What Gary DeMar misses

After studying Zechariah for a exegetical paper for the Prophets class at WTS - I came across Gary DeMar's treatment of Zech 12. In his treatment Mr. DeMar insist that the fulfillment of Zech 12 comes in the story of the Book of Ester. He further insisted that biblical prophecy is not always about the end-times and that Zech 12 is no exception.
What I believe Mr. DeMar misses is that in every case of Old Testament prophecy there is a near historical Horizon that indeed the prophets had in view and there is a far eschatology horizon that the prophets sometimes did not have in view. He dismissed the interpretation of the Prophecy as referring to the church throughout the time from the resurrection to Christ and His second coming. Although he did allow that to be an application of the text. After he accused every other commentator of importing his own prophetical expectation on the text - he then goes on to insist the meaning of words in obscure context bolster his position. For example, he claims that "In that day" formula is never used in the OT to refer to the Second coming. Though I would agree that they did not refer to a "Second" coming, I would certainly say that the formula is almost universally recognized as a pointer to the Day of the LORD. A coming day of both judgment and blessing. Its not until the revelation of Christ that we see that there is a dual aspect of the "Day of the LORD".

Basically Mr. Demar is not wrong in seeing a historical fulfillment. Even his interpretation of verse 10 were God is said to be pierced is not off base - For indeed the Jews did pierce God in there disobedience and it is not wrong to assume that God did open up a fountain of cleansing to the House of David. The real problem is the short-sideness of Mr. Demar's understanding of prophecy.

If we wanted to press Mr. Demar further we could question the accuracy of the images of the Cup of Staggering and the Stone of offense as well as the blind/mad horses. All of these pictures of judgment were once designated against Judah and Jerusalem themselves (Deut. 28:28; Jer 25; Isa 51) but know have been applied to the nations. Not only that all of these judgment signs are repeated and consummated in the Lord Jesus himself (who drinks the cup of God Wrath, is the stone of stumbling, whose death darkens the whole earth for 3 hours ). These pictures are not meant to have a one-to-one correspondence with history so that they have only one meaning. Like the prophets frequently speaking about the sun going dark and the moon filling with blood etc. Or even the Day of the LORD - which manifest itself in all of the historical judgments against Israel. If Mr. DeMar is willing to see that not all the pictures are fulfilled in Ester - then why must he insist that they only can be referring to it?
One other historical note: if Ester is the fulfillment of Zech 12 - then why is the Name of God absent from the story? Even if you take the acrostic of the chapters as spelling (hwhy) Zech 12 describes quite a different reliance on God and subsequent repentance.

Another concern comes from the grammar. Many commentators note the difference of Zech 9-14 from the first eight chapters. The common consensus is that this comes from the eschatological focus of the later chapters on the whole. though this does not mean that the first eight chapters are not concerned with things on an eschatological scale, it is a recognition that there is a greater effort to push beyond the immediate horizon and grasp and the final horizon in the later part of Zech. In Chapter 12 the burden particularly states that this vision is of Israel but the speaks only of Judah and Jerusalem. Then it establishes that the God who is speaking this fantastic work of encouragement is none other than the creator. By drawing on the image of creation Zech give the reader the confidence in unfolding events as being nothing short of a re-creation. It should also be noted that the second part of Zech (9-14) contain a dense proportion of passages specifically applied to Jesus in the NT. The NT writers hermeneutic was clearly to see these texts as eschatological.

However, I can't get to bent out of shape when he brings up the inconsistency in the Dispy interps.

Perhaps if I get the time I will more formally address the problems that I see, but for know a quick response will do.

DMOZ before I die!

I know this blog is pretty much for my theological musings and it does not make sense to post web development stuff here. But I am mostly ranting to get things out of my system anyway.

DMOZ listing is it worth the wait?

I have alway been under the impression that listing your website with DMOZ open directory (run by AOL) is a must for SEO. However, I have not been very happy with the amount of time it takes for DMOZ to list sites. In some cases the other tactics I use for SEO have gotten me the desired results before the editors working on the DMOZ directory ever get around to looking at my suggested listing.

Why can't DMOZ use robots?

So the seemingly eternal wait for the precious DMOZ listing may or may not be worth it. In the mean time though, I wonder why DMOZ doesn't simply have spiders crawl sites submitted for listing and then notify the editor if the site is go? Heck, you would think the spiders could even categorize the sites in the most appropriate ways based on content. Wouldn't that speed things up?

Other SEO tactics.

I suppose for now my solution is simply to use other SEO tactics and not worry to much about this one listing.

Don't worry I'm back to theology after this one!

More about Five Elephants

Deck builders are a dime a dozen, so how do you find a good one?

I would submit that the best way to find a good deck builder would be to get to know him or them personally. A person cannot help but convey himself personally in what he does creatively. So if you want a deck to look and feel like grumpy, just do enough to get paid, disinterested grunt, then you can find yourself any number of deck builders who want to express themselves this way. But if you are hoping for sophistication and humor, or maybe even rugged and daring, where will you go?

You need to reed what they say about themselves. Interview them as persons not just as skilled robots. Pay attention to their websites and their About Us pages.

Decking How-To's reveal confidence

Another great way to get to know your future deck builder is to see if he/they is willing to give how-to advice. This reveals not only a good deal of confidence in their own skill - but also the genuine desire to see others succeed.

Deck builder for Colorado Springs and Monument

If you live in Colorado Springs or Monument, I would recommend you take a look at Five Elephants Decking and see if you can appreciate the character that would be expressing itself into the details of your deck and outdoor sanctuaries

Anyone for a Deck?

I have just created a website for my brothers decking company Five Elephants Decking.
Would love to hear some feed back from anyone. Before you say, "It needs more pictures..." let me say that the gallery will be coming soon.

enjoy!

Has Seminary made us Spiritual??

I am not sure why the feeling of awe has receded. Here I am at the cusp of leaving the seminary life and entering the ministry, and I am mostly frustrated with conversations with friends who have not changed their theological positions still after 4 years of seminary.

Why should that matter? After all - its not likely that they will be part of my presbytery or church (should the Lord grant me a call). So why do I care?

I suppose it is partly because I want consensus at the higher levels in order to be justified in thinking there can be consensus on lower levels of Christian engagement. How will I manage 10 years of frustrated ministry to people unwilling to change?

I know I am not the one to change anyone - and the Spirit must do the work. I know that the work of the ministry is also not measured by growth in theological alignment to the confession. But still, it is an issue worth wrestling through.

Jewelry and History

There is a prevalent view amongst scholars that history is crucial in understanding the truths of the bible - or even what the bible is.

In the Reformed camp - this view is couched under the predestinarian cry that "God is the God of history". What is meant to follow from that is that God has used all of history to produce, shape and determine what His truth revealed (a.k.a the Bible) is!

So naturally the study of backgrounds that surround any given text are valuable, some may even argue crucial.

I reject this line of thinking. Not because it is illogical, or irreverent (at least on the surface), but because I believe it fails to see the purpose of history. This line of thinking makes all history contributive of the whole instead of complementing the main. In other words, if we were to think of human history as a diamond - the scholars view would make every contribution merely another cut on the rock to shape its beauty. In my opinion the place of human history is not the diamond itself - but rather the black cloth on which the diamond of God's revelation is set.

In my model - intertestmental unbelief is just so much more black cloth. Modern unbelief maybe crafted from different material and take different shapes, but is still, in the end black cloth. Redemptive History, both inscripturated and lived is the diamond - perfect on its own, but indeed more luster shines through it against the ever so pitch - unbelief.

If this is the case, then the study of backgrounds will tell us nothing about the revelation of God, except how much the brighter it shines in our unbelief. An example can be shown with the creation accounts. Babylonian unbelief crafts a creation myth - does this story help us understand where the bible got its figures? Certainly not! Scholars will object, citing the numerous similarities amongst accounts. If those similarities are not enough, they say, what about the Egyptian myths? How do I account for the similarities?

Simple, all human life is a reflection of the divine will and intricately tied to the spiritual realities that it is either rebelling from or conforming to. Why do the Egyptians have a creation ex nehilo? Because they hate, and are rebelling from the Triune God of Scripture that spoke all things into being. Why don't the Babylonians? Because they rebel in different ways - but in the end all attempt to overshadow the truth by spreading the black blanket of their unbelief over God's revelation.(or "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness") Unfortunately for them God's diamond like revelation cut through the cloth and shines ever so much brighter!!

Notice in this illustration that the black cloth is powerless to shape the diamond - but can be and is employed to showcase the diamond.

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing.

"...the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, "Let light shine out of darkness," has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2Co 4:4-6

Hind sight is not always 20/20

It seems to me that we are having to face a new reality in the reformed world. That reality is that simple acceptance of the Bible (what it is and what it teaches) is no longer a predominate mindset, not even in the reformed world. The basic starting point has shifted. Where once the divine authorship was not only presupposed but it was also the starting point from which all phenomena was judged, now the starting point has become the "evidence" and the divine authorship plays a responsive or contingent role rather than the first cause "shaper". This change has taken place gradually as more and more attention has been placed on literature and archeology from the A.N.E (ancient near east) and man is more and more seduced by the idea that the Bible is not a timeless instruction book dropped out of heaven.

Though the conviction about the "timefulness" of the bible is a good one. We should not overload that conviction, nor should we eliminate (or even unnecessarily downplay) timelessness. It is surely true that the Bible is the revelation of God for His people, and that God stoops ever so low to covenantally communicate that revelation. But it must not be overlooked that God knew the end from the beginning when he spoke that revelation. He knew all His people, His whole bride, when He spoke that love letter to her. As much as a mistake it is to assume that the Bible contained information that was useless to the church for several thousands of years (until the invention of the helicopter for example). To that same degree, it is a mistake to confine the condescension of our LORD's communication to an ancient and foreign mind to the greater portion of the church. In other words "all scripture is God breathed, and profitable... so that the man of God [at any time in redemptive historical drama] may be competent..."

The effect of divine authorship must override the analysis of contemporary literature and artifact. Or else we cannot say that Scripture is our norming norm. To illustrate the approaches and the current problem I have this analogy.

Fig.1

I am using a fictional story about a battle of grays hill fought during the civil war. One of the Soldiers in the battle has two children - one who rebels and hates his Father passionately - the other remains faithful and loves his Father. Over the years the story conveyed to the children may pick up nuances , depicted by the additional dots, but the offspring of the rebellious child maintain a enmity toward the original teller of the story. In the written versions of the story - the grandchild of the faithful son is able to speak directly to his grandfather again before writing - Thus the product of his writing is not directly polemical or responsive, but didactic or informative - not brute fact, but faithful nonetheless.


Fig. 2
In this second figure the story is the same, but the influence of the grandchildren is different and the direct communication is gone. These two models roughly analogize the traditional way to consider the Bible and the new pseudo-sophisticated way. The first diagram is almost totally unconcerned for the product of the rebellious son, and the final product of the faithful son is also somewhat unconcerned about the stories own progression its the line of the faithful, because of the ability to get direct communication with the grandfather. But in Fig.2 the cross breading of sources and the distance from the grandfather make dependence upon one another - necessary?

Using this analogy, modern biblical criticism falls in the second option and pretty much denies divine authorship, even when they claim to believe in the inspiration of the text - they still mean something different than a direct, exclusive, telling of the story from the source, but more a superintendence of the compilation at best. This always seems to result in a late dating of events and strong appreciation for redaction. Which leads to a suspicion of prophecy and the assumption that whenever two events share similar redemptive ear marks (Abraham & Exodus etc.) the earlier story chronologically is being retold during or after the time of the latter story - usually with the desire to vindicate or accentuate the latter story. All of which goes to show you that hind sight is not always 20/20. Just because you have the advantage of looking at events and stories after they are completed - does not mean that you will interpret them correctly, or that we are some how able to impose our fallen understanding of history on the development of the biblical narrative.

When dealing with the Scripture, 20/20 vision is only through the Spirit. Again it is His Word and our authority.

Greek love and English vindication

More likely than not, if you have been in the evangelical world for the past decade at least, you've heard some kind of comparison of the three different types of love that are found in the Bible - that you only have access to through the Greek language. Those loves are "eros" - "phileo" and "agapao". Depending on the level of adherence to the trend, you heard something to the effect that each has a different meaning and they constitute different stages or levels of love. You may have even had the joy of getting these explanations in a marriage seminar, where the teacher so craftily argued that a good marriage has an erotic love (eros) a friendly love (supposedly phileo) and a sacrificial / divine "like" love (supposedly agapao). While all this sound very good, and may in fact be quite helpful for marriage counseling - the problem is that it is wrong! flat out wrong!

In scripture the terms phileo and agapao are used interchangeably and the Scripture often defines the Love the Father has for the son - by the word (phileo). Use of the Septuagint brings even more questions as it says that "Now Absalom, David's son, had a beautiful sister, whose name was Tamar. And after a time Amnon, David's son, loved her." 2Sa 13:1 - and the word is none other than agapao!! - Certainly we cannot think that divine or sacrificial/unconditional love would motivate one to rape!?! No, what we see by the use of these words and the relation to our own languages is that every language is complex and full of nuance - it is impossible to get at the full meaning of discourses simply through the meaning of words. It is the contextual meaning that rules the day.

This means that the commonly held idea that the Greek mind had a better way of conceiving of "love", because of its tight and ridged differentiation of terms, and that their is more meaning and color buried in the language - to which the English suffers through its ambiguity to convey - is simply false. The Greek language is loaded with idiom and ambiguity too, and the more we study the language the more we see the lack of precision that grammar and word meaning actually have. It is context, built by grammar, syntax and discourse all together that bring more precision to the meaning - and also allow for more accuracy in translation. It is my belief that the more the Greek or Hebrew turns out to be ambiguous in word meaning, the more English translations are vindicated. Sure there is trouble in translating, and the concepts of one culture are not always compatible to another, but the symbols and morphology of language do not constitute her communication - and in that regard we should be comforted to know that there is nothing new under the sun. Man's language has not evolved - nor do I think it has devolved. The expression and the communication has remained within the scope of finite humanity grasping at the Divine condescensions. Though we may add to our vocabularies and to our refining of concepts within our context, we cannot utterly lose the ability to communicate - precisely because God condescends and communicates where ever the Word of God is preached.

Beware of anything that hints of secret or hidden meaning, now that God has made Himself known fully in Christ.

No Brute History

The idea of the modern man that history is a collection of facts in some chronological order, is becoming less and less appealing to scholars and critics. For the most part we as conservative reformed Christians can be glad for this shift, but I fear that it not all roses. Anytime a non believer starts agreeing with you its always time to check yourself - and this is no exception.

The apologetic world was I think significantly changed for the better when Van Til refined the idea of world view and transcendental/presuppositional argumentation. No brute fact - taght us that there is not one think in our thinking that is not interpreted through the grid of our world view and that is pretty potent stuff when your opponents world views are so blatantly inconsistent and borrowing from the Christian WV. What happens though when someone gets a hold of this concept and applies it to History? Can we say that there is no uninterpreted history?

There are advantages to such a position, and if we are consistent with our apologetic we must affirm this position at least on some levels. But I think a caution should be used. We can come dangerously close to relativism, and I believe flirt quite aggressively with the neo-orthodox position if we grab to tightly to this position. We must affirm that having an interpreted history in the Bible is not the same thing as having a false or mythical history. Sure the events are interpreted - but they are always interpreted around events that God preforms and, fortunately for us they are all interpreted by the Holy Spirit. So when the NT writers quote the OT and they don't "get it right" so to speak, we need not flee to fanciful "thats common place for the 2nd temple folk" talk - but rather boldly proclaim "the Lord rebuke you, for it is he who speaks, he who interprets"!

Surronding the Text

Even with the great dichotomizing confession that the Word of God is really the word of God and therefore inerrant - still some wrong thinking and wrong approaches sneak into the orthodox camp, still the luster and allure of respectability infect the ground.

Just what is the implication of "a believing" approach? And how far does it extend?

Current scholarship (even with in the Reformed world) has undertaken the task of learning the culture and the literature that surrounds the text of the Bible in an effort to try to refine its understanding of the biblical text. The argument is rather straight forward - if the biblical author was influenced by something else that we can get a hold of (like other literature or schools of thought, well, or even not so well, documented) then it will only aid in our further understanding of the text to study these.

Concerning the schools of thought - it would seem quite obvious that God speaks to our condition, condescends to our estate, even our trends in epistemological frameworks. This seems quite clear from the ease at which the Bible was able to speak to both the Hebrew culture and the Greek culture - but equally obvious is that the revelation of God while coming to and through these cultures always transcended those cultures. The idea "product of your environment" is not a biblical one! And needs to be rejected no mater how heartily one believes it to be true. If we deny the ability of God to transcend the boundaries of human culture and thinking then we make those out to be gods and ascribe to them the worth that is due the creator. This is also true when we force or pigeon hole any person into that same cage of human culture and context. Those things being ever so potent - remain finite, limited and week in the presence of God. No man is necessarily one way or another because of his environment - whether he is a Biblical author or not. God is sovereign over the likes of all this - and try as we may - we cannot make anything else the sovereign over God - even the use of means that he chooses! So in the study of what has influenced the text, we need to be always careful to ascribe full rights unto God to do as he pleases.

What about studying the other non biblical literature - what value do these works bring to our understand of God's Word?

Scholars, much like great artist, are appreciated for their fine observation skills. It is these skills that can add the greatest amount of color and interest to what they produce. The ability to spot similitude is one of the most important tools of the trade, and with both art and science, is able to help gain better mastery of things - by placing a similar -yet simpler object in view. This has been the approach to understanding inspiration in many scholarly circles. Find something that acts/looks like the Bible and build up from that an understanding of what the Bible is doing. The problem is - the Bible is unique. No matter how much God condescends in it - it still remains His Word, and all other writings always remain - not His Word. Thus to use the comparison of other text to gain understanding is only legitimate with in the Bible itself, apples to apples(as the Reformed have always held).

Scholars, put down your Babylonian scripts, there is no life in them! The Dead Sea Scrolls are not worth their weight in paper!
Students, use the phrase "inter-testamental" as opposed to "2nd Temple" for we are all about presupposing the inspiration of the one and not the other.
Christians, stop being embarrassed by the Word of God! They mocked Christ, they will mock His Word

Ignoble yet Inerrent?

The transmission of the Bible has been a sticky issue for believers for a very long time. Modern scholars, however, would like to say that the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls has changed everything and really given text-critics the foundation for all their speculation and very criterial attacks upon the Word of God.

But I like what John Frame has said concerning Antithesis and Doctrine of Scripture . Basically showing that there is an unbelieving or a believing way that we look at Scripture, always an antithesis! This is especially true or important when thinking about the transmission of scripture. Is it God's Word or not? Is it God's superintendence of fallible man's errors and mistakes roughly keeping the heart of God's redemptive purpose but flexibly bending to culture and time as His need sees fit? Or is the Bible that the church has always received - the very Words of God in spite of the transmission phenomena?

Frankly, our doctrine of Scripture as the principia, rather than our evaluation of the phenomena must determine here, and far to many "conservative" scholars are jumping on the "neutrality" band wagon and insisting that the phenomena can be evaluated properly without the norming influence of the scripture itself. "Oh foolish ones and slow of heart to believe"!!

However, I would like to endorse a hearty doctrine of the ignoblity of Scripture. What ?!? Well, simply put - I mean - the Scripture most assuredly does not act the way we would like. It does not conform to our ideas of what is perfect or pristine. We want the book to fall from heaven complete. To be written in one language, and never to have been translated . But alas God does seem to love to frustrate the wise of this world and to exult the lowly - and the history of transmission is no exception.

So what does all this mean for inerrency? It means that God is the author and finisher and His Word will not return to him void! It means that we serve a "God that does as He pleases" and that will not share his glory with anyone. That the exhaustive knowledge of "How" always belongs to Him and the responsibility to believe always belongs to us. And yes, it still means that the Bible contains no mistakes! That it never lies! And that try as hard as he may, neither man nor Satan can contaminate even the smallest part of it - Even if the Dead Sea Scrolls had 15 conflicting copies of Jeremiah!

Let the phenomena come. Let it rise up like the false prophets of old - that even sometimes prophesied truly - and let us stand in belief! with full confidence declare..."Yes, God did really say!!"

Why We Can Know (beyond WASP)

There is a certain movement always underfoot in the presence of the children of God, a movement designed to unsettle the most precious of gift's from God (beside redemption itself) - His Word. This bite in the heal is always subtle, always a sneak attack, and generally comes down to the great prevaricators first strategy - the old 'did God really say' bit.

Since I have Old Testament Introduction this semester - I am going to be taking a little break from the 'book binders' and turn my attention to the post-modern assault on not just the text of scripture - but on the foundations for knowing and understanding such text. I could call this group "the book bumblers" or something similar, but I think for now I'll just leave them at "other's".

At the outset - I want to state clearly that I am a W.A.S.P. steeped in Reformed Presbyterianism, and I believe that in no way impedes my understanding nor forces my logic into some cultural bound system, which I can't break free of, when considering the enormously important topics as canon, inspiration, incarnation, and epistemology. I believe that the scripture, and how we can know and understand it - are at the principial level of knowledge - and should be unaffected by the lasted fads of unbelief. Even if that unbelief is coming from with in the church herself. I believe that we can know - and at least in part, have known, real truths of God's covenantal dealings with and for man, precisely because they are communicated from God (and God knows!)

There is confidence to be found - in spite of the shaky foundations of modernism! There is truth and objectivity - in spite of the speculations of post modernism! This may seem like a rough start, but believe me its necessary. So hold on to your pants - and your Bible - and lets dig in.

Word and Deed Together Always?

Over and over we are learning that God always reveals in both "Word" and "Deed" and that any view of revelation that omits one of these aspects is seriously wrong. The connection of these two aspects is becoming more and more a central issue to every theological realm. I would like to take the time to develop this more, but at least I thought I'd get my cards out on the table concerning these as revelational norms and the discussion of the creation views.

It is my contention that if our creation view is to accommodate a history in which God's "Word" is not temporally tied to his act, so that many years can pass between the two, we may gain the applause of modern science and make room for all kinds of anthropocentric speculation, but we will not be consistent with our theology elsewhere. Our theology that is founded upon the bond between the two great aspects of revelation... Word and Deed!

This kind of split is not forced by the bookbinders but allowed. So the question then becomes why allow such an understanding without qualifing the necessity of the bond between word and deed? I suppose the obvious answer is that will take us very nearly, if not totally, back to a literal understanding of the time frames where word and deed are bound together - and amazingly are bound together in language that we (God's covenant people) understand... evening, morning and day.