The Liberating King has come! Repent and receive and so enter His Kingdom and the renewal of all things! These are biblical teachings. They are at the core of the Gospel and yet we so often miss the urgency of this message. Many times, this is due to the familiarity we have with the typical style of English Bible translations. Those involved with The Voice, however, are seeking to be true to the text and reflect the inherent creativity of the Spirit of God and the diversity of His ordained human authors, through whom He communicated to us.

In reading The Voice New Testament (for the purpose of this review, the Gospel of Matthew), I found in it a tremendous supplement and devotional translation that is, in the main, faithful to the text (a functional translation somewhere between NIV and The Message). It has many unique features to commend it and while I wouldn’t use it as a primary translation for serious study, I am, thus far, convinced that it would be beneficial for use by Christians in every stage of spiritual development. So, for what it sets out to do, I would give it a five star rating.

In today’s churches, where there is a surge in the calls for music ministers and worship leaders and a number of pastors and churches dealing with questions of what worship is and what it should look like, Dr. Vernon Whaley’s Called to Worship: The Biblical Foundations of Our Response to God’s Call may come as an answer to prayer for some. Literally deriving principles for worship from the books of Scripture, Whaley attempts to provide a “full-Scripture” framework for understanding worship. Does he succeed?

Dr. Whaley’s desire is commendable. His concept of how it should be done is also good. My sense, is, however, that this book is more influenced by his Baptist roots than an informed exegesis and understanding of Hebrew or Greek (there are a number of “errors” in the language references). This is not to say that his principles for worship are wrong, but they are wrongly derived. It would be my hope that some would benefit from this book and others, seeing its weaknesses, would write a more sound, exegetically-responsible biblical theology of worship. If you’re looking for valuable reading on worship, Worship Matters by Bob Kauflin would be my recommendation.

Moses received Torah from Sinai and delivered it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets delivered it to the men of the Great Synagogue. They said three things: be deliberate in judgment, raise many disciples, and make a hedge for Torah. (Avot 1:1, writerʼs translation)

Containing teachings from R. Simeon the Just in the 3rd century B.C. up until the compilation of the same by R. Judah the Prince in the 3rd century A.D., Pirke Avot is a curious tractate (section) within Mishnah, the collection of the Rabbinic “oral Torah”. In part, it contains the most straightforwardly ethical teachings of all Mishnah and, unlike the rest of Mishnah, has no further commentary by later generations (Gemara). Its purpose is made evident by the first passage of the tractate: how the devout Jewish leader should approach judgment (deliberateness), the preservation of the teaching (disciples), and the purpose of his authority (hedging Torah).

This three-fold mandate, according to Avot, was passed from Mosesʼ own teaching from Sinai and was passed down through the centuries by the faithful of Yahweh. It is not within the purpose of this paper to judge the historical accuracy of this claim, but simply to acknowledge that, during the inter-testamental period, a view similar to this at least exists among the schools of the Pharisees and scribes. This has significance for our interpretation of the gospels, and the rest of the New Testament. As Perez wrote:

[I]n a way, we could say that the New Testament and Rabbinic literature are the oral tradition that always accompanied Scripture. Neither of them, therefore, has been able to avoid taking the other into consideration. That is why the Rabbinic literature is as important to the exegesis of the New Testament as the latter is to coming to know Rabbinic Judaism (Perez 103).

So when a rabbi from Galilee begins teaching and interpreting Torah “as one who authority” (Matt. 7:29 ESV), there is certainly a contrast with many of the teachers of his day, but there is also a great deal of commonality. This can be seen in the common theological presuppositions that Jesus shares with other rabbis in the centuries preceding his first century ministry. It can also be found in the comparative teaching presented by these rabbis.

Before comparison can even be done, it must first be shown that Jesus even thinks of himself as one speaking within the stream of rabbinic teaching. It has been common in the history of interpretation to read Jesus as introducing a discontinuous revelation or, at least, a modified revelation surpassing that at Sinai (Morris, Blomberg, et al). Draper, however, suggests differently:

While the symbolic depiction of authoritative teaching (ʻnew lawʼ), given on the mountain, need not imply a literal ʻnew Sinaiʼ, it does draw on the Sinai symbolism to legitimate the teaching and to indicate its continuity with the Torah. The symbol need not be seen in terms of replacement. Indeed, continuity is more likely to be the root of Matthewʼs usage. (Draper 32).

Matthewʼs recounting of the sermon demonstrates this with the phrase formula “You have heard that it was said…but I say.” This is not a mere rhetorical device and has meaning for Matthewʼs Jewish audience (The Luke 6 recounting of the sermon does not contain this formula) – a meaning that makes sense within the context of rabbinic teaching of Torah. Another formula that occurs throughout the sermon is “when you…” This is followed by a consistent list of “do not” logia. But even if the oral teaching formulae are not convincing, take note of the content of the sermon: marks of the life of piety before the God of Israel and that, if nothing else, is the marking of a true rabbinic interpreter of Torah.

But Jesus and other rabbis certainly shared some common theological convictions beyond the general pale of Jewish orthodoxy (which is very broad, indeed). Consider the texts of these three verses from Avot:

Simeon the Just was from the survivors of the Great Synagogue and he used to say “Upon three things the world stands: upon the Torah, upon the worship, and upon deeds of kindness.” (1:2, writerʼs translation).

Antigonus, a man of Sokho, received from Simeon the Just. He used to say “Do not be like servants who serve the master on condition of a gift to be received, but let them be like servants who serve the master, not on condition of a gift that is to be received. Let the fear of Heaven be upon you.” (1:3, writerʼs translation).

Hillel and Shammai received from them. Hillel used to say, “Be of the disciples who belong to Aaron: one who loves peace and pursues peace, one who loves humankind [creation] and attracts them to Torah.” (1:12, writerʼs translation).

These sayings, without dispute, belong to the era of developing Pharisaism from its early influences (Simeon the Just, the high priest who greets Alexander the Great after his conquest of Syria) and his disciple (Antigonus) to the founders of the great schools of Pharisaism (Hillel and Shammai). They demonstrate a commitment to the immutable authority of Torah, a commitment that Jesus echoes very clearly in his teaching:

For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:18-19).

In the first instance, the existence of the world is dependent upon the existence of Torah. The the second place, the faithful teaching of Torah is significant in that this, not relaxing Torah is what wants to attract others to. There is also significant concern for the proper service of the God of Israel. Not only is it Simeonʼs second pillar, but Jesusʼ teaching shares this concern in his addressing of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting. More could be explored with the similar emphases on acts of kindness towards others, but the more important question arises as to the nature of what Jesus is doing in the sermon. The rabbis were hedging the Torah. What about Jesus?

In setting himself within the stream of rabbinic interpretation and instruction of Torah, it would only be fair to argue that Jesus is hedging Torah as well. Draperʼs analysis of the content of the sermon leads him to a similar conclusion:

Matthew thus does not ʻdiffer decisivelyʼ from the Rabbinate in this respect, but seems instead to be drawing on this Rabbinic tradition of the fence about the Law. He cites the major principle, ʻThou shalt not commit murderʼ, and then provides a ʻhedgeʼ: ʻDo not be angry; do not call another a fool; be reconciled before things go too farʼ. Each of the sayings of Jesus in this section can be interpreted in this way as essentially ʻintensificationsʼ of the Torah rather than as ʻantithesesʼ (39).

Draper is not the first to suggest this and will likely not be the last. But the evangelical Christian interpreter may ask regarding the import of the sermon for Gentiles. After all, Christians have long received the sermon as binding upon their way of life, as instruction for life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Significant insight into this question has been provided by an 18th century rabbi, Jacob Emden, in one his works:

[T]he Nazarene brought about a double kindness in the world. On the one hand, he strengthened the Torah of Moses majestically, as mentioned earlier, and not one of our Sages spoke out more emphatically concerning the immutability of the Torah. And on the other hand, he did much good for the Gentiles [...] by doing away with idolatry and removing the images from their midst. [...] He also bestowed upon them ethical ways, and in this respect he was much more stringent with them than the Torah of Moses. (Emden)

Thus, a Jewish reading of the text of the sermon does not limit its import or application to Gentile followers of Jesus by necessity. Emdenʼs own analysis is that Jesusʼ teachings require more from Gentiles than Judaism would from its own Gentile God-fearers! But those very implications give rise to a whole host of questions. In an essay that explores the relevance of Torah for Christians, Daniel Joslyn-Siemiatkoski concludes with the following:

If the law given at Sinai and the gospel of Jesus Christ are not antithetical, or if the law does not pass away with the coming of Christ, what then is its status? If Gentiles are not required to keep the Torah in the same way as Israel but still are aware that Jesus viewed it with the utmost devotion, what would a positive Gentile Christian attitude toward the Torah look like? (Joslyn-Siemiatkoski 465).

It is a fair question developed from a difficult hermeneutical problem. If Jesus is to be understood as a rabbi in his messianic pronouncements, it has significant bearing for those who claim to be his followers. It would redefine what Christians believe about following Messiah, who taught a recognition of faithfulness based on the keeping of his commandments and the fruitfulness of lives lived out in pursuit of the Kingdom of Heaven. It would alter our perception of the various Judaisms throughout the centuries and also of various Christian traditions in the same time period.  The risk of pursuing this investigation is evidently significant, but the question is whether that outweighs the risk of ignoring it.

Works Cited

Blomberg, Craig L. “Matthew” (19-30). Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Editors: G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2007.

Draper, Jonathan A. “The Genesis and Narrative Thrust of the Paranesis in the Sermon
on the Mount.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament. Issue 75 (Sept. 1999). p. 25-48.

Emden, Jacob. “Rabbi Jacob Emdenʼs Views on Christianity.” 28/10/09. Online: http://
www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/falk1a.html

Herford, R. Travers. Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers. New
York, NY: Schocken Books, Inc. 1975.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. 2001.

Joslyn-Siemiatkoski, Daniel. “”Moses Received the Torah at Sinai and Handed It
On” (Mishnah Avot 1:1): The Relevance of the Written and Oral Torah for
Christians.” Anglican Theological Review. Vol. 91, Issue 3 (Summer 2009). p.
443-466.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1992.

Perez Fernandez, Miguel. “Rabbinic texts in the exegesis of the New Testament.”
Review of Rabbinic Judaism. Issue 7 (2004). p. 95-120.

Stephen Covey is a well-known motivator and encourager. His books, speeches, and presentations have dominated the world of self-help resources. So what about Everyday Greatness? Covey remains in his traditional stream of thought, but presenting stories and pithy proverbs to demonstrate attributes that he believes are characteristic of great people (charity, integrity, patience, etc.). Yet, his approach is informed by a faulty understanding of people (that we are basically good) with a faulty ambition for life (be the greatest you can be) and will ultimately lead to a faulty end (failure and emptiness).

While aiming to help people, what Covey has written essentially provides a Book of Virtues for “happy-addicts.” In other words, he is telling the reader “You’re a good person who wants to be happy. These are some inspirations to take that goodness and make you great, so that you’ll be really happy!” That may be the logic of the world, but in the life of the Christian disciple, this sort of thinking lacks grace, Biblical standing, and will ultimately only produce bad fruit. The discerning reader would look, instead, to Jesus Christ and find true greatness (Philippians 2).

How can I deal with sin that just sticks with me? How can I survive the tough times that come my direction? Why should I worry about my friend’s Christian walk? What’s the point of reading my Bible and praying regularly? Although these questions seem only loosely related, Mark Hall’s Your Own Jesus does a tremendous job of presenting the truth that everyone needs to be in a saving, enduring relationship with the God of the universe.

“God has no grandchildren” as the saying goes and Mark shows convincingly the need for believers to not depend on their parents, churches, friends, or books and music to be their source of experiencing Jesus. Believers need to be in their own intimate walk with the Savior Who bought them with His own blood and will bring good, lasting fruit into their lives. For anyone who considers themselves a disciple of Jesus, this book is highly recommended as a helpful resource as you pursue Christ and get to know the One and Only Jesus Christ.

Blogs are ablaze with cries of freedom. Status messages on Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and half a million other networking sites ring with liberty. Everyone’s celebrating and commemorating this day…and why not, right? From the perspective of most Americans, it’s well-nigh sinful not to. After all, millions of men and women have sacrificed their lives, have they not?

There is a great deal of discussion and debate on the topic and nature of discernment. Pastors and theologians are teaching about it through sermons, seminars, and books. Conferences are held centering on it. Even bloggers have stepped onto the scene with Tim Challies‘ book The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment (very highly recommended). The fact is, discernment is all the rage, and rightly so. It’s an important issue and merits the attention of Christians everywhere. As Challies wisely names it, discernment is also a discipline that ought to be cultivated by Christians for use in their everyday lives.

To work with discernment, we require a working definition. Discernment can be understood as the confident choice of an individual to embrace the leading and will of God. This is reflected in both developing the discipline of discernment and in the reception of the spiritual gift of discernment. If we are not confident, we have no exercised the scrutiny that comes from discerning. If we have not chosen, we have simply been subjected by or submitted ourselves to the circumstances that we are in. If it is not the leading of God, it is our own self-deceiving heart. If it is not the will of God, it is faithlessness and rebellion. So each of these elements is necessary for our understanding of discernment.

Many more qualified, more experienced, and much wiser men than I have written on discernment. So I will not labor in the teaching of Word on discernment. Rather, seek out the wisdom of men iike Tim Challies, Kevin DeYoung, Josh Harris, C.J. Mahaney, John Piper, J.I. Packer, and others to hone and form your knowledge and insight into the discipline and gift of discernment. What I hope to do, however, is to present some practical elements to the discipline of discernment that are, perhaps, less profound than other readings but the beauty of their simplicity allows us effective communion and submission to God. The first of these points is that the discerning believer will stop talking.

We’re good at encouraging each other to converse with God and not let prayer be a one-way conversation. What usually happens when we try to follow that advice, however, is that we spend a lot of time talking to ourselves about our problems, our perceptions, and our own personal revelations, which we may ascribe to God. The most important thing we can do, to start with, is to stop talking.

To stop talking does not mean taking a vow of silence. Rather, we must be sure that we do not bury ourselves with our wn inter-personal dialogues. In his book Humility: True Greatness, C.J. Mahaney admonishes readers to preach to themselves, to remind ourselves of grace, of lowliness, of humility, and the greatness of God in the Gospel. So when we seek discernment, we start by calling on our souls to still thsemelves and be reverent in the presence of the Almighty Creator.

In doing this, it is often helpful to meditate upon a single verse or brief passage of Scripture. By focusing our attention upon that one verse/passage, we fill our minds with the Word of God and attune our ears to the sound of His voice. With focus and patience, we silence the agonies of our souls and give them brief respite from self-criticism, self-argument, and self-advancement. When we do this, we find ourselves humbled, desiring to see more of God’s greatness and filled with inexpressible joy. So, then, let us be silent before the Lord and quiet our souls to hear His instruction.

A recent Barna release revealed that the majority of American Christians don’t believe in either Satan OR the Holy Spirit. This betrays the necessity and dire need for discipleship and sound doctrine in our churches. As the study suggests, “Americans who consider themselves to be Christian have a diverse set of beliefs – but many of those beliefs are contradictory or, at least, inconsistent.” George Barna’s conclusion is, I think well-founded:

Most Americans, even those who say they are Christian, have doubts about the intrusion of the supernatural into the natural world. Hollywood has made evil accessible and tame, making Satan and demons less worrisome than the Bible suggests they really are. It’s hard for achievement-driven, self-reliant, independent people to believe that their lives can be impacted by unseen forces. At the same time, through sheer force of repetition, many Americans intellectually accept some ideas – such as the fact that you either side with God or Satan, there’s no in-between – that do not get translated into practice.

What are some practical steps that we as individuals and churches can take to stem this tide of unorthodox belief among those who claim to be orthodox Christians in this country?