Those Little Old Ladies

30 July 2023

“We have to cultivate a certain kind of character in order to read well. It’s not just a matter of applying hermeneutical rules or a typological framework; it’s about the kind of person you are.  That’s why the little old ladies at your church who’ve never been to a hermeneutics class in their life, but have spent a life in the word, spent a life in prayer, have suffered and seen the Lord deliver them from suffering—those little old ladies understand so much of the Bible that you don’t. Because they are disciples, and they know that they are encountering God in the pages of Scripture.”

-Peter Leithart on hermeneutics

1 Comment | Chrestomathy, Hermeneutics | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Two Objections

25 July 2023

The previous post addressed the continuing role of imprecatory psalms in the Christian’s life. I regularly hear two objections to this.

The first is “but where’s the specific New Testament command to pray these kinds of prayers specifically?” This one is really just a matter of basic reasoning. If you’re commanded to sing the psalms, then the different sorts of psalms are necessarily included. Demanding a specific verse for the imprecatory subset of the psalms is like saying “I see the verses where Paul prohibits stealing in general, but where’s the verse about boosting cars?” What’s wanted here is not another verse, but a course in elementary logic.

To my eye, that one is more an excuse than an argument. If the commands to sing the psalms and the New Testament examples of imprecations don’t convince someone, then more verses aren’t likely to do the job either.

The second, more substantive, objection is that praying such prayers would be vengeful, and God forbids vengeance in the New Testament: “Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. Therefore ‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.'” (Rom. 12:17-20)

This is one of those cases where you have to pay close attention to what the passage actually says. Romans says you may not take vengeance for yourself, but pay attention to the rationale Paul gives. God doesn’t say “Vengeance is bad.” God says “Vengeance is Mine” — and then He says He’ll repay.

Now, when God says that He’ll do something, do we usually take that as grounds not to pray about that thing? Or as grounds to pray for it? He promises to meet our needs, and we pray: “Give us this day our daily bread.” He promises to take vengeance — is there a reason we shouldn’t ask Him to do what He said He would? Paul doesn’t seem to think so: “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; may the Lord repay him according to his deeds.”

Comments Off on Two Objections | liturgy, Prayer, Speaking as God Speaks, Worship | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Break Their Teeth? Really?

18 July 2023

Regular readers here know I’m a big advocate of singing the Psalms. On the (unfortunately rare) occasions that believers seriously engage in that project, a question comes up pretty quickly: “What do I do with these psalms?”

It ain’t all “As the deer panteth for the water” in the Psalter. There are also prayers that God would break the arm of the wicked (Psalm 10) or their teeth (Psalm 58), pursue and persecute them (Psalm 35), drive them away and kill them (Psalm 68) and so on. What’s a Christian to do with these prayers?

Sing them, that’s what. Three times the New Testament says we should sing psalms (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, and James 5:13). The phrase “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” is possibly open-ended enough to include more than just the 150 biblical psalms, but it’s certainly not talking about singing less than what God gave us.

As to how we pray them appropriately, it’s important to read them in context. It’s easy for us to read these psalms in terms of middle-class North America, which is pretty tame by comparison to the times and places these psalms were actually written. You may wonder “When would I ever pray that?” because you’ve never faced the kind of adversity that the psalmist was facing. David has Saul trying to kill him, and murdering every man, woman, and child in the city of priests along the way. It’s not so hard to see how these prayers are appropriate in actual life-and-death struggle with genuinely murderous enemies who are killing innocent people.

In less dire situations, the prayers should reflect the reality at hand. You don’t ask God to break the teeth of your barista because she messed up your latte order. Not even if she did it on purpose. “Let the rich glory in his humiliation, for as a flower of the field he passes away.” If that’s what adversity looks like for you, you’d better milk it for all the spiritual benefit you can.

You don’t pray “let his wife be a widow; let his children be vagabonds and beggars” because someone is running a little mean-girl scheme to get your funding reduced. Asking God to cause their designs to come to nothing and their trap to return on their own head might be more appropriate.

That said, there’s one more thing to remember: “With what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and with what measure you measure, it will be measured back to you. That cashes out in two ways: first, the way you forgive other people in this life is how God’s gonna treat you in this life, so bear that in mind when you make your requests. When you ask God to permanently stop someone who’s killing innocent people, you’re effectively also asking Him to do the same to you if you’re ever killing innocent people. You can and should be fine with that, but if you’re not, don’t pray that prayer.

Second, remember that “in wrath remember mercy” is also a biblical prayer, and something we should take to heart. Jesus asked His Father to pardon His murderers. Stephen, following Jesus’ example, prayed a similar prayer, and God honored that prayer by taking the young man who ran the coat check at the murder and turning him into the most famous missionary and church planter in Christian history. Modern martyrs — the Stams, those killed by the Ayore and the Waorani, the persecuted Russian and Chinese saints who died in the gulags and camps — rightly continue the tradition.

Do those examples mean that imprecations should be a thing of the past in the New Testament? It’s a good question, but the answer is no. Imprecatory psalms are invoked in the New Testament. Jesus invokes an imprecatory psalm in John 15:5. The early church follows suit in Acts 4:25, as does Paul in Romans 11:9. Peter applies the threat of Psalm 110 immediately and directly to his audience, in order to provoke repentance in Acts 2:34. There are other examples, but those will suffice to demonstrate that at minimum, Christians should still be reading these psalms and putting them to use in prayer and preaching. Clearly, if you’re serious about following the examples set by Jesus and His early followers, you can’t just exclude the rougher psalms out of hand; they didn’t.

One could use these examples and others to construct a more nuanced argument about the way we use these psalms now. In making that argument, you’ll also have to account for the existence of fresh New Testament imprecations. 2 Timothy 4:14, 1 Corinthians 16:22, Galatians 1:8-9, and Matthew 23 come to mind offhand, and to cap the stack, Revelation 6:10, by saints who can’t possibly be sinning because they’re already dead. There’s a great conversation to be had about how to do this well, but that is a post for another day.

For today, the reason you shouldn’t be averse to imprecatory prayer is very simple: the Bible plainly isn’t. Evangelical culture is, and that aversion is driven by sentiment, not Scripture.

2 Comments | liturgy, New Fundamentals, Prayer, Social Reality of the Fall, Speaking as God Speaks, Worship | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Niceness: A Unity-Breaking Disease

11 July 2023

I hang out in theology discussion groups some. In a particular (very doctrinally narrow) group, someone recently asked a question about non-theological issues in the group. “What things other than doctrine divide the group?” he wanted to know. As I mulled it over, it occurred to me that one of the biggest divides is our accepted modes of speech. Some of us seem to think that the speech norms of the faculty lounge should govern all Christians all the time; others of us don’t buy that. Now if you’re reading here, you probably already know that I am in the latter group. As far as I’m concerned, kindness is a virtue, but niceness is a disease. We should be willing to speak like Jesus did, and He didn’t say nice things and make everything smooth. He was willing to make things awkward and difficult for the sake of a jagged truth. Among brothers, of course, we have no business slinging a ‘truth bomb’ and then running away; Jesus never did that. We hang around for the whole conversation, and then move forward and work together regardless, because action for Jesus’ sake matters more than agreement on every little thing.

I’d made my defense for a more biblical mode of speech in that very group multiple times already (and mostly been rebuffed), so this particular question would hardly have been worth commenting on by itself. But it sparked another thought: many of the members of the group are also very, very specific about who they’ll fellowship with or collaborate with. “Is there a [___insert affiliation here___] church near my town?” is a frequent question in the group. The responses will always include tales of people who drive 60 miles to get to a church they can stomach, others who are listening to an internet broadcast from another state, and still others who’ve simply given up for lack of a local fellowship they can be satisfied with. Still others, having found a local church that meets their exacting specifications, are busy pretending that all the other local churches don’t exist.

The same people who upbraid me for being coarse and disagreeable — people vastly nicer than I am, who want me to be nicer too — are unable to get along with the majority of their fellow Christians. You’d think that the niceness would make it easier, but it doesn’t seem to. Meanwhile, as rough as I sometimes am with people, I’m deeply embedded in two local churches, we routinely join up with other groups for prayer and sometimes for shared worship services, and our working partnerships span Anglican, Messianic, Charismatic, Baptist, Reformed, and more.

This to say, adherence to faculty-lounge norms of smooth speech does not seem to be the difference that makes a difference. There’s a divide between people who value honest community and people who value niceness, and it shows up in the way we’re able to minister. In my experience, honesty makes you able to minister in ways niceness can’t touch, and gives you partnerships you couldn’t get by being nice. So don’t be nice; be like Jesus. The more you’re like Him, the more you’ll be able to share life with others who are like Him, despite your disagreements. Truth is, talking and being like Jesus is your best shot at getting the disagreements resolved anyway.

Comments Off on Niceness: A Unity-Breaking Disease | Ecclesiology, New Fundamentals, Unity and Community of Christ's Body | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols

Swan-Diving off the Skyscraper?

8 July 2023

“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” This was Jesus’ answer when the devil enticed Him to jump off the pinnacle of the Temple (see Matthew 4). The pinnacle was (for the time) a dizzyingly high point. Many Christians look no further than that, take it as the ancient equivalent of being tempted to swan dive off the Empire State Building to see if God would protect you. In this reading, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” is a general rule not to do stupid things hoping that God will save you. Look both ways before crossing the street. Skip dessert; your arteries and your waistline don’t need it. Max out your 401(k) contribution. Jesus would.

The problem, of course, is that throughout the Bible, God has people break this rule. Moses is wanted in Egypt, but God sends him back. There’s no water or food in the desert past the Red Sea, but God leads Israel out there anyway. Jesus is a homeless wanderer for three years. They stoned Paul at Lystra, and he barely escaped with his life, but he’s going back to encourage the church there. The Macedonian churches give “beyond their ability.” What gives?

Scripture does expound some general principles about sowing and reaping and handling risks, but trying to find those ideas in this text is biblically ignorant and sloppy. None of that is what “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God” is talking about.

It’s not a ‘general rule,’ it’s a specific quote from Deuteronomy (6:16), as are Jesus’ other responses to the devil’s temptations (cp. Matthew 4:4//Deuteronomy 8:3, Matthew 4:10//Deuteronomy 6:13). Read Deuteronomy 6:16 in context: Moses is warning the conquest generation not to be like their parents, and specifically warns them against the sin their parents committed at Massah (Heb. “Temptation”). That sin is described in Exodus 17:7. See also Deuteronomy 9:22 and 33:8, where Moses brings it up again.

(According to Exodus 17:7, the place is also called Meribah (Heb. “Rebellion”), and by that name it comes up in Psalm 95, which is then a central part of the argument of Hebrews 3-4. So the warning gets repeated in David’s time, and is still an issue for Christians — praise God that we have Jesus’ example to follow in resisting it!)

What, exactly, is the sin at issue here? Read Exodus 17: Israel tempted God at Massah, saying, “Is the LORD among us, or not?” Was the question legitimate? No! This is after all the plagues, after Passover, after He saved them through the Red Sea, after He gave them drinkable water at Marah, after He began literally dropping food (manna) from the sky daily. They are following the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night; it couldn’t be clearer that He has led them to this place in particular. They have every reason to trust that He will provide for them in the place He has led them to.

He had even already warned them at Marah (Exodus 15:25-26) the last time they complained about water. Now, the next time they come up short on water, they accuse Moses (and God): “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to kill us, our children, and our livestock with thirst?” They have no faith that God will bring them to the place He promised. Deuteronomy 6:16 is Moses’ admonition to the next generation not to commit that same sin, and that’s what Jesus quotes.

What does that have to do with the situation Jesus is facing? The temptation is to leap off the pinnacle of the Temple. There’s no danger; it’s not yet His time, and to whom do the assurances of Psalm 91:10-12 apply, if not to Jesus Himself? Does He not fulfill the conditions of 91:9? Jesus could kick off His ministry by floating down from the pinnacle, carried by angels into the throngs of worshippers gathered in the courts of the Temple. What a way to start! Why not?

But no. Jesus has reason to know that God is with Him: the Father spoke over Him from heaven at His baptism, the Spirit descended on Him in the form of a dove, and John witnessed the whole thing. It is the Spirit who has led Him out into the desert, where He has gone without food these past 40 days (an occasion for another temptation that He also answers out of this passage in Deuteronomy). He should remain committed to following the Father’s lead, and not gin up His own solution to the question of launching His ministry — effectively accusing the Father of leading Him to the wrong place.

The recipients of Hebrews faced a similar temptation. These were the people who stayed in place after the stoning of Stephen when everyone else fled, who cheerfully accepted the persecutions of that time to remain where God had called them to be. They are tired, beaten down, and are considering giving up and returning to the Temple worship — effectively accusing God of leading them astray. Hebrews 3-4 treat this as parallel to Exodus 17, but the warning of Hebrews 2 has already made it clear that although the cases are parallel, this would be a much worse sin than the Exodus generation committed in the desert, and would be subject to a much harsher punishment.

We continue to face this perennial temptation today. When a financially tight month tempts us to believe that God is not caring for us, when we discipline children out of panic rather than trusting God’s kindness to us and mirroring it to our children, when we do something flashy and self-aggrandizing at work (or in ministry) rather than trusting God’s leading and His ability to promote us in His time, we face this same temptation. Let’s handle it the way Jesus did: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”

1 Comment | Exegesis | Permalink
Posted by Tim Nichols