Category: Bible

The Prince of Egypt

Published by mhelbert on February 18, 2012

Last night my daughter put in the dvd of the animated “The Prince of Egypt.” It’s the story of Moses as God used him to liberate Israel from the oppression of Pharaoh. As we began, I had in the back of my mind Cecil B. DeMille’s “Exodus” with Charlton Heston. The grandeur of that production with Heston’s portrayal of a larger-than-life, and somewhat other-worldly Moses stood out in my mind. However, the animated production took a very different view of Moses and his relationship with just about everyone. His relationship with Pharaoh was especially interesting. While deMille developed the enmity between the two men, the folks at DreamWorks allowed a more human Moses to arise from the story. Yes, he still kills a guy and runs off to the desert. Yes, he met Jethro and Zipporah in Midian. And, of course, he met God at the burning bush.( I was surprised at how closely DreamWorks kept this particular encounter to the actual text.) Anyway, Moses went back to his tent, without the added gray hair that Heston sported, and had to convince his wife that he needed to go back to Egypt. For anyone who is married, this was an accurate portrayal.
Moses returned and was welcomed by Pharaoh at first. Then began the signs of God’s judgement on Egypt and its gods. I could see the Pharaoh being changed. At first somewhat surprised and incredulous with Moses, he became more and more hardened and angry. Even before the last plague, though, he still tried to woo Moses back into Egypt’s good graces. In the end, however, the angel of God swept through Egypt killing the first born. As Pharaoh’s son lay dead, Moses came to Pharaoh and was told that the people were free to go. Rather than say “I told you so,” the storytellers showed Moses leaving Pharaoh and breaking down to weep. Wow! Even though God had judged Egypt harshly, there was no joy in the deaths of so many. Even later in the story at the Red Sea, I caught some of the ethos of sadness when the army of Pharaoh was destroyed. Although the Israelites were free, and there was joy for that, the loss of so many sons of Egypt was not something to gloat about. These men had fathers, mothers, children, wives, friends and lovers who were left bereft. The parents of the lost first borns were devastated. I truly believe that God was deeply grieved by what happened. Lives were snuffed out in an instant throughout Egypt. First born; warriors. Beloved children; brothers. Not a time to rejoice, but to reflect on the effect that our own pride, arrogance and stubborness can have on us…and others.

Leave a Comment

Thoughts on biblicism

Published by mhelbert on February 14, 2012

Yesterday I touched on an issue that some may be hold near and dear to their heart. I mentioned that I am neither a biblical literalist nor a fundamentalist. In present-day parlance, I am not a biblicist. I understand the biblical canon, as we now have it, to be “God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” 2 Tim. 3:16-17. What is important to note is what is not mentioned in this text. Nothing is said about being historically or scientifically accurate. Nothing can be drawn from this to indicate that any anthropological applications, i.e., relationships between women and men, etc. may be imposed on all people, at all times, and in all places. William C. Spohn wrote in, “Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics,” about something analogical imagination. Rather than simply stating, “the Bible says it, that settles it,” we are encouraged to look at how the text related to its world and then to apply the text to our current world situation. This takes hard work. But, it’s important to remember that the biblical text was written by humans about their own human experiences. It was transmitted by humans to other humans. Most importantly, it is always interpreted and applied by humans. This is not to say that the divine is not involved. I absolutely believe that the inspiration to write the text was God’s alone through the Holy Spirit. And, I believe that the Holy Spirit has superintended the text, including the inspiration of those who arranged the canon. But, by putting all of the emphasis on the divine part of the text, and making it some Barthian Word of God, we lose the humanity of the documents. The human-ness, with all of the foibles and triumphs of humanity, are lost to some magical mystery tourbook mentality. Yes, the Bible is inspired by God. No doubt. But, we probably should leave it room to do what Paul wrote to Timothy about. Not to try and shoe-horn it into some container that was not meant to contain it.

Leave a Comment

John Piper and Masculinity

Published by mhelbert on February 13, 2012

If anyone knows me, or reads the stuff I write, it will not take them long to realize that I am not a fan of John Piper. There are many reasons, but most of all, I am not a biblical literalist or fundamentalist of any flavor. Linked to this post is a blog post by Ben Witherington III. I have great respect for Dr. Ben as a New Testament scholar and brother in Christ. In this post he, too, takes exception to something that Piper stated at a conference. Within Witherington’s post is a link to that address by Piper. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Ben. And, I would even take his position further. Maybe more on that at a later time.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2012/02/12/john-piper-on-men-in-ministry-and-the-masculinity-of-christianity/

Leave a Comment

George Macdonald and a new kid on the block

Published by mhelbert on January 14, 2012

It’s saturday morning. This week, as I’ve written in my journal, has been full of stuff that has made my brain hurt. So many thoughts and musings have been doing the macarana inside my head. It’s been exhilarating and a bit frustrating at the same time.
One of the exhilarating moments came as I read a small piece by 19th century Scottish author and minister George Macdonald. He is one who C. S. Lewis stated had a great influence on his own conversion and literary direction. In the piece Macdonald commented on Mark 8;1-21. The encounter described was after Jesus had fed 4,000 and had a run-in with some Pharisees. On a boat ride, Jesus made a comment about the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod. The disciples, ever on top of things, assumed that Jesus was upset because they had not brought bread on the trip. Jesus responded with a rather heated reminder of the feeding of the multitudes, not once, but twice. He finished with, “Do you still not understand?”
While many folks look at this and think that Jesus was upset because they didn’t realize that if he could multiply food for thousands, he was capable of taking care of the needs of 13 people. But, Macdonald took a slightly different angle on this. He wrote that the miracles of the feeding revealed God’s own compassion. The stories were not to reveal Jesus’ power, nor to confirm his role as a great prophet. It wasn’t even to confirm Jesus as the Son of God. It was to show that “God cared for His children, and could, did, and would provide for their necessities.” The miracles were an experiential lesson that the disciples needed to study and learn from.
One thing that I noted was that, if Macdonald’s take is viable, and I think it is, then what should the response of Christ’s followers be today? If Jesus chose to feed people to reveal God’s care and provision that is driven by God’s own character and compassion, should we not, in God’s name, do likewise? Feed the poor and hungry; clothe the naked; support the widows and orphans; comfort the sick and down & out…yeah, I think so.
————————————–
Also, today I’d like to encourage anyone who may stop by here to check out a new blog at http://morvensblog.wordpress.com/
Morven Baker is a counselor in Ashland, Oh. She is also married to one of my professors from ATS. I checked it out, and she is not blogging because she is the wife of an Old Testament scholar. She is doing this to help give voice to, well, let’s hear her words:
“I am a counselor who works with women. For a long while now I have wanted to have a safe place to post well researched articles or educational links, as well as my own personal thoughts, that I felt might be helpful for my clients, the brave women who have survived abuse as children and/or adults, the real heroines of the stories. Perhaps this place might be helpful for my friends, family and colleagues who really care about what I do and are my constant cheerleaders. I also wanted a place where readers, if there ever are any, can share their responses and know that their thoughts and feelings are respected and valued.”
Welcome, Morven!

Leave a Comment

It sounds good on paper, but….

Published by mhelbert on January 12, 2012

I have been following Brian McLaren’s blog for quite some time. I first got turned on to him in a class at seminary. One of the professors wanted to show us some of the emergent church’s views, so he picked McLaren’s A New Kind of Christianity. His intent was to give us an idea of the near heresies that were out in the community that we would need to prepare ourselves to ward off. Little did he know that McLaren resonated with me. I’ve got to be clear. I do not agree with everything that McLaren writes. However, there is a lot of refreshment in them thar pages. There is also quite a bit of food for thought.
Today McLaren had a link to a post by George W. Sarris titled, Jacob I Loved – Esau I Hated. It is an interesting look at election in the Bible. Sarris posits that those whom scripture states are created for wrath, or are for ‘common’ rather than ‘noble’ use, (Rom. 9:21), are not being dismissed to eternal torture, but are not chosen for God’s purposes at that time. He wrote, “Paul is not referring to election to salvation. Rather, he is referring to God’s election to service of those He has chosen to be His instruments.” Now, I like this idea. I’m not one of those who is looking forward to any soul being lost for eternity. The God I read about doesn’t fit that description. But, there is a lot of history behind the traditional view of this, and similar, texts.
I am going to take quite a bit of time to reflect on this. Because, if this can be shown to be a viable understanding of these texts, it will change the way many people view the Reign of God on this planet.
Read Sarris’ post and let me know what you think.

Leave a Comment

Our desires and appetites the devil’s playground, not idle hands

Published by mhelbert on January 5, 2012

As I’ve reflected on some of my experiences in the deserts and wastelands of life, I’ve noticed something that, at once is both disconcerting and a relief. That thing is that I am mostly responsible for that condition. In a passage that deals with perseverance during trials, James wrote, “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers” (Jas. 1:13-16). Note that it’s not the devil who entices. It is our own “evil desire.”
You may say, ‘Well, duh!’ It does seem rather obvious. But, what’s not so obvious is the part our enemy may play in the process. Let’s take a look the story of someone else. In Genesis 3 the account of the so-called “Fall” is recorded. I’m not going to deal with the doctrine of original sin at this time. Maybe another day. What I do want to point out is the hint of a process that we may find ourselves in. Verse 6 reads, “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” Note that the woman saw that the “tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye.” How she figured it was good for food, I don’t know. For anyone who has picked a pleasing mushroom, eaten it, and ended up in the hospital this doesn’t make a great deal of sense. Anyway, she also saw that it was desirable for gaining wisdom. Desirable. The serpent, who was “more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made,” had focused on the desire of our ancient ancestors. He did not create the desire, but pointed out the pleasing features of the fruit. For anyone who says that this was the first time that the humans had thoughts about this tree, I say, probably not. They were, after all, flesh. Paul had a lot to say about this ‘meat tent’ we wear. However, as this post goes, I want to look at 1 Cor. 15. In that chapter Paul wrote about the resurrection and the inability of the flesh to be a part of that. Verse 47 has special significance for this discussion. Paul wrote, “The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.” Adam and Eve were of the earth, earthly, flesh and blood…dust. They had the same propensity to feed the appetites and desires of the flesh as you and me. And, feed it they did.
What I see in this whole episode was: 1. A desire in the humans. 2. A temptation that was directly attributed to the existing desire. 3. And, this is most important…the humans owned the temptation as theirs. The serpent did not force anything. But, I’ve found that the devil’s most insidious tactic is to make humans think that feeding the appetites and desires…sinning…is their own idea! And, that the action will be beneficial. How great the craftiness of the enemy of our souls! We do not ‘hear’ a prompt from an outside source. Something that we would be able to dismiss. The prompting comes from within ourselves so that we are completely deceived.
I’m going to stop here so that these things can be reflected on. I know it sounds confusing, so much double-talk. But, there is freedom here. Freedom to own up to our responsibility for sin. This, in turn, affords us the opportunity to come before Yahweh in sorrow. It allows us to change directions and to be restored. It also provides us with an insight into how temptation and the devil interact. This knowledge may allow us to be better prepared and give us a defensive weapon to use against him.

Leave a Comment

The Devil made me do it

Published by mhelbert on December 29, 2011

When I was kid Flip Wilson had a character named Geraldine. Her famous line when anything went awry was, “The devil made me do it!”
Of course, those who are theologically inclined know that the devil can’t ‘make’ us do anything. But, this, some say fallen angel, is capable of causing a lot of damage. The New Testament offers several warnings about this. Paul wrote about how the devil masquerades as an angel of light in order to deceive people. The apostle also mentioned that he was not unaware of the methods that the devil used. Peter wrote that the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking to devour folks.
Popular culture from the early church to current media paint this character in many colorful and fanciful ways. But, what can we discern about the reality of how this anti-creation being operates? I am thinking about looking at this over the next little while. Mostly, so I can get my thoughts in order about it. I find that as I write and reflect I see things a tad clearer So, for those few of you who actually read this, please bear with me as I muse.
Please, if any have input, I welcome diverse opinions.

Leave a Comment

Receiving…or being Received

Published by mhelbert on December 26, 2011

This morning as I was spending time with God, I read this in Thomas à Kempis’ The Imitation of Christ, “I desire, Lord, to give myself to You as a voluntary offering and to be Yours eternally. With a sincere heart I give myself to You this day, as Your servant forever, wishing to serve You in obedience and as a sacrifice of endless praise. Receive me…”

Receive me. These words jumped off of the page at me. The text from à Kempis was in the context of the Eucharist. So, I can see how ‘receiving’ is related to sharing the Body and Blood. Receiving the elements in a manner that brings a reality to Christ’s offering himself on our behalf. But, something else also caught my brain. In many religious circles people are taught that they must ‘receive Christ.’ Receive him as Lord and/or Saviour. This concept is taken directly from the Gospel according to John 1:12, “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (2011 NIV). This is one verse. One verse that has been used to define an entire generation, or more, of church-goers. But, does it accurately reflect who we are to become in Christ? Reception of something infers the conferring of ownership and control. When I receive a gift, it becomes mine. I own it. I can control it. Now, I am confident that when pressed no one would acknowledge that this is their motivation. I’m sure that they would say that the idea is more about sharing in the life and mission of Jesus in a personal way. But, I’ve heard way too many speak of Jesus in manner that indicates otherwise. There is a sense that I am in control of my faith and destiny rather than fellow-workers with the Holy Spirit.

I see, rather, a sense in the Scripture that we have been, and are being, received by Christ. The Gospels are full of stories about Jesus searching, seeking, turning things upside down to find a lost coin, leaving the herd in search of the one. This so he could receive us brothers, sisters and mothers. John continued by stating that no one could snatch those that belonged to him, (re. those he had received), from his hand. It appears that Jesus is the One who desires to be in control. By ‘receiving’ all things, he is claiming His rightful place as κύριος, Lord, over all. Paul got it. Throughout his epistles he wrote of Jesus being Lord over all things. In 1 Cor. 15: 25 he wrote that all things would be subjected to Christ, who would be himself subjected to God. Then all things would be “all in all.” I don’t get the sense that God is taking anything other than dominion over enemies. All other things seem to have been received. I know this is a stretch, but I want to make the point that it is we who are received by God through Christ. We who are subjects of the Divine reign. We who have been found and secured by Jesus. We, who together with the rest of creation, are held in God’s hand, protected, nourished, loved on, cared for because we are God’s. Not because God is ours. As I reflected on this, I was compelled to join with the Apostle Paul and exclaim, “For from him and through him are all things. To him be the glory forever? Amen” (Rom. 11:36).

Leave a Comment

As the Story goes…….

Published by mhelbert on December 22, 2011

I have long contended that the Bible is essentially a love story from Yahweh to the cosmos. From Genesis to Revelation there are all of the elements of a good story that conveys and interprets meaning. Derek Flood looked at this idea and came up with some lessons we would all benefit from.
http://www.therebelgod.com/2011/07/god-at-movies-why-faith-is-about-story.html
I think that this is a topic that we may continue to look at from time to time.

Leave a Comment

The Virgin birth…fact? Does it really matter?

Published by mhelbert on December 15, 2011

There has been quite a reaction to an article written by Albert Mohler. This article was in response to another by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Mohler’s argument that one must accept the virgin birth of Jesus as fact or risk one’s position as a Christ follower. He wrote, “This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.”
While I personally do believe in the birth of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels, Mohler’s inflamed rhetoric does little to convince anyone who is not a Christ follower of the truth of Christ’s life and mission to reconcile the Cosmos to Yahweh. It does, however, point to the narrow focus of some. Having read some other articles by Mohler, I think that this recent one reveals more about Mohler’s view on biblical inerrancy than to anyone’s faithfulness to Christ.

Leave a Comment