Hermeneutica

Site update

Eddie Fearon — Wed, 20 May 2009 08:20:20 +0000

I’ve just added a new page titled Humour. Its got some videos from youtube I liked and thought I would share. They’re pretty light-hearted and good for a chuckle.

Enjoy

Needs Met and Not Met – Phil. 4.10-19

Eddie Fearon — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:21:19 +0000

10 I rejoice in the Lord greatly that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned for me, but had no opportunity to show it. 11 Not that I am referring to being in need; for I have learned to be content with whatever I have. 12 I know what it is to have little, and I know what it is to have plenty. In any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of being well-fed and of going hungry, of having plenty and of being in need. 13 I can do all things through him who strengthens me. 14 In any case, it was kind of you to share my distress.

15 You Philippians indeed know that in the early days of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you alone. 16 For even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me help for my needs more than once. 17 Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the profit that accumulates to your account. 18 I have been paid in full and have more than enough; I am fully satisfied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. 19 And my God will fully satisfy every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus. (NRSV)

Here Paul thanks the Philippians both for the material support they gave him in the past when he was in need, and for their present gifts. Here’s what I’ve been thinking.

How do we relate what Paul says about being ‘content with whatever he has’, whether having plenty or being in need (vv.11-13), with his confidence that God will meet ‘every need’ that the Philippians have (v19)? In recounting his experience of need and plenty he implies that he did not always have his needs met. It appears that he did not believe that God always met his every need through material provision, but rather God both gives him the strength to endure this lack (v.13) and also has formed his character so that he has ‘learned the secret of being content in any and every situation’ (v.12).

Could it be that Paul understands God’s provision as primarily operating through the ‘giving and receiving’ that had characterized the relationship between Paul and those in Philippi (v.15)? Is it this reciprocity that Paul understands as God’s provision? It certainly grows out of the love which God forms in them by his Spirit, and as such is the work of God in and through them.

If this is the case, is Paul’s confidence that any need they may experience in the future will be met based on how they have shown such love for others and in turn would receive it when they were in need (reciprocity)? Is God’s provision often reliant upon the faithfulness and love of his people through whom he wishes to provide? And we to trust that God will provide for our every need, even though the needs of Paul himself sometimes went unmet?

Thoughts…

Is God ever afraid?

Eddie Fearon — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:15:14 +0000

Is God ever afraid? Does God ever experience “fear”? Over at Christendom Chris has posted on Deut. 32.27 where it is written: ‘but I feared provocation by the enemy, for their adversaries might misunderstand and say, “Our hand is triumphant; it was not the LORD who did all this.’

So how should we approach this passage? We could consider it to be another ‘problem passage’ (a problem because it doesn’t fit with our theology) and seek to explain away its apparent plain meaning. Or we could adjust our theology to fit with its apparent plain meaning. Or we could ignore its existence altogether and change the subject or even just pretend not to hear people when they bring it up :P

Without getting into the books to explore the accuracy of the translation, here’s a few thoughts.

How we understand the inspiration of the Scriptures and the nature of language will have an impact on what we do with this passage. If we believe for instance, that the nature of this inspiration means that there is a 100% correspondence between the words used in the Scriptures and their reference, that they ‘capture’ the truth in its entirety, then we will probably want to resist the notion that God feels ‘fear’ (perhaps because of the fears this stirs in us) and will be inclined to “find another meaning” in the passage. However, if we believe that God communicates through the Scriptures but that this does not mean these acts of communication are any different in nature to normal acts of communication, then we may be more inclined to understand the use of ‘fear’ as analogical, not perfectly capturing the truth in its wholeness, but nevertheless communicating something true about God.

This last option is not man’s best attempt at pointing to the truth, but God working through and within the bounds of human language.

So what does this passage tell us about God? When we read the words ‘I feared’ placed on the “lips” of our Creator, how are we to relate them to “fear” as we know it? As Chris writes, the words chosen by the author of Deuteronomy certainly convey “how strongly God feels about the defaming of his name”. But do they serve simply to convey this, or is the author saying that God was actually afraid? Perhaps more importantly, are these the words chosen by the author or were they first God’s words which he actually spoke?

Thoughts…

Jesus and Your gospel

Eddie Fearon — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:44:57 +0000

The question ‘what is the Gospel according to the NT?’ is one which I have been asking for a long time now. I’m interested primarily because I want to answer this question, ‘what is the Gospel that we should be sharing, announcing, and celebrating?’ So here is something to think about in reference to these.

What part does Jesus play in your understanding of ‘the good news’? I’ve thought of three basics ways that Jesus is often related to the Gospel as it has been communicated in writing and speech:

The Gospel is a message about Jesus,
The Gospel is a message that includes Jesus,
The Gospel is a reiteration of Jesus’ own ‘gospel’ (Mark 1.15).

Thoughts…

Theology and Christology – 2

Eddie Fearon — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:18:00 +0000

“All theological statements win their Christian character only through their connection with Jesus”[1]

“As Christians we know God only as he has been revealed in and through Jesus. All other talk about God can have, at most, provisional significance. In this sense it may be very meaningful and necessary, even a presupposition for the message of Christ. But the way in which God is revealed through Jesus suspends even its own presupposition, so that one can only speak about God himself in that at the same time one talks about Jesus. Therefore theology and Christology, the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Jesus as the Christ, are bound together. It is the goal of theology as well as Christology to develop this connection.”[2]

Here Pannenberg expresses the absolute significance of Jesus Christ for knowledge about GOD. What this means is that all claims to know God (including in its subjective sense)[3] must be evaluated in view of GOD’s self-revelation in Jesus.

What this does not mean is that all previous knowledge about God is to be set aside. God was not silent and inactive until Jesus, the major events throughout GOD’s covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendants also revealed much about the Creator, and themselves set the stage to understand Jesus as the one through whom the Creator is revealed.

The NT gospels intentionally tell Jesus story as part of YHWH and Israel’s story, ‘the God whom Jesus called “Father” was none other than the God of the Old Testament’[4]. So while we cannot abandon the Exodus for example, as a genuinely revelatory event, God’s mission of which this was a part comes to fuller clarity (although not absolute clarity) in Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. This is the central significance of Jesus for the knowledge of GOD.

[1] Wolfhart Pannenberg, Jesus- God and Man (London: SCM, 1968 [1980]), 11

[2] Ibid., 20

[3] See upcoming post, Knowing GOD in Jesus

[4] Pannenberg, 32

Theology and Christology

Eddie Fearon — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 21:07:16 +0000

In theological discourse we often distinguish between Theology proper (about God) and Christology (about Jesus). My question is whether this separation in our presentations (written and spoken) of theology is helpful.

If Jesus ‘is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being’ (Heb 1.3), the ‘image of the invisible God’ (Col 1.15), can we ever discuss God without this involving Jesus? Should we ever discuss Jesus without this involving God? If the NT places Jesus squarely within the ‘divine identity’ (Bauckham), then both Father and Son are mutually ‘interpretive’.

Doesn’t the doctrine of the Trinity show that every discussion of God should involve Father, Son, and Spirit? In this light do the categories of Theology, Christology, and Pneumatology break down? And if so, is the formal separation helpful or unhelpful? While we have surely found them helpful in organizing our thoughts and presentations, has it actually effected our theology? Should we maintain these distinctions in our minds if they are artificial?

The answers given will no doubt vary depending on what we are trying to achieve in each presentation, but I put the question out to get us thinking. Your thoughts…

Dogs, Cats, and Congregations

Eddie Fearon — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:41:43 +0000

There are so many different leadership models and so many different congregational dynamics in the Church. On the way home from work today I saw a slogan on the license plate of a car:

“Dogs have owners, but cats have staff”

I had the usual response, ‘that so true!’, and then somehow this got me thinking about church, and how the dynamics experienced between people and these pets reflect some of the ways congregations relate to their leaders.

There are congregations who are like cats — the leaders are there to serve them on the their terms. Some congregations can be very controlling, setting very specific expectations for the leadership, effectively becoming the real leaders themselves and those with the official title become simply the puppets. They then provide no real leadership at all.

And then there are congregations who are more like dogs — they are made to serve the vision of the leader(s), who sets very specific expectations for them. In these churches, the congregation can be under very tight control, control which is maintained through almost every aspect of ‘church life’.

Neither of these scenarios is helpful but both are all too real. What then is the role(s) of “leaders” within a church? I leave you with this to ponder…

The Gospel in Colossians – 1.21-23

Eddie Fearon — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:10:35 +0000

1.21-23
21 And you who were once estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his fleshly body through death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him- 23 provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven. I, Paul, became a servant of this gospel. [NRSV]

• Through their comprehension of ‘the grace of God’ in the goodnews (1.6), they have been ‘reconciled’ to God.
• This is so that they may leave behind a life characterized by ‘evil deeds’ and become ‘holy, blameless and irreproachable before him’ for the day of judgment.
• This will only happen if they do not depart from the goodnews, in particular the ‘hope’.
• This ‘hope’ has been given a universal audience.
• Paul has become a servant of ‘this goodnews’.

From this passage and 1.3-7 we can establish that ‘the gospel’ is about actual events (‘word of truth’), and that it includes a forward looking dimension (‘hope’), all of which is of universal relevance (‘the whole world’; ‘every creature under heaven’). Furthermore, the reception of this news brings about a transformation in its recipients (‘bearing fruit’).

Two questions remain: 1) What real world events does the gospel speak of? 2) what is the nature of the ‘hope’ included within this?

The Gospel in Colossians – 1.3-7

Eddie Fearon — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:43:33 +0000

1.3-7
3 In our prayers for you we always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 4 for we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, 5 because of the hope laid up for you in heaven. You have heard of this hope before in the word of the truth, the gospel 6 that has come to you. Just as it is bearing fruit and growing in the whole world, so it has been bearing fruit among yourselves from the day you heard it and truly comprehended the grace of God. 7 This you learned from Epaphras, our beloved fellow servant. [NRSV]

What do we learn about ‘the gospel’ from this passage?

• The Colossian’s ‘faith in Christ Jesus’ and ‘love for all the saints’ spring from the ‘hope laid up in heaven’.
• This ‘hope’ was a part of ‘the goodnews’ (gospel) brought to them by Epaphras, a colleague of Paul and Timothy.
• This goodnews is ‘bearing fruit among them’ and ‘in the whole world’, it is impacting human life in keeping with what it communicates.
• It has been having this impact among them since they ‘heard it and truly comprehended the grace of God’.

Hermeneutica

Suggested Reading: Suffering Followed by Glory

Site update

Needs Met and Not Met – Phil. 4.10-19

Is God ever afraid?

Jesus and Your gospel

Theology and Christology – 2

Theology and Christology

Dogs, Cats, and Congregations

The Gospel in Colossians – 1.21-23

The Gospel in Colossians – 1.3-7