I took some time to play my Wii today after having not played it for several weeks. I decided to play it after having finished a couple of hours of lectures for my independent studies class on Christian Worldview for my philosophy fulfillment for my Master of Arts in Theology at the Northern California Fuller Theological Seminary extension. I must say, I am really wishing I bought a 360 instead of a Wii because when Halo 3 comes out I won't be able to play it, the Wii's remotes, also known as Wii-motes, has issues when playing particular games and the Wii doesn't have all that great of games. So, the question is, should I get rid of the Wii in order to pick up a 360? Let's examine my reasons for wishing first.
I am a huge Halo fan. I may not be very good, but I love to play the Halo series. When Halo 3 comes out, I am going to be dying to play it, but because I won't have my own 360, I won't ever be able to play it. I won't have enough time to justify having friends come over to play it with me and also to go to friends' houses to play, so that completely rules out social playing. Since I don't have a 360 of my own, I will simply be unable to play Halo 3 when it comes out. Now this sucks.
The Wii-motes really have some major flaws. I notice it the most with Tiger Woods 2007. I can't tell you how many times I would go to make a swing and the Wii-mote would register the swing to early and would only give me a small percentage of the power I was trying to create, thus causing me to lose a stroke. It would happen in crucial putting moments. It would happen totally at random, but most certainly when it mattered the most. For example, this afternoon I thought I would play Tiger's Challenge to have a little bit of fun after having studied through the aforementioned course material. As I was playing--and winning--I began to come up short a lot, and it was because the Wii-mote was causing my character on the screen to complete a premature swing rather than a full and complete one. I ended up losing the match because of this flaw! My afternoon turned sour because of this issue. The Wii-mote's flawed functionality really makes me lose the desire to play the Wii.
The Wii does not have very many good, outstanding and fun games. Sports is one great game when you can get the Wii-mote to function properly. It's too bad that more games haven't come out for the Wii that have the same fun-factor as Sports. I hear that Zelda is one of them, but I wouldn't know since I don't have it and have never played it. I have Sports, Play, Tiger Woods 2007, Medal of Honor: Vanguard, and Ice Age 2. Sports came with the Wii; as I already said, it is good. Play is a Wii-mote training program. It's really trivial and does not provide a source for hours of fun. Tiger Woods 2007 would be fun if it weren't for the flawed functionality of the Wii-mote. Medal of Honor: Vanguard is fun and the concept of pointing and shooting is sweet. However, there is no campaign mode. There is no on-line or internet play capabilities. So, in terms of multiplayer, it's 4 players max. with no bots and it's every person for themselves. This means that unless you are playing the story mode by yourself, it's no fun.
Now that I think of it, I should get rid of the Wii. I could probably get a decent amount for it on eBay and then turn around and buy a new 360 and pre-pay for my copy of Halo 3. The 360 has everything that the Wii doesn't: fully functional remote controllers that don't have any flaws, fun games, internet play, and Halo. The only thing the Wii has that 360 doesn't is the interactive motions required to play the virtual games. However, since the Wii-motes are not fully functional and have a significant amount of errors, the whole experience becomes tainted with minor issues and the desire to play becomes negligible. Overall, it appears that the 360 would provide for a better gaming experience. It seems that Nintendo's Wii is going to have to undergo some more technological advances before it can provide a better experience than the 360.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Life Got Busy--Real Busy
I have been working hard on my drum blog, Virtual Drum Lessons, and since I started working at Capital again, I have not had much spare time to work on this blog. It is crazy at work now; I am doing everything I did at work last year plus I am teaching two periods of Pre-Algebra. I am still trying to finish an independent studies class before the next quarter starts up at Fuller where I will soon resume full-time studies. With being a husband, full-time employee, full-time student, and a soccer coach, I need to take a few things out of my life so that I make sure I fulfill my duties where it counts the most. As a result, this blog is suffering, which I am sad to say, but since life got busy--real busy--that's just the way it is. As I write papers for the next couple of quarters, I will be posting those. I might even journal a little bit about my experience as a math teacher. But for the most part I expect that I won't be able to post much on here for quite some time, and that is okay. Although this blog is a high priority for me, it doesn't put food on the table, so it is one of the first things to go.
Additionally, I plan on indicating what books I will be reading in my classes so that perhaps you can join me. I would like at least once a week to pick back up on my Ephesians Sentence by Sentence series. If I happen to find the time, then occasionally I will continue on with my series that I started earlier on in the year called Offending People. Will all of this stuff happen? Maybe not, but I would like for it to happen.
Additionally, I plan on indicating what books I will be reading in my classes so that perhaps you can join me. I would like at least once a week to pick back up on my Ephesians Sentence by Sentence series. If I happen to find the time, then occasionally I will continue on with my series that I started earlier on in the year called Offending People. Will all of this stuff happen? Maybe not, but I would like for it to happen.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
The Cleansing of the Heavenly Things in Hebrews
What does Hebrews mean when it says that the heavenly things needed cleansing? If we want to determine what the cleansing of the heavenly things is, we have to work through three questions. First, “What are the earthly things and heavenly things in Hebrews?” Second, “How does Christ’s sacrifice relate to the earthly and heavenly things?” Finally, “What is the cleansing of the heavenly things?” Although one might think that answering these questions would satisfactorily answer our question, the truth is that the information available to us from scholars keeps us from doing so because scholarship is too diverse in its understanding, but we will indeed arrive to a conclusion through approaching our four questions.
What are the earthly things and heavenly things in Hebrews? Donald Guthrie understands that the earthly things are copies or counterparts of the heavenly things, and they needed purification due to sin (Guthrie 1983, 196). William Lane understands that the earthly things are “an imperfect suggestion” of the heavenly things (1991, 247). George Ladd writes that the author of Hebrews “is describing heavenly things in earthly, symbolic language” (1993, 621). Ladd argues that we should not understand the heavenly things to be literal or real as the earthly things are, but rather, they are symbolic and must be understood figuratively. The division among scholars in understanding the terms makes our understanding of the final question all the more difficult to determine. For our purposes, we will take Ladd’s approach, for it is unlikely that Christ literally took his own blood into heaven to offer a sacrifice to God on our behalf. If the heavenly things are to be understood metaphorically or figuratively, then how should we understand the cleansing of the earthly and heavenly things?
William Barclay, who seems to be the only one in this research who directly addressed this avenue, writes that the author of Hebrews “says that in this world the Levitical sacrifices were designed to purify the means of worship. For instance, the sacrifices of the Day purified the tabernacle and the altar and the Holy Place” (1957, 121). According to Barclay, cleansing for the earthly things means purifying the tabernacle, the altar and the Holy Place for worship. The author of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ cleansed the heavenly things. Before we examine what that means, we should first examine how Christ’s sacrifice relates to the heavenly and earthly things.
How does Christ’s sacrifice relate to both the earthly and heavenly things? Donald Hagner says that Christ’s sacrifice belonged to the heavenly things and not to the earthly things (2002, 125). For Barclay, the work of Christ purifies both earth and heaven in effect, as his sacrifice “purified the whole universe, seen and unseen” (1957, 121-2). For Guthrie, the work of Christ in the heavenly things is a complete fulfillment of the earthly sacrifices (1983, 196). For Lane, Christ’s sacrifice relates to both the earthly things and the heavenly things because he purified the heavenly sanctuary from the people’s sins committed in the earthly things” (1991, 247). For Ladd, Christ’s sacrifice was made in the earthly things but it was at the same time an event that happened in the spiritual world too, where “the heavenly is embodied in the earthly” (1993, 621). In other words, the sacrifice Christ made on the cross was an actual event in history that had spiritual meaning, so it exists in both the historical and spiritual worlds (1993, 627). There is no consistency among the scholars. For our purposes we should understand that Christ’s sacrifice was one made in earthly history but with heavenly ramifications. Now that we have answered the first three of our four questions, we are in a position where we are able to determine more clearly, although not decisively, what the cleansing of the heavenly things is in Hebrews.
What is the cleansing of the heavenly things in Hebrews? Lane says that the heavenly things were tainted by the sins of the people and therefore needed cleansing, and therefore the sacrifice of Christ purified the heavenly things from such defilement (1991, 247). However, Ladd states that the heavenly things were not defiled by the sins of the people, so they did not require cleansing (1993, 621). Scholarship is not unanimous in understanding the cleansing of the heavenly things. On the one hand, scholars argue that the heavenly things were tainted by the earthly sins of the people and required cleansing for which Christ sacrificed himself. On the other hand, scholars argue that the heavenly things were not tainted and therefore did not require cleansing. In the latter case, scholarship is still unclear in understanding what the cleansing of the heavenly things is. The former case does not give a satisfactory understanding in accord with the symbolic or figurative language of the author of Hebrews.
What we have is an unsatisfactory polarity. What we have here is an unsatisfying understanding of the cleansing of the heavenly things. Scholarship is diverse in its understanding and has not presented us with a clear argument. However, Lincoln Hurst, in a class on Hebrews, has made a connection between the cleansing of the heavenly and earthly things in Hebrews with the inauguration sacrifice for the tabernacle, and it seems that this understanding is the most helpful and most satisfactory. We will now briefly examine this understanding.
Hurst first identified that the heavenly things needed cleansing just as the earthly things needed cleansing. But, he asks, “Why?” He rightly acknowledges that the author of Hebrews is thinking sacrificially. At this point Hurst turns to the sacrificial language utilized by the author of Hebrews. He notes that “cleansing” or “purified” is used in the Septuagint and by Jocephus to refer to sanctuary offerings and not sacrificial offerings. Such sanctuary offerings were performed in the purification ritual that inaugurated the Mosaic covenant with the people of Israel. Hurst concludes that because the earthly things were initiated, so also the heavenly things needed to be initiated. Human hands inaugurated the earthly things, but God inaugurated the heavenly things. Therefore, according to Hurst we should understand the cleansing of the heavenly things as an inauguration of the new covenant. This understanding is the most satisfactory as it takes into account the language of the text and the priestly customs that it alludes to while at the same time understanding that metaphorical or figurative language is being utilized. As a result, this position is the one that we will take.
In order to understand what the cleansing of the heavenly things is in Hebrews, we have to first understand what the earthly and heavenly things is, and second how Christ’s sacrifice relates to both the earthly and heavenly things. The earthly things are literal while the heavenly things are figurative. The cleansing of the earthly things is an actual sanctuary purification sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice was on earth but it had heavenly significance in the fact that it inaugurated the new covenant in the presence of God while the earthly sacrifices inaugurated temporary purification. Therefore, the cleansing of the heavenly things is the inauguration of the new covenant, the time of fulfillment when God would write his laws on the hearts of his people and remember their sins no more. Although scholars are not unanimous in understanding what the cleansing of the heavenly things are, Hurst’s proposal is the most satisfactory. It accounts for the literal and figurative language of the earthly and heavenly things. It accounts for Christ’s sacrifice in relation to both the earthly and heavenly things. And it accounts for the language of the text as well as the meaning of the purification ritual. What is the cleansing of the heavenly things? It would seem that it is a purification offering for the heavenly sanctuary that initiated the new covenant era.
________________
Bibliography
Barclay, William. 1957. The Letter to the Hebrews. Daily Bible Study. Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press.
Guthrie, Donald. 1983. The Letter to the Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and InterVarsity Press.
Hagner, Donald. 2002. Encountering the Book of Hebrews: an exposition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Ladd, George. 1993. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised Edition. Donald Hagner, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Lane, William. 1991. Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 9-13. Vol. 47b. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, Ralph Martin, eds. Columbia: Word, Incorporated.
What are the earthly things and heavenly things in Hebrews? Donald Guthrie understands that the earthly things are copies or counterparts of the heavenly things, and they needed purification due to sin (Guthrie 1983, 196). William Lane understands that the earthly things are “an imperfect suggestion” of the heavenly things (1991, 247). George Ladd writes that the author of Hebrews “is describing heavenly things in earthly, symbolic language” (1993, 621). Ladd argues that we should not understand the heavenly things to be literal or real as the earthly things are, but rather, they are symbolic and must be understood figuratively. The division among scholars in understanding the terms makes our understanding of the final question all the more difficult to determine. For our purposes, we will take Ladd’s approach, for it is unlikely that Christ literally took his own blood into heaven to offer a sacrifice to God on our behalf. If the heavenly things are to be understood metaphorically or figuratively, then how should we understand the cleansing of the earthly and heavenly things?
William Barclay, who seems to be the only one in this research who directly addressed this avenue, writes that the author of Hebrews “says that in this world the Levitical sacrifices were designed to purify the means of worship. For instance, the sacrifices of the Day purified the tabernacle and the altar and the Holy Place” (1957, 121). According to Barclay, cleansing for the earthly things means purifying the tabernacle, the altar and the Holy Place for worship. The author of Hebrews makes it clear that Christ cleansed the heavenly things. Before we examine what that means, we should first examine how Christ’s sacrifice relates to the heavenly and earthly things.
How does Christ’s sacrifice relate to both the earthly and heavenly things? Donald Hagner says that Christ’s sacrifice belonged to the heavenly things and not to the earthly things (2002, 125). For Barclay, the work of Christ purifies both earth and heaven in effect, as his sacrifice “purified the whole universe, seen and unseen” (1957, 121-2). For Guthrie, the work of Christ in the heavenly things is a complete fulfillment of the earthly sacrifices (1983, 196). For Lane, Christ’s sacrifice relates to both the earthly things and the heavenly things because he purified the heavenly sanctuary from the people’s sins committed in the earthly things” (1991, 247). For Ladd, Christ’s sacrifice was made in the earthly things but it was at the same time an event that happened in the spiritual world too, where “the heavenly is embodied in the earthly” (1993, 621). In other words, the sacrifice Christ made on the cross was an actual event in history that had spiritual meaning, so it exists in both the historical and spiritual worlds (1993, 627). There is no consistency among the scholars. For our purposes we should understand that Christ’s sacrifice was one made in earthly history but with heavenly ramifications. Now that we have answered the first three of our four questions, we are in a position where we are able to determine more clearly, although not decisively, what the cleansing of the heavenly things is in Hebrews.
What is the cleansing of the heavenly things in Hebrews? Lane says that the heavenly things were tainted by the sins of the people and therefore needed cleansing, and therefore the sacrifice of Christ purified the heavenly things from such defilement (1991, 247). However, Ladd states that the heavenly things were not defiled by the sins of the people, so they did not require cleansing (1993, 621). Scholarship is not unanimous in understanding the cleansing of the heavenly things. On the one hand, scholars argue that the heavenly things were tainted by the earthly sins of the people and required cleansing for which Christ sacrificed himself. On the other hand, scholars argue that the heavenly things were not tainted and therefore did not require cleansing. In the latter case, scholarship is still unclear in understanding what the cleansing of the heavenly things is. The former case does not give a satisfactory understanding in accord with the symbolic or figurative language of the author of Hebrews.
What we have is an unsatisfactory polarity. What we have here is an unsatisfying understanding of the cleansing of the heavenly things. Scholarship is diverse in its understanding and has not presented us with a clear argument. However, Lincoln Hurst, in a class on Hebrews, has made a connection between the cleansing of the heavenly and earthly things in Hebrews with the inauguration sacrifice for the tabernacle, and it seems that this understanding is the most helpful and most satisfactory. We will now briefly examine this understanding.
Hurst first identified that the heavenly things needed cleansing just as the earthly things needed cleansing. But, he asks, “Why?” He rightly acknowledges that the author of Hebrews is thinking sacrificially. At this point Hurst turns to the sacrificial language utilized by the author of Hebrews. He notes that “cleansing” or “purified” is used in the Septuagint and by Jocephus to refer to sanctuary offerings and not sacrificial offerings. Such sanctuary offerings were performed in the purification ritual that inaugurated the Mosaic covenant with the people of Israel. Hurst concludes that because the earthly things were initiated, so also the heavenly things needed to be initiated. Human hands inaugurated the earthly things, but God inaugurated the heavenly things. Therefore, according to Hurst we should understand the cleansing of the heavenly things as an inauguration of the new covenant. This understanding is the most satisfactory as it takes into account the language of the text and the priestly customs that it alludes to while at the same time understanding that metaphorical or figurative language is being utilized. As a result, this position is the one that we will take.
In order to understand what the cleansing of the heavenly things is in Hebrews, we have to first understand what the earthly and heavenly things is, and second how Christ’s sacrifice relates to both the earthly and heavenly things. The earthly things are literal while the heavenly things are figurative. The cleansing of the earthly things is an actual sanctuary purification sacrifice. Christ’s sacrifice was on earth but it had heavenly significance in the fact that it inaugurated the new covenant in the presence of God while the earthly sacrifices inaugurated temporary purification. Therefore, the cleansing of the heavenly things is the inauguration of the new covenant, the time of fulfillment when God would write his laws on the hearts of his people and remember their sins no more. Although scholars are not unanimous in understanding what the cleansing of the heavenly things are, Hurst’s proposal is the most satisfactory. It accounts for the literal and figurative language of the earthly and heavenly things. It accounts for Christ’s sacrifice in relation to both the earthly and heavenly things. And it accounts for the language of the text as well as the meaning of the purification ritual. What is the cleansing of the heavenly things? It would seem that it is a purification offering for the heavenly sanctuary that initiated the new covenant era.
________________
Bibliography
Barclay, William. 1957. The Letter to the Hebrews. Daily Bible Study. Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press.
Guthrie, Donald. 1983. The Letter to the Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Cambridge, U. K.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company and InterVarsity Press.
Hagner, Donald. 2002. Encountering the Book of Hebrews: an exposition. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
Ladd, George. 1993. A Theology of the New Testament. Revised Edition. Donald Hagner, ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Lane, William. 1991. Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews 9-13. Vol. 47b. David Hubbard, Glenn Barker, Ralph Martin, eds. Columbia: Word, Incorporated.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Currently Reading
New Religions and the Theological Imagination in America is quite the good and informative book. I have enjoyed reading it and am nearly done with it. It is looking at, although it is not really critiquing, Mormonism, Unificationism, Christian Science, Scientology, Theosophy and New Age religions. If you are looking to learn more about these religions in a way that doesn't point out their every fault but actually teaches how they perceive the world, this book will serve you well.
Coming to Terms with Tithing
Tithing is a touchy subject among American Christians. Perhaps it is because churches generally place a 10% rule on every member and, in many instances, on visitors. I sympathize with the churches for placing this 10% rule. However, this rule is too ridgid and it puts members into a position where they feel that if they give 10%, then they don't need to give anything else. In the end it becomes a limiting rule.
To begin, I would first like to identify what tithing is. Tithing is a practice that Christians do to worship God. Tithing is worshiping God with one's money. It is an offering or a sacrifice by which the tither gives an amount of their money back to God in gratitude for what God has provided and in hope that God will use that money in an amazing way for the glory of his kingdom through the Church. A tithe is by definition one tenth, which is 10%. This practice is first seen in the Old Testament, but the New Testament turns it upside down.
The early church not only took care of their leaders or what we would now call pastors, but they also took care of each other so that no one was in need. Basically, the members of the early church perceived all of their money, land and possessions as belonging not to themselves, so they were generous with all that they had among all of the believers.
Now, the present practice among churches is to teach the Old Testament concept of 10%. In fact, it is generally said that Christians ought to tithe 10%, save 10%, and live off of 80%. However, when it comes to other benevolent things, churches often struggle to get Christians today to fill them. The New Testament concept of giving has been outbalanced by the Old Testament concept of tithing.
To put it plainly and to wrap things up quickly, for Christians tithing is not enough. It isn't about an equal amount of 10%; it is about equal sacrifice. It is about being generous with all that God has granted to the believer. Christians ought to be supporting their churches and leaders, but they should also be supporting each other. Christians ought to be characterized by this word, generous.
Giving is important in the New Testament. In fact, it mentions giving more than it does loving. It mentions giving more than it does having faith. Giving is the foremost character of a Christian in the New Testament. Tithing 10% is good, but it is not what the New Testament has in mind for giving. The New Testament has in mind supporting all those in need--church leaders, fellow believers, and the poor. I think churches need to emphasize the New Testament concept of giving and forsake the Old Testament concept of tithing. I said earlier that I sympathize with the churches for teaching the Old Testament concept of tithing because I realize the need for consistancy. The Old Testament concept of tithing develops consistancy in those that practice it. But this does not mean believers will be less consistant if they are taught the New Testament concept of giving. The New Testament concept of giving doesn't go against tithing 10%, it includes tithing, and maybe not at 10%, but tithing is a part of giving--it is supporting the church and the leaders that guide the believers--but it also strongly emphasizes providing for the needs of others and for the poor. The churches and the members of the churches need to come to terms with tithing, that it is not about a set number, but it is about a willingness to honor God with money and possessions, that it is about caring for the poor and needy, and it is about worship.
To begin, I would first like to identify what tithing is. Tithing is a practice that Christians do to worship God. Tithing is worshiping God with one's money. It is an offering or a sacrifice by which the tither gives an amount of their money back to God in gratitude for what God has provided and in hope that God will use that money in an amazing way for the glory of his kingdom through the Church. A tithe is by definition one tenth, which is 10%. This practice is first seen in the Old Testament, but the New Testament turns it upside down.
The early church not only took care of their leaders or what we would now call pastors, but they also took care of each other so that no one was in need. Basically, the members of the early church perceived all of their money, land and possessions as belonging not to themselves, so they were generous with all that they had among all of the believers.
Now, the present practice among churches is to teach the Old Testament concept of 10%. In fact, it is generally said that Christians ought to tithe 10%, save 10%, and live off of 80%. However, when it comes to other benevolent things, churches often struggle to get Christians today to fill them. The New Testament concept of giving has been outbalanced by the Old Testament concept of tithing.
To put it plainly and to wrap things up quickly, for Christians tithing is not enough. It isn't about an equal amount of 10%; it is about equal sacrifice. It is about being generous with all that God has granted to the believer. Christians ought to be supporting their churches and leaders, but they should also be supporting each other. Christians ought to be characterized by this word, generous.
Giving is important in the New Testament. In fact, it mentions giving more than it does loving. It mentions giving more than it does having faith. Giving is the foremost character of a Christian in the New Testament. Tithing 10% is good, but it is not what the New Testament has in mind for giving. The New Testament has in mind supporting all those in need--church leaders, fellow believers, and the poor. I think churches need to emphasize the New Testament concept of giving and forsake the Old Testament concept of tithing. I said earlier that I sympathize with the churches for teaching the Old Testament concept of tithing because I realize the need for consistancy. The Old Testament concept of tithing develops consistancy in those that practice it. But this does not mean believers will be less consistant if they are taught the New Testament concept of giving. The New Testament concept of giving doesn't go against tithing 10%, it includes tithing, and maybe not at 10%, but tithing is a part of giving--it is supporting the church and the leaders that guide the believers--but it also strongly emphasizes providing for the needs of others and for the poor. The churches and the members of the churches need to come to terms with tithing, that it is not about a set number, but it is about a willingness to honor God with money and possessions, that it is about caring for the poor and needy, and it is about worship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
