restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Road Less Traveled

 David Alan Black  

From my own experience I have come to see that there are only a handful of truly “defining” moments in our lives that take us down a radically different road. I have spent many years writing and teaching ideas that I myself have never fleshed out, at least not in any radical sort of way. On the other hand, I have also experienced taking new roads that were altogether different from the paths I had been on before.

I remember the day that I decided to publish my bookLinguistics for Students of New Testament Greek, knowing full well that linguists wouldn’t like it (they didn’t) because I did not have the academic credentials to write a book on that subject (I didn’t). However, I could no longer tolerate the false dichotomy so often made between the “biblical languages” and “secular linguistics.” The same response led me to writeWhy Four Gospels?, which represents merely an attempt to integrate theological studies with historical investigation.

In short, it seems to me that the newer solutions to problems of Christian theology and praxis will not represent any one “field of study” but will rather reflect a combination of disciplines. For me, scholarship has become synergistic, meaning that by combining two or more perspectives I’ve often ended up with what I consider to be the better solution. This type of cross-fertilization between disciplines often produces what the ancient Latins called a tertium quid, a “middle way,” if you will — not a compromise between two opposites but rather a greater than the sum of the parts. These days I’m seeing in my students a willingness to engage in serious dialogue not only with those who do “traditional” church or “traditional” theology but with those who do not.

I think there is a lesson for all of us here. Life often involves crucial conversations with those with whom we disagree — spiritually, theologically, conceptually, socially. The result is often a breakthrough in the ways we think or act — or at least a break with the mediocrity or mistakes we tolerated for so long. As we learn how to step up to dialogue, to engage outside-the-box thinking, there is potential for new understanding and — perhaps — a whole new way of living. (Just ask Eric Carpenter.) We may well discover the truth so powerfully described in Robert Frost’s immortal poem, “The Road Not Taken”:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood

And looked down one as far as I could….

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I —

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

 

October 2, 2010

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

home

welcome

about dave

on the road

the book box

columns & essays

reading room

contact dave

Speaking, Travel, and Event Schedule

Scheduling an Event

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Rite of Passage: A Return to Scriptural Adulthood

 D. Kevin Brown  

Recently our 12-18 year-olds participated in a “Rite of Passage” banquet and ceremony at Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church in Wilkesboro, NC.  What is this? It’s simply a wonderful process and experience for our young people, their parents, and the church as a whole that points back to Scripture as the model for adulthood.

Why did we do this?  In our western culture, we don’t really have a way of telling when a young person becomes an adult.  Many ask, “Is it when they can drive, vote, drink alcohol, leave home, and hold down a job?”  It’s very hard to tell.  Therefore, as a church, we decided to change that and give our young people a process to help develop them into godly young men and women. We call this process, “Rite of Passage.”

A “Rite of Passage” is a powerful means of shaping young lives for God.  It is a specific time when parents and the church work together to blend loving words with caring training and admonition into a meaningful process, culminating in a ceremony designed to leave a lasting memory and an indelible mark on the lives of our young people.  This process of preparation and training for the “Rite of Passage” provides a stabilizing point for the rest of the young person’s life.  Perhaps most of all, it gives young men and young women the tangible knowledge that their parents’ blessing, the church’s blessing, and, most importantly, God’s blessing is with them as they continue to grow and mature as young adults.

The young people had to be between the ages of 12-18 to participate and they had to voluntarily complete a very detailed and rigorous question-and-answer phase in writing.  These questions and answers were reviewed by the parents and the pastor in detail from a Biblical perspective.  Here’s a sampling of some of the questions we asked:

How does a person become a Christian? Tell in detail about your salvation experience.

What does it mean to act like and behave like an adult?

What is your opinion of the Word of God, and what role should the reading of God’s Word on a consistent basis play in your life? Why?

What does it mean to be obedient and to honor your parents?

How should you speak to your parents (tone of voice, attitude, facial expression).

If you were told you were going to die in two weeks, how would you spend the remainder of your life?

What does the Bible teach about espousal, courtship and relationships with the opposite sex?

What does it mean to be responsible with money?

What type of friends should a young adult have?

What do you need to do to make changes or adjust your priorities to draw even closer in your walk with Jesus Christ?

Ultimately, this process has “raised the bar” for our young people at Mt. Pleasant. After completing the “Rite of Passage,” the young adults are assured of and have been trained and equipped:

To affirm the claims of Christ in his/her life.

To discern the true values of life according to Scripture and to be able to live by them.

To practice the presence of Christ every day by having a consistent time of Bible study and prayer to the Lord.

To be able to accept himself/herself as God created him/her and to take joy in it.

To experience the love of others and to know how to give love to others by being mannerly, respectful, and obedient to authority, particularly you, their parents.

To be an exemplary role model so that other people will want to know the Lord Jesus because of his/her testimony.

Statistics show that 92- of Christian teenagers will leave the church and abandon their faith by their 20th birthday, and over half of these never return to the church (George Barna Research Group). We have found through the years that a steady diet of activities, fun, and entertainment are not enough to mature our young people. All too often, when the fun and games end, they walk away because they’ve had little or no part in the church or its ministries. When looking at what the Bible teaches regarding children, one sees the premium placed on respect, obedience, and honor (“Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity,” 1 Tim. 4:12.)  Therefore the church and the parents are doing all we can to integrate our young men and women into every facet of “church life.”

We have begun this process by including them into our “adult” choir and placing them on committees as apprentices. We are going to continue to do more. We want them to assist in being ushers and greeters and in teaching children’s classes, Vacation Bible School classes, working on Brotherhood and WOM projects, and the like. It should be said that we are not asking for our young people to become substitutes for adults. Certainly, we recognize they are “young” adults and need training and mentoring. Rather, they are essential, complementary components to our more seasoned adults. They will learn what it means to truly be a Christian adult through this training and mentoring based on Titus 2 in the Bible. 

Ultimately, this is an apprenticeship program that involves our young people into the life and activities of the church as a whole, not just a separate functioning entity to themselves. This process enables our young adults to have a better understanding of the ministries of the church and will cultivate within them an interest in using their talents for God. The key is involvement. We believe youth learn best by doing and not just by being entertained. Our young people are beginning to see themselves as a significant part of God’s family and as making an important contribution to their church.

We have learned through this process that our young people will indeed rise to the level of our expectations as parents and leaders. Low expectations lead to low achievement, while high expectations lead to high achievement. We’re excited to begin seeing the winds of spiritual change in our young men and young women. What’s really exciting is to know this concept is not really anything new at all. It’s as timeless and ageless as the Bible itself.

If you are interested in learning more about the “Rite of Passage,” please contact me atkevin@mpbc.ws.

July 9, 2008      

D. Kevin Brown is Senior Pastor at Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church in North Wilkesboro, NC.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Rise and Rise of American Power

 David Alan Black 

As I noted in a previous essay, it was Alexander Hamilton who, among our Founding Fathers, had the sharpest vision of an infant nation’s need to acquire national strength, both economic and military. In emphasizing a program for the deliberate encouragement of capital strength in the United States, he was a prophet of the mightiest economic and military power the world has yet produced. Politics, for Hamilton, was the supreme power struggle. Thus, although he professed allegiance to republicanism in the Federalist Papers, his view of power caused him to speak of a “strict and indissoluble Union” where the state should be “in perfect subordination to the general authority.” His main concern was not that the federal head might stomp on its members, but rather that the state governments would encroach upon the power of the federal Union. In his private vision of himself as a new Caesar, Hamilton saw himself directing an energetic government, commanding a great army, and working to create a vast American empire. In his determination to employ all means (all are justified) in order to preserve the all-powerful state, he became a practicing Machiavellian.

Hamilton failed, of course, to achieve his goals, but why? Some have suggested it was because of a basic character defect, an all-consuming passion for power. This passion arose from a basic insecurity in life associated with his deep feelings of shame in being born out of wedlock and raised without fatherly affection. He thus had to find his way in the world by the use of his wits. This established the unifying thread in his constant associations with wealthy men and military leaders for his friends, his desire for commanding military and executive positions, and his willingness to resort to subterfuge to achieve his ends.

It should be clear by now why I see some contemporary manifestations of Hamilton in George W. Bush and with the neoconservatives in his administration. Perhaps even more important is Bush’s view that he alone can steer an independent course for America and save the dignity and pride of American democracy around the world. His position, to me at least, seems to be a compromise between a Puritanical emphasis on human corruptibility and the optimistic benevolence of a liberal Unitarian. The impulse to “help” others—with overwhelming force, if need be—seems to be his definition of patriotism. George W. Bush, in truth, personifies the repressive, authoritarian conscience. The only political order he can conceive of is order from above and from so elevated a power that people will not be able to question it. Self-construed order, intelligent cooperation—these Bush can neither understand nor trust. In fact, his behavior as president is as enigmatic as is his personality. On the one hand, he is suspicious to the point of alienating those who might have furthered his interests. On the other, where a more judicious man might have sensed outright hostility and acted accordingly, Bush possesses a childlike optimism. Weak where he should have been strong and strong where he should have been weak, he thus pursues a course that is leading to his own repudiation and that is accelerating the destruction of his party.

If it was Hamilton’s fate to be a leader without followers, it is Bush’s fate to be a follower without leaders. Not enough of a constitutionalist to please the Old Right nor enough of a liberal to win the support of the Far Left, he has cut the Gordian knot in pursuit of his own vision of empire. When Bush made the decision to go after nations instead of the terrorists about 9/11, he flung himself directly into the path of a whirlwind, apparently thinking that the ruin of the American economy was not too high a price to pay for personal revenge. In the great moral crisis of his career he wishes to be governed by compassion rather than by jealous self-interest, but his war on tyranny has only bred more of the same. He is, as I attempted to explain previously, in every way a full collaborator with the neocon power-brokers in their development and defense of the philosophy of democracy in strategic terms in a world where it is gravely threatened. In the test of fire that is actual politics rather than political theory, however, Bush is showing himself all too willing to overturn the very principles of constitutional government without which only the husk of genuine democracy can remain.

October 1, 2003

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com. He is currently finishing his latest book, Why I Stopped Listening to Rush: Confessions of a Recovering Neocon.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

The Right to Homeschool Comes from God, Not Government!

 David Alan Black

For over one hundred years Americans have been running a gigantic experiment in government schools, trying to find out what a society looks like without God. Now we know.  – Douglas Wilson

I have frequently argued that the war for our culture—the war about how we live our lives and the kind of life we want to pass on to our children—is at the bottom a spiritual war. This means that if we are to rebuild sound foundations in a secular society, we must have a biblical perspective. A case in point is the debate over public education. It’s so easy to forget that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t even mention the issue of education for children. In fact, it leaves this matter entirely in the hands of the parents, where it belongs.

This laissez faire attitude by our Founding Fathers was not accidental. From at least the 1700s, common law has held that parents had total and complete authority over their children. This position has been steadfastly upheld by American courts for the past 200 years. This means that if in a state’s law homeschooling isn’t considered equal to “private education,” that state’s law is unconstitutional. States may try and prove that they have “compelling interests” in controlling the education of children, but such a claim is a false boast. No one possesses a higher compelling interest in the education of their child than his or her parents! It is not only their right as parents, it is their responsibility.

The right of parents to control the education of their own children is protected by the Constitution under (1) freedom of speech, (2) the freedom of religion, and (3) the right to privacy. But even more importantly, the right to educate our own children is a God-given, unalienable right. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t give it to us; the federal government doesn’t give it to us; God Himself has given it to us!

The decision to withdraw from the public school system should be based not on what may be wrong in a public school but on a recognition that a God-centered and Bible-based education is mandatory for Christian parents. If you think you can keep your children in a secular school system and escape the dumbed-down, amoral, and immoral results of humanism in schools, you are sorely mistaken. The reason is that secularism is itself a religion. In fact, the biblical view of man’s nature is in sharp conflict with humanism, which teaches that man is basically good. Every man-centered system of education is, consciously or unconsciously, built on this philosophy. Christians, on the other hand, speak of the “bondage of the will” (Luther) or “total depravity” (Calvin). The humanist believes that the evil a man does is the result of evil influences in his environment, but Jesus says that a man needs to get a new spiritual nature “from above” by being born again spiritually.

Some have argued that vouchers would bring better accountability by making all schools part of the public system. Vouchers may sound like the solution, but there are two unavoidable pitfalls: (1) federal school choice vouchers would only continue the unconstitutional federal involvement in education, and (2) government control always follows government money—if not immediately, most certainly eventually!

In his fictional look at the future, Brave New World, written in 1934, Aldous Huxley wrote:

A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day totalitarian states, to the ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and school teachers (emphasis added).

The “new” education imposed on America’s schools in the last 60 years has fulfilled this prophecy almost to a “t.” It’s an “education” that has eroded and destroyed the biblical and constitutional foundations upon which a stable society must rest. In 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court banned Bible reading and a 22-word prayer recited in the schools of New York. The prayer the Supreme Court declared “unconstitutional” said:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country.

If the Bible-based foundational concepts of education upon which our nation was built had not already been so badly eroded, there would have been a massive uprising of indignant parents in America. They would never have tolerated the Supreme Court’s decision striking down what had been fully constitutional for 175 years! But because most Americans had already given up Bible reading and prayer in their own homes, they meekly accepted the Court’s appalling reinterpretation of law.

Let it be repeated: Our Founders did not give us our rights and freedoms. We didn’t get them through our Bill of Rights or our Constitution. What makes America unique in the annals of history is that our Founding Fathers discovered and set forth the truth that the rights of the individual come not from a king, a government, or a Constitution, but from God. The Declaration of Independence affirms:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (emphasis added).

If God Himself gives men their rights, then government can’t tamper with them!

June 23, 2003

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Riding a Blue Donkey

 Becky Lynn Black  

Addis Ababa, the capital of Ethiopia, is a city of about 5 or 6 million people. It was established as the first permanent capital in the late 1800s when King Menelik II brought eucalyptus trees to Ethiopia. Prior to the introduction of these trees, the capital was moved every few years, as the trees were cut for firewood and building. The eucalyptus trees can be harvested in only 3 years, so this allowed a permanent capital.

Addis is located almost in the center of Ethiopia, and all roads lead to Addis. People who need anything come here. It is the only real link with the outside world. And in the past 10 years tremendous development has taken place here. Everywhere you turn, the roads are under construction as they try to pave and expand the road system. Buildings are now going up; for the first time you can see 3-4 story buildings! Still much of the city contains the one-story simple houses, with outside cooking, pit toilets, etc., but it is beginning to look a lot like any other city in the developed world.

Of course, with the people come the transportation issues. There is no metro system or freeway. Only the “wealthy” own cars. Most people move about the city by walking, by taking a taxi, or by riding a “Blue Donkey.” Now, I know you’ve heard of a Blue Donkey before! It’s a mini-van that is painted white on the top half and blue on the bottom half. I was told today that this name Blue Donkey was given by foreigners.

Each Donkey has a route. Of course, in true African style, there are no signs as to where the routes go, where to get on, etc. It just somehow flows. Everyone knows where to go to get what Donkey to get to such-and-such a place. And if you happen to be one of the ignorant on the street, in true African style, there are many who are willing to help you!

To get from our house to the hospital, it requires 3 Donkeys. I have yet to see a perfect Donkey; they all bear marks of their escapades. But they are operational. On most of them, the door closes, the tires are inflated, and the motors run. The inside seats have minimal cushion and almost no leg room. But they get you there for a decent price, and that’s the important thing. Round trip to the hospital costs about 50 cents per person; we can afford that! The greatest challenge we’ve faced is that, outside our house, these Donkeys are always full, so we’ve discovered that by walking ½ mile up the road, we have a better chance of getting a Donkey that can accommodate us as passengers. Our first Donkey takes us to “Mexico,” then we walk about ½ mile to board the Donkey that takes us to “Bole,” then we cross the street and hail a Donkey to take us to “Gerji,” where the hospital is. One look at Aberesh in her fully pregnant state and the Donkey usually knows our errand!

The operation of a Donkey is amazing and very efficient. There are two men per Donkey. One is the Driver and one is the Organizer. Both are amazing to watch! The Driver gets in and out of such tight squeezes. Driving in Ethiopia has little regard for the marked lanes on the roads, but regard for red/green lights is increasing. Most places have circles instead of red/green lights, and sometimes it’s wild getting into the circle and exiting the circle in one piece. The Organizer is also an extremely gifted man. He hangs out the side window calling to people the destination of the Donkey, and then he opens the door and exits to bring customers into his Donkey. He’s a master at handling the door with his feet, head, and arms. While the Donkey is traveling, he collects the fare from each customer.

Me: “Sost sow sinteno?” (3 people, how much is it?)

Organizer: “Hulet k silsa.” (2 birr and 50 cents.)

Me (handing him 3 birr): “Arba centum meles.” (40 cents return.)

Later, me: “Woeraj allee.” (Stop here.)

Everyone enjoys watching me try to speak in their language. They are really pulling for me, helping me, smiling gently. Once I was practicing the word “Woeraj.” I accidentally spoke it loud enough for the driver to hear, even though I was on the back seat. He pulled over right away, so I had to apologize. “Yikerta!” Everyone laughed at that one.

So the next time you come to Addis, I will be happy to serve as your Blue Donkey tour guide. I can get you between this house and the hospital!

January 18, 2008

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Ride That Horse!

 David Alan Black  

There’s a difference between discussing Christianity and putting it into practice. A huge difference. God saved us not just to think about what we should do but to do those good works which He foreordained (Eph. 2:10). The problem is that we so easily fail to do simply because we are afraid. We are afraid that we might do something that is unacceptable to a weaker brother or sister. We are afraid that we might have no time to do everything we ought to do. We are afraid that we might do something and make a mistake.

This is a day when we are so incredibly busy discussing and disagreeing and interpreting and debating that we never do anything for the kingdom. It’s so easy to spend all our time listening to lectures or reading books on the Christian life – homeschooling versus government education, elder-led versus elder-rule polity, age-integrated versus age-segregated church – that we never do any real service for the Lord. Discussing has become a substitute for doing and we have failed to do those good works that God planned for us to do before the creation of the world.

Being an incurable philippos, an illustration from horseback riding comes to mind. I know riders who have read every book ever written on equestrian science but hardly ever ride. Some, in fact, never ride. When do they saddle up, they are attended by a constant fear that they are doing something “wrong,” that is, something proscribed by one of the scores of books they’ve read written by the many riding “experts” out there. They are really only armchair riders. I used to be the same way myself. One day I said to myself, “Stop your dithering, you nitwit, and just get out and ride.” I had to stop worrying so much about whether I had warmed my horse up at the walk for exactly 10 minutes before cantering (as prescribed by the experts), or cooled him down for exactly 20 minutes after riding, or gave him the perfect aid to get him to take his right lead, etc. I simply rode, and rode, then rode some more, and my horses fared no worse for the wear.

Today evaluating has become a substitute for doing. “What will others think of me if I…?” “Is this exactly the way it is to be done?” Yes, there must be sound and sober thinking if we are to do God’s will. But if reading books on equestrian science will not make you a rider, attending a seminar on evangelism will certainly not make you a soul-winner or people-person. Share the love of Jesus anyway. Forget about the methods, the handbooks, the “experts.”

All except for one, that is. It is He who said He would rather a person be cold and dead than an over-opinionated, lukewarm, apathetic Christian.

April 26, 2007

David Alan Black is the proud owner of Traveler, his tongue-slurping Thoroughbred.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Rhino Evangelism?

 David Alan Black  

It seems that confrontational evangelism is making headlines in the news these days. What do you think? Does it work? Can the lost ever be burned by our evangelistic efforts?

For what it’s worth, I’ve found that people tend to be wary of impersonal approaches to the Gospel. In my experience, you can’t go wrong by loving them. In fact, if we love them, we will evangelize them. I say that because the most loving thing we can do for the lost is tell them the Good News.

One thing is certain: Religion can never satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart. Only Jesus can. Many people have never rejected Christ; they have rejected an ugly caricature of Him.

Someone has said that a Christian needs the mind of a scholar, the heart of a child, and the hide of a rhinoceros. The greatest danger of confrontational evangelism is that along with toughening our hides we harden our hearts. I urge all of us who share Jesus’ love with others to let our Christ-like actions speak as loud as our words. You lose nothing by protecting the dignity of non-believers. In fact, you may even gain a friend — and ultimately a brother or sister in Christ.

As we evangelize, then, we should:

• anticipate conflict

• expect opposition

• accept people in their lostness

• not expect intellectual arguments to win the day

• affirm people as valuable in God’s sight

• cultivate the hungry soil of their hearts

• plan on listening as much as talking

• be accepting and gracious

• look for opportunities to serve

• model Christ’s humility

• love, love, love!

What a tragedy that some Christians, while having a commendable zeal for evangelism, also display the sweet approachability of a rhinoceros!

June 23, 2010

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Review of The Meaning of the Pentateuch

 David Alan Black  

Recently I asked my colleague Tracy McKenzie if I could publish his excellent review of John Sailhamer’s latest work. Tracy graciously consented. This review originally appeared in the Southeastern Journal of Theology 1:1 (2010), pp. 86-88. My thanks to the editor, Dr. David Hogg, for permission to reprint it here. — Dave Black

John Sailhamer. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition, and Interpretation. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2010. 632 pp. Paperback. ISBN 978-0-8308-3867-7. $28.00 Paperback. Reviewed by Tracy McKenzie, Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies, The College at Southeastern, Wake Forest, NC. 

John Sailhamer brings his tenured years of experience in Old Testament studies, the Hebrew Bible, and, in particular, the Pentateuch in this accessible but profound analysis of the Pentateuch. Not content with merely sketching a method for biblical theology, he also illustrates exegetically and theologically the fruit from his method and studies in this modern day tome.

Sailhamer attempts to trace an approach back to what he considers a classical evangelical approach to Scripture which sees only the words of Scripture themselves as special revelation. As such, it is only these words which are necessary to understand the meaning conveyed in the Bible. He contrasts this view with both those scholars on the left such as Schleiermacher and those on the right such as Hengstenberg or Keil. Sailhamer credits Schleiermacher with much of the movement away from a focus on the text as the basis for meaning. As for Hengstenberg and Keil, Sailhamer demonstrates that in an effort to defend the historicity of the OT and its coherence with the events of the New Testament, nineteenth century evangelicals unwittingly gave ground on this uniquely evangelical aspect concerning the doctrine of Scripture and along with it a hermeneutical foundation.

In Part One, Sailhamer considers both of these aspects from an evangelical viewpoint. He defines an Old Testament theology as “the study and presentation of what is revealed in the OT” (63). This is especially pertinent for an evangelical approach to Scripture because an evangelical theology “focuses on the text of Scripture…not Israel’s ancient religion as grounded in the Sinai covenant.” (66) In other words, “God’s word is not merely in the Bible, it is the Bible.” (footnote 14, 63) Thus, for Sailhamer, revelation, and therefore, theology does not derive from God’s acts or events recorded in Scripture but from the words as they were intended by the author. As it relates to a hermeneutical foundation, he states that an approach with a single minded focus on the text coheres well with evangelicalism’s belief that the text is the locus of revelation. It is necessary for Sailhamer to trace evangelicals’ departure from a primary focus on the text and how it yields meaning to their tendency to focus elsewhere. According to Sailhamer, their focus has been on presumed socio-historical information in which the central characters of the narrative are depicted or similar types of socio-cultural information which prevails upon the presumed author whether he be a narrative character or anonymous. To do this, Sailhamer demonstrates a subtle reversal of one of evangelical’s ablest exegetes and philologists, Johann August Ernesti.

As he analyzes translations and explanations of Ernesti, Sailhamer shows that the translator’s own methodology actually overshadows the plain sense of Ernesti’s words. Other scholars, thinking they were following in the footsteps of Ernesti, unwittingly accepted methodological foundations that went beyond Ernesti and integrated critical scholarship’s movement away from its primary focus upon the text for understanding meaning from the biblical texts. Sailhamer goes to great lengths to uncover the path which led evangelicals from the path of textual understanding. Along the way he interacts with such figures as Augustine, Calvin, Vitringa, Coccejus, and a host of others.

Another central component of Sailhamer’s method involves a compositional approach to understanding biblical authorship. For Sailhamer, this approach “does not differ significantly from the classical evangelical” approach to Scripture. Composition involves an author using “written texts that he gathered from various sources and provided them with commentary, much like a modern producer of a documentary film.” (207) Of course, Sailhamer recognizes modern evangelicals’ unease with the notion of sources and aptly points out their use by classic evangelicals such as Jamieson, Fausset and Brown and Campegius Vitringa. Moreover, Sailhamer clarifies a compositional approach and an author’s purposeful integration of sources and contrasts it with other critical methods such as the Documentary Hypothesis, a theory of the Pentateuch’s layered development which evangelicals have rejected.

Along the way, Sailhamer discusses Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the prophets’ retrofit of that document. Using the notion of effective history, Sailhamer argues that the Prophets read the Mosaic Pentateuch and provided commentary upon it eventually yielding the final shape which we now have. For Sailhamer, this differs from the DH in two ways. First, composition involves “intentional design and purpose,” not an historical evolution void of any linguistically mediated intentionality. Second, a compositional approach does not attempt to discern the existence and subsequent meaning of independent layers or sources (275). A compositional approach reads the final shape and seeks to understand the arrangement of its pieces within a whole.

In Part Two, Sailhamer builds on previous works in an attempt to uncover the textual strategies of the Pentateuch. He does so by analyzing importantly placed passages such as Genesis 1–11, the poetic seams (Genesis 49, Numbers 24, and Deuteronomy 33), Exodus 15 and 19, and the Pentateuch’s legal material. From these passages, Sailhamer discerns an emphasis on an eschatological king, faith, and a critique of the Sinai covenant. In Part Three, Sailhamer further investigates these passages as they bear upon the relationship between such Old and New Testament themes as covenant, blessing, promise, salvation, and the biblical portrayal of the “seed.” Sailhamer painstakingly demonstrates verbal links between these pentateuchal passages and other texts from the second and third sections of the Hebrew Bible, namely, Jeremiah and the Psalter. In each of the discussions, Sailhamer interacts with prominent theologians from different theological systems critiquing them in light of his own understanding of his theology of the Pentateuch. Sailhamer concludes his discussion in Part Three with a consideration of the Law as it relates to the Pentateuch, the New Testament, and the theme of salvation.

While supportive of nearly all aspects of this work, one section, in particular, raised concern. In the chapter entitled “The Nature of the Covenant and Blessing in the Pentateuch,” Sailhamer attempts to delineate subtle nuances to the notion of covenant and promise. While there has been misunderstanding and theological depreciation of the Old Testament in particular models of prophecy and fulfillment, Sailhamer seems to overreach in order to demonstrate that the Old Testament has more value than merely ‘fulfillment.’ He does this because, “The divine promise… is not merely a prophetic word about the future that must be fulfilled. The fulfillment of such a promise looks not toward a future event but toward an assurance of a present relationship. The fulfillment of such a promise is not a future event, but an assurance or commitment in the present” (434).

Sailhamer attempts to clarify his position in the ensuing pages but leaves many questions unanswered. First, one might grant that God’s covenant with Abraham has present consequences for Abraham in light of his faith. Given the content of the Abrahamic covenant, however, how can the primary focus not be on future events or a future person, namely, the Seed of Abraham? To further obscure the matter, in the subsequent section, Sailhamer exegetically argues the point that God’s promise to Abraham indeed concerns the Seed of Abraham. Second, utilizing Sailhamer’s own methodological discernment between text and event, even though God makes a covenant with Abraham in Genesis, the meaning of that covenant is not thoroughly or explicitly exhausted until the ‘final act’ of the author in Deuteronomy 30 and forward. It is at this point that the covenant involving circumcision is explicitly about the future, namely Deuteronomy 30:1–15 “And it will be…”

Finally, in adherence to Sailhamer’s appeal to trace compositional strategies in order to understand the purpose of book and canon ‘making’ (434), the Prophets speak with one voice when they echo Deuteronomy 30 and promise a time when God will make his people by giving them his own Spirit. Only then will “you be my people and I will be your God” (Jer 30–33, Ezek 36–37, Joel 2:28, Isa 32:15).

In addition to this minor concern, other editorial errors include the following list:

Pg

101 – “evens” instead of “events”

143 – “depris” instead of “debris”

158 – “curse” instead of “course”

218 – “such such”

293 – “tthat hey”

360 – “Nun” instead of “Num”

368-68 – “see figure 5” instead of “see figure 4.1”

366 – reference to Numbers 11 should be reference to Numbers 10:29-32

385 – n. 54, no period before “Refer”

479 – n. 28, misspelled “awckward”

487 – capitalized “Is”

487 – misspelled “arive”

509-510 – “stophe” instead of “strophe”

Notwithstanding these minor issues, for those who will learn from Sailhamer, this book has the potential to chart a new and invigorating course. Sailhamer himself would not say it charts a new course but a course on which evangelicals from a previous generation traveled often. For the reader of Scripture today, however, Sailhamer’s proposal would return them, both student and scholar alike, to a perspective where the locus and meaning of revelation is found within the pages of Scripture only, through the compositional strategies and literary structures which were left by the author himself through which one can hear the very message of God.

December 4, 2010

Back to daveblackonline

   restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations

Returning Evangelism to the Local Church

 David Alan Black  

One of the major lessons taught in the New Testament is the biblical centrality of the local church. Each and every congregation is to be an evangelistic, witnessing community. “The Lord’s message rang out from you,” wrote Paul to the Thessalonian church (1 Thess. 1:8), implying that when a church receives the Good News of salvation it has an obligation to pass it on. Our God is a missionary God, and our Lord Jesus Christ commands us to be His witnesses in the entire world, beginning with our own “Jerusalem” (Acts 1:8).

The idea that a local church is to be a witnessing community may come as a surprise to some people. When they think of evangelism they think only of professional evangelists and large, city-wide crusades. And this is partly true. God has blessed the work of fulltime evangelists and their efforts to reach whole cities for Christ. The weakness of this approach is that it sometimes leads local congregations to abdicate their own personal responsibility to reach their communities for Christ.

I often hear people complain that witnessing does not come “naturally” for them. With this I quite agree. Evangelism is not a natural task at all. It is a completely supernatural enterprise. In fact, personal evangelism is utterly impossible unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus is given free reign in our lives. Thus, while it is our duty to share our faith with others through word and deed, even more it is a divinely-enabled privilege. And unless we learn to view evangelism in those terms – as a great privilege and not merely as a duty to be performed legalistically – we will never be successful in motivating either ourselves or others to share Jesus, no matter how much training we may have had in this or that evangelistic technique or method.

For most of us, the problem is not one of indifference. We long for people to come to Christ and be changed forever. Our problem is inactivity. And behind it all is a lack of motivation or even a lack of faith that God can use us. We must pray that the same missionary Spirit of the Book of Acts would fall upon us afresh. At the same time, we must beware of counterfeit “fads” in evangelism that ignore the incarnational aspect of missions. How easily we reduce witnessing to passing out a tract or placing a bumper sticker on our car, not that those things are bad in and of themselves. We stay aloof from human sin and tragedy. We love the lost, but not sacrificially. It costs us little to leave a tract with our restaurant server. It is far more difficult to engage him or her in conversation. However, the very shape of Christian mission is cruciform. People are receptive to the Gospel when we enter into their suffering. How often we fail to utilize God-given opportunities to witness!

No doubt I have painted with too broad a brush. Many Christians are committed to living sacrificially for the sake of the Gospel. Yet it is a matter of priorities. Biblical evangelism is always costly. And it always combines words with works. Jesus was never content with mere teaching. His was a ministry in which words and works achieved a perfect and beautiful balance. Service was indissolubly linked with preaching. The problem we experience, whenever we think about evangelism, concerns the tension between proclamation and presence. The ideal combination is rarely achieved today, as it was in Jesus’ ministry. As John Poulton has said (A Today Sort of Evangelism, p. 60), “Christians need to look like what they are talking about.” We cannot communicate the Gospel in words only. Evangelism must also include loving deeds.

A large segment of the evangelical constituency, it seems to me, fails to understand the need for holistic mission. All Christians are called both to witness and to serve. The church needs to keep returning to the example of Christ, incarnate and crucified, risen and returning, ruling the church, bestowing gifts, for its model and motivation. On seven different occasions in the Gospels we read that Jesus was “moved with compassion,” and out of that motive came healing, both physical and spiritual.  Likewise, Paul reminds us that although we are not saved “by works,” and that neither our salvation nor our faith is cause for boasting (Eph. 2:8-9), we are “created in Christ Jesus for good works” (2:10), works that befit the new life we have received in Christ and that draw others to the Savior.

If this is true of every child of God, why should the work of evangelism be left to professionals? Surely it is befitting that people who bear the Name of Christ should work tirelessly for the “progress of the Gospel” (Phil. 1:5). Our Lord Himself set the example. It is now up to us to follow Him in love and obedience.

January 23, 2009

David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.

Back to daveblackonline