Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures

Discuss the developmet of Israel’s missiology from Isaiah.

From the time of Abraham, Yahweh was clear that the Hebrew people were chosen to be a blessing to all the nations of the world.  Christopher J. H. Wright does a marvelous job arguing that Israel was always intended to be a missionary people.  Yet, God’s chosen people never fully understood that concept in the First Testament.  Throughout the prophets, there is continual mention that Israel will be a blessing to the nations.  However, the nations will have to come to Zion to be blessed.  The final chapter of Isaiah is the first mention of Israel going out to the nations.  Isaiah 66:19 says that God will send some of the survivors of the exile to all the nations in order to proclaim the glory of the Lord.  What a beautiful picture!  Yet, this vision was not lived out until after the Resurrection.  And even then, the Church in Jerusalem had a difficult time spreading the Gospel outside Judea.

How could Israel have missed their purpose for so long?  It is easy to focus on the first part of the Abrahamic blessing described in Genesis 12.  God says that he will make Abraham and his descendants into a great nation.  The Hebrews are a chosen and special possession to Yahweh.  Yet, God makes it clear that they are chosen for a purpose: to be a blessing to all the nations of the world.  By isolating their chosen status from the responsibility that comes with being chosen, Israel could stay inside their geographical boundaries and never realize their true purpose in God’s plan.

We still have this problem today.  As the Church, we celebrate that we are a people chosen by God.  After all, we are the elect; we are saved by grace through faith.  Yet, we miss the big picture.  God desires to redeem all of creation.  He saved each of us for a purpose: that we might be in relationship with Jesus and that we might introduce others to Jesus.  This calling to share Jesus with others is more than a suggestion.  It is the privilege and responsibility of all believers.

Throughout the OT prophets, there is this concept of a faithful remnant.  This idea is a key theme in the book of Isaiah.  Isaiah makes it clear that Israel will be judged because they follow ritualistic rules of worship, but they neglect the poor and the oppressed.  The prophet goes so far as to call the Israelites the oppressor.  For this crime, Israel must be punished.  However, this punishment will not be a complete annihilation of God’s people.  A few faithful people will remain.  The prophet uses multiple images describe the remnant of Israel.  Chapter 4 argues that God will judge Israel for oppressing the poor, but God will also preserve a “branch of the Lord.”  In chapter 17, God says that Israel will be like an olive tree with only a few olives left.  In chapters 25-27, God will take this remnant and transform Israel into a fruitful vineyard.  Yahweh will gather the faithful from among those exiled to Egypt and Assyria. 

Often, I hear the theological idea of remnant preached from only one perspective:  There is a group of faithful people to whom God will demonstrate his faithfulness in return.  We are the faithful!  Rejoice!  However, there is another side to the coin.  For whatever reason, what if you are not part of the faithful?  In this case, the idea of a remnant is instant condemnation. 

But how does this apply today?  If we take an honest look, the American church is guilty of many of the sins described in the book of Isaiah.  On the whole, we neglect social justice issues, but are careful to observe our religious rituals week in and week out (Ch. 1).  We oppress the poor by our indifference (Ch. 3).  We feast while the poor starve (Ch. 5).  We “worship” one day a week and then live our lives like everyone else (Ch. 58).  From a New Testament perspective, (namely the book of Matthew), if we call ourselves followers of Jesus, we are called to righteousness.  In the context of Matthew, righteousness means doing the will of God.  Luke 4 seems to agree with Isaiah; the will of God includes caring for the poor and the oppressed. 

My thoughts are not meant to cause people to question their salvation.  However, if the American church does side with the poor and the oppressed, she is in direct opposition to the will of God.  When Israel was in that position, they were judged rather harshly.  My prayer is that God will do a “new thing” in our churches (Is. 43).  My prayer is that we will truly be faithful as we seek to live out the message of the gospel.

The book of Job provides an interesting case study for ministers: specifically the relationship between Job and his friends.  In the story, Job has lost just about everything: possessions, children, health.  Yet, he has three friends that come to his aid.  As is clear from the passage, the friends apply practical wisdom of the day to Job’s unfortunate situation.  To them, it seems perfectly plausible that bad things are happening to Job because Job has sinned.  This was their worldview and they applied this understanding without shame.  However, at the end of the account, we find out that the friend’s worldview is incorrect. 

Occasionally, ministers are guilty of jumping in and trying to help someone in need without first gaining a better understanding of the situation.  Often, we apply our understanding of Scripture to another person’s life without allowing the person’s situation to critique our worldview.  This passage reminds us that there are numerous tensions in Scripture.  With this in mind, we should be careful in how we apply Scripture to our own lives, as well as the lives of others.

The book of Proverbs has multiple verses that describe the interaction between the king and his subjects.  Some of these verses argue that the reign of the king is “established through righteousness” (16:12).  Other verses speak of the king’s wrath and might (16:14-15).  Each “empire statement” is made with certain assumptions in mind.  First, the king is in charge.  He is not to be questioned or vexed in any way.  Second, God established the monarchy.  There is no separation of cult and state; the cult and state serve each other’s interests.  This second claim is problematic.  The author of I Samuel views the establishment of the monarchy as a rejection of Yahweh’s authority.  The book of Exodus appears to be very anti-empire.  There are conflicting views throughout Scripture on this issue.

Pro-empire statements are also made in the New Testament.  Paul argues that Christians are to obey governmental authorities because they are placed in their positions by God for the good of Christians.  However, we must remember that Paul was a Roman citizen who benefited from the empire on more than one occasion.  In contrast, we have Peter and the apostles in Acts 4-5.  Peter argues that we must obey God rather than men.

When we see statements that support the empire, we must remember who is writing these statements.  Often, a high ranking official or someone who has directly benefited from the empire in some way.  However, I would argue that the empire is always self-serving.  The empire will always oppress the weak and the poor for its own ends.  This is very different from my understanding of the kingdom of God.  God is on the side of the oppressed and the poor.  For those of us who call themselves his followers, we must side with the poor…not the empire.

Ezra 3 paints a beautiful picture.  Many of the children of Israel have returned to Jerusalem.  They have poured the foundation for the second temple.  A great shout of praise was lifted to Yahweh.  Verse 11 of this chapter could be paraphrased, “The foundation of the temple has been laid.  We are finally home.”  This was a time of great joy for all the people.  Yet verse 12 provides an interesting contrast.  “But many of the older priests and Levites and family heads, who had seen the former temple, wept aloud when they saw the foundation of this temple being laid, while many others shouted for joy.”  Apparently, not everyone was pleased with the new temple.  Scripture does not tell us why the older generation was sad.  However, they were overcome with anguish after seeing the foundation of the new temple.  Perhaps this new temple was not as big or as grand.  Perhaps this temple was a reminder of the glory days that would never return.  However, this memory of the past is selective at best.  The previous generation remembers the glory of the temple, but they forget the kings that behaved as taskmasters.  They forget the heavy taxation and enslavement.  They choose to forget the wickedness of Israel during “good old days”.

There is great benefit in studying and remembering our history.  However, remembrance has a tendency to become nostalgia and nostalgia does not allow a person to see what God is doing in the present.  In my experience, many of the conflicts between the younger and older generations in present-day churches revolves around this issue.  The previous generation wants to return to the days of big tent revivals and preaching that focuses on the fires of hell.  The younger generation does not see anything glorious about these things and decides to focus on what God is doing now…sometimes without any historical grounding.  However, both sides of the conversation are needed.  We need to remember the history of our faith and our churches.  This history impacts the way we seek to live our our faith in the present and the future.  Yet, this focus on the past cannot lead to stagnation or an attempt to recreate the past.

I thought that I would start with a little background information.  I have grown up in the Baptist tradition.  My dad is a Baptist minister, my mom plays the piano in a church and works at the local Baptist association.  I have served as a youth minister, music minister, and supply pastor in Baptist churches.  The Baptist tradition has shaped how I view God, Scripture and the world.  I have seen both the beauty and danger inherent in the Baptist understanding of following Christ…but more on that later.

I am in my final semester at George W. Truett Theological seminary working on a M Div.  I received a B.A. in General Studies with a minor in counseling from the University of North Texas.  Before that, I graduated from Denton High School in Texas. 

After seminary, the door is wide open.  I feel called to be a minister of the gospel.  I also feel a calling to the local church and pastoral ministry.  However, I can pursue this calling through many avenues.  At some point, I desire to go back to school and get a D Min. 

During this course, I would like to work though difficult areas of the biblical text.  In many ways, the second half of the Old Testament is foreign to me.  First, I want to study biblical promises: when is it advisable for me to take promises that God made to specific individuals or to Israel as a nation and apply them to my life and the lives of my congregation members?  Second, how should I use OT prophecy?  These are a couple of the questions that I would like to address throughout the semester.