I mentioned to Marcus the other day that I only completed 3 books this year, which upon further review isn’t true.  There’s one I have yet to finish, although I’m putting it on this list anyway because I’m almost done.  So I’ve actually only read 2 books from front-to-back this year.  With my family making a major move this year, there simply wasn’t time to read.  In fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever read this few books in a calendar year since I learned how to read.  Shoot, I used to polish of 3 books a week.  Granted, I was in middle school and they were the Hardy Boys, but still.  (Side note: I’m eternally thankful for Franklin W Dixon for introducing the phrase “Man alive!” into my vocabulary.)

So this year I’m only going to highlight 2 books for the year, with a look ahead at 2 more books that I’m looking forward to reading in 2012.

2. God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment, by James Hamilton

I’m actually working through this book (albeit very slowly) for a book review.  Quite honestly, I could write 100 pages on it.  It’s been one of the more interesting books I’ve read in a while, even though I have some big reservations at points.  I have a million (give or take) markings in the margins recording my thoughts and, sometimes, rather frank reactions.  Part of the reason why it’s so intriguing to me is that Hamilton has stated his thesis so strongly (that the center of the Bible’s theology is… well… read the title) that it’s fun seeing whether or not he can pull off a defense of it.

So I’ll give Jim Hamilton some credit.  He didn’t hedge his bets at all.  He’s making a big claim and he’s doing what he can to back it up.  He also includes a lot of other tidbits throughout the book, breaking up the monotony a bit, as well as distracting from his point.  All in all, I’m glad I’ve worked through it so slowly.  It repays careful reading.  You’ll have to wait for my review to see my final thoughts… if I ever get around to writing it.

1. T4T: A Discipleship ReRevolution, by Steve Smith with Ying Kai

This book is written by a veteran missionary and a Chinese church planter, detailing the method (T4T- Training for Trainers) used by Ying Kai which (in part) led to one of the largest church planting movements in the world.  It is no exaggeration that using this method has radically changed the work of many in cross cultural ministry.  It’s a convicting and convincing call to adjust ministry methods that are neither commanded in the Bible or demanded by necessity.

The strength of the book is it’s attempt to emphasize that there’s nothing new they’re promoting, hence the word “rerevolution” in the title.  It would be easy for some to slip this book from “very helpful and effective” to “don’t mess with it, it’s perfect.”  The latter would be wrong, but just as bad would be to breeze over it with some lame excuse of “that’s overseas, not the US” or “what about tradition.”  Smith and Kai try their best to root all of their suggestions in the Word, and even if they can’t convince you (or me) that it’s 100% what the Bible says, at least it’s biblically grounded and sound.

I can’t recommend this book enough.  I think it needs to be read more than once, and best if in a group of people who can beat the ideas around together, going back to the Scripture and praying through the method.

Now for what’s ahead…

Gregory Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology

It’s rare that I’m completely surprised by a Christmas gift, but this was one.  Beale’s strength is in connections between the Old and New Testaments, as well as eschatology, which for Beale go hand-in-hand.  Given the paucity of spare time in my life, I can’t imagine how long it’ll take me to read this book.  But I’ll give it a go.  I’m convinced that eschatology is more important in biblical theology than most Christians care to think, but I’m also convinced that biblical eschatology looks radically different from the eschatology commonly peddled in the church.  This book, hopefully, will help me sort through all that.  If I ever get around to reading it.

Rachel Jankovic, Loving the Little Years: Motherhood in the Trenches

I know, I know.  This book is for mothers, not fathers.  But I am married to a mother of little children, so I’m only one step removed from the target audience.  If crusty old men can review movies for adolescent girls and get paid big bucks to do it, surely I can handle this.

Actually, my wife got this for Christmas and we decided we’d read it aloud together.  It’s short (just barely over 100 pages), fun (so far, haven’t read too far into it) and comes highly recommended.  I actually haven’t read a single parenting book, partly because I dread “how to” manuals.  This doesn’t seem like that sort of book, and I’m grateful.  Besides, my wife will be blessed by it, and her blessedness is in my best interest.

What books did you read this year?  Anything you’d recommend?

4.  Since I clearly cannot maintain a blog with any regularity, I’ve recently joined twitter: @BMarchionni.  Perhaps I can manage to put out 140 characters of pith on a regular basis.  Hold your breath.

3.  The sermon I preached at The Harbor a few weeks ago is now available here.  Astute listeners will notice much overlap with the sermon I preached from Ps.107 earlier in the year, which is by design.  The sermon is actually an amalgam of the sermon on Ps.107 and another one I preached from Is.55 years ago.  It was a last minute opportunity, so I had only a few days to prepare.  In the process, I learned that it is extremely difficult to preach the same sermon (or even something similar to the same sermon) twice.  In the end, I probably spent as much time modifying, cutting and cleaning the pieces of the two sermons as I would have if I started over from scratch.

2.  Regarding Christmas, or more technically speaking, the Incarnation, I’ve always loved C.S. Lewis’ illustration:

Lying at your feet is your dog. Imagine, for the moment, that your dog and every dog is in deep distress. Some of us love dogs very much. If it would help all the dogs in the world to become like men, would you be willing to become a dog? Would you put down your human nature, leave your loved ones, your job, hobbies, your art and literature and music, and choose instead of the intimate communion with your beloved, the poor substitute of looking into the beloved’s face and wagging your tail, unable to smile or speak? Christ by becoming man limited the thing which to Him was the most precious thing in the world; his unhampered, unhindered communion with the Father.

1.  I recently caught a half-hour or so of BBC’s “Planet Earth” that focussed on the jungle, and had to manually re-attach my jaw.  The beauty and diversity of nature – however fallen – can easily fry my circuits when I consider what awaits us in the life to come, when He makes everything new.  If words cannot do justice to some of the beauty and wonder we experience now, how much more so for the New Heavens and Earth?  Statements like, “God is amazing,” in such a context seem so hopelessly impoverished.  Perhaps this is one of the reasons why our praise and worship needs to extend beyond what we can speak, write or sing.

It would be wrong, however, to think of this message as lacking in hope, although it would certainly be hard to stomach.  So I want to look at the message of hope given in Revelation, lest anyone think Revelation is all bad news.  But let’s heap the grim realities a little higher, first.

Below is a chart showing the connection between faithful testimony/witness and the prospect of facing death because of it.  It’s important to know that testimony, witness and their related words come from the same Greek root.  So whereas we might not make the connection in English (or if we do, it’s purely thematic), there is a linguistic tie-in for these verses.  I’ve underlined the portion about the testimony and italicized the death/persecution references.

A couple things to notice.  One, Jesus is the faithful witness par excellence, who was killed for not turning his back on the truth.  And while Antipas is the only other person referred to as a “faithful witness,” the theme is seen clearly in these other references, where people are killed because they will not recant their witness.  You can’t get more faithful than being marched to death for what you believe and proclaim.

So, to repeat the point: if you remain faithful to your testimony about Jesus, there is a decent chance you will be killed for it.

But there is a message of hope in Revelation, and it shows up in places other than the final chapters.  Notice that Jesus is called the “firstborn from the dead.”  That is, he is no longer dead.  Jesus wasn’t just the faithful witness who paid the ultimate price for his faithfulness; he is the faithful witness who won the ultimate victory.  His resurrection guarantees that death does not have the final say over his life.

Nor does death have the final say over the lives of Jesus’ followers.  That is the message of hope.  Those who follow Jesus will participate in his victory over death on the last day.  All of the persecuted groups in Revelation (the souls under the altar; the 2 witnesses; the 144,000; etc.) await the day of their resurrection and the New Jerusalem.

Part of the goal of Revelation is to encourage its readers to remain faithful witnesses until the end of one’s life.  Of course, for John’s original readers and many other believers around the world being a faithful witness might cause that end to come sooner than it otherwise would.  But just as death is guaranteed (by one means or another), so is resurrection promised to those who belong to Christ.  Yes, the war waged by the dragon and the beast are real and terrible.  But it is temporary.  Resurrection- life in Christ- is eternal.  While Revelation presents a grim picture of the world, underlying the entire message is the hope of Jesus’ faithful witnesses experi

But, he suggests an odd viewpoint (in my opinion) on the reason why John was on Patmos to begin with.  While the traditional view has been that John was exiled on Patmos, Bauckham presents the possibility that John went there specifically to receive the Revelation that God was about to give him.  So, when John says he “was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus,” he isn’t referring to being punished for those two things at all.  And if you look only at 1:9, this stance has some merit.

But when you look at those two phrases, “the word of God” and “the testimony of Jesus” as they are used in Revelation, it’s hard to come to this conclusion.  See below for how those phrases are used.  I’ve italicized “the word of God” and underlined “the testimony of Jesus Christ” (or something like it, all quotes from the New American Standard).

The first instance is still in the introduction of the book, so we don’t see it expounded just yet.  It does, however, set the stage for what is to come.  You’ll see here that almost every instance of these phrases give reason for suffering or are connected to it.  The exception is 19:10, when the angel is speaking to John.

So, we see the “souls under the altar” in 6:9 had been slain because of “the word of God” and their testimony, and the dragon in chapter 12 wages war on those who maintain their testimony of Jesus, and those in chapter 20 were beheaded because of their testimony.  John, in his self-introduction in 1:9, tells his readers he is their “brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation.”  Given the usage of these two phrases in the rest of the book, I find it hard to see this as referring to anything other than John being exiled or imprisoned on Patmos.

Or let’s look at this from a different perspective, of John the pastor and his readers.  Put yourself in the place of his readers (if possible).  You’re facing persecution for your faith, or at least strongly tempted to compromise by all the Empire has to offer (for these two themes, see here).  In reading/hearing Revelation, you’re given a realistic portrayal of what will happen to those who cling to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.  You understand that those two things (which aren’t really two separate ideas) will quite possibly lead you to your death.

Then you go back and see at the beginning that John uses those two phrases of himself, who is your apostolic authority and Spirit-empowered prophet.  But for him, maintaining the word of God and the testimony of Jesus leads him not to death, but to a Mediterranean island that was not, contrary to popular opinion, a backwater deserted Gilligan’s island, but a populated, secure destination.

And he has the right to call himself a “fellow partaker in the tribulation?”  It would seem to me to be a pastoral blunder on John’s part, one I have trouble believing he’d make.

The traditional view, that John was exiled on Patmos, is best supported by the rest of the book.  When people hold tightly to the word of God and the testimony of Jesus in Revelation, they are not rewarded with tropical vacations or personal retreats.  They run the risk of losing their very lives.  Only the densest of John’s original audience could have come away from this book with a different understanding, and John, if he truly was exiled, knew it was a strong possibility for himself.

However, that doesn’t mean that despair wins in Revelation.  The hope of those who faithfully testify to Jesus Christ will be the subject of my next post.

But there is another important storyline bubbling beneath the surface of these chapters that I don’t want to pass over.  The sins of the Shiloh priests (detailed in my last post) in the first few chapters of Samuel set the stage for another important transition for the people of God.

The focus of Israelite worship at the beginning of 1 Samuel is Shiloh.  This is where the priests served (however poorly), the tent of meeting was located and where the ark was kept.  But starting in chapter 4, the ark leaves Shiloh never to return.  Because the sins of the priests there, the Lord takes the ark from his people, through Philistine territory and back to Israel.

This section reminds me of Ezekiel’s vision in Ezekiel 8-11.  There, Ezekiel is shown by the God the horrible sins being perpetuated by the leaders of Israel in the Temple (bowing to the sun, making idols, etc).  God’s response to this constant idolatry and rejection of him is to pull his presence out of Jerusalem and leave his people, in effect.  The end result is that Jerusalem is sacked by the Babylonians and the people carried into exile.

The stories aren’t exactly parallel, but they do make similar points.  In both instances, the leaders of God’s people dishonor their God and abuse something he gave them for their own good (the sacrificial system, the ark, etc).  In both instances God’s response is to remove his presence from their locus of worship for a time.

Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas, treat the ark as a lucky rabbit’s foot.  Rather than seeking the Lord’s help in battle, they presumptuously believe they can trot out their magical weapon and the Lord must work for them.  The Lord refuses to play the role, so he demonstrates his own complete freedom: he causes the Philistines to win the battle, but rather than this indicating Dagon has defeated Yahweh, Yahweh defeats Dagon in his own temple (1 Samuel 5) and eventually the ark ends up in Kiriath Jearim for 20 years (7:1-2).

There’s nothing really said about the ark for a while.  The astute reader, which I admit I was not for the first billion times I read this, will ask the question at some point, “what happened to the ark?”  After all, for the first 6 chapters the ark is one of the two main characters, along with Samuel.  For 3 chapters (4-6) Samuel is out of the picture and the entire story centers around the ark and its “travels.”

So we ought not be surprised when the ark storyline is picked back up in 2 Samuel 6.  David brings the ark from Kiriath Jearim (with a pit stop at Obed-Edom’s house, lucky guy) to Jerusalem, where the Temple will eventually be built by his son, Solomon.  It isn’t random that the book of Samuel ends on a story of David buying a threshing floor in Jerusalem to build an altar (2 Sam 24:18-25) in order to offer a sacrifice and end a plague.  It is this location, according to 1 Chronicles 22:1, that the more permanent altar is built in the Temple.

So the narrative of the early chapters of 1 Samuel don’t just tell the story of Samuel replacing Eli and his sons, it sets the stage for the ark, representing the presence of God, moving to Jerusalem, the future home of the Temple.

Going back to my previous post, I quoted Conrad Mbewe, who once said, “The God of the universe will not allow his agenda to be hijacked by ungodly, selfish leaders.”  There will always be leaders in the church- or any Christian, really- who will be characterized by ungodliness.  There will always be those who treat God as a “cosmic vending machine,” who must give you what you want when you want it.

The Lord is patient, but he will, at some point, assert his own freedom.  As much as he likes to bless his children, as important as his presence is in the church, he does not work for us.  We cannot, as Mbewe says, “hijack” his plan.

God’s plan was for Israel to have godly leaders who honor him in their lives and in their worship.  Eli and his family failed to do this, and failed miserably.  So the Lord removed the ark from Shiloh and replaced the priests with Samuel.  Eventually Israel has David as their king, the great king to whom all others are compared, who returns the ark to its rightful place for it to be placed in the Temple.

This all points to Jesus, the son of David, the great King and Priest to whom no other can be compared.  Instead of attempting to enforce his own plan, Jesus openly admitted “I can do nothing on my own initiative” (Jn 5:30) and did what his Father planned.  And Jesus is the Temple, where the presence of God dwells and sacrifice for sin is made.  The presence of God returned to his people in Jesus and restored them, which was the Lord’s plan all along.

2:11- Samuel ministered before the Lord

2:12-17- Eli’s sons corrupting the priesthood

2:18-21- Samuel ministering before the Lord & growing up in His presence

2:22-25- Eli’s sons’ corruption and refusing to repent

2:26- Samuel growing in stature and in favor w/ the Lord & people

2:27-36- prophecy of fall of the House of Eli

3:1-4:1a- Samuel to take the place of Eli and his family

It seems to me that the author is intentionally setting up the rise of Samuel and the fall of the house of Eli (I’ve written previously about the author using literary devices to make a point here).

Looking more closely at the Eli’s family, you can see the unlawful practices of their priesthood in Shiloh.  Eli’s sons sleeping with the women who served at the entrance of the tent of meeting (2:22) is pretty obviously bad, especially when you consider the strong possibility that this was some form of ritual prostitution.

But there are a couple more sins that are perhaps less obvious.  The priests would eat whatever portion of the sacrifice they wanted, which is seen as wrong since the narrative says Eli’s sons “had no regard for the LORD” (1 Sam 2:12) and “were treating the LORD’s offering with contempt” (2:17).  It’s easy to tell from the narrative that the sons were, indeed, “scoundrels” (2:12), but why they were scoundrels is perhaps less obvious.  What one might not know is that there were very specific laws given to priests for what they may or may not eat (see Lev 7:29-36).

Even less obvious is the problem with 1 Sam 3:3, “The lamp of God had not yet gone out…”  This seems harmless enough, until you remember that Lev 24:1-4 specifically instructs the priests not to let the lamp go out.  This also implicates Eli in not only being a horribly permissive father (which is clear up to this point), but he is also guilty of neglecting the commands given to his ancestors.  (See this post for another example of an author not explicitly calling attention to a sin, but expecting the reader to know the laws given in the Torah.)

Let’s lay it out a little more clearly just how awful the priesthood of Eli’s family was (again, keeping in mind that ritual prostitution might not have been what was going on):

You’ll notice the 1^st and 3^rd commands given were specifically said to be honored “for the generations to come.”  So what we have here is a family of priests habitually refusing to obey the Lord, and ultimately paying the price as they are replaced with Samuel.

Jumping to chapter 7, we see Samuel doing things the right way.  Instead of abusing the sacrificial system, Samuel properly offers a sacrifice and Israel wins their battle against the Philistines (7:7-11).  When the Lord delivers his people in battle, Samuel names the place “Ebenezer” (stone of help), in effect replacing the previous Ebenezer, where Israel lost a battle led by Eli’s sons against the Philistines (4:1f).

All of this shows how and why Eli and his family fell from power, and why Samuel was chosen to take their place.  Whereas Eli’s family showed contempt for their holy position as priests serving God’s people and contempt for God himself, Samuel grew in the Lord, served him faithfully and honored the Lord at all times.  The narrative of 1 Samuel 1-7 is largely focused on this reversal, where God rejects the wicked priesthood of Eli and his sons and raises up a faithful priest (2:35).

I recently listened to a sermon preached by Conrad Mbewe on Jeremiah 23, a passage denouncing ungodly leaders (shepherds) in Israel and predicting their replacement (ultimately by the Great Shepherd, the Faithful Priest).  Mbewe said something that reminds me of these chapters in Samuel, which seems like an appropriate way to end this study: “The God of the universe will not allow his agenda to be hijacked by ungodly, selfish leaders.  He will raise another in your place.”

Adam, at the moment of his sin, brings death into the world.  Death is alienation from the life of God.  Death truly removes the couple from the freedom and innocence and lack of shame and fear that is found only in perfect obedience.  The moment they sin, Adam and Eve are removed from that realm of life, and in the opening of their eyes (3:7), they find themselves in the realm of death.  This spiritual reality is made a physical reality when they are banished from the garden of Eden (3:23-24).  But even here there is mercy: they will not have access to the tree of life, whereby they might live forever in a fallen state.  God gives the gift of physical death (3:22; 5:5).

I’ve italicized the sentences that give me the most trouble theologically.  This is not the first time I’ve encountered this viewpoint, but I’ve never been able to understand how one squares this with the biblical teaching on death.  Even within his own paragraph, Hamilton is holding two views that seem to me to be contradictory: death is both a judgment and a gift.  How can that be?

There are strong arguments against this view, besides the context of Genesis 3 and following.  Look at Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 15.  There he refers to death as an enemy, in fact, the last enemy to be defeated when Chris himself returns (vv20-26).  Or how about these verses from Romans 5, where “gift” appears:

But the gift is not like the trespass.  For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!  Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: the judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

Here, there is a true gift- grace, righteousness, life- that overthrows the sentence of death brought about by sin.  It seems odd to me that God would give a gift to overthrow a previously given gift.  If that’s the case, was the first “gift” really a gift at all?

Now, I understand the logic behind what Hamilton is saying.  The problem with it, however, is that he doesn’t (can’t?) back it up scripturally.  Death is never referred to as a gift, at least not that I’m aware of. It is an enemy that has been defeated in Jesus’ resurrection (see 1 Cor 15, previously quoted).  Death did, for a time, have reign, but that reign has been cast aside by the reign of life in Christ (Rom 5).  And its end is pictured so powerfully in Revelation 20:14, when death itself is thrown into the lake of fire.

So what do you think?  Is Hamilton drawing a valid inference from Gen 3:22?  Can death be a gift from God, as Hamilton asserts, and an enemy of God (as I’m sure he also believes)?

50 billion years from now, if I may dare speak of eternity in the categories of time, no one will be writing learned dispositions on the significance of Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot, but every cup of cold water given in the name of the Lord Jesus will be celebrated.  Because the way of the wicked will perish.

D A Carson, preaching on Psalm 1

While Facebook can degenerate into mere relational candy, it can also be used to stay legitimately in touch with friends and family.  Furthermore, like Santa Claus, it isn’t going away any time soon.  It’s already firmly embedded into the culture I inhabit, so I might as well deal with it rather than avoid it.  As I’ve made a start at this, I’ve done some housekeeping, which brought up some interesting dynamics:

(1)  In the “religious views” category of my profile, I selected “Christian,” as one might guess.  But Facebook also offers some for a description below the simple declaration.  I found filling in this area to be very difficult, because I wanted to fill in all sorts of things that Christianity doesn’t mean to me (e.g., I’m not a member of the Tea Party movement).  It’s so discouraging to think of all the baggage that is attached to the word, and I found it impossible to write anything simpler than just referencing Acts 11:26, which is the first mention of the word “Christian” in the Bible.  This was in part inspired by something I read in An Evangelical Manifesto some years ago: “In the first instance, Christians ought to define themselves, and be defined, by what they are for, rather than what they are against.”  Ironically, I don’t entirely agree with that statement, but I do agree with the larger point that it’s not very helpful merely to define what something isn’t.

(2)  It’s hard to un-friend somebody.  I went through my friend list and found people who I did not remember or recognize, no matter how hard I tried.   I also removed some friends whose names that I remembered, even though I couldn’t think of one shared moment or interaction from our past, other than, perhaps, that we were in the same gym together when we graduated high school.  Why is it hard to un-friend somebody with whom you’ve spent very little (if any) time?  When said time is most likely decades in the past?  My guess is that it’s bound up in the implied language of taking somebody off your list of friends, viz., “You are not my friend.”  It feels like I’m rejecting somebody, and that never feels easy to me, whether it’s a mouse-click or an actual conversation.

(3)  I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel a temptation to “collect,” friends, whatever that achieves.  ”Two more friends and I’ll have 100!”  What’s the itch being scratched here?  Probably the basic human need for relationship, love, acceptance, and all the rest.  Cue sermon.