A Response to Victor Choudhrie's recent article "Global Trends, Concerns and Challenges: From the Cathedral back to the House Church" (part #5)
In my first four posts in this series, I argue that Victor Choudhrie starts his article
[available if you are a member of House2Harvest Network here: http://www.house2harvest.org/docs/Global_Trends_Chaudherie.pdf ]
with the words "Yeshua Messiah," which suggests some sympathy by Choudhrie toward a Hebraic approach to understanding the whole of Scripture . But then he disappointingly goes into a series of contrasts between his take on what had been prior, then what had changed with the coming of Yeshua Messiah. It is these contrasts, representative of a lot of the theological underpinning of the Simple Church Movement at large, that belie Victor Choudhries' flawed foundation by which he interprets Scripture and upon which he constructs some of his Simple Church concepts and practices. It is these that I will seek to "deconstruct" and "contrast" with the biblical evidence, thus exposing them as being in need of "change" themselves.
Choudhrie wrote about Yeshua Messiah:
"He changed the covenant written on the stone tablets and locked up in the Arch [sic!] and rewrote it in the hearts and minds of the people."
I know that Choudhrie is loosely referencing Paul's comments in 2Corinthians 3, but it is the "loosely referencing" part that disturbs me. Why? Because there is an awful lot of theology that goes on, and then becomes foundational to people's thinking -- then to a Movement's thinking -- that is based, not on careful exegesis, but on someone's "loosely referencing" this or that Scripture passage. All I will do in this blog post is to write out some of my conclusions, based on a more careful analysis of Paul's argument in 2Corinthians 3. Likewise, I will repeat the conclusion I've arrived at through a careful analysis of its biblical usages, that the idiom "in/on...heart/s" is not so much focusing on location as it is focusing on priority.
First, based on my analysis of 2Cor 3:5, 6 and its surrounding contexts, I submit the following tentative conclusions: "The letter [that] kills" is not the Law proper, or a literal interpretation of the Law...or of any Scripture (as if we were supposed to allegorize the Bible to make any sense out of it!!!). No, "the letter [that] kills" is the same Scripture that Paul said is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, etc (2Tim 3:16, 17) in a New Covenant context. However, if this Scripture is adhered to without the accompanying Spirit who inspired the entire Bible, then it can lead to death...as what happened to those who worshipped the golden calf.
For part #1 of this blog post, click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/is-the-letter-that-kills
For part #2 of this blog post, click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/is-the-letter-that-kills-1
For part #3 of this blog post, click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/is-the-letter-that-kills-2
Second, Paul wrote in Phi 1:7 to the Philippian Christians, that, "I have you in my heart." However, we automatically know that the Philippian believers had not been placed into Paul...not literally. We are not dealing with internal/external in any literal sense. It is a matter of value...priority. Paul valued/prioritized the Philippian believers. Right? So why, when we read about the New Covenant's promise that God would "put [His] law in [our] minds, and write it on [our] hearts" (Jer 31:33), do we usually assume that what God is doing is internalizing what had previously been external? Why do we reflexively think of place over priority, when we read this biblical idiom?
Please use Paul's usage of the expression in Phi 1:7 as a sort of window for viewing other usages of "in/on...heart/s" elsewhere in Scripture. At least try it...while resisting the reflex to think locatively. I contend that it is referring to value, not place. Let's see if my contention has any merit.
Go back to Romans 2:14, 15 with this new set of lenses in place and see how things read:
“. . .for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written IN THEIR HEARTS. . .”
Value...to the point of acting upon it. And non-New Covenant Gentiles! Now go back to Isa 51:7:
"Hear me, you who know what is right, you people who have my law IN YOUR HEARTS: Do not fear the reproach of men or be terrified by their insults."
Value...application. Pre-New Covenant context. Yet "law" in the heart. Now go back to Psa 40:8:
"I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is WITHIN MY HEART."
Value...application. Pre-New Covenant. Now go back to Psa 37:31:
"The law of his God is IN HIS HEART; his feet do not slip."
Value...the result of application. Pre-New Covenant. Now go back to Psa 119:11:
"I have hidden your word [the context of the entire Psalm is about God's Law] IN MY HEART that I might not sin against you."
Value...the intended result of application. Pre-New Covenant. Now go back to Deu 30:14:
"No, the word is very near you; it IS in your mouth and IN YOUR HEART so you may obey it.”
Value...the potential to obey. Pre-New Covenant.
See what I mean? I am not saying that there is no locative element. When we speak of conscience and memory...even heart, there is some reference to location. But that is not the chief focus in this Hebrew idiom, and when we make it the chief focus then we lose the idiom's actual intended focus...its intended meaning. The intended meaning of "[fill in the blank] in/on...heart" is something like "I value [fill in the blank] to the point of acting on behalf of [fill in the blank]." Paul valued the Philippian believers to the point of acting on their behalves, the Israelites, about to enter the Land from Moav, had the potential to value the word Moses spoke (later compared to./revealed as the "word of faith" that Paul too, and much later, was proclaiming to the Roman Christians - Rom 10:6-10) and act upon it. So too the same pattern of value/apply can be seen in Psa 119:11, 40:8; Psa 37:31; Isa 51:7; etc.
Now, for additional evidence, let's look at Pro 3:3:
"Let not mercy and truth forsake you...write them on the tablet of your heart..."
One cannot ACTUALLY/LITERALLY write "mercy and truth" upon one's "heart"...internal versus external. But one can indeed value "mercy and truth" to the point of acting upon these two ideals. In fact, these two ideals are linked back to what Solomon said to his son about "[his] law" and "[his] commands" (Pro 3:1). Solomon's "law" and "commands" did not somehow lose their external status and importance. They still came from the [external] father [Solomon] to his son. Yet Solomon pleaded that his son write "mercy and truth" upon his "heart"...i.e. that the son value "mercy and truth" to the point of acting upon them. Thus the idiom is further clarified.
Similarly, Solomon wrote to his son, "Keep my commands and live, and my law as the apple of your eye...write them on the tablet of your heart" (Pro 7:2). The external "commands" and "law" of Solomon were not somehow done away with in the process of them being "writ[ten]...on the tablet of [his son's] heart." This idiom is especially parallel to the New Covenant prophecy since the elements of "law," being "writ[ten]" on someone's "heart" are apparent in Pro 7:2 and in Jer 31:33. Yet in Solomon's statement it is clear that there is no literal writing going on, no internalizing at the expense of the external. No, we see in the light of the evidence so far that the issue is not so much locative as it is in valuing to the point of doing...applying.
[See the full display of biblical evidence, and my arguing through it, here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/internal-versus-external... ]
Thus, I contend that Victor Choudhrie's proposed contrast between "the covenant written on the stone tablets and locked up in the Arch [sic!]" and what he assumes got "rewr[itten] it in the hearts and minds of the people," is based on the flawed idea that what is at stake in Paul's comments about the New Covenant is a competition between the internal realms and the external realms. Because Choudhrie was only "loosely referencing" Paul's argument, assuming that he already knew what Paul meant in 2Corinthians 3, he in fact created a "contrast" that did not exist in the mind of the Apostle or in the mind of any biblical writer. This assumed "contrast" then becomes one of the bases for Choudhrie's Simple Church beliefs and practices.
However, as stated before: the Simple Church Movement can stand on its own merits. It does not need a series of artificial contrasts between Jesus' ministry and what preceded his first advent to bolster its case.
For post #1 in this series, please click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/a-response-to-victor
For post #2 in this series, please click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/a-response-to-victor-1?x...
For post #3 in this series, please click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/a-response-to-victor-2
More to come...
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
[available if you are a member of House2Harvest Network here: http://www.house2harvest.org/docs/Global_Trends_Chaudherie.pdf ]
with the words "Yeshua Messiah," which suggests some sympathy by Choudhrie toward a Hebraic approach to understanding the whole of Scripture . But then he disappointingly goes into a series of contrasts between his take on what had been prior, then what had changed with the coming of Yeshua Messiah. It is these contrasts, representative of a lot of the theological underpinning of the Simple Church Movement at large, that belie Victor Choudhries' flawed foundation by which he interprets Scripture and upon which he constructs some of his Simple Church concepts and practices. It is these that I will seek to "deconstruct" and "contrast" with the biblical evidence, thus exposing them as being in need of "change" themselves.
Choudhrie wrote about Yeshua Messiah:
"He changed the covenant written on the stone tablets and locked up in the Arch [sic!] and rewrote it in the hearts and minds of the people."
I know that Choudhrie is loosely referencing Paul's comments in 2Corinthians 3, but it is the "loosely referencing" part that disturbs me. Why? Because there is an awful lot of theology that goes on, and then becomes foundational to people's thinking -- then to a Movement's thinking -- that is based, not on careful exegesis, but on someone's "loosely referencing" this or that Scripture passage. All I will do in this blog post is to write out some of my conclusions, based on a more careful analysis of Paul's argument in 2Corinthians 3. Likewise, I will repeat the conclusion I've arrived at through a careful analysis of its biblical usages, that the idiom "in/on...heart/s" is not so much focusing on location as it is focusing on priority.
First, based on my analysis of 2Cor 3:5, 6 and its surrounding contexts, I submit the following tentative conclusions: "The letter [that] kills" is not the Law proper, or a literal interpretation of the Law...or of any Scripture (as if we were supposed to allegorize the Bible to make any sense out of it!!!). No, "the letter [that] kills" is the same Scripture that Paul said is profitable for doctrine, correction, reproof, etc (2Tim 3:16, 17) in a New Covenant context. However, if this Scripture is adhered to without the accompanying Spirit who inspired the entire Bible, then it can lead to death...as what happened to those who worshipped the golden calf.
For part #1 of this blog post, click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/is-the-letter-that-kills
For part #2 of this blog post, click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/is-the-letter-that-kills-1
For part #3 of this blog post, click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/is-the-letter-that-kills-2
Second, Paul wrote in Phi 1:7 to the Philippian Christians, that, "I have you in my heart." However, we automatically know that the Philippian believers had not been placed into Paul...not literally. We are not dealing with internal/external in any literal sense. It is a matter of value...priority. Paul valued/prioritized the Philippian believers. Right? So why, when we read about the New Covenant's promise that God would "put [His] law in [our] minds, and write it on [our] hearts" (Jer 31:33), do we usually assume that what God is doing is internalizing what had previously been external? Why do we reflexively think of place over priority, when we read this biblical idiom?
Please use Paul's usage of the expression in Phi 1:7 as a sort of window for viewing other usages of "in/on...heart/s" elsewhere in Scripture. At least try it...while resisting the reflex to think locatively. I contend that it is referring to value, not place. Let's see if my contention has any merit.
Go back to Romans 2:14, 15 with this new set of lenses in place and see how things read:
“. . .for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law written IN THEIR HEARTS. . .”
Value...to the point of acting upon it. And non-New Covenant Gentiles! Now go back to Isa 51:7:
"Hear me, you who know what is right, you people who have my law IN YOUR HEARTS: Do not fear the reproach of men or be terrified by their insults."
Value...application. Pre-New Covenant context. Yet "law" in the heart. Now go back to Psa 40:8:
"I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is WITHIN MY HEART."
Value...application. Pre-New Covenant. Now go back to Psa 37:31:
"The law of his God is IN HIS HEART; his feet do not slip."
Value...the result of application. Pre-New Covenant. Now go back to Psa 119:11:
"I have hidden your word [the context of the entire Psalm is about God's Law] IN MY HEART that I might not sin against you."
Value...the intended result of application. Pre-New Covenant. Now go back to Deu 30:14:
"No, the word is very near you; it IS in your mouth and IN YOUR HEART so you may obey it.”
Value...the potential to obey. Pre-New Covenant.
See what I mean? I am not saying that there is no locative element. When we speak of conscience and memory...even heart, there is some reference to location. But that is not the chief focus in this Hebrew idiom, and when we make it the chief focus then we lose the idiom's actual intended focus...its intended meaning. The intended meaning of "[fill in the blank] in/on...heart" is something like "I value [fill in the blank] to the point of acting on behalf of [fill in the blank]." Paul valued the Philippian believers to the point of acting on their behalves, the Israelites, about to enter the Land from Moav, had the potential to value the word Moses spoke (later compared to./revealed as the "word of faith" that Paul too, and much later, was proclaiming to the Roman Christians - Rom 10:6-10) and act upon it. So too the same pattern of value/apply can be seen in Psa 119:11, 40:8; Psa 37:31; Isa 51:7; etc.
Now, for additional evidence, let's look at Pro 3:3:
"Let not mercy and truth forsake you...write them on the tablet of your heart..."
One cannot ACTUALLY/LITERALLY write "mercy and truth" upon one's "heart"...internal versus external. But one can indeed value "mercy and truth" to the point of acting upon these two ideals. In fact, these two ideals are linked back to what Solomon said to his son about "[his] law" and "[his] commands" (Pro 3:1). Solomon's "law" and "commands" did not somehow lose their external status and importance. They still came from the [external] father [Solomon] to his son. Yet Solomon pleaded that his son write "mercy and truth" upon his "heart"...i.e. that the son value "mercy and truth" to the point of acting upon them. Thus the idiom is further clarified.
Similarly, Solomon wrote to his son, "Keep my commands and live, and my law as the apple of your eye...write them on the tablet of your heart" (Pro 7:2). The external "commands" and "law" of Solomon were not somehow done away with in the process of them being "writ[ten]...on the tablet of [his son's] heart." This idiom is especially parallel to the New Covenant prophecy since the elements of "law," being "writ[ten]" on someone's "heart" are apparent in Pro 7:2 and in Jer 31:33. Yet in Solomon's statement it is clear that there is no literal writing going on, no internalizing at the expense of the external. No, we see in the light of the evidence so far that the issue is not so much locative as it is in valuing to the point of doing...applying.
[See the full display of biblical evidence, and my arguing through it, here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/internal-versus-external... ]
Thus, I contend that Victor Choudhrie's proposed contrast between "the covenant written on the stone tablets and locked up in the Arch [sic!]" and what he assumes got "rewr[itten] it in the hearts and minds of the people," is based on the flawed idea that what is at stake in Paul's comments about the New Covenant is a competition between the internal realms and the external realms. Because Choudhrie was only "loosely referencing" Paul's argument, assuming that he already knew what Paul meant in 2Corinthians 3, he in fact created a "contrast" that did not exist in the mind of the Apostle or in the mind of any biblical writer. This assumed "contrast" then becomes one of the bases for Choudhrie's Simple Church beliefs and practices.
However, as stated before: the Simple Church Movement can stand on its own merits. It does not need a series of artificial contrasts between Jesus' ministry and what preceded his first advent to bolster its case.
For post #1 in this series, please click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/a-response-to-victor
For post #2 in this series, please click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/a-response-to-victor-1?x...
For post #3 in this series, please click here: http://www.simplechurch.com/profiles/blogs/a-response-to-victor-2
More to come...
Shalom from Manila,
--Michael
Comment
2010 National House Church Conference
Labor Day Weekend 2010 Dallas, TX
Get the dates in your calendar!
Get the dates in your calendar!
Our Partners
Badge
© 2010 Created by Dale Interactive.
You need to be a member of SimpleChurch to add comments!
Join SimpleChurch