Return to Main Page:

Reviews written by Michael Ramsay

2. Reading Analysis of “Holding Your Own Against God! Genesis 32:22-32 (In the Context of Genesis 31-33)” by Fredrick C. Holmgren.

3. Reading Analysis of “Genesis 2-3: the Theme and Intimacy and Alienation” by Alan Jon Harper. 

4. Reading Analysis of “The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament and Its Law” by Patrick D. Miller Jr.

5. Analysis of "The Almost Christian" by John Wesley

6. Analysis of "The Use of Money" by John Wesley 

Review of Brueggemann, Walter. The Prophetic Imagination. Revised and updated. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001.

 Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Winter 2007)

Walter Brueggemann is a prolific writer who has had a notable impact on Biblical scholarship.[1] The Prophetic Imagination itself is a book that has influenced many people and continues to have a profound impact. It was revised and republished in 2001. The writing of the first edition of this book (published in 1978) greatly influenced the career and future writings of Walter Brueggemann himself. He states in the preface to the revised edition:

The publication of The Prophetic Imagination in 1978 was my first publication in which I found my voice as a teacher in the church. Much has changed for me since then, but the basic thesis that I articulated there holds for me and continues to frame my on-going work. There are indeed definitive continuities between what I said then and what I say now.[2]

For Walter Brueggemann, this writing of his continues to stand the test of time.

Brueggemann opens the first chapter with the claim that “a study of the prophets of Israel must try to take into account both the evidence of the Old Testament and the contemporary situation of the church. What we understand about the Old Testament must be somehow connected with the realities of the church today.”[3] He claims that the task of prophetic ministry is “to bring the claims of the tradition and the situation of enculturation into an effective interface.”[4] On page 3 of The Prophetic Imagination, Brueggemann identifies his thesis statement for this book. He draws attention to it with italics and he is unambiguous in his claim stating, “The hypothesis I will explore here is this: The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.”[5]

            Brueggemann lays out his argument through seven chapters: three pairs of chapters addressing contrasting views of community, and a note on practical ministry; he concludes with a Postscript on Practice.

            After stating the overall theme of the book and defining important terms for his argument such as ‘criticizing’ and ‘energizing’ - since “the task of prophetic ministry is to hold together criticism and energizing…[since] either in itself is not faithful to our best tradition”[6] - Chapter 1 looks at The Alternative Community of Moses. He addresses Breaking with Triumphalism and Oppression, Prophetic Criticism, and Prophetic Energizing. In this chapter the background is laid for Brueggemann’s thesis. The idea of a new consciousness, an alternative to Pharaoh’s oppressive regime is introduced through the prophetic voice of Moses.

            Pertaining to breaking with triumphalism and oppression, Brueggemann states, “the point that prophetic imagination must ponder is that there is no freedom of God without the politics of justice and compassion, and there is no politics of justice and compassion without a religion of the freedom of God.”[7] Brueggemann briefly contrasts with Moses’ politics of justice and compassion, the oppressive regime of Pharaoh.

            Pharaoh’s oppressive regime, as shown in the section entitled Prophetic Criticism, is challenged by God through the plagues. As evidenced by the gods of Egypt’s inability to duplicate the third plague (gnats, Exod 8:17-18), Brueggemann claims that “the imperial religion was dead! The politics of oppression had failed!”[8] Criticism declares that promises by false authority and powers cannot be kept and even more: “the real criticism begins in the capacity to grieve…only in the empire are we pressed and urged and invited to pretend things are all right…and as long as the empire can keep the pretence alive…there will be no real grieving and no serious criticism.”[9] “The cry of Israel becomes an empowering cry…the initiative has been taken by the new God for the new community. The empire is left to grieve over its days of not caring and its gods of order and politics of injustice, which are now all ended. Criticism has reached its goal.”[10]

            By way of a contrast, in the third section of this chapter, Brueggemann asserts that the consciousness brought by God through Moses provides a model of Prophetic energizing. “Energizing is closely linked to hope…we are energized by that which is promised and is about to be given.”[11] He suggests three energizing aspects of this narrative pertaining to prophetic imagination: 1) energy comes from embracing darkness and the more powerful one who can be trusted in it, 2) the freedom of God to take sides and stand up for the poor and oppressed 3), and doxology, which “is the ultimate challenge to the language of managed reality.”[12]

            Brueggemann sums up the chapter by affirming three things: 1) “The alternative life is lived in this very particular and historicizing community. 2) This community criticises and energizes by its special memories that embrace discontinuity and genuine breaks from imperial reality. 3) This community, gathered around the memories, knows it is defined by and is at the disposal of a God who as yet is unco-opted and uncontained by the empire.”[13] All of this is evidence of evoking a perception of an alternative consciousness to the dominant Egyptian culture.

            In the second chapter Brueggemann addresses Royal Consciousness: Countering the Counterculture. He argues that prophetic imagination is “concerned with matters political and social, but it is also concerned with matters linguistic (how we say things) and epistemological (how we know what we know)…the prophetic purpose is much more radical than social change…the issues that concern the Mosaic condition are much more profound than the matters we usually regard as social action.”[14] He further argues that as Israel became established, the truly ‘free God’ of the marginalized was no more desired by the rulers of Israel than it was by the rulers of Egypt: the new consciousness devolves into the former reality. He cites six evidences of the replacement of the Mosaic vision by that of the Imperial vision: 1) a harem, 2) tax districts which transcend tribal borders, 3) an elaborate bureaucracy, 4) a standing army, 5) a fascination with wisdom, and 6) use of conscripted labour.[15] This shift in vision is significant. Brueggemann argues that there are three elements, noticeable in Solomon’s reign, “that summarize the dominant culture against which the prophets are regularly a counterpoint:”[16] affluence, oppressive social power, and a controlled, static religion. It is in this second chapter that Brueggemann suggests a paradigm for the prophetic imagination: “a royal consciousness committed to achievable satiation. An alternative prophetic consciousness devoted to pathos and passion of covenanting.”[17]

            In Chapters Three and Four, Brueggemann looks at prophetic criticizing and energizing, respectively. These are central elements to his argument. Through these the prophetic ministry is able to evoke a perception alternative. In Prophetic Criticizing and the Embrace of Pathos, he asks, what an alternative consciousness would look like? Because, he asserts, imagining must come before implementation: “the prophet does not ask if the vision can be implemented, for questions of implementation are of no consequence until the vision can be imagined.”[18]

Brueggemann claims that, “The royal consciousness leads people to numbness, especially to numbness about death. It is the task of prophetic ministry and imagination to bring people to engage their experiences of suffering and death.”[19] Brueggemann looks at the teachings in Ecclesiastes, particularly 1:7-9, the discomfort of recent American presidents facing impeachment, of members of contemporary societies facing their own death, and the counter-cultural historical example of Jeremiah. Brueggemann argues that “the task of the prophetic imagination is to cut through the numbness, to penetrate the self-deception, so that the God of endings is confessed as Lord”[20] This task has three parts 1) to reactivate symbols that can provide a way to end cover-up and stonewalling, 2) to publicly express previously suppressed fears, and 3) “to speak metaphorically but concretely about the real deathliness that hovers over us…the death introduced in that royal garden of Genesis 2-3.”[21]

Brueggemann spends a significant portion of the chapter examining the ministry and message of the prophet Jeremiah in contrast with the rulers of his day. He concludes by stating that “Jesus understands Jeremiah…Jesus sees that only those who mourn will be comforted (Matt 5:4). Only those who embrace the reality of death will receive the new life. Implicit in his statement is that those who do not mourn will not be comforted and those who do not face the endings will not receive the beginnings.”[22] He argues well that this grieving is an essential part of the prophetic criticizing and he sets the stage to look at closer at radical criticism and then the energizing alternative to the numbness of the dominant culture and its role in prophetic ministry.

The ministry of Jeremiah, Brueggemann asserts in Chapter 4: Prophetic Energizing and the Emergence of Amazement, “is concerned with radical criticism. And the most radical criticism of the prophet is grief over death.”[23] The prophetic community must show the alternative to the dominant ‘royal’ consciousness; Walter Brueggemann’s governing hypothesis is concerned with both criticizing and energizing. Pertaining to energizing, he explicitly identifies this hypothesis: “The royal consciousness leads people to despair about the power to move toward new life. It is the task of prophetic imagination and ministry to bring the people to engage the promise of newness that is at work in our history with God.”[24] Brueggemann argues in this chapter that the dominant consciousness excludes hope: he cites Ecclesiastes again (1:9-10) with its perspective that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ as evidence. He further argues that the dominant culture cannot imagine new beginnings that are imagined by the prophet.

It is the task of prophetic imagination and ministry then “to cut through the despair and to penetrate the dissatisfied coping that seems to have no end or resolution.”[25] This includes three actions: 1) the offering of symbols of hope to contradict the hopelessness, 2) to bring public expressing to that hope, and 3) to “speak metaphorically about hope but concretely about the real newness that comes to us and redefines our situation.”[26]

The prophetic language of hope is a language of amazement. Inversions are important. Brueggemann states that in recognising this, we must not underestimate the power of the poet. “Inversions may begin in a change of language, a redefined perceptual field, or unaltered consciousness. So poetry speaks of inversion even in exile and the images tumble out. Three of them are of particular importance:”[27] a new energizing song about a new reality; an image of birth for the barren, which Brueggemann asserts can also apply to social circumstances; and that of nourishment, if you continue to eat the bread of Babylon - in Brueggemann’s example – you will be starved to death.[28] He concludes that “clearly, only those who anguish will sing new songs. Without anguish the new song is likely to be strident and just more royal fakery.”[29]

Brueggemann claims that “the dominant consciousness must be radically criticized and the dominant community must be finally dismantled.”[30] In chapters 5 and 6 Brueggemann specifically refers to Jesus. Chapter 5 is concerned with the Criticism and Pathos in Jesus of Nazareth. While affirming that Jesus is much more, Brueggemann highlights the idea that one of the important roles he fulfills is that of the prophet. Jesus has “in fact, dismantled the dominant culture and nullified its claims.”[31] He looks at various dimensions of Jesus’ criticism, including his birth as one who is marginalized and one who will invert the social order and the announcement of the new Kingdom that will indeed end the old and set its captives free.[32] Jesus’ radical criticism is reflected in the energizing freedom that comes from forgiveness of sins, the reactivation of the understanding of the freedom of the Sabbath, the willingness to eat with societal outcasts (Mark 2:15-17), cure the ill regardless of social station, association with women, addressing the forgiveness of debts and the freedom that would bring to the peasants in Judea, and, of course, freeing God from the temple to which the royals had arguably attempted to confine Him.[33] Brueggemann acknowledges that, “as is always the case, it is a close call to determine if in fact Jesus caused the dismantling or if he voiced what was indeed about to happen in any case. But Jesus, along with other prophets, is regularly treated as though giving voice is causing the dismantling… [and] that may be the reality.”[34] Even if it is not causing this dismantling directly, as Brueggeman suggests, it certainly is imagining an alternative to the dominant culture, which ultimately leads to the new reality.

Jesus’ solidarity with the marginalized and his compassion are also radical forms of criticism: “In his compassion, he embodies the anguish of those rejected by the dominant culture, and as embodied anguish, he has the authority to show the deathly end of the dominant culture.”[35] This is part of the new alternative. Likewise his embrace of death is a decisive criticism of the dominant consciousness. “The criticism consists not of standing over but of standing with…the contrast is stark and total: this passionate man set in the midst of a numbed Jerusalem. And only the passion can finally penetrate the numbness.”[36]

Brueggemann asserts that Jesus’ sayings on the cross are an expression of an alternative consciousness in that they ask for the forgiveness of his adversaries, may be an announcement of abandonment,[37] his submission, and his proclamation that day that a criminal will be in paradise with him. Together these reported statements by Jesus on the cross “form a statement that completely refutes the claims of those in charge…are a refutation of the world now brought to an end. The Christological hymn (Phil 2:5-11) speaks of “the willing surrender of power; it is the very things kings cannot do and remain kings.”[38] About the politics of justice and compassion, Brueggemann asserts that the crucifixion is “the full expression of dismantling that has been practiced…in the prophetic tradition since Moses confronted Pharaoh…without the cross, prophetic imagination will likely be as strident and as destructive as that which it criticises.”[39]

“The formation of an alternative community with an alternative consciousness is so that the dominant community may be criticized and finally dismantled. But more than dismantling, the purpose of the new community is to enable a new human beginning to be made”[40] claims Brueggemann at the outset of his six chapter, Energizing and Amazement in Jesus of Nazareth. He successfully argues that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophetic tradition; this is amazing; the amazement gave energy and that energy, newness. There was energy in Jesus’ birth, his ministry, his teachings, and of course, his resurrection.

In A Note on the Practice of Ministry, his seventh chapter, he summarises his argument: Something new and radical happened with Moses and the Exodus from Egypt in the way of dismantling the empire and setting up a new community. Israel did not perpetuate it. The Davidic monarchy assumed the oppressive role of Pharaoh and Egypt: it silenced the criticism and denied the energy. The prophets however were not silenced: they repeatedly injected a prophetic energy into the numbness of the dominant consciousness. Jesus is the apex and the culmination of this energizing prophetic tradition and “this energizing was fully manifested in his resurrection, in which he embodied the new future given by God.”[41]

Brueggemann further offers a comment about ministry and itemizes the dimensions of prophetic ministry that have been stated throughout this book: 1) the task of prophetic ministry is to evoke an image of an alternative reality; 2) the practice occurs during any and all forms of ministry; 3) it seeks to ‘penetrate the numbness,’ one way to do this is through sharing public pain; and 4) “penetrate despair so that new future can be believed in and embraced by us.”[42]

Brueggemann concludes this work with a Postscript on Practice, where he identifies some examples of prophetic imagination in the world today. This helps to add both a certain clarity, and validity to his claims throughout this book.

Brueggemann really did make his case well. This work caused me to pause and consider some of the extra-Biblical historical theories that I have written about previously. I have claimed for many years that ‘revolutions usually occur when things are getting better in a society.’ I have often cited many of the Atheistic/Deistic revolutions that Brueggemann mentioned early in this book - American (1775-1783), French (1789-1799), Russian (1917-1922) - to make my point. I have reconsidered. The theory that change happens when an amazing energy is released through an alternative community being imagined (rather than merely by conditions improving, though the two may, at times, go hand-in-hand) before an alternative for the community can be established, makes a lot of sense to me both from a brief reflection upon an historical-political perspective and from the well laid out argument articulated here from a Biblical perspective (with significant, relevant historical comments noted).

As such as far as the Christian response to this world is concerned I agree that we should be involved in prophetic ministry to this fallen world and that “the task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.”[43] And as far as his conclusion and the postscript are concerned, it certainly is exciting to read such an energizing conclusion to a book of this nature. One where the reader is encouraged to imagine an alternative community, oneself – the alternative community that Jesus has already begun to establish through his teaching, death, and resurrection; one which we can be a part of, as His will is done on earth, as it is in Heaven.

Return to Index

Reading Analysis of Holmgren, Fredrick C. “Holding Your Own Against God! Genesis 32:22-32 (In the Context of Genesis 31-33),” Interpretation: a Journal of Bible and Theology 44, no. 4 (1990): 5-17.

Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006)  

In reading Fredrick Holmgren’s article, I have the impression that he would state his thesis as his concluding phrase, “Nearness to God is found by those who, as Job and Jacob, assertively engage the Covenant Partner.”[1] The title of the article, the quote set apart on the first page, the title of the third section of this paper would lead one to that conclusion. However, he does not seem to fully develop this as a thesis until arguably the conclusion of the paper. While he mentions the idea in the introductory paragraph that “election means more than just sitting and waiting for God to make his decision,”[2] he does not spend much time developing the idea that Jacob assertively engages God specifically. The majority of this paper is primarily concerned with defending Jacob’s apparently unethical behaviours (from a contemporary western viewpoint) in dealing with people; it appears to engage for the most part in apologetics on Jacob’s behalf. As such I submit that the central theme of the article would be more appropriately expressed as ‘Jacob wrestled with many and in doing so, by the standards of the world in which he lived, committed no wrong that required repentance.’

To develop his arguments, Fredrick Holmgren divides this article into six main sections: Jacob and Esau: This is God’s Way? (Summary of Genesis 31-33); Jacob Wrestling at the Jabbok River (Genesis 32:22-32); What is the Story About? (One View: At Jabbok Jacob Becomes A New Person!); What is the Story About? (A Second View: God likes an Assertive Partner); Reflection: Understanding Jacob and Esau; Reflection: Was God Jacob’s Opponent? Each of these main sections is then broken down into a number of sub-sections.

I.  Jacob and Esau: This is God’s Way? (Summary of Genesis 31-33)

The introductory section provides a brief summary of Genesis 31-33. Here Holmgren argues that Jacob was chosen before he was even born and that he always wrestled: in the womb, over his birthright, with Laban, at Jabbok. He argues that this supports his claim that “election means more than just sitting and waiting for God to make his decision; it has to do also with assertive action on the part of the elected.”[3]

Holmgren expounds a fair amount on Jacob’s flight and ‘wrestling’ with his father-in–law, Laban. He further argues that even though Jacob flees Canaan, we know “that he must return one day if he is to be one of the fathers of Israel”[4] and that the original readers of this would be well aware of this. He further states that Jacob and Esau were more than just two people - “the ancient writer does not want us to forget that these stories have to do with the relationship between two nations: Israel and Edom.”[5] He cites references to this in the Biblical record to bolster his argument: Gen 25:23, 25:30, 32:28, 35:10; cf. 27:40, 28: 13-14, 36:1; Obad. 1:1-2; Hosea 12:12-13; Mal. 1:1-4.

Holmgren then uses a transitional paragraph to introduce his second major section in the paper: Jacob Wrestling at the Jabbok River. He exalts Jacob as very resourceful while he fearfully appears to meet his brother: Jacob sets up a plan so that some can escape if they are attacked. He prays, reminding God of their covenant, and plans to appease Esau with gifts. To this point in the article, Jacob has wrestled with man but has yet to assertively engage God.

II. Jacob Wrestling at the Jabbok River (Genesis 32:22-32)

Through the sub-sections It Has to Do with the Blessing, A “Look-Back” from a Later Time, and Who is the Opponent? Holmgren begins to examine his primary Text, Genesis 32:22-32, in detail. He argues that “the theme of Blessing…is the central theme of the Jacob-Esau stories”[6] rather than Jacob’s apparent deceitfulness and that as the stories were probably “brought together in their present form during the time of the early monarchy, they represent a ‘look-back’ on Israel’s history. This segment is useful in explaining Jacob’s significance in relation to the origins of various customs and place names that existed at the time of compilation. These names bolster his claim that Jacob was an outstanding individual.

Holmgren further tackles the often-asked question, who is Jacob’s opponent? Concluding, after an informative discussion of the word ’elohim, only that “in the ancient world…the divine sphere is not always completely separate from the world of human beings.”[7] This is important but it detracts from his argument that Jacob assertively engaged God. What would have added to his point would have been if he convincingly argued that Jacob did indeed wrestle God at Jabbok.

III. What is the Story About? (One View: At Jabbok Jacob Becomes A New Person!)

            Holmgren continues to champion Jacob in this section by laying out the argument, which he does not accept, that Jacob repented of his ways at Jabbok and became a new person. This is an effective way to support a claim: address any objections or and refute any alternative views. He points out that Jacob is nowhere recorded as saying he was sorry for any of his actions; “he wants simply to get on with his life as inheritor of the birthright.”[8] He argues that God’s concern here isn’t about that; it is instead about how other people treat each other.

            The view Holmgren is refuting is that during the encounter at Jabbok, Jacob is forced to face himself and admit his name is Deceiver. When Jacob is asked his name, it recalls the deception of his father, Isaac, and “it is maintained that he is really repenting – making a decision to turn away from his deceptive ways. In response…God gives him a new name.”[9] He successfully argues that this view necessitates a negative view of Jacob prior to Jabbok that is not present in the Biblical account. His arguments against this theory support the theme that by the standards of the world in which Jacob lived, he committed no wrong that required repentance; it however does nothing to support his claims about assertively engaging God.

IV. What is the Story About? (A Second View: God likes an Assertive Partner)

The title of the following section leads one to believe that Fredrick Holmgren will directly argue here his preferred interpretation of the encounter at Jabbok: ‘God likes an assertive partner.’ He states that though we, in this time and place, are offended by Jacob’s deceit, “it should be noted that nowhere in the Pentateuch does Jacob come under criticism for these acts:”[10] Jacob is going to receive God’s blessing and “this divine assurance is not conditional on Jacob’s repentance; in fact, God does not appear to be troubled by Jacob’s questionable action in gaining the Blessing. Because the texts that surround Genesis 32:22-32 contain no criticism of Jacob…we should question any interpretation of this passage which makes Jacob’s deception a central theme.”[11]

Why then does Jacob receive a new name? Holmgren argues that “Jacob’s name change has nothing to do with a repentant attitude on his part; he is given a new name because he has shown strength in his relationship with God and with men…The change of name appears to be an explanation of how the name Israel came to be applied to Jacob.” He also points out that if Jacob had been an inferior name, it would not have continued to be used to reference him. It is a good argument.

Holmgren asserts that the meeting between the two brothers has more to do with explaining how Israel and Edom come to occupy their geographical locations than it does about deception. Even if this account is about deception, any condemnation is, “perhaps... to read our thoughts and our morality into the text.”[12] In Jacob’s defence he further asks, “must one always tell the truth?” Holmgren does not answer yes.  He responds that “for Israelites, Jacob is an example of the wise person…He told a lie to outwit an enemy who would have prevented the birth of Israel.”[13] He also leads us to believe that when Jesus calls us to be as wise as serpents, he is endorsing this kind of behaviour. In this he extends his defence of Jacob but still has not addressed an assertive engagement with God.

V. Reflection: Understanding Jacob and Esau

            He further argues in the next section that Esau is not simply a victim and that his apparent forgiveness and acceptance of his brother is rather a means to control him. Holmgren argues from Jewish tradition that in this “Esau is the manipulative, crafty one who covers up his vengeful desires with insincere words and acts of love.”[14] He compares Esau’s greeting to that of Judas’ in the garden of Gethsemane. He then asks if this is so bad?

If both Jacob and Esau are wise/crafty and neither one is condemned by ’elohim who is active in this encounter, must there be a bad guy in this story? Holmgren cites a number of unethical and “unusual actions done in threatening situations…and that these actions are recorded without criticism” in the Biblical record. He then pushes his point further by asking  “how should an individual act, how should a nation act when its existence is threatened? Should people who survived life-threatening situations by means of insincere acts and lies have done differently?…are we justified when we act in such [unethical] ways? was Jacob justified? Esau? Ruth? Moses? Jeremiah?” These are tough question to hear but I submit that he would have done better to address them further if he desires the reader to answer them in the affirmative.

VI. Reflection: Was God’s Jacob’s Opponent?

            The sixth section of this paper at first appears to be Holmgren’s postscript. It seems almost tangential to any point but nonetheless interesting: he revisits in more detail the question with whom was Jacob wrestling? He now attempts to make the case that it could be God because there are times when God is immanent in the world of the Biblical text: he cites references to God attacking Moses and Israel. He then extends his argument from one of opposition at Jabbok to one of opposition in life. He argues that “to be in covenant with this God demands more than a passive, lean-on-me piety…there are times when God must be questioned, criticized, an wrestled.”[15]

It seems to me that he introduces these thoughts much too late in the article. If he had developed the claims made in the concluding section that “Jacob, as Job, stands in strength against God… and God is pleased with him” earlier in the paper and spent as much time examining them as he did defending Jacob’s actions, he may have been convincing. As it stands though, I don’t believe he successfully argued that point. That being said Fredrick C. Holmgren, in my opinion, did defend the idea that ‘Jacob wrestled with many and, by the standards of the world in which he lived, committed no wrong in the process.’ Therefore, I submit that that was actually the thesis of this article or at the least the claim that he most effectively defended.

Reading Analysis of Genesis 2-3: the Theme and Intimacy and Alienation by Alan Jon Harper. Published in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature.

 Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006)  

            The primary purpose of this article is simply, as Alan Hauser states, “to analyze the writer’s development of the two-dimensional theme of intimacy and alienation.”[1] The main theme of the article relates to the intimacy and alienation expressed in Genesis 2-3. After a very clear and concise introduction and prior to an effective summary, the article is broken up into two distinct sections clearly marked ‘I’ and ‘II’. The first part concentrates on Chapter 2 and the development of the theme of intimacy; the second part examines alienation as a theme of Genesis 3.

I.

            In the first section the author notes that the writer of the second and third chapters of Genesis “weaves several components into an intimate picture of harmony, with all revolving around man, the first and central element in the created order. These components are: the ground (h’dmh); the Lord God (yhwh ’lhym); the garden (hgn) and its trees (kl ^cts); the animals; and woman (’shh).”[2]

            Pertaining to the Lord God (yhwh ’lhym), the intimacy is emphasized through the fact that He actually formed man. This is thought to be a more intimate expression than merely bringing him into existence. The fact that God, after forming man, breathed into his nostrils further conveys intimacy. The Lord God molds him from the dust of the ground (^cpr mn h’dmh). This links man not only intimately with God but also with the earth as well.

            That the garden is specifically created for man is an example of intimacy. “The writer emphasizes this fact by having God plant it immediately after man receives life, and by having God set the man in the garden immediately after it is planted.”[3]

            It is demonstrated in the article that the creation -and the means of the creation – of woman is a further result of God’s intimacy with man. It creates a new outlet for intimacy: that of the relationship between man (’ysh) and woman (’shh). The “pronoun z’t is used three times in order to single the woman out emphatically at the who is suited to be the man’s companion.”[4] The phrase ‘bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh’ (^ctsm m^ctsmy wbsr mbsry) literally applies to the woman’s relationship to man. Subsequently in the Hebrew Bible (cf. Gen. 29:14; Judges 9:2; 2 Samuel 5:1, 19:12-13) it is used to convey intimacy. “Furthermore, ^ctsm (bone), because of its vocal similarity to ^czr (companion) calls to the reader’s attention the fact that woman, who is ^ctsm of man’s ^ctsm , is also man’s ^czr.”[5] In 2:24 again the issue of one flesh is raised. This time it is in the context of a man leaving his parents to become one with his wife. The author points out also that “beginning with v. 24, the word is not simply “woman,” but rather “his woman.”[6] Alan Hauser also draws the reader’s attention to the fact that they are naked and not ashamed. “Their vulnerability causes no anxiety, and their intimacy is complete.”[7]

II.

            The second section (pp. 25-34) of the article is much longer than the first (pp. 20-25). It looks at Chapter 3 and how the theme of intimacy dramatically switches to a theme of alienation. The serpent is introduced here addressing woman. It is significant that he is addressing her with plural verbs, as if man were present as well. Hauser argues that this may be to further emphasise the degree of intimacy between them, implying that they are one.

            While the language of unity and intimacy is still used by the serpent, Hauser argues it is already undermining man’s intimacy with God. Recorded in v. 5, the serpent is telling woman that God is withholding information intentionally from them. Hauser here bases his argument around the use of the word yd^c (to know). “The writer also stresses the divine-human alienation by means of the clause whyytm k’lhym (and you will be like God)”[8] in the same verse. The writer further uses irony around ‘sight’ and ‘seeing’ to express the theme. First they ‘SAW that the tree was good’ and then that is was a ‘delight to the EYES’. After they eat it however the man and woman do not want to be seen. “The writer uses this fear of being seen as a key means to express the alienation that destroys the harmony of ch. 2.”[9] It is now also that their nakedness is revealed and apparently they do not wish to be naked in each other’s presence anymore. So since “one’s nakedness is a key to one’s innermost self, man and woman are pulling apart from one another: their intimacy is no longer complete.”[10] Later in this chapter man hides this same nakedness from God. He is afraid. He is alienated.

            Also significant is that God is absent from the account from 2:22 until 3:8. The case is made that the alienation begins while God is not present. It is His “reappearance in v. 8, however, [which] brings the theme of alienation to its climax.”[11] When God reappears, man and woman hide in the garden that God created. From here on the writer no longer refers to man and woman with plural verbiage. They are alienated from each other. In verse 9, it is also notable that God does not address them together; He addresses man alone. In the article it is noted that the writer also employs irony to further contrast the intimacy of Chapter 2 with the alienation of Chapter 3: “man and woman eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden in order to be like God (v.5); now as a consequence of their eating, they hide from God in the midst of the trees of the garden…from this point on, everywhere man and woman turn they encounter as symbols of alienation what had formerly been elements of the created world of harmony.”[12] Also now, as the writer points out later “significantly, man will eat ^csb hsdh (the plants of the field): now that he has eaten of the tree in the midst of the garden, all the trees in the garden become unavailable to him.”[13]

            Alan Hauser argues that Verse 12 is where the alienation of man from both God and woman reaches its climax. Man no longer refers to woman as ’shtw (his wife); he now calls her h’shh (the woman) whom you (God) gave to be with me (’shr ntth ^cmdy). He blames God and woman. He refuses to take responsibility for his actions. His alienation is complete. In Verse 13, woman also refuses to take responsibility: she blames the serpent. The serpent itself is cursed as well and there will now be enmity between the serpent and woman for future generations. Man and woman too “no longer are intimate in the way they were previously, since man will rule over his wife (3:16), and the woman will desire her husband (cf. 2:24-25).”[14] Man is also now alienated from the ground from which God personally formed him.

            Finally God places a flaming sword and cherubim to guard the path to the tree of life. As Hauser states in the final section, the Summary, “The permanence of the alienation is stressed …by God’s decisive measures to keep man out of the garden and the tree of life.”[15]

Conclusion

            Each of the aforementioned points raised by the author to convey the theses of intimacy and alienation as I have noted are convincing, particularly since he goes so in depth into the nuances of the actual Hebrew words. Hauser highlights the ironic elements in the text. Irony is a convincing way to juxtapose contrasting elements and Hauser points out effectively how the writer used that device. All that being said, I do have one area where I am still unconvinced of his argument, however, he states that man “threatens the creator’s supremacy as creator.” I found no convincing language to support this supposition and was certainly left wondering why the assertion was made. Overall, though, Albert Jon Hauser has developed a very convincing argument.

Review of Patrick D. Miller Jr., “The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament and Its Law,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 43 (1989)

 Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Fall 2006)  

          I think the isolated quote atop the first page of The Place of the Decalogue in the Old Testament and Its Law operates well as Patrick D. Miller, Jr.’s thesis statement: “In the Decalogue a foundation is laid for the order of the community, a foundation that continues in perpetuity to be the touchstone for all actions on the part of God’s people as they seek to live in community and order their lives;”[1] it is the principles upon which our faith is based. As is stated in the Editorial, “Patrick Miller reviews the reasons for the special place occupied in the Old Testament legal materials by the Decalogue, noting that it confronts us with something akin to what we encounter in constitutional law…[and] the article will aid the interpreter of this material in finding ways to understand and apply it in contemporary life.”[2]

          There are a number of sections to this article that are marked by obvious spaces between paragraphs. These are an introduction that lays the foundation for his argument and sections addressing [1.] that ‘the Decalogue is in some ways capable of being summarized…[2., that it is] subject to elaboration and specification… [and 3. that] one can discern a kind of trajectory for each commandment.”[3] The latter section operates as a conclusion to this paper.

          As part of his introductory section, Patrick Miller has sub-sections highlighting the clues to the Decalogue’s importance, comparing the Decalogue to constitutional law, and addressing the role of covenant. He makes the claim that “most of us understand that the Ten Commandments are basic and not abrogated in anyway by the Christ event.”[4] This claim, if it is true that most of us understand that, emphasizes the importance of the Decalogue. As he states, “the Ten Commandments are at one and the same time both the starting point of the law and of our thinking about the law…it stands at the beginning of all legal material and as such occupies a primary place in the divine instruction that comes through the law or laws of Scripture.”[5]

          The clues to the Decalogue’s place of primacy that he lays out here are one, that there are two separate accounts of the receiving of the Decalogue; two, the immanent nature of the transmission that happened directly between God and his people; and three, that there is a strong similarity between the Exodus and the Deuteronomy accounts.

          He argues that, “there is something going on in the Decalogue that is akin to what we encounter in constitutional law:” Foundations are laid that do not change. He attempts to explain his position through an analogy to the US constitution, which also uses global language to outline general principles. The US constitution, however, is neither unchangeable nor Devine. It does get amended and it is neither intentionally nor inherently holy. The global language does, though, as he claims make it closer to a foundation document then specific legal code. Further, the Ten Commandments’ “dissimilarity from precedent law and other forms of legislation is reflected also in the general absence of sanctions and punishments.”[6] Miller highlights the fact that the word ‘Torah’ is better translated as ‘instruction’ than ‘law’ and then he explores its role as covenantal.

          Patrick D. Miller argues that both the form and structure of the Decalogue are covenantal in nature which he asserts “is the biblical language for the definitive relationship of human existence, the binding together of God and humanity on the basis of the prior redeeming grace of God and in the expectation of a human response that will order life as God wills it.”[7] He then specifically identifies the aforementioned three sections of his paper with the statement that there are “three different but related developments [that] may be said to characterize the way in which the Commandments are carried forward, explicated, and developed.”[8]

          The first section following the introduction is the shortest in this article and it addresses efforts to summarize the Commandments as evidence of their importance. The clearest of which is the Shema. Further recorded summaries of the beginning of the Decalogue appear in Deuteronomy 6:13, 10:20 and Psalm 81:8-10. He further supports his argument by citing summaries or collections of other commandments such as in Leviticus 19:3-4, Ezekiel 22:1-12, and apparent liturgies for covenant renewal ceremonies such as Psalm 50 and indictments on the basis of the Decalogue (Hosea 4:2, Jeremiah 7:9). “The Ten Commandments, therefore, could be called upon and set before the people for various reasons or purposes by citing the primary commandment as spelled out in the Prologue and the first two commandments or by referring to a group of any three to five commandments.”[9]

          The second section of this article addresses the idea that the “elaboration and specification of the force of the Commandments in particular laws takes place rather extensively.”[10] Miller cites the first two commandments’ reiteration in Exodus 20:23; 23:24; 34:14, 17. He reinforces this with specific references to those commands in Exodus 22:20, 23:13; Deuteronomy 12:31, 13, 18:10; Leviticus 19:26, 20:6, 27, 31; 20:1-5. Following this he cites references in the Pentateuch to the third commandment, laws governing the Sabbath, honouring one’s parents, and the prohibitions against stealing and bearing false witness.

          In the concluding section of his paper Miller argues that “the elaboration in specific instances of each of the Commandments does, however, contribute to the opening up of each of them, to the creation of a kind of trajectory for each one, so that as they continue to function as direction for the conduct of individuals in the community, the possibilities or implications of the Commandments begin to broaden.”[11] He argues that a sort of ‘sabbatical principle’ is made in Deuteronomy 15 among other places. He discusses Exodus 23:10-11, where it specifies that the land must lie fallow as being analogous to the Sabbath rest and a multitude of other references to the Sabbath trajectory including, he argues, the jubilee year mentioned in Leviticus 25. Miller asserts then that, “the direction set by the Sabbath commandment continues on in the words of Jesus, both in his recognition that the Sabbath was made for human beings not human being for the Sabbath.”[12] He makes his case around various uses of the word ‘release’ or ‘liberty’ “which combines various kinds of release of which the Old Testament law and the prophets have spoken with Jesus’ release of the people from their sins.”[13]

          Patrick Miller makes specific reference to Martin Luther in this section as evidence of the trajectory of the Fifth Commandment as it applies to authorities in general; he does concede however that Luther’s understanding of the broader application of this commandment is largely ‘an interference.’ He further references extensions relating to the prohibition against killing. The fact that the meaning has been ‘opened up’ is seen in Jesus’ “extension of the prohibition against killing to guard against anger and insults with its positive corollary in active movement toward reconciliation (Matt. 5:21-26).”[14] He mentions Jesus’ (Matt. 5: 27-28) extension of the trajectory of the commandment against adultery to include looking lustfully at a woman. He refers to the broadening of the application of the commandment against theft to include the theft of persons and property. He cites the stories of Nabboth’s vineyard, David’s lust for Bathsheeba, and Amon’s and Shechem’s rapes of Tamar and Dinah respectively to bolster his argument that “the commandment against coveting is by its very character the vehicle that opens up the Commandments as a whole to a broader understanding. It is a guard against an internal, private attitude or feeling that tends to erupt into public and violent acts against one’s neighbour.”[15] Miller states that, therefore “Jesus’ teaching, like that of the rabbis and philosophers, is an extension of the instruction clearly set forth in the last commandment and illustrated negatively so often in the Scriptures and human life.”

          In this article as a whole, Patrick C. Miller, through examining how the Commandments are carried forward, explicated, and developed makes a satisfactory case that far from being abhorgated, the Decalogue “occupies a primary place in the divine instruction that comes through the law or laws of Scripture.”[16]

Analysis of 'The Almost Christian': Sermon 2 by John Wesley

Preached at St. Mary’s Oxford, before the University, on July 25, 1741.

 Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Summer 2008)  

Sermon 2 by John Wesley launches into his discussion of what defines a Christian from the base of Acts 26:28 : 'Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian'

The primary metaphor that Wesley uses to unite the discussion is a description of one whom he defines as the ‘almost Christian’. This is a wonderful vehicle for the discussion; as he compares her/him to the ‘altogether Christian,’ it demands that the hearer/reader pay more attention than if Wesley had merely launched into a discourse of faith versus works. Most readers/listeners, I would imagine, at some point during the description of the ‘almost Christian’ would have cause to ask, as Wesley articulates “Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian? What more than this, can be implied in the being a Christian altogether? ” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 65).

Wesley divided this sermon into two major sections, each of which attempts to answer questions he raises from Acts 26:28:

I. What is implied by being almost a Christian? 

II. What is implied by being altogether a Christian?

I. What is implied by being almost a Christian?

Wesley’s description of the ‘almost Christian’ includes three traits, the first of which is ‘heathen honesty’. Immediately one is drawn into his discussion, for one does not necessarily in our contemporary society equate heathens and honesty whereas Wesley describes them as more honest than many people even in the churches these days. Heathen honesty encompasses refraining from the following acts: being unjust, taking from one’s neighbour, oppressing the poor or the rich, defrauding anyone at all and – insofar as possible – owing anyone anything. The common heathen also acknowledges truth and justice and does not think highly of liars. They can also expect love and assistance from each other: they will feed the hungry and clothe the naked and give away all that they don’t need. One may engage in all these elements of ‘heathen honesty’ and still be only ‘almost a Christian’.

The second trait that defines the ‘almost Christian’ is a form of godliness. One displays this by doing nothing that the gospel forbids. Wesley presents a long list of sins that will be avoided including, among the obvious, those which one would not necessarily attribute to the heathen such as refraining from taking the Lord’s name in vain. The heathen ‘almost Christian’, Wesley claims, not only does not profane the day of the Lord but even does not allow strangers to profane it. How many in our churches fail to live up to the heathen standard here by causing others to work on the Lord’s Day as we have lunch at a restaurant after the service? Wesley explains further that the ‘almost Christian’ will refrain from excesses, revelling and gluttony. How many in our own ranks of TSA Officers have the waistline or knowledge of TV shows that can only be gained by being less than the ‘almost Christian’? Wesley does not stop here. He continues in defining the ‘almost Christian’ as one who “whatsoever his hand findeth to do, he doeth it with his might”: one is not slothful. The ‘almost Christian’ also leads people to Christ and encourages them towards holiness and yet is still only ‘almost Christian’. One goes to church and one leads one’s family in prayer and still one is not even achieved ‘almost a Christian’ status (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 66). There is more.

To be ‘almost a Christian’ one still needs a third trait: sincere faith. It is only when one has this “real inward principal of religion, from whence these outward actions flow” that we may indeed obtain the status of ‘almost a Christian.’ Quoting a heathen Epicurean poet: “Good men avoid sin from the love of virtue. Wicked men avoid sin from a fear of punishment.” According to Wesley, one can – on top of all that has already been discussed “have a sincere view of pleasing God in all things” and still only be ‘almost a Christian.’ Wesley then asks the question that most of us, I’m sure, would ask at this point and that is: “Is it possible that any man living should go so far as this, and, nevertheless, be only almost a Christian?” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991,67).

II. What is implied by being altogether a Christian?

“What more than this, can be implied in the being a Christian altogether?” Three things: the love of God, the love of one’s neighbour, and faith. One has to love God with every ounce of emotion and action. One must “love the Lord your God with all they heart, and with all they soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.” One must love all people, friends and enemies, and we must do so with such sincerity that we love them as much as we do ourselves. We must have faith in God. We must have more than a belief in God. We must have a faith in Christ that even ‘purifies the heart’. Only then according to Wesley are we altogether a Christian.

This second list is not disconnected from the first. The attributes of the ‘almost a Christian’ are a subset of the ‘altogether a Christian’. Wesley acknowledges that even in his less affluent and less self-focussed times, that this is a difficult teaching. He lets us know as well that it is not enough that we have good designs desires to be a good Christian. He reminds us that indeed the road to hell is paved with such good intentions. We must truly have faith and a genuine for love God and our neighbour.

Is Wesley right and true? I believe so. Does this sermon preach today? Yes. Does it preach in North America today? I am not sure. I believe that this message is a holiness message that should encourage all the saints to persevere and not grow faint. I think that so many in our pews may not be included even in the ‘almost a Christian’ category of Wesley’s. I think that maybe this good and strong teaching is solid food for the soul but I think that maybe, in our society, we are not ready yet to be weaned of the spiritual milk. I think this is all true but that maybe we need to first encourage our people to wear the white milk moustaches of prayer and Bible study and as we continue to seek His Kingdom in that way, we will eventually be ready for Wesley’s meat and potatoes.

Return to Index

Analysis of 'The Use of Money': Sermon 50 by John Wesley

 Presented to William and Catherine Booth College (Summer 2008)  

Sermon 50 by John Wesley launches into his discussion of the use of money from the base of Luke 16:9:

I say unto you, make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into the everlasting habitations.

The primary metaphor that Wesley uses to unite the discussion is that of one’s talent/money; he begins by referring to the parable of the shrewd/dishonest manager and then relates it to the Kingdom of God through the following three sections:

I. We ought to gain all we can gain but this it is certain we ought not to do; we ought not to gain money at the expense of life, nor at the expense of our health.

II. Do not throw the precious talent into the sea.

III. Having, first, gained all you can, and, secondly saved all you can, then "give all you can."

I found it very interesting the way Wesley intertwines the plot and theme of money with a recurring reference to love. It is this that pulls the sermon together in such a detailed, precise way, that one really needs to read – or hear - the sermon in one sitting (probably more than once given both the detail and the eighteenth century language) rather than by reading it a little bit at a time.

In this paper I will address the strengths and weaknesses of this sermon in each of the three above identified sections as well as the very important introductory section that sets the tone of the paper to follow. I will then evaluate the overall effectiveness of the sermon and respond to the question, “Does this sermon preach today?”

Introductory Section

Wesley begins this sermon by citing the Lord’s extended metaphor/parable commonly known as the ‘Prodigal Son’ and then launching into the parable about the shrewd/dishonest manager. This serves to provide a context for his unfolding argument since the scripture upon which this sermon is based concludes the latter parable.

Wesley intentionally explores the relevant context of the scriptures in this sermon. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge however that the use of money does not seem to be the intended theme of the parable of the shrewd manager. The parable is specifically addressing the concept of ‘prolipses’ and “through this parable Jesus admonishes his hearers to cast caution aside, seize the moment of opportunity and make provision for their future before God. The Kingdom of God is at hand” (Culpepper 1995, 309). That being noted, it should in no way discredit Wesley’s argument that there are principles from this parable that apply to our use of money. In support of this, I draw on the example of the Apostle Paul who while speaking about righteousness in Romans 7:2-3, instructs us that a man and woman are united in marriage until the death of one of the parties. I also note that the verse from which Wesley’s sermon is launched, Luke 16:9, functions not only as a conclusion to the parable of the manager but also as a transition into Jesus’ teachings about money (Luke 16:10-15) and later the futility of putting one’s faith in riches (Luke 16:19-31). Therefore the introductory metaphor/parable is appreciated as it does set the stage nicely for what is to follow. It is “of the highest concern that all who fear God know how to employ this valuable talent” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 350).

Principle I. We ought to gain all we can gain but this it is certain we ought not to do; we ought not to gain money at the expense of life, nor at the expense of our health.

Wesley’s first principle that we should ‘gain all we can’, will cause most devout Wesleyans to stop in their tracks at first read. One’s mind naturally races to the ideas of the so-called prosperity gospel and of trying to serve two masters. It is important to read on. Wesley espouses a number of useful caveats: our pursuit should not lesson our physical or mental health or those of our neighbours. Wesley argues that even the non-believer should be able to understand this. He bolsters his argument by mentioning from Scripture that “whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with they might.” Thus, with respect to money, he argues that one must ‘gain all you can’. This section cannot stand alone, but it does build the first story upon the introductory foundation and make it possible for him to develop his second principle.

Principle II. Do not throw the precious talent into the sea (Save all you can).

Now that one has gained all one can, Wesley argues that one should save all that one can. As with the first principle, upon reading the second, ‘red flags’ are raised. One immediately thinks of Jesus’ parable of the rich fool (Luke 12) whose only sin was displayed by the fact that he did just what Wesley seems to be suggesting here. The rich fool gained all he could and then he saved all he could and then God called him a fool and took his very life from him. It is good that Wesley elaborates. We should not simply throw away that which God has given us “to gratify the desire of the flesh, desire of the eye, or the pride of life” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 353). Wesley goes on to advocate a life of simplicity so radical that I personally have never seen a living example of it: not only are we not to indulge ourselves at all but Wesley argues that out of love we should not provide superfluities for our children for to do this would be to “increase their temptations and snares, and to pierce them through with more sorrows” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 354). His argument at this point is not yet complete. The third principle still needs to be added to the first two.

Principle III. Having, First, gained all you can, and, Secondly saved all you can, Then "give all you can."

It is only when this principle is added to the preceding principles that the argument gains its full strength. Wesley acknowledges that if one stops prior to this step one has actually done nothing. He argues that we are merely stewards of the Lord’s goods; therefore we should take from Him only as much as is absolutely required to provide for the needs of our household and ourselves. Next, we should provide for the ‘household of faith’ and with all the remainder (and there is much remaining in most households in our contemporary society), we have the opportunity to give to all people and in so doing we will actually be giving to the Lord himself. Wesley encourages us to cut off every expense whose only purpose is to indulge our ‘foolish desires’ and we should give God not only a tenth but everything we have in the manner of the three principles that Wesley has laid out. It is only as we do this that we will be “laying up in store for yourselves a good foundation against the time to come, that ye may attain eternal life! (SIC)” (Outler & Heitzenrater 1991, 357).

Conclusion

This sermon is highly effective. I most certainly felt the conviction of the Spirit upon reading it. In my life, I have been trying to eliminate all that might be considered excess frivolity. It has been difficult for even me who naturally errs towards simplicity. Is this sermon preachable today? I don’t know if Canadian society is ready for it yet. I believe that its message is needed. I think however that we have strayed so far down the staircase of self-indulgence that we may need one or two smaller steps before this one in order to be effectively encouraged to continue climbing the stairway to heaven (holiness).

Return to Index