soli deo gloria

A new thought that I've been having about preaching and what's going on in that process: sheet music as an analogy for the interaction between Scripture and preacher.

The analogy has two parts.

The text of Scripture is analogous to the notes on the musical score. They're the content. The right notes. They're already there, and anyone (who can read) can read them.

Preaching, in this analogy, is like the dynamic markers on the sheet. The time signature, the little marks (<) denoting a crescendo, the style and tempo headings (allegro, presto, con motto), the coda sign. They don't tell you what to play, but how to play it. (When is something repeated? Is this bit quiet in order to be solemn, or should I be playing these notes with joy? Where is the grand finale that I'll never forget?) They help you understand the movement of the piece, the effect it intends to have on its hearers and itself provides much of that impact.

A part of the value of this analogy, for me, is that it mirrors the reality that it is the Word of God that changes hearts. Preaching convinces, cajoles and/or exhorts the hearer to be moved by the text, much as dynamics grip, sooth and/or assault the senses in order bring the hearer into the experience of the music.

One of my ideals for preaching is that its purpose is to be an exposition. It ought to expose the truth of the text to the hearts of the congregation, in all its colour, strength, rebuke, gentleness, beauty, healing, grace and power. Put another way, perhaps more speculatively, just as dynamics allow the listener to hear the significance of each note, a sermon gets across the significance of each part of God's Word to the hearts of His people.

/end creative flow

Most stylish referee ever

Heaps old, but I've met a few people lately who've not seen it. Camp as a row of tents.

Traps for young players

Just been thinking about myself.

Tip #1: Don't twist the way in which you serve your girl into a means of making yourself feel ok about yourself. Measure your service by whether it makes your girl feel important, not by whether it makes you feel important.

Saul vs David

A paragraph from my assignment to chew on:

I would suggest that in the same way as Eli was judged for not giving God what was due him, so the people are also judged in being given Saul as their king. It is worth noting that despite Saul having already been chosen by Yhwh and pointed out to Samuel, Samuel nevertheless goes through a process of drawing lots in order to determine who will be king. McCarter perceptively notes that Samuel introduces this process as divine judgement. This aura of judgement is further enhanced by its similarity to the judgement scene in Joshua 7, when Achan’s family was taken in an identical process of lots. The inter-textual reference is confirmed later when Saul himself follows in Achan’s sin and disobeys God’s commands with respect to the devoted things (kherem). Thus we are invited to see the appointment of Saul as a judgement on the people for their rejection of Yhwh.

A poke-history of Australian politics

All you Gen Yers who're into politics should love this. Even if you won't admit to it.

A quick thought

Is reading/hearing/using a description of a reality and assuming that description to be the totality of that reality one of the biggest problems in people's thinking?

I reckon there's a chance of that.

Inspired by glancing at this post on Driscoll's blog, actually. :s Will post thoughts as to why later on.

They were like us: part deux

Here's another angle on Doug Green's take on Genesis 3:22.

I've never really been too settled on the identification of the 'we' in Genesis 2 and 3. Who are they? Who are the 'us' that God makes us like? Who is the 'us' that Adam and Eve either became like or were once like?

Many people in my circles (Australian evangelicals) have taught in sermons that 'knowing good and evil' is the concept of usurping God's role. It means to determine good and evil, something that is not our place to do. This is because they take the more traditional translation that Adam and Eve 'have become like us' as opposed to Green's 'were like us'.

One exegetical consequence of this is that the identity of the 'us' is more limited. In 3:22, the 'us' are the 'knowers' of good and evil. If the phrase 'knowing good and evil' is understood to mean determining good and evil, then the 'us' can only include the divine. 'Us' cannot mean the heavenly court. (and, by the way, if you take Doug's take on 3:22, there's no exegetical problem with taking 'us' as the heavenly court anymore)

Thus, you're left with some kind of plurality within Yhwh being mentioned within the first couple of chapters of the Bible. A proto-trinitarian statement. It seems to me that God is not referred to in this way throughout the rest of the Old Testament, despite certain ambiguities later on in Zechariah, Malachi, etc. I personally would find it very strange were it to be the case here.

I can't see any evidence internal to Gen 2-3 that favours a 'determining good and evil' interpretation of that phrase. Can any of you? Things I've missed?