Archive for » January, 2010 «

Theological Geography

Sunday, January 31st, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

Then they cried out to the LORD in their trouble; He delivered them out of their distresses. Psalm 107:6

Distresses – There’s safety in the desert.  Oh, yes, we know that the desert is an uninhabitable place.  It is a place of wild animals, danger and potential death.  But God is in the desert – and that makes it a safe place to be.  Of course, we won’t feel safe if we try to manage in the wilderness by ourselves.  We will seek geographical protection – like the mountains.  But that might be a mistake.

The Hebrew word for “distresses” is mimtsookoteihem.  Just trying to pronounce it is distressing enough.  But there is something hidden here that we need to uncover.  We can start by noticing that the root of this word is matsuk, a word that describes a column or a rock.  It’s worth noting along the way that the Talmud uses this word for a steep mountain, just the kind of place you might seek for refuge.  However, the root of matsuk is tsuk which means “to be narrow, compressed, constrained.”  Now we see why this word describes “distresses.”  In Hebrew, to be at peace and to be secure is to be led to a wide and open space.  “He makes me lie down in green pastures,” contrasts the hemmed-in feeling of the narrow valley of stress.  Mountains might be great lookouts, but they come with valleys, and in the valleys you can’t see what’s coming.  Better to be in God’s wilderness than in the depths of a narrow valley.

Our natural instinct for protection is to run to the hills.  We fear an open space.  But maybe, just maybe, we are running the wrong way.  Maybe our theological geography needs to be directed toward dependence rather than self-protection.  Maybe when we flee to the mountains we are heading away from God’s good grace.

Think about it.  How many times have we run for cover only to discover that we are more hemmed-in than ever?  How many times have we sought protection but ended up in confinement?  When God delivers us, doesn’t He open the way that leads to broader vistas?  Oswald Chambers said that we were not meant for mountain-top living.  We always have to come back down to life in the ordinary valley of trials and struggles.  But when we are really pressed on all sides, maybe we need to turn our gaze to the wilderness instead of the mountain tops.  God seems to like those places where we must depend on Him for survival.

Today has been an enormously stressful day.  It seems like life is just one valley after another.  It’s impossible to stand on the slippery slopes of the peaks.  It goes against the grain, but once I get to the desert, I know it will be flat, open and sheltering.  That’s where my Lord waits for me.

Topical Index:  distress, matsuk, tsuk, desert, valley, Psalm 107:6

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 8 Comments

Flutter-Byes

Saturday, January 30th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

Well, I finally responded to many who kept saying, “You should do a photo book.”  Here it is.

Flutter-byes:  the gossamer canvas

This is a limited edition, signed, high quality photo coffee-table style book.  About 35 images.  Your donation of $45 or more will send it “flying” your way (includes shipping) and inside the front cover will be an 8X10 signed original photo of one of these aviators.  Because it is a limited edition, the printing cost is pretty high ($33).  I wish it could be lower, but that’s the price of being an unknown shutter-bug.

You can order here.

book 1

Book 2

Book 3

Category: Articles, Pictures  | Tags:  | 3 Comments

Exegetical Nightmares

Saturday, January 30th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

And says YHWH, “A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children because they are no more.” Jeremiah 31:15 NASB

Weeping – Now read Matthew 2:18.  It reads almost the same, doesn’t it?  But there are some changes, and the changes are real problems.[1] We get the general idea pretty quickly, but the details are significantly altered.  As if that weren’t enough, Matthew seems to completely ignore the context of Jeremiah’s prophecy.  Jeremiah describes Rachel’s grief after her lifetime, weeping over her descendents who will go into captivity.  But Matthew alters the context so that it is present tense.  Furthermore, Jeremiah’s statement is about the captivity, not about death (as in Matthew).  R. T. France observes, “This is one of Matthew’s most elusive OT quotations, and few claim with any confidence to have fathomed just what he intended, . . .”[2] Of course, none of these exegetical nightmares prevent Christians from claiming the prophetic authority of Matthew’s citation of Jeremiah.  Matthew certainly intended to use this Old Testament reference as a proof of Yeshua’s role.  But it does raise a very thorny question:  if Matthew is able to play fast and loose with the words and the context, what does this imply about our concept of Scriptural inspiration?

A careful reading of Matthew’s use of the Old Testament reveals that he often alters the quotations in order to meet his needs.  So, this isn’t an isolated example.  In fact, similar problems occur throughout the New Testament.  Almost every author alters Old Testament references.  But we still claim that these men were “inspired” and that the text they wrote is “without error.”  How is that possible when they make such obvious changes?  We might get away with claiming that the changes were also “inspired,” but that implies that God said something to the prophets and then changed what He said when He assisted Matthew or Mark or John or Paul.  It’s not too terrible when the quotation is about some human meditation, but it’s pretty difficult when it is a quotation of God’s own words.  What we notice is that none of this seems to bother the authors of the New Testament.  They still consider the Tanakh the inviolable Word of God.  They just don’t have any problem fiddling with it.

Might I suggest (gently) that the issue is not with Matthew, Mark, John or Paul.  The problem is on our side.  We have formulated a doctrine of inerrancy and inspiration that does not match the actual use by the authors we claim are inspired.  Our doctrine doesn’t come from Scripture (in spite of 2 Timothy 3:16).  It comes from another source – the Greek concept of perfection.  The Greek idea of perfection is “exactly correct.”  That’s the way we treat plagiarism today.  This Greek ideal is embedded in our thinking and it affects our treatment of Scripture.  Our doctrines attempt to force-fit a Hebrew view into a Greek box, but as Matthew demonstrates, it just doesn’t work.  Without causing any more headaches, perhaps it’s time to recognize that how we read the Scriptures is also part of our worldview.  It’s not just what the text says.  It’s the framework we use to even consider the text.  This is an exegetical earthquake.  The ground we have been standing on is shifting under us.  It’s time to ask:  Were we relying on a doctrine about the Bible, or were we relying on the Bible itself?

Topical Index: inerrancy, inspiration, Matthew 2:18, Jeremiah 31:15

[1] Here is a list of all the changes:  Matthew uses the first four words from the LXX, omits the first of the three verbs for “crying,” changes the form of the next two, adds the adjective “great,” changes the verb form of “weeping,” restores the MT first instance of “for her children,” deletes the second use of the same phrase and uses a different Greek verb for “comforted.”

[2] R.T. France, Matthew (NICNT), p. 88.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 41 Comments

Comfort Food

Friday, January 29th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

and indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. 2 Timothy 3:12

Will Be Persecuted -  In Greek, the verb is dioko.  It’s about pursuit.  In this context, it means that we who are followers of the King will be pursued with a vengeance.  But the same verb also means to press hard after good things.  As we pursue Him, we will be persecuted by others.  It’s a play on words in Greek.

But what would it mean if Sha’ul (Paul) was thinking in Hebrew?  The comparable verb in Hebrew is radad.  It means to beat down, to subdue or to bring to near extinction.  Think about this for a moment.  Paul tells Timothy that those who press after the King will be so pursued that they will almost be exterminated.  They will be beat down so much that only a very small remnant will remain.  Christians believe Paul.  We espouse the “remnant” idea.  But look around you.  Does it look as if Christianity is being beat down so that only the smallest vestige is left?  Or does it appear as though Christianity has somehow escaped Paul’s prophetic word and is now “too big to fail’?  Was Paul telling the truth when he wrote to Timothy or has Christianity been able to defy Scripture and become a dominant presence in the world?  Who speaks the truth about this:  Paul or the Church?

Paul doesn’t leave much wiggle room.  If you follow the King, you will be persecuted.  You will be beat down.  It’s not comfort food, is it?  I wonder if we take this to heart.  Do we really think that following Yeshua HaMashiach will lead directly to persecution?  Do we plan on it?  Probably not.  We have grown up in a religious culture that preaches tolerance.  We tend to think that if we are good citizens of the Kingdom, life will be better for us.  We have disconnected persecution from pursuit.  Why were we able to do that?

Peter Leithart suggests an answer.  “Christianity is institutionalized worldliness . . . worldliness that has become so much our second nature that we call it piety.”[1] Leithart argues persuasively that what we call Christianity is really the accommodation of religious ideals and doctrines to the larger culture.  We have converted the Kingdom of God into an acceptable form of right thinking and right feeling.  The reason we aren’t beat down is because, as Yeshua said, we have become lovers of the world.  By and large, Christianity is now the religious effort to meld with the culture instead of the call to stand in opposition to the culture – and that culture includes the Church.  Have you ever noticed that the entire Bible never once even uses the term “Christianity”?  Have you ever wondered why?

Following the King means being radically different from the world.  Look at Jesus!  Did He fit in?  What would your life be like if you decided to press hard after Him?  Would others beat on you for being “legalistic” or a fanatic?  Would you be uncomfortably different?  Would it matter?

Topical Index:  persecuted, beat down, dioko, radad, 2 Timothy 3:12

[1] Peter Leithart, Against Christianity, p. 17.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 9 Comments

In The East

Thursday, January 28th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

“I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; a star shall come forth from Jacob, a scepter shall rise from Israel . . .” Numbers 24:17

Come Forth – Balaam was not the best among the prophets.  His story reads with a touch of humor and pathos.  But when it comes to far-reaching vision, Balaam saw the truth. Matthew knew all about Balaam’s vision.  In fact, in the LXX (the Greek translation of the Tanakh), the same root word is used in Balaam’s prophecy that Matthew uses when he describes the birth of the Messiah.  That word is anatelei (in Numbers – come forth) and anatole (in Matthew – in the east).  Matthew’s readers would recognize the correspondence and take notice of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

OK, so what?  Wouldn’t anyone draw the same conclusion?  Why is it such a big deal?  It’s a big deal because it tells us something important about Matthew’s readers.  It tells us that:

  1. Matthew’s readers must have been familiar with the Numbers passage.  He assumes that they will know his allusion.
  2. Matthew’s readers knew the Messianic import of Balaam’s prophecy.
  3. Matthew (or his translator) knew the Greek LXX similarity.
  4. Matthew considered the events surrounding the birth of Yeshua to be proof of His role as the Messiah.

And this, of course, means that Matthew considered the Tanakh the official, authoritative source of God’s revelation of Yeshua’s purpose.  Take away the Old Testament background, remove its authority from Matthew’s readers, and all of this intricate connection evaporates.  It is meaningless unless his audience considers the Tanakh God’s final word on the matter.

Of course, most of us have no problem with this at all.  We believe, and rightly so, that the Old Testament prophecies are the final word of God’s revelation about His Son and His plan of redemption.  But this leaves us in a dilemma.  If the prophecies are God’s valid word for Matthew’s audience (and for us), then why is the rest of the Tanakh no longer valid?  What allows us to pick and choose which verses should be accepted as proof and which ones are no longer necessary?  Do you think that the Hebrew readers of Matthew’s good news thought to themselves, “Well, isn’t it nice to know that God predicted this centuries ago.  That really matters.  But, of course, all the other stuff doesn’t matter anymore.”  Does it seem conceivable to you that Matthew would accept some verses as absolute proof from God but reject others as no longer what God intended?  Can you read Matthew without this artificial division?  Try it.  You might discover a different picture of the good news.

Topical Index:  rise, east, Balaam, anatole, Matthew 2:9, Numbers 24:17

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 7 Comments

Application Sermon

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

“And she will bear a son; and you shall call his name Yeshua, for he shall save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21

From – “Jesus Saves!”  I remember that billboard on the side of Interstate 5 between Olympia and Centralia.  It was there for years.  Ten foot letters in black on a white background.  Everyone knew about it.  But I wonder if we really thought about what it means from Matthew’s perspective.  Most of us think that “Jesus saves” means salvation from eternal punishment for our sins.  Most of us think the “Jesus saves” is the equivalent of saying “Jesus forgives me.”  That’s the usual interpretation in our evangelistic efforts.  But Matthew, and most Hebrews, would have thought about it a little differently.  For Matthew, the man Yeshua is connected to the Hebrew verb yasha.  It is not primarily about forgiveness.  That would be the verb salah.  When the Hebrew text uses the verb salah, the subject is always God.   God forgives.  But Jesus saves.  (Oh, I know.  Jesus forgives too, but don’t get worried, there is another word for that.)

So, since Matthew is employing a play on words in Hebrew, he must have in mind the Hebrew verb yasha.  What does yasha mean if it’s not about forgiveness?  Ah, it means to deliver, to rescue, to help, to defend and to bring to a safe place.  What’s the difference between forgiveness and salvation?  Put simply, salvation is about what happens here and now, not what happens in the bye-and-bye.  The idea that Jesus would save His people from their sins by providing them entrance into heaven would never have occurred to the average Jewish reader of the first century.  For Matthew’s audience, being saved meant being rescued from immediate danger.

In the Greek translation of Matthew’s gospel, the preposition that introduces this phrase is apo.  Greek prepositions are basically words about motion and in this case, the motion described is going forth from one object to another.  Unlike ek which means going out of, apo is about the separation between two things.  It is motion away from something or someone.  Ek is something coming out of another thing.  Apo is one thing moving away from something else.  So, what is it that is “moved away” when Yeshua comes on the scene?  Consequences!  Yeshua “saves” us by moving the consequences of our sins away from us.  We deserve punishment, not only in the eternal judgment of God but in the day-to-day disclosure of our unholy acts.  Yeshua rescues us from those consequences, both eternally and temporally, by taking them away from us.  He delivers us.  He defends us.  He brings us to a safe place.  He saves us – in the Hebrew sense of the word.

Does that mean that we are always spared the outcomes of our sins?  Of course not!  Consequences still happen, but they are transformed in two ways.  First, God’s hand of mercy overrides our disobedience.  He is long-suffering and compassionate.  Second, God uses consequences as a means of correction, not punishment.  He loves us.  So, He allows our disobedience to bring about its inevitable results, tempered by His mercy, in order that we may grow up into holiness.  And all because “Jesus saves.”

Topical Index:  saves, yasha, salvation, from, apo, Matthew 1:21

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 3 Comments

Theological Psychology

Tuesday, January 26th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”  Hebrews 11:1

Assurance – From 300 BC until 1500 AD, this word was about something very different than “assurance.”  But when Martin Luther accepted this translation suggestion of another theologian 500 years ago, the landscape of this word changed and the world of faith became a different place.  If you want to recover the older meaning, you’ll have to do a little digging.

Most modern translations follow Luther.  By using the word “assurance,” Luther shifted the idea of faith into the realm of inner personal conviction.  “Assurance” means self-confidence or personal guarantee.  Suddenly faith rests on how I feel.  In its current form, faith is now a private religious experience.  This view fosters the modern idea of tolerance:  that what I believe is my inner conviction and should not be forced into the public arena.  Everyone has his own inner convictions.  Everyone’s faith is unique to the individual and not subject to outward, objective scrutiny.

With great regret, Christianity is moving in this direction, helped along by changes in the translation.  In a culture that advocates “whatever believe-ism,” true Christian belief has been subtly separated from objective attestation and reduced to the same level as all other “faiths.”

But here’s the amazing fact.  The Greek word hupostasis never meant inner personal conviction prior to Luther’s translation.  This Greek word was a scientific and medical term that meant “the underlying reality behind something.”  It has nothing to do with personal conviction.  It is a word that says, “this demonstrates the true but hidden reality.” The Hebrew author picked a Greek word that captures the dual reality of this world.

So what does this mean for Hebrews 11:1?  The author of Hebrews tells us that the real world is not this world as it appears but rather the world as it is demonstrated in the future, hidden reality of what is hoped for.  This is faith.  Not the personal, subjective, inner feelings of private confidence, but the outward demonstration of a world that is based on what is to come:  the world of God’s kingdom values lived out here and now as a sign of what will be.  And how is that outward demonstration revealed?  It is revealed in the community of the obedient.  It is displayed first and foremost in the life of Yeshua and secondarily in those who follow Him.  This is not a private, inner experience.  This is a tangible, outward expression of living according to a reality that is hidden for the time-being but will show itself to be the true reality soon enough.  In other words, faith is the demonstration of God’s coming kingdom by living according to kingdom instructions right now!

This is a heavyweight verse.  The impact that its proper translation has on believers is shocking.  Faith has nothing to do with my groping in the dark to try to find the right feelings or the proper inner conviction.  Faith is walking in obedience to a reality that is not yet obvious.  Faith is doing according to God’s truth regardless of what I see.

Do you have faith?  Ah, that’s a Greek question, isn’t it?  The real question is this:  Are you faithful?  Is your life characterized by a reality that others do not see yet?  Do you live by a code that is hidden from the world?  Faith is a verb.  To have faith is to do what God asks.

Topical Index:  faith, hupostasis, Hebrew 11:1

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , ,  | 24 Comments

2009 Tax Letters

Monday, January 25th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

I emailed Tax Contribution Letters to 406 of you who made donations to At God’s Table in 2009 on Monday afternoon.  If you did not receive this email and you believe you should have, please reply to this email and let me know.

Category: Articles  | Leave a Comment

Tidy Answers

Monday, January 25th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

For our heart rejoices in Him because we trust in His holy name. Psalm 33:21

Trust – Remember the difficulties we found in Psalm 33:22.  Trying to capture the meaning of ka-asher turned into a lesson about tidy answers and worldviews.  But what we may have overlooked is the parallelism of Hebrew poetry.  In other words, we probably should have started with this verse in order to understand what is happening in the next verse.  Here the psalmist tells us that trust is parallel to hope.  Rejoicing is connected with trust in the same way that hesed is connected with hope.  So, what does it mean to trust in His holy name?

The Hebrew word is batach. The pictograph reveals “the house separated by the covenant.”  What is the distinguishing characteristic of trust?  It is to be under the covenant.  It is being different than the rest of the world.  Those who live according to God’s covenant have confidence in Him.  They rejoice because their lives are not determined by their own efforts.  They rest under His banner.  In other words, trusting God is being set apart, precisely what God says about His people at Sinai.  They are separated by His covenant.

Notice that the psalmist doesn’t say, “We trust in Your commandments.”  Why not?  God gave the covenant instructions at Sinai.  He set His people apart by providing them with a distinctively different lifestyle.  Why doesn’t the psalmist acknowledge this lifestyle difference as the basis of trust?  The answer is found in the difference between legislation and person.  No commandment is an end in itself.  Yes, God’s rules for living provide protection, direction and confirmation, but they do not exist apart from His character.  The purpose of the commandments is not to produce morally superior people.  It is to reflect the heart of the Lord.  That’s why Yeshua can castigate those who mechanically kept the commandments but lacked God’s heart as motivation.  Keeping the commandments is supposed to be an expression of my abandonment to God’s character.  Then, and only then, does the distinctive difference of my life radiate who He is.  So, we don’t hope in His instructions.  We hope in His name!

But wait!  If it’s all about hoping in His character, why does the psalmist say, “His holy name”?  Does He mean that we hope in the word YHWH?  Of course not.  In Hebrew thought, a name is the summary essence of a person.  Adam isn’t just any name.  It is the name of the one who comes from ‘adamah, the earth-creature, the first water of life.  Adam is his name and his essential character.  Just so, God’s name is the summary of who He is.  His name is the shorthand way of referring to the very nature of God.  And what is God’s nature?  For that answer, we need to read Exodus 34:6 where God Himself declares who He is.  Take the attributes found in Exodus and compare them to the qualities of your motivation for following Him.  If the comparison reveals some differences, then corrective action is needed, because His people are called by His name.

Topical Index:  name, trust, batach, Psalm 33:21

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 4 Comments

Prophetic Profits

Sunday, January 24th, 2010 | Author: Skip Moen

“Remember the law of My servant Moses, which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, the statutes and judgments.” Malachi 4:4


Remember – Most of us don’t think of this verse when we think of the prophet Malachi.  We think of this verse: “Bring all the tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house.  And test Me now with this;” says YHWH of hosts, “whether I will not open the windows of heaven for you;” (3:10).  I’m guessing that you have heard at least one sermon that used this verse to cajole you into tithing to the local building.  It’s a favorite of the prosperity crowd.  Test God.  Give your tithe and see if He doesn’t shower you with blessings.  Isn’t it odd that we don’t read the rest of Malachi’s message?  Maybe the condition of keeping the law of Moses just doesn’t seem comfortable.  It’s so much more convenient to lift Malachi 3:10 out of the context and apply it where we wish.  We want to profit from the prophet.  But he just won’t oblige us.

Malachi’s real message is quite different than the issue of tithing.  Malachi is calling God’s people back to full-bodied endorsement of Torah.  Malachi’s message is about how we live, not how we give.  Malachi 3:10 without the rest of the message makes no sense at all.  Why would God care about how you give if you aren’t obedient to His instructions for living?  Did you think you could buy your way into His favor?  Of course not!  So, what motivation is there for putting all of Malachi’s emphasis on tithing (if that’s what 3:10 really means)?  There can only be one reason.  If I can’t buy my way to God, then maybe I can get His blessing by showing how much of His own provision I am willing to give back to Him.  Put as crassly as that, it seems a bit foolish, doesn’t it?  Malachi isn’t interested at all in your profit.  He is interested in your righteousness.  So, he points out that ignoring God’s instructions given to Moses is the equivalent of slapping God in the face.  In fact, Malachi mentions (not too subtly) that the day is coming when those who do not live according to the Torah will be swept away in a dreadful day of judgment.

“Remember,” says the Lord.  The Hebrew verb is zakar, but it means a lot more than simple cognition.  Remember (lol), Hebrew is an action language.  So, mental recall will not capture what Malachi commands.  To remember is to bring to mind and act accordingly.  Simply recalling the commandments is not remembering in Hebrew.  Remembering means doing them!  If you don’t keep Sabbath, you are not remembering Sabbath.  If you don’t avoid evil, you are not remembering the way of the righteous.  If you don’t bring your specified sacrifices to the priests of the temple, you are not remembering how to worship.  And you are not remembering to tithe.  If you want God’s blessing, remember His commandments! It’s pretty simple, right?

Promise yourself you will remember this: context!  Never allow another occasion when you read a verse out of context.  Remember God’s Word.  It all fits together.

Topical Index:  remember, zakar, tithe, Malachi 4:4

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 16 Comments
« Previous Entries