The Internet Monk Archives

Why I am an Ally – Part 3

If you are new to this series you might want to jump back in and read Part 1, where I talk about some of my personal interactions, or Part 2, where I discuss Romans 1 (and 2). Thank you to everyone who posted comments. They have definitely enriched the posts.

One of my paragraphs in Part 2 caused a little bit of confusion though. I wrote: “I do believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity and I will talk about this more in a future post…” Let me clarify by way of another example. I believe the Bible teaches that the Earth was created before the Sun and that Sun revolves around the Earth. That does not that I believe the Earth was created before the Sun and that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Do you see the difference? Please give me a little latitude to unpack this in Part 4 or 5 before assuming what I may or may not hold to personally. Again, I ask you to limit your discussion to the specific topic at hand.

With that let us jump to our next biblical text.

Sodom and Gomorrah

“The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” – Genesis 18:20-21

“Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” – Genesis 19:4-5

Pretty easy to put two and two together, isn’t it? The “grievous sin” of Genesis 18 is paralleled with the homosexuality seen in Genesis 19. That is the way we learned it in Sunday School, didn’t we? Except this conclusion is completely wrong.

Remember in my previous post how I encouraged you to focus on what the text actually says, and to put aside any preconceptions and assumptions you might have about it? Well, if you do that here, a different picture quickly emerges.

Let me first look at the big picture.

It was rather fortuitous that yesterday’s post by Mike the Geologist was about the Flood story of Genesis 6.

Stephen commented:

…a possibly unintended consequence of treating this story as a historical memory is that it takes the focus off what the story really means and places it on an ultimately futile quest for what “really” happened. I’m not against historical study by any means but until we invent a time machine I am more interested in what the author(s) is trying to get across. Why is he telling me this story?

Why are we being told the story of Noah, and why are we told the story of Sodom and Gomorrah?

When we compare the two stories there are some very striking parallels. I have listed a few that immediately come to mind:

Sex, or attempted sex, between humans and heavenly beings. In Genesis 6 there is this strange tale of the Sons of God marrying the daughters of men. In Genesis 19 there is this strange tale of humans wanting to have sex with messengers from God.
In Genesis 6, God saw how corrupt the earth had become. In Genesis 18, God says: “I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.
God destroys the wickedness (by flood, and then by fire and brimstone)
One family is preserved.
God (or his agents) actively intervenes to protect them by shutting them in. (7:16; 19:10-11)
A lasting memorial is created. (altar vs. pillar of salt)
Sin quickly reintroduced by offspring being intimate with their father. (We again have the weird story of Canaan seeing his father naked and being cursed for it and the equally weird story of Lot’s daughters having sex with him so that their family lines would be continued.)
The offspring of the sinful offspring become Israel’s traditional enemies. (The Canaanites, Moabites, and Ammonites).

Chaplain Mike made some interesting points when he talked about how the purpose of Genesis is to tell the story of Israel’s origins. His post was about Adam, but the same holds true for the stories of Noah and Lot. It is interesting how all of these stories help to answer the question (from an Israelite perspective) of “How and why did we get here?”, and also “How and why did everyone else get where they are?” There is a recurring pattern in both of wickedness, judgement, preservation, return to wickedness, and the newly wicked becoming the ancestors of their neighbors who they see as being outside of God’s promised blessing. The tying of fresh sin to the foundation of the other nations is their way of explaining why they (the Israelites) are part of God’s big plan, and the other nations are not. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this in the comments.

As mentioned in my previous post, when we zoom into the detail too quickly we lose that big picture and the primary point of the passage which is to help answer the big questions of how and why.

That being said, here are eight reasons why the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about Homosexuality.

1. As mentioned above, this is an origins story, as such, it is a narrative of how Israel came to be.

2. Genesis 18 does not specify the wickedness. It is only spoken of in general terms. However we might interpret the specific incident in Genesis 19, it is only one specific example, and should not be interpreted as the whole of the wickedness. (More on this later.)

3. This is, overall, a really weird story. God visiting humans. Other humans wanting sex with God’s messengers. A Father willing to sacrifice his daughters to a mob to save strangers (I mean who does that? And Lot is considered to be righteous???). Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. His daughters both sleeping with their father. Any attempt to principalise this story and try and apply it to our modern context is just going to lead to all kinds of problems.

4. The text states: “All the men”. Statistics tell us that only a small percentage (the actual number is up for debate) of the male population is homosexual. So, if “All the men” were involved this was largely a heterosexual crowd, not a homosexual one.

5. The Hebrew word that is translated “men” is a collective noun. Elsewhere it is translated “Human” or “Humanity”. The scene is describing a mob, which may or may not also have included women.

6. If Lot knew the crowd itself was homosexual, he wouldn’t have offered his daughters in place of the visitors. This ties into my next point…

7. This IS describing a mob trying to commit a gang rape. Gang rape is about power. It is NOT about homosexuality. In fact it is very much an act committed by those who consider themselves heterosexual. If you want to do further reading on this, google rape in U.S. prisons. You will find that while the perpetrators generally consider themselves to be heterosexual, a victim will be homosexual at a rate much much higher than that of the general population.

8. Finally I want to look at Ezekiel’s interpretation of the Sodom and Gomorrah story. Now while Ezekiel might seem to be far removed from the events of Genesis in terms of time, in terms of the compilation of these stories they are likely from the same time period in the Babylonian exile. The stories are being put into their final form during the exile, as a way to explain, “here is how we got here.” This is why we see so many parallels with Babylonian literature. Ezekiel then is in a good vantage point to offer commentary, which he does. In Ezekiel 16:49-50 God tells Ezekiel why he destroyed Sodom:

“‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

I cannot remember when I first read this. But I definitely remember being “gobsmacked”. Wait, what? God’s describes grievous sin as being arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned, not helping the poor and the needy? While I warned above about being careful of what you try to apply from these texts to modern life, I want you to ask yourself, “Does his description seem to apply more to homosexuality or what passes as much of the American Evangelical church?” When I look at Christianity in America today (and Canada as well but maybe to a lessor extent), what I see is rampant consumerism and an unwillingness to share meaningfully with what they have with those in need. I only need to go to my facebook feed to show many many examples of this.

In summary then, this is not a passage about homosexuality at all! It doesn’t fit. It could however be taken as an indictment of how we as Christians live in the west.

I could go on, but I am running out of time. In my next post I will discuss the Leviticus text and some corresponding New Testament passages, and start to unpack my own overall view on how I understand this topic. For this week, I look forward to your comments and further discussion on this particular passage as we further the conversation.

The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, Part 4- Propositions 14

The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate
by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton
Part 4- Proposition 14

We are blogging through the book: The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton. Today we will look at Part 4- The World: Thinking About Evidence for the Flood, Proposition 14- The Flood Story Has a Real Event Behind It. Walton and Longman believe that the bible is talking about real events in the past and not pure myth, even though it is theological history, it is still history. We have already discussed that they believe the bible uses rhetorical devices such as figurative language and hyperbole, and that the event itself is not inspired; the theological interpretation of the event is what is inspired.

In the comment section of Proposition 8, frequent commenter Stephen dissents from Walton and Longman’s assertion by noting:

Having thoroughly imbibed historical critical scholarship I just think it’s a mistake to try to link these common ANE myths back to some prehistoric event. This is sophisticated literature here. I think making this a historical issue diminishes what was a truly remarkable accomplishment. The sophisticated thinkers and composers of Genesis took common ANE mythological repertoire and shaped it, in many ways demythologizing it, and created a cosmic account revealing their view of humanity’s place in creation. The Flood is not some exaggerated account of some dimly remembered historical event but an act of the imagination, an account of the uncreating of the cosmos. Astonishing, meaningful literature. Literature, not history.

Stephen makes a very good point and the fact of the matter is there is no way of knowing for sure what the ancient Hebrew authors had in mind when they put the final edits on the Genesis 6-9 story. So it is mostly a matter of opinion whether you think there is a real event behind the Noachian flood story or not.

Two Great Andamanese men, in an 1875 photograph

That being said, I personally think there is something to be said for oral accounts, especially “divine” warnings, being passed down from generation to generation. There is some evidence that indigenous islanders, during the 2004 Banda Aceh earthquake and subsequent tsunami, had an awareness of the ocean, earth, and the movement of animals that was accumulated over 60,000 years of inhabiting the islands. Oral history teachings and their hunter-gatherer lifestyle might have prepared them to move deeper into the forests after they felt the first trembles of the earthquake. Walton and Longman say:

What kind of event would stand behind the flood of Genesis 6-9 (and also other ANE accounts)? We cannot be sure, but we have evidence of more than one flood that would be potential candidates for the inspiration of the story. Again, we are not saying that one of these events is definitely the historical source of the flood stories of the Bible and the ANE. But we are saying there were devastating floods in human pre-history, one of which may well have rooted itself in human memory passed down through the centuries, even millennia that could have been used as a vehicle by the author of Genesis to present a story that would talk about God’s judgment and his restoring order when it had degenerated… we must be careful not to be dogmatic about evidence for any one flood being the inspiration for the biblical story.

I am going to classify the floods into three main categories:

Post Ice Age Flooding. Massive flooding that took place at the end of, or not long after, the last Ice Age as the huge melt-off of the continental glaciers took place and the attendant relatively rapid rise of sea levels.
Unusually large, statistically rare, but nevertheless possible, flood event(s) in Mesopotamia. Think two Category 5 hurricanes converging on the Tigris-Euphrates river basins and stalling—dropping massive amounts of rain.
Large, but regularly occurring, floods of the 100-year recurrence interval type that nevertheless would have huge impact on ancient local Mesopotamian populations and generate the “remember the great flood of…” stories. These would be rare enough to stick out prominently in the memories of those who experience them, but occur often enough that the oral tradition would be self-sustaining.

Let’s take them in reverse order. If you lived in the Midwest, you probably remember the Great Flood of 1993. The Great Flood of 1993 was a major flood that occurred in the Midwest, along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, and their tributaries, from April to October of 1993. The flood was among the most costly, and devastating to have occurred in the United States, with $15 billion in damages.

Or, if you are older and lived in the Indiana-Ohio-Kentucky area, you might remember the Great Flood of 1937. The Ohio River flood of 1937 took place in late January and February 1937. With damage stretching from Pittsburgh to Cairo, Illinois, one million people were left homeless, 385 were dead and property losses reached $500 million ($8.7 billion when adjusted for inflation as of 2015). Federal and state resources were strained to aid recovery as the disaster occurred during the depths of the Great Depression and a few years after the Dust Bowl.

Or Katrina 2005, or Houston 2017, my point is that modern people who experience these large, but regularly occurring, floods still talk about them around the dinner table. Imagine the effect on ancient people less able to cope with natural disasters and how those memories would be passed down around the campfire, and even embellished.

The second category is really the scaled-up version of the third. As mentioned previously, geologist Carol Hill gives a pretty comprehensive description of how this might have occurred. A truly devastating event like that would undoubtedly remain in human memory for a long time, and attempts to explain why it occurred would also naturally be discussed and re-discussed especially in the oral cultures of the ancient near east. Not much of a stretch imagining the Hebrew scribes incorporating and re-interpreting the story as Noah’s account.

The first category is mentioned by Walton and Longman as they reference the William Ryan and Walter Pittman (both scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory) 1997 book, “Noah’s Ark: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History”. Here is the Wikipedia entry and another account from Science Daily. Ryan and Pitman say that a flood “burst through Bosporus in 5600 BC so violently (that it) cleaved Europe from Anatolia”. The breakthrough occurred because post-glacial sea level rise finally overcame the Bosporus isthmus, and, like a dam breach, the waters of the Aegean Sea poured into what is now the Black Sea. There is some controversy about how fast the water levels in the Black Sea rose and whether it can be called “catastrophic”. Survivors of the flooding would have been displaced into the Mesopotamia valley and carried the story with them.

There is also a new (2010) theory that the remains of ancient settlements from a 100,000-year stretch of human history were submerged by the rapidly rising waters of the Persian Gulf around 6,000 BC — the result, in all likelihood, of a catastrophic, planet-wide flood triggered in Canada caused by the collapse of a miles-high glacial dam at the end of the last ice age. That caused a massive outflow of meltwater into the Arctic or North Atlantic Ocean near Hudson Bay, generating a sharp rise in sea levels around the world.

Then there are the theories of Alice C. Linsley that Noah was African and occupied the Lake Chad region in the late Holocene wet period. She says:

Satellite photographs reveal that Lake Mega-Chad was once a huge body of water, five times the surface area of Lake Superior and with a depth ranging from 200 to 600 feet. This part of Africa was much wetter than it is today due to climate cycles and the African rifts that created great watersheds or troughs… In Noah’s time, there was a prolonged wet period due to monsoons circulating from the Indian Ocean. During this wet period, the major water systems from the Benue Trough to the Tigris-Euphrates overflowed, creating a vast watery world. This was the world that Noah knew, so from his perspective the whole world was flooded.

Personally, I like the romantic and sentimental notion of ancient stories from the dim beginnings of civilization passed down around the campfires. Sure, they have become legends, but legends are the preservation of a people’s story handed down orally from one generation to the next so that they will be preserved and retold for the benefit of those who come after. It’s a very human trait. And there could be conflation and amalgamation of the flood stories so that one apocryphal event emerges that becomes THE EVENT that is focus of the theological history. As Walton and Longman conclude:

Whatever the precise historical event, the story was told from generation to generation, eventually forming the basis for the toledot (or account) [see proposition two]) coming down to the Israelite narrators and the later redactors of the final form of the Pentateuch who used the story of Noah and the flood for their important theological message (see proposition eleven).

Brueggemann: Jesus Is Enough

In the midst of our quest for orthodoxy to be sure people believe right, or our quest for morality to be sure people act right, or our quest for piety to be sure people pray right, the little ones know, this Jesus is enough. It is enough to know Jesus, for in Jesus you see the way God is and the way God acts. It boils down, for this Jesus, to neighbor acts and caring. For that is what Jesus did. It boils down to receiving our life from God as a gift and living it out in gratitude. If you focus on this Jesus, you will know the mystery of how life works. It will be disclosed to you, and you will have enough to live well and free and responsibly. Thus the first conversation of Jesus, the one with God, is a statement about the right rootage of faith, which cuts through all our complexity. To be with God means to stay very close to the simple, caring, demanding ways of Jesus.

• Walter Brueggemann, A Gospel of Hope (p. 50)

Nadia Bolz-Weber on the Apocalypse

The Course of Empire – Destruction. Cole

Tell me what you think.

I’m not sure the “MeToo” movement, etc., is the only or best illustration of her point, but I do think Nadia Bolz-Weber nails the meaning and intent of biblical apocalyptic literature in this clip.

“The dominant powers are not the ultimate powers.”

This is the message and the hope of books like Daniel and Revelation.

In the end it’s all about…

the world’s power,
how that power corrupts and leads to chaos,
but how God wins in the end and restores shalom,
and how his weak and marginalized people end up reigning with him, not through merit or defeating their enemies by violence but through faith, hope, and love.

It’s the Marvel Comics version of the Magnificat.

//delivery.vidible.tv/jsonp/pid=5688f66de4b040e17d991226/vid=5b0dd9e75dc7a655b96a98a4/5688f5c1e4b0f2c97f395156.js

Another Look: “If Only I Could See the Shore”

“No matter how dreary and gray our homes are, we people of flesh and blood would rather live there than in any other country, be it ever so beautiful. There is no place like home.”

― L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

• • •

I was listening to an interview with someone the other day discussing high level achievement in athletic endeavors. She was telling the story of a woman who was trying to swim a channel between the coast and an island offshore. The athlete had attempted this several times without success. On this particular day, the weather was extremely foggy and as she swam she felt herself flagging. She finally gave up and climbed into the boat that was following her. Shortly thereafter, the murkiness lifted somewhat and the swimmer saw that she had given up her crossing with only about a mile left.

Her reaction? “If only I could have seen the shore, I would have made it.”

This story reminds us that people need hope, a hope we can envision, to help us keep going through life.

That same day I participated in a funeral service. Another pastor officiated it, and I must say he did a terrific job bringing personal comfort and encouragement to the family and friends of the one who had died. He was great at telling stories, celebrating the life and character of the person, eliciting both laughter and tears. I was very impressed, and I complimented him and praised him to others for the ministry he provided.

However, there was one nagging problem in the midst of all the good: the theology of hope, of eschatology, of “heaven” that was presented, was hopelessly deficient. Thankfully, it wasn’t the dominant emphasis, but it was sprinkled throughout the service in readings, comments, and songs like discordant notes (to my ears, at least) in a beautiful melody.

And for the first time it became emotionally and personally evident to me, that if this is the Christian hope, I don’t want any part of it.

As presented, it was so vapid, so cartoonish, so discontinuous with any experience we humans have in this life, that I can’t imagine how it could offer real incentive for anyone to follow Jesus or embrace Christian faith. I don’t understand how any thoughtful person could see any of it as “promise” to be welcomed with any sort of eagerness or anticipation. It is no shore I would want to swim toward, even if I could actually see it through the fogginess of the teaching.

First of all, there was no hope given for human beings as we know human beings.

We are embodied creatures, but I kept hearing talk about “spirit” not “body.” The deceased was “spiritually” with God in heaven, and no destiny beyond that “spiritual” state was ever mentioned. The body in front of the audience was essentially ignored. There was no mention of resurrection (except in a quote from scripture), no sense that the life to come has any embodied aspect to it. The pastor referenced 1Corinthians 15, but only to cite the brief passage affirming that death has no sting. The very point of Paul’s teaching — the resurrection of the actual body — was completely absent. I don’t know what anyone else was envisioning about the deceased while sitting in that service, but it was all a fog to me.

I find this confusing dichotomy in a lot of popular Christian teaching about heaven. There is often talk of a “reunion” with loved ones, of being with Jesus, of no more sickness or death, of falling down in worship before God, but no talk of resurrection. And all the while the body of the deceased is lying right in front of us, ready to be carried to the cemetery and lowered into the ground! If “heaven” is our hope, and we will be with God “spiritually,” how then shall we embrace our loved ones, bow our knee or sing praise? This can’t be our hope. If Christ redeemed me — all of me — then my body itself will one day be transformed. The fleshly “shell” (a word I’ve heard used often at time of death) is not something we simply cast off in trade for a “spiritual” existence. The life of the age to come is an embodied life, a life that is congruous with this life we live now. And it won’t come in “heaven” — but more on that in a moment.

We need to make this clear. The mourning and grieving need to envision this. Our deceased loved ones will walk and talk and move and dance in new bodies, new material bodies. Flesh transformed but still material, substantial, human flesh. Help us see it, funeral preachers! Fill not only our hearts but also our bodies with the longing to touch, to embrace, to see, to hear, to smell, to taste physical realities beyond any we have known in this age.

Second, there was no hope given for this world, for creation, or for life in this world with which we as humans are familiar.

This world is not my home
I’m just a-passin’ through.
My treasures are laid up
somewhere beyond the blue.

Beyond. Totally discontinuous from life in this world, from actual living in the here and now. The pastor quoted that song. And in the service, the only activities that were mentioned taking place in “heaven” involved having a “reunion” with loved ones and falling on one’s knees to worship God. Add a few architectural details about gates and golden streets and shining “mansions” and an All-Powerful Ruler who welcomes us and protects us, and what you end up with is an “Oz,” somewhere “over the rainbow,” in a dream, that bears little relation to anything we’ve ever known in daily experience.

But the Bible doesn’t say we’re leaving Kansas to go to some Oz out there where all is colorful and magical. The Bible says Oz is coming to Kansas, and it also says that it is not God’s intention to replace Kansas but to transform it into the best Kansas there could ever be. God will make his home among us, and then we will truly know what it means to be “home.” The end game is for all creation to be reconciled to God, that all things will be “gathered up” in him (Eph. 1:10). God’s plan is not to discard Kansas and replace it with Oz, but to reconcile Oz and Kansas and transform all creation in Christ.

Our Christian hope is terrestrial, material, physical, and fully in line with what we have experienced in this world. There is continuity as well as discontinuity between this age and the age to come.

Christian preachers must be very careful to give us real hope, hope that we can see and grasp after, rather than foggy, cartoonish pictures to which none can relate.

We’re swimming to shore, we’re tired, and we need to see clearly where we’re bound.

“Spiritual” promises are no promises at all.

Originally posted in 2016.

Sundays in Pentecost: Open to the Spirit (3)

Sundays in Pentecost: Open to the Spirit (3)

We are taking the Pentecost season to post a Sunday series of excerpts and reflections from Scot McKnight’s new book, Open to the Spirit: God in Us, God with Us, God Transforming Us.

• • •

Christians make a very high claim about the Bible. The Bible is unlike every other piece of literature.

But we claim more: we claim God speaks to us as God’s people and as individuals whenever we open this Book to listen to it.

We claim further that this happens because the Holy Spirit attends our listening to God’s Word.

• p. 62f

The second part of Scot McKnight’s book, Open to the Spirit, describes the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the sacred book that Christians consider inspired by the Spirit and given by the Spirit as a gift to the church: the Bible.

Thankfully, Scot begins by reminding us that the Bible itself is not God, and that God’s priority in having us read it is to lead us to Jesus, the Living Word.

Where the Spirit is, Jesus is being exalted; where Jesus is not being exalted, there the Spirit is absent. Any claim about the Spirit can be tested by how Jesus-centered it is. To be open to the Spirit is to be open to the Spirit’s introducing us to Jesus and to the Spirit’s keeping us in the presence of Jesus.

He then turns to examining how we may be open to the Spirit when reading God’s written word.

I simply want to reproduce here a chart that Scot uses with his students to help them think through our understanding of how the Holy Spirit attends our reading of scripture. I bring this for your consideration and discussion today.

How do you read such a book? How do you become open to the Spirit in the Bible? Is there such a thing as a Spirit-prompted reading of the Bible? I repeat: since the Spirit generated the Bible, every reading of the Bible is attended by the Spirit. But how does this work? Here is a diagram I use in my classes, and I ask one question: Where do you locate the Spirit? On the right side, on the left, at the top, at the bottom, on both sides, or on all sides?

The following questions are designed to help us think where we locate the Spirit’s work when we read the Bible. These questions will lead you to answer on one side of the chart or the other.

• Does the Spirit give us insight to understand what is said in its original context (right side of the chart), or does the Spirit lead to deeper penetration in our spiritual formation (left side of the chart)?

• Does the Spirit give us, as Christians, a special interpretation, or does the Spirit empower us to receive the message?

• Does the Spirit help us understand what the Bible says or what the Bible means? Is the Spirit in your community’s past, or is the Spirit in your community’s present? Which of these— past or present— has the most influence on how a Christian should read the Bible?

• Is the Spirit present in the Bible so that everyone who reads it is influenced by the Spirit, or is the Spirit now present in you influencing you as you move from interpretation to formation and reception? In the diagram, where do you locate the Spirit?

• p.63

Saturday Brunch, June 2, 2018

Hello, friends, and welcome to the weekend? Ready for some brunch?

The Egypt Exploration Society has recently published a Greek papyrus that is likely the earliest fragment of the Gospel of Mark, dating it from between A.D. 150–250. A couple years ago, some scholars had teased the fragment would date from the first century. Even though it’s not quite that old, it is still quite a bit older than any other Marcan fragment.

ABC fired Roseanne after she sent out a racist and offensive tweet. She later apologized and blamed it on Ambien. The makers of Ambien were quick to point out that racism is not, in fact, a side effect of their drug.

Of course, not everyone thought comparing a black woman to apes was racist. I mean, c’mon. Roseanne didn’t actually say, “I’m racist and I hate blacks”, did she? No. So there is room for interpretation, right?

Radio Host Bill Mitchell: I’m not sure how saying someone looks like a child of “Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes” is racist. I thought “Muslim Brotherhood” was supposed to be a “good” thing and Liberals say we are descended from apes? What am I missing here?

Ted Nugent: So Roseanne referencing a movie title is racist. Lying dishonest soulless freaks from Planet of the Apes.

CRTV host Gavin McInnes: So we’re all going to sit here and pretend that Roseanne meant that joke in a racist way?

Alex Jones: “If you compare some black lady to looking simian, well there’s a reason because we are primates. That’s why there are so many comparisons to humans and monkeys and to apes, because some people look more like it than others. There are some white people that look more like apes than other white people, there are some black people that look more ape-like than other black people. I look ape-like. With my shirt off, in my birthday suit, I look like a gorilla. I mean, I don’t have to work out. I’ve got a big chest, big arms, big legs, I’m bow-legged, my feet are flat. My dad is somewhat simian-looking too. It’s just the way it is, and I’m proud of it.”

So, this happened at a baseball game last week, providing more action and entertainment in 90 seconds than the game provided in three hours:

Did you hear about the new food for your cook-out: Carrot Dogs. Yeah. That’s right. You put a carrot in a hot dog bun and throw some ketchup on it. The Washington Post puts it more elegantly:

Choose the largest, thickest carrots you can find; they shrink during cooking, and you can always trim the narrow end to fit the bun.

Serve these carrot dogs nestled in buns with the toppings such as vegetarian chili, cheddar, chopped onion, sauerkraut, kimchi, pickles/relish, ketchup and spicy mustard. Make Ahead: The charred and peeled carrots can be refrigerated for up to 1 week; reheat them on a grill or in a 200-degree oven.

Paige Patterson was stripped of all titles and privileges. A week after trustees voted to immediately shift Patterson to “president emeritus” at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS), the board’s executive committee has stripped the Southern Baptist stalwart of all “benefits, rights and privileges.” Last Tuesday, a former SEBTS graduate student told The Washington Post that after she reported her rape to Patterson and fellow seminary officials in 2003, they failed to notify authorities and the former president encouraged her to forgive the perpetrator. Patterson did not respond to the claims, but SEBTS launched an internal review of its own.

You know what I love? The annual Comedy Wildlife Photo Awards (now in its fourth year). Contributions are still being sent in, but they have released a few favorites so far:

**“Frank, for the last time: You’re NOT a penguin!!!”**

**AAAALLLLLLLLLLLLVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!**

**“Mike, we’ve practiced this dance a thousand times and you still don’t get it!”**

**My costume is working. The White House Security Guards are ignoring me.**

**“I cannot BELIEVE I forgot her birthday again!”**

**“Have you heard the one about the priest, the lawyer and the doctor diving in the shark zone?”**

**And then she said, “I only racist-tweeted because of Ambien!”**

**“Sam, I can’t make it…save yourself!”**

**“Honey, that is NOT what the IKEA directions said to do!”**

**“The hills are alive…with the sound of moosic”**

**“You will not BELIEVE what Karen said”**

**“And another thing. Stop sitting there with that stunned look on your face like you don’t know what I’m talking about. You know EXACTLY what I’m talking about!”**

Jesse Duplantis made news this week when he asked his followers to pony up 54 million for a new jet. Of course, he already has a jet, silly… “but I can’t go it one stop. And if I can do it one stop, I can fly it for a lot cheaper, because I have my own fuel farm. And that’s what’s been a blessing of the Lord.” Besides, he’s just being Christlike: “If the Lord Jesus Christ was physically on the earth today, he wouldn’t be riding a donkey. He’d be in an airplane flying all over the world.”

Duplantis’ fellow-evangelist Kenneth Copeland recently upgraded to a new jet as well. If you have five minutes and a VERY strong stomach, you can see the two men defend their aquisition of these jets:

Later in the week, the Babylon Bee reported some good news for Duplantis:

DESTREHAN, LA—In a public appearance with the prosperity gospel televangelist Tuesday, Lucifer the Prince of Darkness committed to matching all donations dollar for dollar that disciples of Jesse Duplantis make for his new private luxury jet.

“I hereby vow to double every dollar you give to help my friend Jesse get his new $54 million Falcon 7X,” Satan said at the press conference, as a smiling Duplantis looked on. “Together, we can help him reach his fundraising goal and spread his demonic message of abundance and prosperity all across the globe.”

“Please, if you can find it in your heart, make a love offering today,” Satan added in a solemn plea.

Satan promised to wire the funds from his account in the underworld straight to Duplantis’s ministry as soon as he reaches half of his fundraising goal. The pair claim to have had a long working relationship, with Satan contributing his demonic power to the minister’s last three jet purchases and helping to provide a large portion of the televangelist’s underlying theology.

Let’s end with some pictures of the week, courtesy of the Atlantic

Graduates dance as they take part in a “Last school bell” ceremony at a school in Minsk, Belarus May 30, 2018. REUTERS/Vasily Fedosenko – RC1FBEE2F370

People dressed as a dancing devils with giant mask dance on a street, during a traditional celebration in Naiguata, Venezuela, Thursday, May 31, 2018. Carrying in their hands striking masks mostly animals and sea monsters, hundreds of men, women and children went out to dance frantically as possessed by evil spirits in an ancient ritual known as Dancing Devils of Naiguata, the unorthodox way of the coastal towns of Venezuela to venerate God during the celebrations of Corpus Christi. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos)

A fawn attempts to get on his feet with mommy’s support just minutes after it was born in a Zoo in Belgrade, Serbia, Tuesday, May 29, 2018. (AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic)

TOPSHOT – A gust of wind blows Pope Francis’ mantel as he meets the Carabinieri during the general audience in Saint Peter’s square at the Vatican on May 30, 2018. (Photo by TIZIANA FABI / AFP) (Photo credit should read TIZIANA FABI/AFP/Getty Images)

Romania’s Simona Halep eyes the ball as she plays Taylor Townsend, of the U.S, during their second round match of the French Open tennis tournament at the Roland Garros stadium, Thursday, May 31, 2018 in Paris. (AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

U.S. Air Force Major Paul “Loco” Lopez performs in an F-22 Raptor during the AirPower Over Hampton Roads JBLE Air and Space Expo at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia, U.S. May 18, 2018. Picture taken May 18, 2018. U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Areca T. Bell/Handout via REUTERS.

PAHOA, HI – MAY 25: Residents watch as lava from a Kilauea volcano fissure advances on a roadway in Leilani Estates, on Hawaii’s Big Island, on May 25, 2018 in Pahoa, Hawaii. Following a magnitude 4.4 earthquake today centered in the summit region of the Kilauea volcano, an ash plume was sent from the volcano at least 10,000 feet skyward, according to the National Weather Service. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Activists from Greenpeace affix an imitation breathing mask to the Diana the Huntress statue in a protest action to demand clean air and non-polluting public transport, in Mexico City, Wednesday, May 30, 2018. A press release from the group said that Greenpeace began its work in Mexico 25 years ago with a similar protest over the poor air quality in the Mexican capital, and that a proliferation of private cars and lax emissions controls has since worsened conditions throughout the country. (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell)

An Ultra-Orthodox Jewish girl collects harvested wheat which will later be used to make matza, the traditional unleavened bread eaten during the Jewish holiday of Passover, near kibbutz Magen, Israel, May 30, 2018. REUTERS/Amir Cohen – RC147A0A19A0

TOPSHOT – Models wait before presenting eco-fashion using recycled or biodegradable materials during the ‘Fashion for Sustainable Future’ event by UN Environment in Kisumu, Kenya, on May 31, 2018. – ‘Beat Plastic Pollution’ will be the theme of this year’s World Environment Day on June 5. (Photo by Yasuyoshi CHIBA / AFP) (Photo credit should read YASUYOSHI CHIBA/AFP/Getty Images)

A child, who’s father serves a sentence at the Jilava Prison, touches his hand in Jilava, Romania, Friday, June 1, 2018. More than 100 children, who have fathers serving time in the prison outside the Romanian capital Bucharest, were reunited for a few hours with them during an International Children’s Day event, the first of this scale in Romania. (AP Photo/Vadim Ghirda)

Why I am an Ally – Part 2

A First Look at the Biblical Text

Last week we were introduced to Craig, Steve, Bill, and Geoff, friends of mine that I have interacted with over the years. This was a reminder to all of us that when we enter into these discussions, there are real people at the other end. Craig and Bill have since passed away and I have lost contact with Steve, but Geoff is very much aware that I am writing this series and has give his blessing to reproduce our conversation.

Last week we also heard your stories, stories of family and friends, and in some cases your own stories of how difficult you have found fitting in, in a variety of circumstances. Again, these are reminders that there are real people involved here, even within our own Internet Monk community. I do want to thank all the commentators who respected the commenting guidelines. Your positive contributions is what continues to make this site the safe haven that it is.

I had promised that this week would be the “Biblical Text” post. As I have been working at writing it, I realized that I had far too much to write to limit it to a single post. So I will be spreading what I had intended to write this week over several weeks. I would like to ask again that you limit your comments to the immediate topic at hand. There will be plenty of opportunity for you over the coming weeks to comment on other passages along with your overall understanding of scripture on this topic.

Before I jump into my first text (we are only going to cover one this week), I did want to make one more point. All of us come to the biblical text with presuppositions, assumptions, memory of other passages, life experiences, and lack of contextual knowledge that clouds our understanding of the text. I want to repeat to you a phrase that was drilled into me over and over in seminary, “What does the text actually say?” Try and approach the text with a fresh set of eyes, putting away any presuppositions that you might have.

With that, let’s dive into our first passage: Romans 1 & 2.

The fact is, there aren’t that many “clobber” passage in the Bible when it comes to the topic of homosexuality. Romans Chapter 1 is one that is frequently cited.

Recently, I was reading Romans 2, and much to my surprise, came to the realization that Romans 2 is the natural conclusion of Romans 1. I say, “much to my surprise”, because any Bible study or sermon that I have ever heard on this topic in my 55 years, has always ended at the end of chapter 1. This is important because, unless we understand this, it become very easy to miss the big point that Paul is making in chapters 1 and 2.

Let me elaborate. Our English translations are pretty darn good. A Hebrew professor once commented to me that reading the Bible in English, when compared to reading the Bible in the original languages, was like watching a black and white television versus watching a color television. You get the whole picture, though you might miss some of the nuances.

Sometimes, however, a translator’s bias may cloud the picture. In fact, our English Bibles can get in the way of our understanding even by how the text is laid out.

Some of you will know that biblical Greek has no clause, sentence, paragraph, or chapter demarcations. Letters just flow into letters. Chapter divisions in the Bible first occurred in the 13th Century, and divisions into verses were only implemented 200 years after that. While in most cases the divisions make the text easier to read, in some cases it can actually cause difficulties.

A classic example of this is found in Ephesians 5. Note the location of verse 21 when comparing these two translations:

18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart, 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ.

Wives and Husbands

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…

Compare that with:

18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit, 19 addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, 20 always and for everything giving thanks in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father.

The Christian Household

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord…

Quite the different feel based on the paragraph split, isn’t it? Can you guess which version is favored by Calvinist Complementarians? I know that in the church that I grew up in, the reading of this passage always started at verse 22, and missed the part about mutual submission.

Similarly, when recently reading Romans 2, I realized that the chapter split between Romans 1 and 2 masks an important Hebrew literary device: The “inclusio”.

What is an inclusio, you might ask? The inclusio is a literary device where a summary word, phrase, sentence, or thought, bookends a section of related text. Kind of like a preacher giving you his main point at both the beginning and end of the sermon. Often the concluding item will contrast, elaborate on, or parallel the first item. Sometimes the writer will use similar sounding words at the start and end of the passage, a fact that is lost in our English translations.

The Psalms are full of inclusios. Read through the Psalms with the idea of inclusios in mind, and they will start to jump out at you. Psalm 46 for example:

God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble…
( 9 more verses) …
The Lord Almighty is with us; the God of Jacob is our fortress.

This example is a special type of inclusio, known as a chiastic inclusio. It takes the form of A B B’ A’, where the first and second thoughts in the first verse are repeated and restated in the last verse, but in the reverse order.

While Paul is writing in Greek, he is trained in Hebrew, and Hebrew literary structures like the inclusio are not uncommon in his writings. The start of the inclusio is in Romans 1:18:

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people…”

This introduction is designed by Paul to get people to sit up and pay attention. Imagine if you heard a preacher thundering this from the pulpit. “The wrath of God is being revealed…” I know my reaction would be “Say what? Why? Who is God’s wrath going to be revealed against? “

Paul then describes the slide into sin. I call it a slide, because Paul seems to indicate a series of actions and results that become more and more serious.

People know about God because he is revealed in creation.
→ Action: While people knew God, they did not thank him or glorify him
→ Result: Their thinking became futile, their hearts darkened
→ Action: They exchanged glory of God and created idols
→ Result: They committed sexually degrading acts (heterosexual)
→ Action: They worshipped idols
→ Result: They committed homosexual acts
→ Action: Did not retain knowledge of God
→ Result: They became “full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

By this time Paul’s audience is completely committed. Yes! These people are very deserving of God’s wrath! They deserve everything coming to them!

Most sermons I have heard on this topic end it right there. Some end it a little earlier because preachers don’t seem to be able to handle the listing of disobeying parents being equivalent to, or worse than, homosexual acts.

But Paul doesn’t end his thought there. Now that he has his audience wrapped around his little finger and straining for what comes next, he delivers the punchline, or should I say punch lines:

Chapter 2:1 Do not judge them.

2:1 You do the same things yourself.

2:3 If you judge them you are bringing God’s judgement upon yourself.

2:4 Don’t despise God’s is kindness and patience, as his kindness leads to repentance.

Paul then delivers the kicker in the concluding part of the inclusio. Remember that Paul just said that God’s wrath is being revealed? Well here is who it is being revealed against!

“But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.”

Do you see what Paul has done here? He baits his listeners by telling them that God’s wrath is being revealed, he further entices them into the story by listing the sins of others, and then says, “Surprise, the people that I am really talking about is you!” This is so, so easy to miss when we end our reading at the end of chapter one.

Let’s look how he uses an inclusio to tie this all together into a single coherent thought.

A: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven
B: against all the godlessness and wickedness of people…

B’: But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart,
A’: you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

Just like the example from Psalm 46, he uses a chiastic inclusio to drive his point home.

When people start using throwing out condemnations and judgements based on Romans one, they need to be reminded of the true target of Paul’s concern, the believers of chapter two.

Jesus had a similar message. His strongest criticism was reserved for the Pharisaical hypocrites who condemned him for hanging out sinners. Take some time and read Matthew 23, and you will see just how strong Jesus’ words are for religious types who sit in judgement of others.

There were a couple of other things that jumped out at me from this passage. A few years back I was reading Romans 1 in a Bible study, and I had a bit of eureka moment. The passage doesn’t fit! When I think of Craig, and Steve, and Bill, and Geoff, along with others I have met over the years, the pattern described in Romans 1 didn’t fit with what I knew of them at all. Whoever Paul may have been describing in Romans 1, he certainly was not describing my friends. While I cannot speak for all of my friends, I did know that Steve and Bill were earnest God seekers. This certainly raised some questions in my mind. If the passage does not describe them, then is it valid to condemn them using this passage? I hadn’t at that time discovered the connection to Romans 2, but in hindsight, those who are judging of those who are LGBTQ, seem to be much more the target of Paul’s passage that those who are LGBTQ themselves.

So, this is another reason why I call myself an Ally. I believe that some Christians are abusing scripture in order to pronounce a special level of condemnation against those who are LGBTQ. I do not want the Bible to be treated that way. Over the next several Fridays I will looking at other scriptures which I believe have been misused with an incorrect emphasis. You will also hear more about this in my conversation with Geoff.

That being said, I do believe that the Bible condemns homosexual activity. I take the middle ground in this passage, I think that Paul understands homosexual activity to be sinful (among many other sins listed), but that this is not the primary target of his text. (*** Edit for clarity ***)Does the Bible/Paul get this right? I will talk about this more in a future post. (*** End Edit ***)

There are some who hold to the idea that Paul is not arguing against homosexality at all in this passage. Your comments and explanations are welcome There will be others who will argue that the point of this passage is primarily about Paul’s condemnation of homosexuality. Your comments are welcome as well. Others of you may want to jump in on the merits of my arguments, and those of others. Your comments are welcome as well. Again, I ask you to keep your comments to the text of this post, their will lots of opportunity for further discussion in future posts.

The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, Part 3- Propositions 10-13

The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, Part 3- Propositions 10-13

We are blogging through the book: The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate by Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton. Today we will look at Part 3 Text: Understanding the Biblical Text Literarily and Theologically, Propositions 10-13.

Proposition 10- The Flood Account is Part of a Sequence of Sin and Judgment Serving as Backstory for the Covenant.

Before moving to the analysis of this proposition, Walton and Longman issue a caveat. They strongly caution about using the Genesis account of the flood to interpret any or all other catastrophes as divine judgment. Oops! Too late. They point out the ability to identify any catastrophe as divine judgment is entirely dependent on the presence of an authoritative voice. They say the Bible provides that authoritative interpretation. So, presumably, outside of the Bible, no catastrophe can ever be conclusively interpreted as a manifestation of God’s anger or judgment (Pat Robertson- please call your office). At first blush, I want to agree with this. Jesus seems to have agreed with this according to Luke 13. And how would anyone ever know if a catastrophe was God’s judgment—because Rick Joyner said so… /sarcasm off. Do you think that these New Orleans gays were worse sinners than all the other New Orleanians because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Do you think that these Hawaiians were worse sinners than all the other Americans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. But if only a Biblical flood is God’s judgment; how is that not special pleading? And how is Yahweh not like Zeus, or more appropriately, like Baal? I suppose that flooding from climate change induced by carbon emissions might be a case of judgment being the consequence of one’s actions. Except the people being flooded are the poorest people who have no means to move to higher ground. Kind of like the Johnstown flood where the villagers (and their children) were devastated so the fat cat industrialists could have their fishing/recreation lake and not take responsibility for keeping the dam up. I get what Walton and Longman are saying, and I don’t want to disrespect scripture, but it seems to me that either all natural disasters are God’s judgment or none of them are.

Walton and Longman point out a recurring pattern in Genesis 1-11. In each case, Adam and Eve’s sin, Cain’s sin, and finally mankind’s sin in the Flood story; before judgment is executed there is extended a token of grace. God clothes A & E in skins, puts a mark on Cain so he won’t be harassed, and warns Noah to build an Ark to the saving of his family and animals. Thus they say these stories highlight three main theological points:

Humans are sinners
God consistently judges sinners
God remains graceful toward his sinful creatures.

Noah and his family don’t deserve to survive the flood, he does not earn his right to live because of his righteousness; but God desires to pursue order and reconciliation, and his love for his human creatures leads him not only to tell Noah to build and ark in order to survive the flood but to enter into a covenant with him after the waters recede. The sign of the covenant is the rainbow. This is the first covenant mentioned in scripture and the rainbow is the first sign. Later we see that circumcision is the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, the Sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic covenant, and the Lord’s Supper is the sign of the New Covenant.

Walton and Longman also comment on the genealogies in Gen. 4:17-5:32, 11:10-26, and 36:9-30. They note that genealogies are part of the rhetorical strategy and aren’t constructed for purely genetic-historical purposes. They weren’t constructed to be exhaustive so we cannot just “do the math” to get back from Abram to Noah to Adam. W.H. Green demonstrated this over a 100 years ago by noting the skipped generations in comparing genealogies that cover the same time period e.g. 1 Chron. 6:3-14 and Ezra 7:1-5. We can also see the skipping of generations in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1 when we compare it to the history of the monarchy in the book of Kings.

Propostion 11- The Theological History is Focused on the Issue of Divine Presence, the Establishment of Order, and How Order is Undermined.

This proposition asserts that Genesis 1-11 can be understood as framed by the concepts of divine presence and the order that it brings. Divine presence has significance in the ancient world not only as enabling relationships between God and humans, but as that which maintains order in the cosmos. In the beginning was non-order i.e. Hebrew tohu wabohu (Gen 1:2). This condition is not evil or flawed, it is just a work in progress. In the ancient world existence was defined by purpose. Material objects would be considered non-existent if their role or purpose could not be identified.

The primary act of creation was not just bringing into existence, but ordering the cosmos as well as human society. This included activities such as naming or separating. In God’s creative acts he brought order into the midst of non-order, but in that process did not totally dispel non-order, even though creation was called very good. So the point was not perfection, but functionality. This proposition seems to be totally missed by YECs who think “very good” means no animal death at all before the so-called fall. Even the garden of Eden was not perfect, witness the presence of the serpent (a symbol of disorder) from the very beginning.

After ordering the cosmos to be sacred space, and then setting up Eden as the place of his residence, access is lost to that sacred space when Adam and Eve decide they want to be the center of order. From that point on people consistently follow their inclination to make themselves the center of order and God responds with correctives that are order-bringing. The genealogies provide the framework for the narrative asides, even as they document the continuing blessing of God (being fruitful and multiplying) and the results of sin (“and then he died”), the ultimate contrast between the results of order and disorder.

Someone who brings comfort or rest (Heb. nhm in Piel Stem) also restores order (nwh, the root of Noah’s name). Walton and Longman say:

The connection of Noah’s name to the flood suggests that besides being presented as an act of judgment, grace, and deliverance, the narrator is recounting this event as a sort of order “reset button”. God uses non-order (the waters) to eliminate disorder (pervasive violence) and then to reestablish optimal order (even as he recognizes that disorder remain [Gen. 8:21].

The following table shows the intertextual connections between Genesis 1-3 and Genesis 6-9.

Items	Genesis 1-3	Genesis 6-9
Non-ordered cosmos	1:2	7:17-24
Order established in cosmos	1:3-2:4	8:1-22
Blessing given	1:26-30	9:1-8
Blessing non-functional	2:5-6	7:17-24
Blessing renewed	2:7-24	9:9-17
Plant connected with fall	2:9	9:20
Naked and unaware	2:25	9:21
Offense related to blessings boundaries	3:1-6	9:22-23
Eyes were opened and knew	3:7	9:24
Pronouncement	3:14-19	9:25-27

The flood account specifically has the role of showing how God reestablished order after bringing the waters of the non-ordered cosmos to wipe out the disorder that had come to dominate. In this way the flood account recapitulates creation. That is why the narrator includes the story. He is showing how God had worked to bring about order in the past (creation and flood) to introduce God’s strategy to advance order through the covenant.

Proposition 12- The “Sons of God” Episode is not Only a Prelude to the Flood; It is the Narrative Sequel to Cain and Abel

There is a pattern to the narrative in Genesis that is known as recursion. For example, in Genesis 25, after recounting the death of Abraham, the narrator is ready to move on to the next stage in the story. Before doing so, he provides the genealogy of Ishmael. This genealogy pushes forward in time well beyond the period of the ancestors, but then the narrator steps back to the story of Isaac represented in Jacob and Esau. This is narrative recursion—moving forward through time to clear up a loose end, then coming back to the main account.

Based on the observation of how recursion is used in Genesis, Walton and Longman apply it to the account of the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4. They say the genealogy of Cain in Genesis 4:17-24 had been followed by a recursion that returned to Adam and Eve and their new son Seth (Gen. 4:25-26). Genesis 5 then contains the Seth genealogy, which leads to Noah. If we follow the pattern of recursion, the narrative of Genesis 6:1-4 then returns to the time after Adam and Seth. Therefore, the description of what is going on between the sons of God and the daughters of men (whoever they are) extends throughout the period of Seth’s genealogy. In other words this is how the biblical text characterizes the entire antediluvian period. In this view, the sons of God marrying the daughters of men (intermixing what ought not to be mixed) is not identified as the cause of the flood. It is simply part of the antediluvian landscape that contributes to the escalation of violence and corruption in that world. Chaplain Mike had a post suggesting something similar.

So the interpretation of the “sons of God” as: 1) those from the lines of Seth indiscriminately marrying the ungodly line of Cain (view of most Christian writers from the second century on), 2) kings in the ancient world styling themselves as semi-divine “sons of god” engaged in polygamy and “right of the first night” (rabbinic interpreters), or 3) quasi-divine “members of the divine council” i.e. angelic beings (2^nd Temple Book of Enoch and NT books of 2 Peter and Jude), really doesn’t matter in the overall rhetorical strategy of the Genesis narrative. That strategy is the quasi-presence of God represented in the sons of God, which form of presence is rejected by God because it resulted in further disorder and not order.

Proposition 13- The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) is an Appropriate Conclusion to the Primeval Narrative

The building technologies referred to in the Tower of Babel, burned brick technology, was unique to Mesopotamia, where the location in the alluvial plain would have required stones to be imported over great distances and great expense. Bitumen mortar was commonly used with kiln-fired brick and this technology was first attested to in the Uruk period, and becoming more common in the Jemdat Nasr period, thus dating to end of the fourth millennium.

The tower was a ziggurat; in ANE texts it was common to describe a ziggurat as built “with its head in the heavens”. These structures were the visible center of the temple complex but served a peripheral function in sacred space, where the true center was the adjoining temple. The ziggurat and the temple served as a cosmic portal, bridging the gap between the realms.

The interpretive issues revolve around the phrases “make a name for ourselves” and “lest we be scattered”. The desire not to scatter was normal. Scattered families bring discontinuity and disrupt relationship and tradition being passed on. The need to scatter due to limited food inhibited order; building a city represented an attempt to bring increased order to their lives. Walton and Longman say:

Consequently, contrary to a strong tradition to identify the offense of the builders as disobedience to the creation mandate (“fill the earth”), we must note that before there to be disobedience, there must be a command. No connection should be drawn to the creation mandate in Genesis 1, because “filling” is accomplished by reproduction, not by geographical dispersion. Furthermore, the so-called creation mandate is not a command but a blessing, and cannot be disobeyed.

Regarding making a name, it should be noted that also was naturally desirable for people to achieve that objective. It could be motivated by pride but perhaps more importantly associated with the idea that a person might benefit in the afterlife by their name being remembered. While conquests and big building projects might accomplish that, so could having children; so not necessarily offensive to God. Walton and Longman say:

We propose instead that the contrast is not found in the verbal action (making a name rather than not making a name) nor in the subject (them making a name rather than God making a name for them), but in the indirect object (a name for themselves rather than for God). If sacred space is being constructed (as a ziggurat would suggest), its objective should be making a name for God, not for making a name for themselves…

The ideal that construction of sacred space ought to make a name for deity is reflected both in the ANE literature, such as in names of ziggurats and temples, and in the biblical ideology. Such an offense does not represent encroaching on divine boundaries (as has often been suggested as the offense of the builders) as much as diminishing divine attributes. The builders were attempting to establish sacred space, itself a commendable activity, but their motivations were flawed.

Having already traced the development of the theme of order in Proposition 11, Walton and Longman can now add the following points in the development of theme and the coherence of Genesis 1-11:

Just as creation in Genesis 1 established order, so after the flood order is reestablished in a recapitulation of creation. Dry land appears from the waters, people and animals are brought forth and blessing is given.
The covenant with Noah does not repeat “subdue and rule” but humans are still called to maintain social order (e.g. judging capital crimes).
The Babel project represented disorder in the divine-human interrelationship and resulted in God’s interruption or order by confusion of languages.
Tower builders conceived of sacred space as focused on themselves thus repeating the Garden of Eden scenario.

Genesis 1-11 serves the function of providing an introduction to the ancestral narratives of Genesis 12-50, where God’s initiative will lead to relation in his abiding presence and the establishment of sacred space which will eventually be the Temple.

Wednesday with Michael Spencer: On Preaching Principles

Note from CM: Michael cared deeply about worship and preaching. Many of his posts over the years were about how the evangelical world he knew and observed had traded good preaching in for methods that compromised proclaiming the gospel of grace in favor of “relevant” messages about “Christian living” and “sin management.” Today’s post is an example of Michael’s thoughtful analysis.

• • •

One of the most popular methods used in Christian preaching and teaching today is taking a topic or text and presenting it as a list of principles.

I would like to briefly examine some of the “good” and “not so good” aspects of the practice of turning texts or topics into principles as the primary methodology for preaching.

What’s “good” about the preaching of principles?

1. The use of principles as the primary feature of sermons is an effort to increase the basic understanding of what God is saying in the Bible to his people. This is an excellent motive, and is certainly commendable.

2. Principle oriented sermons often give much of their attention to the application of the text in practical ways. Many sermons are without application, and good preaching should have “praxis” as well as explanation.

3. Breaking texts down into principles is a useful transferable communication technique. It is often possible to remember a list of principles, or at least it is easy to pass the principles on to others. Those who sit under a communicator who uses this method are likely to share what they have learned with others.

What’s “not good” about the preaching of principles?

1. Preaching principles often comes at the expense of the actual shape and language of the text. Literary genres like parables or epistles can be difficult to place in their proper literary or cultural context, and reducing the text to principles can avoid this, but the actual language and form of scripture are often compromised

2. Preaching principles can send the message that the Christian message is about “making things work.” Obviously, many texts have other purposes, and it is a further mistake to assume that “making life work” is the purpose of Christian preaching. Some hearers may keep “working the principles,” assuming they are some form of a contract with God.

3. Preaching principles puts the preacher in a very authoritative position of translating the Bible into his own words. Of course, all preachers use their own words, but the wording of principles can reinterpret or define scripture in a way that is very different from the actual meaning. Explaining a passage should help the hearers to understand the words of scripture rather than replace the words of scripture, and possibly replace the meaning of the passage.

4. The use of principles can create a response of works rather than faith. Of course, sometimes a passage is promoting works, but the message of “principles” is almost always “what you do is the point of the message.” In the Gospel, what God has done must always be kept as primary. Those devoted to preaching principles often seem to have a bias toward “works” responses, sometimes at the expense of the Gospel.

5. The nature of Biblical wisdom is a hierarchy where God is sovereign: the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord. Principles find their proper place in the total Biblical worldview in relation to other Biblical truths. (The Lord’s Prayer is a good example.) Many sermons present principles without adequate Biblical context, tending to produce a distortion or a complete perversion of the proper place of the principle.