We've moved (Blogs)

Hi everyone who is following us here at BensBoggyBlog. Just a quick post to let you know that I have moved blogs, I am now blogging at www.1Lifetale.com.
Feel free to have a look and maybe even follow me there.

All the best

Ben

Exclusion and Embrace

Ok so I am still reading Miroslav Volf's Exclusion and Embrace, I have to admit that it is a hard slog. To say this book is written by an academic for academics is an understatement. Each sentence almost needs to be read multiple times. It's a theological book, but it's not the Bible that I have next to me while I read it, no, it's a dictionary. So it is a tough read, real tough, but I also have another confession...

...I love this book. Admittedly it is a hard read, as I've already mentioned, but what Volf says when you wrap your head around it is amazing. For this blog entry I have put together a few excerpts that sum up this particular chapter's theses.

Take your time to read it, and soak it in.

"Pristine purity is irretrievable; it can be re-gained neither by going back to the beginnings, nor by plunging into the depths, nor by leaping forward into the future. Every person's heart is blemished with sin; every ideal and project is infected with corruption; every ascription of guilt and innocence saddled with noninnocence."

"Solidarity in sin [we all are equally noninnocent] underscores that no salvation can be expected from an approach that rests fundamentally on the moral assignment of blame and innocence."

"Under the conditions of persuasive noninnocence, the work of reconciliation should proceed under the assumption that, though the behavior of a person may be judged as deplorable, even demonic, no one should ever be excluded from the will to embrace, because, at the deepest level, the relationship to others does not rest on their moral performance and therefore cannot be undone by the lack of it."

"Elaine Pagel concluded 'The Origin of Satan' with the claim that "within Christian tradition" there is the struggle "between the profoundly human view that 'otherness' is evil and the words of Jesus that reconciliation is divine" (Pagel 1995, 184). I do not wish to dispute this claim, at least not with respect to the Christian tradition as a whole. I want to suggest, however, that instead of locating a fault-line between the claim that some people are "children of hell" (Matthew 23:15) and the demand to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44) as Pagel does (see xvii and 182f.), it is more fruitful to ask why the claim and the demand surface together in one and the same Gospel and why similar statements co-exist throughout the New Testament." 

"The answer, I hope, would be that at the core of the Christian faith lies the persuasion that the "others" need not be perceived as innocent in order to be loved, but ought to be embraced even when they are perceived as wrongdoers. As I read it, the story of the cross is about God who desires to embrace precisely the "sons and daughters of hell." "Since all have sinned," argued Apostle Paul, "they are now justified by his [God's] grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ" (Romans 3:23-24). Reflection on social issues rooted in the cross of Christ will have to explore what this interdependence of the "universality of sin" and the "primacy of grace" may mean when taken out of the realm of "salvation" into the realm where we-many of us "children of hell"-fight and wage wars against each other."

My response as I read this is WOW! The call to love and embrace despite the 'others' sin against us. Our relationships do not depend on our moral performance, because in reality we are all sinners (universality of sin), and therefore our relationships cannot be broken because of a lack of it. None of us are innocent and therefore our relationships can't focus on one person noninnocence over anothers. Therefore I wonder if our relationships to each other have to be viewed in light of the cross. That while we were all sinners Christ died for us. Again, WOW! What are your thoughts and reflections?

The Gospel and a Mandate for Gospel People

I have a number of books on the go at the moment, unfortunately it is my nature to start them all but not finish them. I have decided to change, I am going to go hard and read one at a time. And so the book I am finishing (starting) at the moment is Mirosalv Volf's "Theologically towering" (as quoted by N.T, Wright in Evil and the Justice of God) Exclusion and Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation. I've started it, but can't wait to get into the meat of it.

I attended the Vose Seminary Conference last week with the American Bible scholar Scot Mcknight as the keynote speaker. His basic message: preach Jesus! simple but yet so profound, especially in the day and age where non-christians aren't generally opposed to Jesus but are opposed to the institutional Church. And so with this in mind; The Gospel of Jesus. An excerpt from Exclusion and Embrace...

The meaning of the ministry of Jesus lies in its ending, and the abbreviated story of the ending is the model Christians should imitate. In the New Testament as a whole..."Jesus is the suffering servant whose death is a radical act of obedience toward God and an expression of loving care for his followers."

Therefore

Indisputably, the self-giving love manifested on the cross and demanded by it lies at the core of the Christian faith. 

 Does knowing this motivate you to follow Jesus' example of obedience toward God and self-giving love of others? All praise to Jesus our Great King! Amen

The knowledge tree of good and evil... (continued)

Ok so incase you haven't been following the tree of the knowledge of good and evil discussion here is the link to bring you up to speed http://bensboggyblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/knowledge-tree-of-good-and-evil.html

Now for those who have been engaging in this discussion (you know who you are) here are some commentary entries for Genesis 2:9 where the tree is first mentioned and also Genesis 3:4. Sorry there is a lot to go through, but if you have the time I think it is worth it.

Happy reading and I would love to know what you think.

"In [Genesis 2:] 9b, it may be asked, are the trees two or one; and figurative or literal? The words could refer to a single tree, if translated as ‘even the tree of the knowledge …’, as some have suggested. But while this suits Eve’s expression ‘in the midst of the garden’ in 3:3 (cf. 2:9 on the tree of life), it only creates an insoluble problem at 3:22. The familiar translation is right: there are two trees.

The trees could be meant as metaphors for the respective means (such as wisdom, Prov. 3:18, or unbridled curiosity, Jude 8) of gaining either life or forbidden knowledge; see the further discussion of the knowledge of good and evil, below. Yet there is much to commend the literal sense, naïve though it may seem. It does not make the trees magical (for the Old Testament has no room for blind forces, only for the acts of God), but rather sacramental, in the broad sense of the word, in that they are the physical means of a spiritual transaction. The fruit, not in its own right, but as appointed to a function and carrying a word from God, confronts man with God’s will, particular and explicit, and gives man a decisive Yes or No to say with his whole being.

The knowledge of good and evil is perhaps best understood in this living context. In isolation it could mean a number of things, many of them with biblical support. The phrase can stand for moral or aesthetic discernment (e.g. 1 Kgs 3:9; Isa. 7:15); yet Adam and Eve are already treated as morally responsible (2:16, 17) and generally    percipient (3:6) before they touch the tree. It could be a hebraism for ‘everything’ (i.e. man is not to covet omniscience); yet it can hardly mean this in 3:22. It has often been regarded as sexual awakening, in the light of 3:7; recently R. Gordis suggested that this tree thereby offers a rival immortality to that of the tree of life, in the procreation of a family and a posterity. This too is open to several objections, including the fact that 3:22a is incompatible with it (heaven is sexless in the Old as in the New Testament), and that God instituted marriage after forbidding the use of the tree that is said to symbolize it.

In the context, however, the emphasis falls on the prohibition rather than the properties of the tree. It is shown to us as forbidden. It is idle to ask what it might mean in itself; this was Eve’s error. As it stood, prohibited, it presented the alternative to discipleship: to be self-made, wresting one’s knowledge, satisfactions and values from the created world in defiance of the Creator (cf. 3:6). Even more instructive is the outcome of the experiment; see on 3:7. In all this the tree plays its part in the opportunity it offers, rather than the qualities it possesses; like a door whose name announces only what lies beyond it."

(Kidner, Derek, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 1 of Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1967.)

"[Genesis 3:]5. The climax is a lie big enough to reinterpret life (this breadth is the power of a false system) and dynamic enough to redirect the flow of affection and ambition. To be as God,25 and to achieve it by outwitting him, is an intoxicating programme. God will henceforth be regarded, consciously or not, as rival and enemy. Against this human arrogance ‘the obedience of the one’ and his taking ‘the form of a servant’ show up in their true colours (Rom. 5:19; Phil. 2:7).

So the tempter pits his bare assertion against the word and works of God, presenting divine love as envy, service as servility, and a suicidal plunge as a leap into life, ‘All these things will I give thee …’; the pattern repeats in Christ’s temptations, and in ours."

(Kidner, Derek, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary. Vol. 1 of Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. IVP/Accordance electronic ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1967.)

"[Genesis 2:]9 “The LORD God made all kinds of trees to sprout from the land.” Note that the trees, like man in v 7 and the animals in v 19, are created from the “land.” Some commentators regarded the mention of the trees as sources of food as characteristic of man’s diet before the fall: he was reduced to eating other plants by the curse of 3:22. It is more likely that trees make a garden. Nevertheless, the remark that they were “pleasant to look at and good to eat” emphasizes the abundance of God’s provision.

“The tree of life was in the middle of the garden and also the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” The present narrative describes two trees in the middle of the garden, but since this passage explicitly locates the tree of life at the center, and 3:3 locates the other there, it is surmised that this is evidence of the reworking of the earlier Paradiesgeschichte which knew only one tree. This could be corroborated by the awkward way “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is tacked on in this verse. Nevertheless, Dillmann pointed to other sentences where a phrase is tacked on at the end as here (e.g., 1:16; 34:29; Num 13:23) and also pointed out that the tree of life is an essential mark of a perfect garden where God dwells, so that it is unlikely to be secondary either. Furthermore, in terms of the symbolism of this story, both trees correspond to items found in or near the center of Israelite worship (see below).

Trees as a symbol of life are well known in the Bible. The Gilgamesh epic also mentions that its hero found in a deep well a plant that would confer “youth in old age” (11:268–89). Gen 3:22 notes that this tree too would also confer life on those who ate its fruit. Proverbs describes wisdom (3:18), the fruit of the righteous (11:30), a desire fulfilled (13:12), and a gentle tongue as a tree of life: in other words, they give fullness of life to their owners. In Scripture, trees, because they remain green throughout the summer drought, are seen as symbolic of the life of God (e.g., Ps 1:3; Jer 17:8). Abraham prayed by a tamarisk he planted (21:33), and green trees were a regular feature of the so-often-denounced Canaanite shrines (e.g., Deut 12:2). Furthermore, it seems likely that the golden candlestick kept in the tabernacle was a stylized tree of life: the falling of its light on the twelve loaves of the presence symbolized God’s life sustaining the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod 25:31–35; Lev 24:1–9 [see C. L. Meyers, The Tabernacle Menorah, ASOR DS 2 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 174–81]).

“The tree of the knowledge of good and evil” is found only in this story, and it is much more difficult to.establish its significance. Yet it is most important to try, for it is a key phrase in the narrative, occurring twice in the opening scene, 2:9, 17; once in the first dialogue, 3:5; and finally once again in the closing scene, 3:22.

Two initial points can be made. First, it seems likely that since eating the fruit of the tree of life would have led to immortality, so eating the fruit of the other tree would lead to a knowledge of good and evil too (3:22). Second, we must attempt to establish the meaning of “knowing good and evil” by  examining the use of the phrase as a whole here and in other passages, not simply by looking at its component parts.

Suggested interpretations of the phrase “knowing good and evil” include:

1. “The knowledge of good and evil” is simply a description of the consequences of obeying or disobeying the commandments (so Kidner and Gispen). Man would have known good had he obeyed the command: he knows evil as a result of disobedience. “The tree plays its part in the opportunity it offers, rather than the qualities it possesses; like a door whose name announces only what lies beyond it” (Kidner, 63).

Valid as this observation is, it is inadequate. As the tree of life offered immortality, so this tree offered knowledge appropriate only to the divine (3:5, 22). Furthermore, this explanation does not fit Deut 1:39 and 2 Sam 19:36 [35], which observe that neither the very young nor the elderly know good and evil.

2. “Knowledge of good and evil” means moral discernment, knowing the difference between right and wrong. Last advocated by Budde (1883), this interpretation is not taken seriously by modern commentators, because, given the narrator’s assumptions, it is absurd to suppose man was not always expected to exercise moral discretion or that he acquired such a capacity through eating the fruit.

3. “Knowledge of good and evil” means sexual knowledge (e.g., Weinfeld). Though this explanation suits the situation of the elderly and the young, it is incongruous in its present context. In Gen 1 and 2 there is no hint that sexual knowledge is reserved for God, or that it was wrong for man (cf. 1:28; 2:18–25). “This explanation then is quite untenable” (Westermann, 1:243).

4. “Knowledge of good and evil” means omniscience (von Rad; cf. Wallace, Eden Narrative, 128). “Good and evil” here stand for the parts which make up the whole, just as the phrase “heaven and earth” means the universe. Though God enjoys omniscience, and the narrative suggests that the woman hoped to gain great knowledge (3:6), it is clear that the man and woman who ate the fruit did not acquire omniscience as a result, merely shame and a recognition of their nakedness (3:7–8).

5. “Knowledge of good and evil” is wisdom (Cassuto, Westermann, Vawter; cf. Clark). It offered “insight” lykCh (3:6). At first sight this interpretation appears as unlikely as moral discernment. It is easy to see that God has wisdom and that children lack it, but more difficult to see why it was forbidden to man. The acquisition of wisdom is seen as one of the highest goals of the godly according to the Book of Proverbs. But the wisdom literature also makes it plain that there is a wisdom that is God’s sole preserve, which man should not aspire to attain (e.g., Job 15:7–9, 40; Prov 30:1–4), since a full understanding of God, the universe, and man’s place in it is ultimately beyond human comprehension. To pursue it without reference to revelation is to assert human autonomy, and to neglect the fear of the LORD which is the beginning of knowledge (Prov 1:7). “For the Yahwist the only proper posture of man if he would be truly wise and lead a full life is faith in God and not a professed self-sufficiency of knowledge. It is in this latter acceptation, then,  that man is forbidden ‘the tree of the knowledge of good and bad’” (Vawter, 73). This interpretation appears to be confirmed by Ezek 28, the closest parallel to Gen 2–3, which in highly mythological language describes how the king of Tyre was expelled from Eden for overweening pride and claiming himself to be “wise as a god” (28:6, 15–17). Approaching the issue from a different direction, Clark (JBL 88 [1969] 266–78) has come to similar conclusions: he points to the use of the phrase “good and evil” in legal contexts to describe legal responsibility. In Gen 2–3 he suggests J is using it for moral autonomy, deciding what is right without reference to God’s revealed will. This is confirmed by the allusions to Gen 2–3 in Ps 19:8–10 [7–9] where the law is compared to the tree of knowledge: the law makes wise the simple and enlightens the eyes (cf. Gen 3:6; see D. J. A. Clines, VT 24 [1974] 8–14).

In the garden, the revealed law of God amounted to the warning “Do not eat this tree” on pain of death. In later Israel, many more laws were known, and those who flouted them incurred the divine curse and risked death. Since the law was God-given, it could not be altered or added to by man (Deut 4:2); thus human moral autonomy was ruled out (Josh 4:7). In preferring human wisdom to divine law, Adam and Eve found death, not life. In the tabernacle, the inviolability of the law was symbolized by storing the tables of the law inside the ark itself, the sacred throne of God, guarded and out of sight in the innermost holy of holies, for to see or to touch the ark brought death (Exod 40:20; Num 4:15, 20.)"

(Wenham, Gordon J., Genesis 1–15. Vol. 1 of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance/Thomas Nelson electronic ed. Waco: Word Books, 1987.)

The knowledge tree of good and evil...

During our Bible study the other night I had an epiphany. We are working our way through Sean Gladding's "The Story of God, The Story of Us" and this week we looked at the account of the first human's first sin. We all know the story, they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil when God said the shouldn't. Here is an excerpt:

(Genesis 2:15–17 NIV11) “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, 'You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.'”

Here's my epiphany and a question, for you to help me answer, all in one: I know that there is no evidence found within the Bible to explain where evil came from; we don't know when evil began existing. However, none the less if God created the world and it was good and without sin, why create a tree that holds the knowledge of good and evil if evil was never intended for the world? I think I need to do a bit of reading. Any thoughts?

Suffering

It has been a while since I've posted any quotes but because Sam and I are dabbling with another blog found here http://lovelifeandmess.blogspot.com/ I thought I would put some up. And so here is the first of a few quotes from the various books I have been reading. Also feel free to interact and join in the conversation, also be encouraged to read these books yourself, you can find links to all the quoted books by clicking on their titles.

Today's quote is from Chris Wright's book The God I Don't Understand. It is a book that I have almost finished, I am listening to the audio version of it while I walk. I find this a great way to read, or should I say listen to, books. This is a wonderfully rich book offering new perspectives on some of life's toughest questions and mysteries.In the chapter titled, "The Mystery of Evil" Wright begins talking about evil; both moral and natural. He explains:

"But there is also a vast amount of suffering caused indirectly by human
wickedness. The drunken driver may survive, but kill or injure other innocent  people. Wars cause so-called collateral damage.Stray bullets from a gang fight or bank robbery kill innocent bystanders. A railway maintenance crew goes home early and fails to complete inspection of the track; a train is derailed and  people are killed and injured. Whole populations suffer for generations after negligent industrial contamination. We can multiply examples from almost every news bulletin we see or hear. These are all forms of moral evil. They cause untold suffering, and they all go back in some form or another to culpable actions or failures of human beings.

Somehow, we manage to live with such facts, simply because they are so
common and universal that we have “normalized” them, even if we regret or
resent them and even if we grudgingly admit that humanity itself is largely
to blame. But whenever something terrible on a huge scale happens, like
the 2004 tsunami, or the cyclone in Myanmar in 2008, or the earthquakes
in  Pakistan, Peru, and China, the cry goes up, “How can God allow such a
thing? How can God allow such suffering?” My own heart echoes that cry
and I join in the protest at the gates of heaven. Such appalling suffering, on
such a scale, in such a short time, inflicted on  people without warning and for
no reason, offends all our emotions and assumptions that God is supposed to
care. We who believe in God, who know and love and trust God, find ourselves torn apart by the emotional and spiritual assault of such events.

“How can God allow such things?” we cry, with the built-in accusation
that if he were any kind of good and loving God, he would not allow them.
Our gut reaction is to accuse God of callousness or carelessness and to demand
that he do something to stop such things.

But when I hear  people voicing such accusations – especially those who
don’t believe in God but like to accuse the God they don’t believe in of his
failure to do things he ought to do if he did exist – then I think I hear a voice
from heaven saying:

“Well, excuse me, but if we’re talking here about who allows what, let me
point out that thousands of children are dying every minute in your world of
preventable diseases that you have the means (but obviously not the will) to
stop. How can you allow that?

“There are millions in your world who are slowly dying of starvation while
some of you are killing yourselves with gluttony. How can you allow such
suffering to go on?

“You seem comfortable enough knowing that millions of you have less
per day to live on than others spend on a cup of coffee, while a few of you
have more individual wealth than whole countries. How can you allow such
obscene evil and call it an economic system?

“There are more  people in slavery now than in the worst days of the pre-abolition slave trade. How can you allow that?

“There are millions upon millions of  people living as refugees, on the
knife-edge of human existence, because of interminable wars that you indulge
in out of selfishness, greed, ambition, and lying hypocrisy. And you not only
allow this, but collude in it, fuel it, and profit from it (including many of you
who claim most loudly that you believe in me).

“Didn’t one of your own singers put it like this, ‘Before you accuse me,
take a look at yourself.’ ” 

While this subject is one with no simple answers I find this quote helpful, offering a perspective I've not come across before. When I call out to God saying, "WHY?" and "How can you allow this to happen?" I also need to be aware that there are a lot of evil and suffering that I'm also directly or indirectly responsible for. It's all good to point the finger at God but I also need to point the finger back at myself and ask the very same question, "WHY?"

What do you think about this quote, does this help or hinder? Any thoughts?

Heaven and Hell

I am currently reading N.T. Wright's Surprised by Hope. It challenges what is generally understood in Christianity about heaven. This quote is from the introduction,

"Traditionally, of course, we suppose that Christianity teaches about a heaven above, to which the saved or blessed go, and a hell below, for the wicked and impenitent. This is still assumed by many both inside and outside the church as the oficial line, which the may or may not accept."

What questions does the idea that heaven is for the "saved and blessed" and hell is for the "wicked and impenitent" raise for you?

God is exalted in his power...

Alright it's a long one but I have been so affected by it I have to post it. This quote is from the Old Testament book of Job, it is a book that I have been listening to (audio book style) on my mp3player. The Audio Book is called the Bible Experience, I've been listening to Job on my morning walks around the lake. If I set the scene you will understand why I posted it. The day was hot, real hot, however when it came to this chapter the wind on the west side of the lake picked up and it started blowing a quite cool but really noisy breeze, Mummy birds and their small hatchling were busy chirping away, Giant pelicans were doing their flybys, and the lake itself just looked amazing. What a beautiful setting to hear about the awesomeness of God.

Job 36:22 - 37:24(TNIV)
22'God is exalted in his power.
Who is a teacher like him?
23 Who has prescribed his ways for him,
or said to him,'You have done wrong?'
24 Remember to extol his work,
which people have praised in song.
25 All human beings have seen it;
mortals gaze on it from afar.
26 How great is God–beyond our understanding!
The number of his years is past finding out.
27'He draws up the drops of water,
which distill as rain to the streams;
28 the clouds pour down their moisture
and abundant showers fall on the human race.
29 Who can understand how he spreads out the clouds,
how he thunders from his pavilion?
30 See how he scatters his lightning about him,
bathing the depths of the sea.
31 This is the way he governs the nations
and provides food in abundance.
32 He fills his hands with lightning
and commands it to strike its mark.
33 His thunder announces the coming storm;
even the cattle make known its approach.
1'At this my heart pounds and leaps from its place.
2 Listen! Listen to the roar of his voice,
to the rumbling that comes from his mouth.
3 He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven
and sends it to the ends of the earth.
4 After that comes the sound of his roar;
he thunders with his majestic voice.
When his voice resounds,
he holds nothing back.
5 God's voice thunders in marvelous ways;
he does great things beyond our understanding.
6 He says to the snow,'Fall on the earth,'
and to the rain shower,'Be a mighty downpour.'
7 So that everyone he has made may know his work,
he stops all mortals from their labor.
8 The animals take cover;
they remain in their dens.
9 The tempest comes out from its chamber,
the cold from the driving winds.
10 The breath of God produces ice,
and the broad waters become frozen.
11 He loads the clouds with moisture;
he scatters his lightning through them.
12 At his direction they swirl around
over the face of the whole earth
to do whatever he commands them.
13 He brings the clouds to punish people,
or to water his earth and show his love.
14'Listen to this, Job;
stop and consider God's wonders.
15 Do you know how God controls the clouds
and makes his lightning flash?
16 Do you know how the clouds hang poised,
those wonders of him who has perfect knowledge?
17 You who swelter in your clothes
when the land lies hushed under the south wind,
18 can you join him in spreading out the skies,
hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
19'Tell us what we should say to him;
we cannot draw up our case because of our darkness.
20 Should he be told that I want to speak?
Would anyone ask to be swallowed up?
21 Now no one can look at the sun,
bright as it is in the skies
after the wind has swept them clean.
22 Out of the north he comes in golden splendor;
God comes in awesome majesty.
23 The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power;
in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.
24 Therefore, people revere him,
for does he not have regard for all the wise in heart?'

Have you had an experience like this one, where you have been completely in awe of God while being in nature? Share you comments.

The Kingdom of God

"God has called us to feed the poor, but we just want to save their souls. God wants us to change the social systems that oppress people, but we just want to evangelize them. God wants us to reform business practices to be more equitable for the underprivileged, but we continue to make our profit while we hold evangelistic luncheons for our business partners."

This quote was taken from Allen M. Wakabayashi's book Kingdom Come in chapter 8 called Seeing Stars


Thoughts?

Reading the Bible

"I believe everyone should read the Bible, but no one said that everyone should interpret the Bible for themselves and whatever they come up with is as good as anyone else's views." Scot McKnight in The Blue Parakeet

This quote was taken from Scot McKnight's book The Blue Parakeet in chapter 8 called The Boring Chapter (on missional listening) subtitled What does God want to happen to listeners.