Jonah: The Depths of Grace, Witmer's New Jonah Study

TBI grad and now pastor Dr. Stephen Witmer, has published a study on the book of Jonah with the Good Book Company.  I love this book already, and how he combines scholarly exegesis with practical application!

Description:

The story of Jonah and the whale is one of the most famous in the Bible: but its message is perhaps one of the most ignored. 

It’s a story about storms and sailors, rebellion, and rescue, preaching and protest. And it’s a story about one reluctant evangelist’s experience of speaking to people who knew nothing about God. So its message has great relevance today for God’s people, living in an increasingly non-Christian culture. 

Jonah’s story will encourage believers who find themselves ill-equipped to share God’s message with colleagues, friends and family: and it deeply challenges our priorities in life.
But most of all this is a story about God. The book of Jonah reveals to us the depths of God’s grace, both to “outsiders” and to “insiders”. It shows us God’s compassion for the lost and His patience with His wayward people. 

Use this guide to uncover the wonderful message of Jonah, and to come face to face with the greatest evangelist of all—the Lord our God Himself.

Table of Contents:

Introduction
Why Study Jonah?
Timeline
1. Running away - Jonah 1 v 1-3
2. Judgment and mercy - Jonah 1 v 4-16
3. Jonah's fishy faith - Jonah 1 v 17 - 2 v 10
4. Repent, relent, rage - Jonah 3 v 1 - 4 v 4
5. Lesson learned? - Jonah 4 v 5-11
6. Jonah and Jesus - Matthew 12 v 38 - 42
Leader's Guide

Tennent on ATR and Christ as Ancestor

African Traditional Religion Defined in 3 Tiers

1. ATR generally embraces a three-tiered religious system. At the highest tier is a Supreme Being, who oversees the entire cosmological system. For many Africans, this Supreme Being is a distant, vague, deus otiosus…
2. The focus of the religious life in Africa is normally the second tier of power, which is inhabited by a pantheon of various divinities. This pantheon often includes nonhuman divinities as well as various divinized ancestors, whose earthly ancestry and descendants are known…
3. The third level is the earthly tier, which is where various expressions of ritualized power take place to maintain harmony, balance, and order…[embracing] a wide range of religious functionaries including traditional healers, herbalists, chiefs, and priests…

Jesus as Ancestor

               

Many African lay-people and theologians began to see the image of ancestor as a bridge rather than a barrier to the expansion of the gospel in their continent. There are several nonnegotiable aspects of Christ’s work and person that Africans felt the ancestor image could uniquely help explain, including the relation of Christ’s humanity and deity, Christ’s role as the sole and final mediator between God and humanity, and the risen, exalted Lord’s role as head of the church, the redeemed community. (Tennent, pp.122-126)

Some Biblical Evidence

• The logos [word] became flesh and dwelt among us – John 1:14
• There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus – 1 Tim 2:5
• Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him – Luke 20:38
• He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation – Colossians 1:15
• For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers – Romans 8:29

Pobee on the Humanity of Jesus

On account of his humanity, Christ’s Ancestorship is linked with Adam. This fact renders Christ a member of our race and gives his Ancestorship a transcendental connotation in virtue of which it transcends all family, clanic [sic], tribal or racial limitations. (in Nyamiti, Christ as Our Ancestor, 27)

 

Caneday on Ecclesiastes, Adamic Sin, and Us

In college, I was helped in reading a paper on Ecclesiastes written by one of my professors, Dr. Caneday.  His conclusion:

What Paul asserts in a few words in Rom 8:19-21, Qoheleth investigates at length. Where Paul spoke generally, the Preacher descended to uncover the particulars. Though Paul had the privilege of knowing that Christ will restore all things and even now, in principle, had begun to do so (cf. 1 Cor 15:54-57), both he and Qoheleth share one biblical assessment of the character of this world and of life in it since the fall. It is cursed! It is disjointed! It is upside down! It is in bondage to decay! It is meaningless! It needs to be liberated!

What Qoheleth saw obscurely in the coming day of final retribution, the apostle Paul makes clear: 'creation itself will be liberated from the bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God' (Rom 8:21). It is for the final redemption of God's people that creation awaits, for then will it be set free from what is now twisted and lacking (Qoh 1:15).

Many good nuggets of truth wait for you if you are able to spend some time reading Dr. Caneday's article. 

Translating 'Vanity' in Ecclesiastes

Re-post from our recent newsletter...

Ecclesiastes 1:2-4 (ESV)

"Vanity [hebel] of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity.

What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?

A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever."

Some Translation Options

How should one translate and understand the Hebrew word hebel?  This word is notoriously difficult to translate, made no easier in that over half of its occurrences in the Old Testament are in the poetry of Ecclesiastes (38 times).  Outside of Ecclesiastes, two texts are noteworthy: 1) While Isaiah 57:13 uses the word as "wisp/vapor" with perhaps an idea of "not permanent", 2) Psalm 39:5 speaks of life's time limit or "brevity, temporariness." And in Ecclesiastes, some translations (e.g. ESV) read a derived or figurative sense "vanity" of the more concrete sense "vapor."  To simplify the question, what is the emphasis of the word in Ecclesiastes? Quality (e.g. "empty, vanity"), quantity (e.g. "temporary"), or simply the concrete image (e.g. "vapor, puff")?     

A Translation Principle

We can say at least two things, the first being a translation principle. We understand a translator's role ideally to enable the reader to access the text in the reader's own language while yet preserving the level of ambiguity or complexity of the original. The theory is not always easy to put into practice!

Sense of Ecclesiastes 1:2

Now, regarding Ecclesiastes 1:2 specifically, the concrete sense of the word "vapor" does not easily work ("all things" are not associated with the wind, a vapor), but rather the verses that follow assume a more derived sense of the word.  So, I lean toward translating the word as a combination of both the quality ("empty") and quantity ("temporary") readings, demonstrated by verses 3 and 4ff respectively. In sum, the Hebrew word is rich and complex, making it imperative to preserve the profundity in translation.

To Bribe or Not to Bribe?

Thinking again about this notty (or naughty) issue. A fundamental point to make about bribery: bribery involves at least two parties, the briber and the victim.

Some biblical texts that seem pro-bribery

• A bribe is like a magic stone in the eyes of the one who gives it; wherever he turns he prospers  (Proverbs 17:8)
• A gift in secret averts anger, and a concealed bribe, strong wrath (Proverbs 21:14)

Some other texts seem contra bribery

• The wicked accepts a bribe in secret to pervert the ways of justice (Proverbs 17:23)
• Surely oppression drives the wise into madness, and a bribe corrupts the heart (Ecclesiastes 7:7)

So, does the Bible permit bribery?

• Falkiner argues an unequivocal no,
• but Koukl gives a nuanced yes

Position #1: Bribery is not permitted
Falkiner disagrees with the arguments of the pro-bribery position

• Don't force your culture on others
• Do it for the greater good
• Don't think of it as a bribe
• Bribery doesn't hurt anything
• The Bible is unclear on bribery
• Conclusion: "It should be obvious that bribery is not an option for a Christian."

Position #2: Bribery is permitted in certain cases
Koukl's nuanced conclusion

When you give a bribe to a police officer so that he can fix your ticket or not give you a ticket when you are guilty, that is a perversion of justice. Imagine a situation, though, where you're in a foreign country trying to get food to refugees and the military stops you. But you can proceed on your mission if you give them a bribe. It offers you an opportunity to accomplish good if you would just give a little gift. If you do that, would you be perverting justice? Now the answer of course is no, not in that situation. As a matter of fact one could argue that you are paying to get justice because there is no good reason for you to be delayed... It is tragic that you must pay to get justice and the person who demands money in order to give you justice is immoral. He's immoral at that point because justice is due you without you having to pay for it. But are you wrong in giving it? No. I don't think so. You are not perverting justice, you are getting what is your just due.

A Modest Assessment
It certainly seems that when the Bible normally talks about the immorality of bribery, it condemns the victim rather than considering the morality of the bribery (it's as if it is assumed that the briber was wicked, obviously?). Inasmuch as bribery participates in injustice, it is certainly condemned; but if someone does follow Koukl's 'better good argument' and 'perpetuation of justice argument' regarding the Proverbs texts, I would like to know how he handles a text like Ecclesiastes 7:7.  Also, I am wondering if we would ever encounter a situation where the giving of a bribe did not involve the perpetuation of injustice, especially as most situations are rarely so unambiguous.

Update
Another helpful text (among others) to consider, in the historical narrative of Acts 24:26-27: Felix attempted to get a bribe from Paul several times, Paul apparently repeatedly refused, and (most likely as consequence) Paul remained in prison for 2 more years.
(HT: G)

The Chief End of Man

At family devotions tonight, we read in our hymnbook this brief comment by Francis A. Schaeffer on the Westminster Catechism.

'The chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.'

It would be scripturally false to leave out the second phrase - 'and to enjoy Him forever.' The men who formulated this showed great wisdom and insight in saying, 'and to enjoy Him forever.' 

Nevertheless, the first phase is the first phase: 'The chief end of man is to glorify God.' And in Christianity we have a non-determined God who did not need to create because there was love and communication within the Trinity, and yet having been created, we as men can glorify God. 

But we must feel the force of both sides of the issue. If we fail to emphasize that we can glorify God, we raise the whole question of whether men are significant at all. We begin to lose our humanity as soon as we begin to lose the emphasis that what we do makes a difference. We can glorify God, and both the Old and New Testament say that we can even make God sad. That is tremendous.

Ciampa on 1 Corinthians: Did You Know?

Ciampa and Rosner summarized 1 Corinthians:

1 Corinthians has much to say to the modern world. No book in the New Testament, even Paul’s letter to the Romans, does more to explain the grace of God, the lordship of Christ, and the work of the Holy Spirit. The contribution of the letter to the practical knowledge of God is immense. Not only is its ethics searching and rigorous, but its theology, especially of the cross, announces the end of the world as we know it. In addition to supplying concrete answers to many problems which have comparable manifestations today, on subjects as diverse as leadership, preaching, pluralism, sexuality, and worship, 1 Corinthians models how to approach the complexity of Christian living with the resources of the Old Testament and the example and teaching of Jesus. Above all, it shows the importance of asking, How does the gospel of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, which envelop the letter in chapters 1 and 15, teach us to live?

In Ciampa's article, he raises new issues in 1 Corinthians in a 'did you know' fashion.

Problems with Gender-Inclusive Language

One large argument against translating Scripture in gender-inclusive language (e.g. 'children' or 'sons and daughters' so as to include both males and females when the original text reads 'sons') is that in many passages it obscures the biblical theological links to Christ.  Burke makes a similar point in regards to adoption language:

In the ancient Graeco-Roman world both sons and daughters could be adopted, although the latter was less common, as daughters could not continue the line. Thus when I use 'sons' I am not excluding daughters, and this is perhaps reflected in Paul's movement in Rom. 8 from 'sons' (huioi, v. 14) to 'children' (tekna, v. 16). At the same time, Paul's preference for the term 'sons' in the adoption texts makes us aware that he lived in patriarchal society. His use of 'sons' in this context makes it clear that sons were not only the usual subjects for adoption but that they also stand as respresentatives of females. The NRSV translation of the Greek word huiou (v. 14) as 'children' muddies the waters and obscures this issue. This is because Paul wishes to make the point that our adoption as sons is dependent on Jesus as Son of God, and Rom. 8:12-17 is deliberately sandwiched between two references to Jesus as the Son of God (cf. Rom. 8:3, 29). Our adoption as God's sons is inextricably tied to God's Son; hence to translate huiou (sons) as 'children' in v. 14 blurs this important point. 

Is Work the Result of the Fall?

I was re-reading some articles by one of my professors at GCTS, Dr. Gordon Hugenberger.  He wrote a fantastic, short piece called: "Is Work the Result of the Fall: A Note on Genesis 2:15," which I commend to your reading.  Here is a summary of his points:

Note the tension produced by the following two texts in Genesis, the first before the Fall and the second after.  Was work before or after the Fall?

1. The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. - 2:15
2. The LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. - 3:23

To resolve this tension, some scholars translate Genesis 2:15 as "to worship and obey Him" by re-pointing the vowels of the Hebrew words, and they use at least four arguments for that position.

1. The gender of "garden" does not match the pronouns attached to these verbs
2. These two verbs, when used together, are often used in religious contexts
3. A few manuscripts have a similar reading
4. Some later rabbinical writings indicate this reading

Hugenberger noted problems with this worship-obey reading, however:

1. The gender of "garden" can match the gender of the verbs' pronouns 
2. The form of the verbs required by the worship-obey reading is not attested 
3. The Septuagint (and other translations) reads, "work it and keep it"
4. The worship-obey reading does not make sense of textual critical work on the last consonant
5. That reading does not account for two qualifications: a. "obey" is used only with direct objects or with an infinitive explanation; and b. in the context of Genesis 2:15 "serve" and "guard" are used several times in their normal senses (never as worship and obey!).
6. A plausible reading of Genesis 3:23 is that work was frustrated, not commenced, after the Fall.

His conclusion:

The Fall introduced an element of frustration into the process, as the ground would now yield thorns and thistles and so resist man's efforts at cultivation (Genesis 2:17-19), but the underlying mandate to work was unchanged. This understanding finds support in an analogy with the other effects of the curse with respect to mankind.  It is apparent that procreation was not a result of the fall, but pain in the process was.

I found Hugenberger's article carefully written and persuasive (especially his arguments in numbers 1, 3, and 5 above).

God's Rest in 2 Chronicles 6

On the plane last night, I was reading 2 Chronicles 6:41

And now arise, O LORD God, and go to your resting place, you and the ark of your might.  Let your priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation, and let your saints rejoice in your goodness.

The word for resting place is one Hebrew word in the original and uses the same consonants as Noah's name in Genesis.  That God rests is clear from even earlier in Genesis, when God rests upon the completion of 6 days of creation, but He does not a rest to cease from activity.  Rather, He works from the first day until now, and rests in that He sits enthroned over His kingdom, having subdued His enemies and displaying His authority over them. 

That seems to be what happens here in 2 Chronicles: the God of salvation sits enthroned over His enemies and issues salvation as He pleases.

Levels of Prophetic Fulfilment

Often, prophecy was not meant to have one literal fulfillment but two. Consider God's word to David:

I will raise up your offspring to succeed you...I will be his father and he shall be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him...Your house and your kingdom shall endure for ever before me. (2 Samuel 7:12-16)

Vaughan Roberts comments:

One promise does not seem to fit with the others: 'When he does wrong, I will punish him.' That suggests a normal human being, whereas the others suggest someone much greater. How can we hold these two sides together? The answer is that, like many Old Testament prophecies, this prophecy is fulfilled at more than one level...[1] It is partially fulfilled by the great king Solomon, who was to build the temple. But [2] it is finally fulfilled only by the Lord Jesus, 'great David's greater son', the one whose reign puts Solomon's into the shadows (see Luke 11:31).