"As they passed the rows of houses they saw through the open doors that men were sweeping and dusting and washing dishes, while the women sat around in groups, gossiping and laughing.
"What has happened?" the Scarecrow asked a sad-looking man with a bushy beard, who wore an apron and was wheeling a baby-carriage along the sidewalk.
"Why, we've had a revolution, your Majesty -- as you ought to know very well," replied the man; "and since you went away the women have been running things to suit themselves. I'm glad you have decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the Emerald City."
"Hm!" said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. "If it is such hard work as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?"
"I really do not know," replied the man, with a deep sigh. "Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.""
- L. Frank Baum, "The Land of Oz"
Monday, March 28, 2005
Thinklings Book Club Discussion Two: Chapter 3
Highlights:
1. On p.24, Hoekema quotes Oscar Cullman on the Greeks? concept of time: ?That is why the philosophical thinking of the Greek world labors with the problem of time. But that is also why all Greek striving for redemption seeks as its goal to be freed from this eternal circular course and thus to be freed from time itself.?
This reminded me of the heresy of Gnosticism, an ideology that includes the concept of the evil of ?matter.? The ideas that time is a hopeless cycle escape from which is true paradise and that physical matter and the flesh is inherently bad or evil and must be escaped are closely related, I think. We need to remember that Christian eschatology refutes both of these assumptions. The Incarnation itself is a testament to the basic ?goodness? of God?s creation, and the fact that the Incarnation is a historical event ? and that history itself is leading to a future final redemption ? refutes the notion that matter and time are hopeless evils.
2. From p.25:
A second interpretation of history which must be rejected is that of the atheistic existentialist. For existentialism of this type, history is without meaning.
The notable contrast, of course, is that the Christian view of history is contra such despair. Christian history, for all that is wrong with ?the world,? still proclaims hope.
There are also practical applications afoot here, in keeping with some issues left over from last week?s discussion.
3. Also on p.25, Hoekema begins discussing history as a ?working out of God?s purposes.? This part really resonated with me, because, as many of you know, I really identify with the concept of God?s plan as Story.
Contrast this concept of Hoekema?s eschatological stance with, say, the approach of Open Theism, in which God does not know the future exhaustively. Does that not remove a hope and a confidence from eschatology? In true biblical eschatology, history is itself God working out His purposes. In an open theist?s eschatology, it would seem that God is just a really, really good guesser.
4. More of the importance of history:
Though it is true, therefore, that God reveals himself in the Bible which is his Word, we must not forget that he reveals himself primarily in the historical events which are recorded in the Bible. Revelation occurs through acts as well as through words.
(p.26)
An important note for when we are tempted to allegorize or completely ?spiritualize? biblical prophecy.
5. ?Through Christ God has once and for all won the victory over death (1 Cor. 15:21-22), Satan (John 12:31), and all hostile powers (Col. 2:15)? (p.29).
This is a portion of realized eschatology that is often expressed but rarely believed.
With this in mind, also, we may read the exorcisms Jesus performed in the Gospels not only as demonstrative of his authority and symbolic of deliverance, but also as eschatological proclamations. Each demon cast out is evidence of the kingdom?s inauguration.
6. From p.30: ?The common Pauline contrast between ?flesh? and ?Spirit? is not so much a psychological contrast between two aspects of our being as a contrast between lifestyles which belong to two power-spheres or two aeons, the old and the new.?
I found that really, really interesting. Really provocative, if deceptively simple.
And on that note, allow me to link to this recent post by my good friend Darren at Nicene Theology.
7. From p.35:
[The New Testament believer] lives in the last days, but the last day has not yet arrived; he is in the new age, but the final age is not yet here. Though he enjoys the ?powers of the age to come,? he is not yet free from sin, suffering, and death. Though he has the firstfruits of the Spirit, he groans inwardly as he waits for his final redemption.
I chewed on that idea for a while and explored it a bit, teasing out some biblical parallels and illustrations.
Think of the Israelites post-Exodus, for instance. They were free from the bondage of Egypt, across the Red Sea and free to wander. Yet they had to wander for forty years before finally reaching the Promised Land. First Moses, then Joshua. (First John, then Jesus! . . . which puts the baptisms John was performing in some historical-theological perspective, I think.)
Think also of the first followers of Jesus. They enjoyed his presence and physical leadership for a time. They had, in that brief window of ministry, a glimpse of what the kingdom in the presence of the King is like. But he had yet to finally secure their fellowship until his sacrifice.
8. A final good?un:
Though the Christian is realistic enough to recognize the presence of evil in the world and the presence of sin in the hearts of men, he is yet basically an optimist. He believes that God is on the throne, and that God is working out his purposes in history. Just as the Christian must firmly believe that all things are working together for good in his life, despite appearances to the contrary, so he must also believe that history is moving toward God?s goal, even though world events often seem to go contrary to God?s will.
(p.38)
Questions for Reflection or Discussion
1. Pair the quote above from p.38 with the first couple of paragraphs on p.33. How optimistic is your view of history? Do you despair about ?bad? current events? Not do you get upset about evil and suffering; but do you actually despair about them? Does your practical outlook on life and where God is in the working of things belie what you say you believe about eschatology?
2. Does being eschatologically optimistic necessitate being a post-millennialist?
3. Look back again at #7 above and the illustrations I thought up using the idea in the excerpt as a template. Can you think of any other parallels? Can you think of any situations or stories, whether from the Bible or from ?real life,? that illustrate the concept discussed?
4. Here?s a serious question I have not really touched on in this chapter but nevertheless related:
We often confess that Jesus somehow fulfilled the Law, or that the Law pointed to Jesus, or that the Law was a foreshadow of Jesus? life and ministry and death (old covenant vs. new covenant). We cite this reality whenever we are asked why we do not still obey the food laws of the Old Testament or obey, say, Leviticus to a ?T?. Yet we say the ?moral law? is still in effect. Question:
How do we differentiate between which parts of the Law are null and void and which parts are still in effect? How do we know what is still binding and what is not? Is there a cut and dry formula for figuring this out? What is the moral law, and what is the ceremonial or cultural law? And isn?t it all moral law? (For instance, why do we still say homosexuality is still a sin but do not still recommend execution for homosexuals?)
---
For next week: Read Chapters 4 and 5 (approx. 27 pages).
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/1956.
Comments on "The Bible and the Future -- Session 2":
2. John O.
- 03/28/2005 5:57 am CST
If it’s not too late to sneak it in, this is in response to question #1 from last Monday. There was a very well written op-ed piece in the Dallas Morning News yesterday morning by David Klinghofer, a Jewish writer, explaining why he doesn't celebrate Easter. His main points were: that God had already provided salvation through the Mosaic covenant, a covenant which he (rightly) argued was initiated by God's grace; that forgiveness was demonstrably available (based on OT texts) to those (both Jews and Gentiles) who would repent and turn to God; and that the atonement supplied by Jesus on the cross was not needed. What struck me about the piece, in light of this discussion, was the foreclosure of an eschatological perspective. From Klinghofer's viewpoint everything was inaugurated by the time of Moses. It's a pretty effective strategy in light of Christianity's unfortunate confusion about Jesus of Nazareth (thinking he's the expected Messiah and all), but it comes at a pretty high cost: the neglect of any future eschatology at all in the Hebrew Scriptures. I suppose that it's difficult to acknowledge these future aspects (which Hoekema catalogues) because they naturally raise the question: but what if these have already been fulfilled? Anyway, it seemed like a pretty good case study of what can happen when the future aspect of eschatology is minimized (you can miss out on the Messiah when he finally comes). Interestingly, if you ever have a chance to get to know any Messianic Jews you’ll find that they’re almost invariably eschatological to the bone.
From the standpoint of Christianity, I think the full preterists make the same kind of move as Klinghofer (minimizing, even excluding, future eschatology) and end up sacrificing (at the least) the general resurrection and a literal new heaven and new earth.
4. Kevin
- 03/29/2005 5:57 am CST
I have not posted yet, because I cannot find a moment alone at home with the book and the computer both available. I have a pair of IM happy yung-uns, and getting Web time is a challenge.
I actually really enjoyed one section, and really was challenged by another, but don't remember what they were sitting here at work.
Jared's questions, though, I can do at work:
1) I was raised in a hyper-pessimistic form of pre-millenialism. The jump to amill allows me to see the negative as allowed by God on His way to revealing His dominion. That's an improvement over thinking God is waiting until the last possible second to "pull the plug" before no flesh would be spared.
The idea of 2 kingdoms, and that God's is waxing while the enemy's wanes is very attractive. I will need to weigh that a bit against the world I see. I'm not sure how to interpret reality in light of that optimism. I believe that Rev 22:2 is a great picture of the church in the world today. (12 manners of fruit for the church, and leaves of the Tree for the healing of the nations) His Kingdom on earth today is The healing force, and triumphant. I'm not sure, though, that I believe that history is moving toward an evolvingly more triumphant church.
I guess I believe the church will grow somewhat stronger, then after that the devil must be loosed for a little season to surround and almost end christianity on earth.
2) Yes, I believe that complete optimism is post-mill. I'm open to the idea, but I will need convincing.
3) Ezra and Nehemiah rebuilding the temple might be the best picture of all, especially if I'm considering post-mill. The pattern is here, and the people are here, but we have so much internal disarray, and so many enemies. With the support of the King, however, our enemies have no strength to overwhelm us.
4) Great question! Executing adulterers sounds pretty "moral" law-ish to me.
I cannot think of a verse that says that only the ceremonial law died on the cross with Christ. Rather, it says that we died to the law, the entire law. Paul goes so far as to say that all things are pure to the pure. I would ask what law exists in the millenial kingdom. Of course, I believe that we are in that kingdom, but asking it that way lends more force to the question. I would answer that it is only that law which is written on the fleshy tables of the heart that matters.
5. Kevin
- 03/29/2005 4:00 pm CST
page 35, para 4: Can we say that history reveals genuine progress?
...the idea of progress is based on a naive kind of Utopianism which twentieth-century man can no longer accept.
Evidence:
For accepting that we are progressing: Rome had a higher reach than Greece, which reached higher than Persia, which reached higher than Babylon.
Against accepting that we are progressing: Babylon was the golden head of the statue, Persia the silver, Greece the bronze, and Rome the iron and iron+mud.
Seriously, the scripture is the only thing I have ever seen that says that the cultures progressed downwardly. Rome was a republic, while Greece was city-state democracy, and Persia and Babylon were old-line monarchies. Rome built a culture that defines transportation and politics to this day. There might be some arguments that Greece supplied us with more intellectual stimulus than Rome, but Babylon? Come on!
Still, the scripture says that Babylon was the highest.
So, we have surely ascended from Rome, right? We have a representative republic, and the Pax Americana has held for half a century outside of some little hot spots. Intellectually, we have fully incorporated all the thoughts of Greece and Rome, and lots of other continents to boot. Our engineering is beyond compare. Our communications are unprecedented.
I cannot help but believe that we are much weaker than Rome in God's eyes. I don't know whether that makes me a 20th century man who rejects Utopia or not, but I think human culture is devolving, despite all appearances to the contrary.
6. Chris
- 03/30/2005 12:43 pm CST
Though the Christian is realistic enough to recognize the presence of evil in the world and the presence of sin in the hearts of men, he is yet basically an optimist. He believes that God is on the throne, and that God is working out his purposes in history. Just as the Christian must firmly believe that all things are working together for good in his life, despite appearances to the contrary, so he must also believe that history is moving toward God’s goal, even though world events often seem to go contrary to God’s will. (p.38)
1. I do, indeed, despair about today's society. I recently read a news story about a man who murdered his weeks old son by suffocating him with a sheet of Saran Wrap. He sealed it on his son's face, went to the kitchen and fixed himself a sandwich, ate the sandwich, and then went and brushed his teeth. That alone is horrific, but consider this: When questioned by the police, the man explained that he had been plotting for over 9 months to do this simply have revenge upon his wife for a time when she wronged him. Think about that. The man deliberately got his wife pregnant specifically so that he could murder the child just to get back at his wife. That makes me truly despair.
In spite of this, I still agree with the sentiment of the excerpt. I wholly believe that God is on His throne, and I take comfort in that. I may not understand why, but that, to me, is inconsequential. For all my knowledge and intelligence, I can't understand why God allows events to play out the way that they do because it is well beyond my scope of understanding. It always will be - it doesn't matter how many books I read, how much I pray, how old I grow to be or anything else. It's like me taking a book and showing the pages to my son's guinea pig. I can hold the pages open and show him the words. I can even read the words over and over to him in an attempt to get him to understand how to read. In the end, however, he is still just an illiterate guinea pig and there is nothing that he can do to change that.
2. I suppose that this is just a question of semantics. I don't think that having a positive eschatological outlook necessitates being a post-millennialist, but it doesn't hurt to be one. Maybe that sounds like I'm joking around, and I confess that to a certain degree I am. However, there is an underlying current of truth as well. With postmillennialism I can see the fruits of what God is doing through us today, so to speak. Of course it's reassuring to see things go right and to see God's will being manifested before your very eyes. It's gratifying, and it can't help but to make you optimistic in spite things such as what I mentioned above.
3. This is not really on the same plane as what you are describing, but how about Jacob and Rachel in Genesis? Having been told by Laban that he could take Rachel as his wife, he had seven whole years of labor to look forward to before he could make trust Laban to make good on his promise. Of course, it wound up being 14, but that, I think, further illustrates the point, no? :-)
4. There is a parellel of sorts with today's laws, I would say. There are acts that are wrong because they are illegal (jaywalking, for instance) and then there are acts that are illegal because they are wrong (such as murder.) The crimes in the first category are where I would list the food laws and such. Not to oversimplify the subject, but they were wrong because they were stated to be illegal. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong, from a moral standpoint, with partaking of a swine as opposed to killing another human being. The food laws were put into place by God in order to form boundaries for our behavior, but there was a point before that where it was not prohibited. Murder, on the other hand, has been looked at as a moral wrong pretty much from the beginning of time. Not to be flippant, but we didn't need God to forcibly tell us that the taking of human life was wrong for us to know that it is wrong. I should point out here that I do not mean that He did not need to add it to the 10 commandments, only that we knew, more or less, that it was wrong even before He made it an absolute. Therein lies the delineation: Homosexuality, to continue Jared's example, is still considered wrong because it flies in the face of God's perfect plan for a union (physical or otherwise) to be of a man and a woman as illustrated by Adam and Eve. Homosexuality is a perversion of God's gift solely to satisfy our depraved desires. So is murder, for that matter. Maybe I'm just rambling. Upon looking back on this, I don't think I'm accurately communicating what I'm trying to say, because it reads to me as though I'm minimizing the importance of God's decrees in my response, and that's certainly NOT what I'm trying to do. Sigh.
I'm confessing that I still haven't gotten my copy of the book (it's sitting at my local bookstore) - but I've been involved in "law" discussions before - and with a couple of folks who do abserve the entirety of the law.
My understanding is that the "Law" was given to the Jews (Deut 5:1,2) when he made a covenant with them at Horeb. When God made His new covenant, with His new bride, the old one became obselete.
As I understand it - and there are disagreements even among Jews - the divisions of the law (three of them) had four different divisions. Here it is in simple terms (for children)
http://www.jewish-history.com/catechism/catech05.htm
Messianic Jews may tell you that (even after the Messiah) they are bound to the entirety of the Law, because it was given to Jews, but that Gentiles are not.
Some will tell you that we are only still under the Ten Commandments - but that includes the Sabbath and now, Christ is our Sabbath rest. I've read a lot (while researching Arminianism/Reformed theology) and found that if we follow every law in the Ten Commandments that are also stated in the New Testament - every one of them is covered except the Sabbath Law. The rest of the law...I am truly glad that the law regarding eating lobster is not in the New Testament!
Anyway...I've really rambled - but that's my understanding of how the law applies to us today...