Collateral blessing

Several regulations contained in the OT law are difficult to explain using reason. While many laws are immediately understandable (do not murder, do not commit adultery), others are more ambiguous in terms of explaining their reasonableness. For example the dietary laws are sometimes explained either as being religiously motivated, to prevent inter-religious contact or confusion with heathen practices or for reasons of health. With several laws even those explanations are not satisfactory. For example it is quite difficult to find a rational reason for the tassels on a cloak (Deut 22:12).
Such approaches are human-centred. They try to explain the law using the criteria of reason and human welfare. But is this a good Biblical hermeneutic? A more appropriate starting point for such an undertaking should be the purpose of Scripture, or more specifically, authorial intention.
An example to illustrate the interpretation of these laws is Deuteronomy 22:8. This regulation - as closer study will show - doesn’t prioritize human welfare. As we will see, that puts this law in close relation to the above mentioned. At the same time it contains some additional remarks regarding side effects. As thus it offers a clear interpretation concerning its application.
"When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it. (Deuteronomy 22:8 ESV)
Grammatically this verse consists of three main sentences and a conditional sentence at the end. The conditional sentence relates to blood guilt. It explains what could cause guilt. So the main concern of the regulation is to prevent blood guilt. It is not the primary concern of the regulation to prevent someone from falling off the roof.
In order to clarify this angle on the regulation, the circumstances must be explained. In general terms the regulation applies to the time when the people of Israel will enter the Promised Land. In the Land they will build new houses. The new house will stand on the Promised Land. If the new house was built without a parapet, this might cause someone to fall off the roof. This, as a result, brings blood guilt on the house, the house being the "cause" of the incident. What the law accomplishes is to prevent God's Land from being desecrated.
The primary aim is the preservation of that which belongs to God. The primary issue cause is not human welfare. The regulation is God-centred, not human-centred. This places it beyond human reason. Fulfillment of the law is not driven by reason, but by the desire to serve and honour God.
In doing so, a collateral blessing occurs. When the builder of the house abides by the law, when he cares about the preservation of God's property - he builds a parapet - as a side effect he accomplishes a measure of security for the people. First he obeys the commandment of God, and only as a consequence he cares about man.
What happens if we apply the result of this regulation (explained in depth) to the more ambiguous earlier mentioned laws? First and foremost the law demands obedience. If the law is fulfilled, as consequence of obedience a blessing will arise. On the other side the urge to find a reasonable explanation leads to an human-centred interpretation. According to such an approach it becomes reasonable to obey a regulation only if there is a good reason to do so, i.e. only if there is an advantage for man. The law is no longer a command from God. It has become subjected to human reason. And by the same token it has lost its benefit for man.

 

Paul and fatherhood

Paul and fatherhood

Recent decades have seen a growing interest in counselling. Among various emphases there has been a prominent focus on fatherhood. This has become so prominent that it even overshadows sound exegesis. Many (English) translations render Ephesians 3:14-15 in the following way:

“For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name” (NASB)
“For grace of this thing I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom each fatherhood in heavens and in earth is named” (Wycliff)

The phrase ‘every family’ or ‘fatherhood’ renders the Greek “πατριὰ”. It resembles the word “πατήρ” translated ‘Father’ in verse 14. The lexical meaning is not a family in the narrow sense of parents and children. This word encompasses all kinship and speaks of a people or nation in the sense of one big family. The rarer translation ‘fatherhood’ is totally off track. Hoehner, for example, shows in his  commentary on Ephesians, that the Greek language has a different word for ‘fatherhood’, which Paul could have used here.
The translator might feel uneasy with translating the word ‘family, nation’ in the vicinity of the word ‘father’ and not connecting them. There is certainly no reason to discount the appearance of these two words in one sentence as being by chance. Even more so, since this is the only time Paul uses this word. But I think it is a wrong decision to seek an explanation in some illusory notion of Paul as a counselor for broken family relationships. I understand all those counselors who want to heal their clients' father-child relationships and are in need of a good biblical justification for the ‘fatherhood of God’. I am not against the idea itself - on the contrary. But it has to be done in a biblically responsible way.
When a given theory is superimposed on a biblical text we lose part of the underlying message. The use of the pair πατήρ/ πατριὰ by Paul would better be explained in the light of the text and other witnesses, which are closer to the text than family counseling. And in the final analysis there are enough hints to grasp the meaning. In fact the pair under consideration was a famous political slogan in the days of the Apostle. Since the time of Caesar Augustus the Roman Emperor bore the title “pater patriae”, father of the nation. It doesn’t come as a surprise that Paul alludes to this title.
Firstly, in those days the city of Ephesus was desparate for state subsidy from the Roman Empire. Ephesus had recently been through troubled times. Now the economy was experiencing an upturn. If Ephesus could establish good relations with Rome, they might be guaranteed the right to host the imperial cult in their city. This in turn would boost the fame and economy of Ephesus. The majority of its inhabitants were of Roman origin, but the city had a rich Greek heritage and they were proud of it. To call Caesar ‘father of the nation’ showed their devotion to the heritage Rome and hopefully might please the Imperial capital.
Secondly, the sentence (Eph 3:14-19) contains other allusions to political events. Noticeable is the unusual expression “to bow knees” (verse 14), an expression more likely linked to Greek worship than Hebrew. Politics in those days was a matter of religion. In order to enhance ones approval in the eyes of the authorities dedications are made, temples built and festivals organised. The inscriptions in commemoration of these donations contain phrases similar to verse 16. The donations were made with the aim of the benefactor - or the person honoured - granting their goodwill.
What then does Paul accomplish by using such political and religious associations in a letter about Christ, the Church and its unity? Let’s paraphrase the sentence:

“The society in which you live places its hopes in authorities described with exalted titles; I direct the same effort towards the One who is truly worthy of bearing the title of Origin and Father of every nation, the One who is able and willing to give even more than you could expect.”

Paul identifies a wrong attitude in society. Instead of judging it he uses its force to point to a goal much better and more worthwhile. He leaves it to the reader's conscience to judge. Paul shows what is really desirable. And he does so without introducing a new concept, but by starting with existing political and religious customs well-known to all.

    

  

Follow the Leader

Follow the leader

2 Kings 2

Elijah knew it, Elisha knew it, even the sons of the prophets knew it, but no one dared to say: the time had come for Elijah's departure. The only one to be informed about it in advance is the reader of chapter two of the Second Book of Kings (verse 1). And he has to know, because the earlier events are so loaded with lively action. Elijah received a word from God and a cross country race starts. He runs uphill, downhill. And despite his request to Elisha, repeated three times, his servant keeps up with him and won't agree to leave him.
Three times Elijah moves on according to the word of the Lord, three times Elisha will not leave him and three times the sons of the prophets are present to observe the scene. Finally the actors in this triple act are standing on the banks of the Jordan River. Elijah takes his cloak and with a single stroke he divides the waters of the river. The power of Moses, the great leader of the Israelite nation, was present among them.
They walk over to the other side of the river, because they must now talk in private. Now Elijah no longer conceals the plan God has for him. He will be taken away. He wants to leave a farewell present for his servant Elisha (verse 9). And Elisha holds on to the same desire he pursued all the time: not to leave his master. If God's plan is to take Elijah away, then Elisha wants at least keep to his spirit with him. Therefore he asks for a double portion: one for himself and the second from Elijah – he doesn't want to leave his master, but wants his spirit to remain.
Throughout the whole story to this point we haven't been given any evaluation of what was going on. Was it right for Elisha to ignore the request of Elijah, was it good to follow behind him anyway? Is it now okay to continue on in the desire not to be left by his master and to express such a bold request? Even Elijah cannot answer this question; he leaves the appraisal up to God.
In a great miracle Elijah is taken up by a whirlwind into heaven. Elisha is finally left alone, Elijah is no more to see. In a sign of anguish and grief he tears his garment. Then he takes up what is only remains of Elijah - his cloak. Elisha returns to the river and finally approaches the decisive moment. He strikes the water. Elijah is gone, who is left at the river bank? Is it only he and the sons of the prophet on the other side or more? “Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” The water divides. While Elisha has departed, the Lord had not. God gives his approval to the prophet.
The sons of the prophet were eyewitness to these events and understood: “The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.” But this acknowledgment does not prevent them from asking permission to look for the missing Elijah. Elisha refuses, but they pressure him and he relents. Their search for their former master comes to nothing. Elisha can only tell them that he told him so beforehand.
The request of the sons of the prophets comes as a surprise. They were the first to talk about the plan of God to remove Elijah. They stood there at the river and saw how Elijah's might was at work in Elisha as he divided the water. They even accepted the new leadership of Elisha, in their own words affirming that the spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha. And yet, they still don’t obey his word. A new leader takes over, and this band of men is still looking for the old one. In fact, not really a surprise. More the fate of most of those in the footsteps of a successful leader. While they might have approval, the comparison will go on. The old times are gone, the hero leader of the past has been replaced. But things don't move forward; instead the new leader is witness to the ongoing quest for yesterday's leaders.
Talking about leaders: this whole story features different leaders. But it is not about leading. It is about following. Elijah follows the command of God. Elisha follows Elijah - with devotion. Only the sons of the prophets are yet not ready to be followers with such dedication.
Today there are schools of leadership everywhere. We are training so many leaders, but who is going to follow them? Who prepares the followers? Everyone knows how to lead, but who really knows how to follow?
The story of these three groups, presented in three triplets of following, displays a priority of discipleship. The one who wants to lead has to learn how to follow. To follow the word of God, wherever it leads me. To follow with dedication, never falling back from the leader.
If we prepare followers instead of leaders, we can do a lot of good to the church and be more in line with the plan of God.