have Paul's letter to the Ephesians at hand. Paul had to describe the mystery in the self-same letter in which he refers to it, or his readers would not have known what he was talking about. There are many mysteries in the Bible, but there was no need for my companions to explore further; Paul gives the answer then-and-there.

Why don't you take a look at Romans 11:25-26 and see what you think the 'mysterion' (secret, mystery) is that Paul was writing about?

Exegesis: The transfiguration of Jesus in Mark 9

This paper seeks to expound the passage of Mark 9:2-13 concerning the transfiguration of Jesus and the fulfilment of Malachi 4:5 in John the Baptist as Elijah. The principal point of this text is the revelation of Jesus as the Son of God (v7). The story is paralleled in Matthew 17:1-13 and Luke 9:28-36.

More about God's Name

I have published on the Name of the LORD before, once in an exegesis of Exodus 6:1-7 (God's Name revealed) and once in Hashem: What's in a Name?  This assignment was supposed to be on the names (plural) of God, but as usual I ended up focusing on 'the Name' because this really is it. God has revealed himself to us by one principal Name, and it is the only Name by which we may be saved!

What I really liked about this study was the Christology, the fact that Jesus has been given the Name above all names - not 'Jesus' (Saviour), but the Name of the Father. I've also discussed the important matter of having the Name removed from all our Bibles and replaced with the very bland "the LORD".

The cry of the crowds to Jesus at his final arrival in Jerusalem was a well-recognised Hebrew greeting reserved for the Messiah: בָּרוּךְ הַבָּא בְּשֵׁם יהוה (Blessed is he who comes in the Name of the LORD!) Ironically, though they acknowledged Jesus as YHWH’s Anointed One, they did not grasp the double entendre – he who comes in the Name of YHWH is YHWH.

I hope you enjoy this essay on this literally vital topic.

Hebrew word study: מִן (min) - 'from'

It's amazing just how much one can discover in the use of a single, ordinary word. Last year I did a study on the Hebrew word for from, מִן (pronounced min). Non-Hebrew scholars may be interested in the last paragraph concerning "grace" (as in giving thanks for a meal). From what I can tell, the popular notion in the charismatic movement (and others) of blessing the food is not Biblical. Jesus and his tradition would bless the LORD, giving thanks for the meal.

Here's the study.

Using the Psalms in pastoral care

This is an assignment I did on the use of the Psalms in pastoral care. It starts with a great poem by Yehuda Amichai, Summer Evening by the Window with the Psalms, which begins:

Close scrutiny of the past.
How my soul yearns within me like those souls
in the nineteenth century before the great wars,
like curtains that want to pull free
of the open window and fly.

I used an online tool to generate a "word cloud" of the top 70 words in the New English Translation, and it looks like this:

Here's the whole assignment.

God's Name revealed

This paper is an exegesis of Exodus 6:1-7 in which God makes himself known by his name, YHWH, to Moses and promises that He will deliver this people from slavery under Pharaoh in Egypt...

The whole passage is dominated by God’s repeated self-disclosure: “I am YHWH”. This is one of the most significant events in the Bible for, though God has many “names” in the Bible, the others are really just titles and descriptors. YHWH, however, may be regarded as his unique, personal Name that is to treated as sacred and never used in vain (Ex 20:7; Dt 5:11). The Name is believed to be related to the verb הָיָה (haya, to be) and hence God’s earlier answer to Moses’ question, “If... they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?” (Ex 3:13). God’s reply was “I will be who I will be” or, “I am who I am” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה), and that “I will be”, or “I am”, is sending Moses.

For the full assignment, click here.

Science and Creation, Faith and Truth

This is an essay I wrote in 2010 on the topic of The Christian Belief in Creation.

This paper reviews some key points in the science-faith debate. Rather than attempting to evaluate different interpretations of the biblical creation motif, only one is presented – one that best fits the science and without violating the Bible. What is the rationale for starting with science instead of the Bible? The Bible primarily tells us the story of the relationship between God and Man. Its purpose is to redeem humanity and to glorify God, not to explain scientific facts. Nevertheless our initial assumption is that both science and scripture are good and they glorify God.

For the whole essay, click here.

Book Review: Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism

The book review below is something I wrote that was published in The South African Baptist Journal of Theology, 2010, volume 19. The book reviewed is Mark Kinzer's Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism: redefining Christian engagement with the Jewish people, published by Brazos Press in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 2005 (ISBN 9781587431524). Kinzer works at the Messianic Jewish Theological Institute.

Post-Missionary, in Kinzer’s jargon, does not suggest an end for missions. Rather, Kinzer promotes a post-missionary form of Messianic Judaism which reaches out to Jews in a different manner to the traditional missionary approach. Instead of converting Jews to Christianity and instructing them to abandon “all things Jewish”, Kinzer promotes helping Jews to discover the Jewish Messiah within their Jewish faith, its practices, history, scriptures—and among the practising Jewish community.