Bully's Blog

Peter Leithart has posted about the structure of Galatians 6:

Structure Of Galatians 6

Galatians 6 is roughly organised as a chiasm:

A. Bear one another’s burdens

…..B. Boasting in oneself and not another

……….C. Sowing and reaping; flesh

……………D. Do good

……….C’. Judaizers want good show in flesh/boast in flesh

…..B’. Boasting only in Christ Jesus: crucified to world

A’. I bear stigmata

The links are mainly verbal. The verb “bear” appears in verses 1, 5, and 17. ”Boasting” is a theme in 6:4 and 13-14, contrasting the boasting-in-flesh of the Judaizers with the boasting-in-the-death-of-flesh of Paul. ”Flesh” is found in verses 8 and 12-13. At the centre is an exhortation to persevere in doing good to all men, and especially to do good to the family or “household” of Abraham that Paul has been describing throughout the letter.

I could be imagining things, but I see the feasts of Leviticus 23 here as well:

A. Sabbath (the Spirit overshadows, the Word comes from God) call to worship

000B. Passover (Adam presented) self-examination/confession

000000C. Firstfruits (High Priest – Adam ascends) ascension of praise

000000000D. Pentecost (Law given) sermon

000000C’. Trumpets (armies – Eve presented) offertory

000B’. Atonement (sin expelled from nation – Eve ascends) communion

A’. Booths (rest) doxology and dismissal

Note also that when this pattern appears elsewhere in the Bible, the last point, Booths, is a glorified Solomon (Sabbath-king) sending out letters or chariots with the Word, beginning this cycle in the next generation. Here, Paul himself is the epistle carrying the graven words of God on tablets of flesh.

Some good observations by Brian McLaren

Matthew Parris is a self-confessed atheist, but he writes with extraordinary candor and insight about the role of faith in social transformation in a recent Times article. He explains,

Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

Continue reading

The Bible was designed to be heard, repeatedly. That’s why scholarship is dangerous. That’s why theological seminaries are dangerous. That’s why an academic approach to the Bible is dangerous. Because it’s all silent, and the Bible becomes a thing…

“One of the problems with modern Bible readers is the deep influence of Greek thinking. Until we are able to think like Hebrews, we will not be able to understand the Bible on the level that God intended. Insightful Bible teacher James Jordan sheds light on the comprehensive story of the Scriptures in this six-part series. Jordan will challenge your assumptions, make you think, and will radically change the way you read God’s word. Your understanding of the Bible will never be the same.”

James B. Jordan, Reading the Bible (again) for the First Time (Audio series).

The Old Testament surely has a measure of built-in obsolescence. But it is the obsolescence of childhood. The New Testament, the Covenant of the Man, cannot be truly understood without a detailed knowledge of the Old. A friend posted this quote from Rudolph Bultmann: “who went on to cast a large shadow of influence over 20th century theology. Bultmann argues that the whole Old Testament narrative is of no importance to the Christian faith.”

Continue reading

The Biblical doctrine of regeneration is not the same as that used in systematic theology. Theology uses the term “regeneration” to refer to the invisible onetime renewal of the elect, which brings about their faith and salvation. In the Bible, regeneration is a continual work, with peaks and valleys, and applies not only to individuals but also to society and the cosmos as well. Thus, the elect can experience turning points (conversions) or regenerations at a number of crisis points in their lives, in addition to the fact that every day brings with it the need for continual conversion and renewal.

James B. Jordan, The Sociology of the Church, p. 6
Download PDF here.

The content of this post has been revised and included in Bible Matrix II: The Covenant Key.

I recently found a quote that deals wonderfully with the argument that Genesis was just a story written to refute the errors in the paganism of the time, not to describe the actual biological history of the world:

“…while it’s quite unlikely that Moses was thinking, “Take that, Darwin!” when he set pen to papyrus, it will turn out that by refuting Enuma Elish, Genesis also refutes Darwin, because Darwinism, at bottom, is nothing but Enuma Elish baptized in post-Enlightenment balloon juice. Anyone with Longman’s literary expertise ought to see this very clearly.

Enuma Elish says the world as we know it today was born in an orgy of chaos, sex, and death, and these three forces are the engine from which all life springs. Darwin explains that the various species arise from a combination of random mutation (chaos) and natural selection (sex and death). The big difference is that Darwin said it in a way that post-Enlightenment man wouldn’t laugh at. Hawking likewise has nothing to add that Enuma Elish hasn’t already offered to the world, only to have Genesis soundly refute it.”

You can read Tim Nichols’ full article here:

How Not To Read Genesis

Is Genesis 1 history or myth?

“The expositor [of the creation narratives] must move knowingly between two temptations. On the one hand, there is the temptation to treat this material as historical, as a report of what happened…. On the other hand, there is the temptation to treat these materials as myth, as statements which announce what has always been and will always be true of the world…. Our exposition will insist that these texts be taken neither as history nor as myth. Rather, we insist that the text is a proclamation of God’s decisive dealing with his creation.

The word “creation” is controlling for such a view. The whole cluster of words—creator/ creation/ create/ creature—are confessional words freighted with peculiar meaning. Terms such as “cosmos” and “nature” should never be carelessly used as equivalents, for these words do not touch the theocentric, covenantal relational affirmation being made…. The text, then, is a proclamation of covenanting as the shape of reality…. This theological affirmation permits every scientific view that is genuinely scientific and not a theological claim in disguise.”

—Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Interpretation Commentary), pp. 16-17.

I agree that the Creation narrative sets the foundation for the structure of later Covenants, and also of the construction of the Tabernacle and Temple, but the explanation above is just a fancy dance to avoid the unavoidable bullet that is Genesis 1. So it’s a proclamation that affirms theological truth but not historical truth? No wonder the western church is in a pickle!

When faced with an issue in which you wish to fence-sit, REDEFINE the terminology:

“In the last analysis, the Old Testament doctrine of creation expresses a sense of the present situation of man. He is hedged in by the incomprehensible power of Almighty God. The real purpose of the creation story is to inculcate what God is doing all the time…. Thus the doctrine of creation expresses man’s sense of utter dependence on God.”

—Rudolf Bultmann, Primitive Christianity in Its Contemporary Setting, p. 18.

If Genesis 1 is not history, and it is not myth, it is ideology. Which makes this plain old boring gnosticism. These smart guys just don’t get it, do they?

As one of my old Bible teachers used to say, “If someone’s taking an odd position, there’s a bee in his pocket.”

“Behold, the day of the LORD comes, Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate; And He will destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations Will not give their light; the sun will be darkened in its going forth, and the moon will not cause its light to shine.”

You’ll never understand a book if you only ever read the last chapter. If you thought this quote was from the New Testament you are almost right. It is from Isaiah 13, and Jesus quotes it. It begins: “The burden against Babylon which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw…”

Would Jesus’ audience have thought He was referring to the destruction of the cosmos? Nup. They would (or should) have realised that He was calling Judah a new Babylon, and that the “sun, moon and stars”, the governing lights of her kingdom were about to come crashing down.

Jesus had a sharp mind, and a sharp mouth. A lot sharper than us when we misinterpret Matthew 24.

God uses symbols not only to reveal the spiritual character of physical people and events, but also to demonstrate their relationships to each other.

For instance, when Satan is called a serpent, it is because he is using the weapon of deceit, spewing it out of his mouth like counterfeit living water. When Satan is called a dragon, he is using the weapon of death, inciting a mob or government to kill God’s people.

The land and the sea are the physical land and sea in Genesis, but once God narrows His focus down to a priestly nation, Israel becomes the Land, and the Gentiles become the Sea. This demonstrates the boundary set by God between Jews and Gentiles. When Israel sins, the Gentiles rush in like a flood.