Gerry Beimers on Amateur Theology

About Gerry Beimers

Gerry Beimers is a Bible translation advisor currently wrapping up the translation of the Bible into Solomon Islands Pijin. That translation is due to be published in July 2008. He's also working on his PhD in linguistics. His other main area of interest is in thinking about Christian education.

Gerry's site: http://www.pijinplus.net

is the OT a metaphor for this age?

Posted on October 8, 2007 by Gerry Beimers 
Filed Under Bible Study | 7 Comments

In a comment to the post God is love. But what is love? Reinhard said, “the OT does several important things. It acts as a metaphor for this age (the time between Christ’s ascention and return),…”

I have a great difficulty with this statement about the Old Testament being a metaphor for this age. Sure, there are places where we can allegorise the actual historical story into a spiritual application, but I very much doubt that the OT is such a metaphor. Why? Well lets see if the metaphor works for example with:

Deut 13:6-11 “Suppose someone secretly entices you—even your brother, your son or daughter, your beloved wife, or your closest friend—and says, ‘Let us go worship other gods’—gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known. 7 They might suggest that you worship the gods of peoples who live nearby or who come from the ends of the earth. 8 But do not give in or listen. Have no pity, and do not spare or protect them. 9 You must put them to death! Strike the first blow yourself, and then all the people must join in. 10 Stone the guilty ones to death because they have tried to draw you away from the LORD your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear about it and be afraid, and no one will act so wickedly again.

I’m scratching my head what the metaphor here might be.

Or let’s jump to the first 9 chapters of 1 Chronicles. That’s nine chapters of genealogy! I’m struggling to find a metaphor there too.

And on I could go, but I won’t. The Old Testament is about the history of God’s dealing with humanity moving from broad interaction to specific interaction with a nation that he had a special covenantal relationship with. Drilling down to his son who came to restore all of humanity. The cycle of creation, fall, redemption is played out in the grand narrative of our scripture.

The seriously brutal injunction of Deuteronomy 13 is about rigorous maintenance of the covenantal relationship. The genealogy of 1 Chron. radically demonstrates that our meta-narrative is well and truly anchored in history. These are not metaphorical concerns, these drill to the heart of me being able to trust the story of my faith.

Or perhaps you disagree?

the parable of the three servants - part 1

Posted on September 14, 2007 by Gerry Beimers 
Filed Under Bible Study | 3 Comments

Matthew 25:14-30 (New International Version)

This post is going to happen in two parts. That’s because you may have this parable figured out and so I don’t need to write. It’s also because I’ll lose the file if I leave it too long and I don’t have time to finish writing it at this point in time.

A few weeks ago, in a speech to Christians, John Howard referred to the “Parable of the Talents” (Matthew 25:14-30) as a great example teaching free enterprise. This nonsense got me slightly riled. Another misapplication relates to the word talent. If you check “talent” on dictionary.com, the sixth entry is “a power of mind or body considered as given to a person for use and improvement: so called from the parable in Matt. 25:14–30.” While this is indeed a current English language meaning for the word talent, the nonsense application to the parable was apparently developed around the year 1430.

So what is this parable all about? Go and read it now! Let me start by saying I prefer to call it the “Parable of the Three Servants.” It is a parable about the kingdom of Heaven (Matthew’s term equivalent to the kingdom of God), about the way God operates in his kingdom.

How would you like 170kg, 68kg, or 34kg of gold to trade with? (no wonder Howard thinks it’s about free enterprise) Anyway, if you read the text carefully you will see that the gold was not “given” to the servants, it was entrusted to them to trade for the master. The amount entrusted was in proportion to the smarts of the servant. The servants did not become owners of the gold, but it was their responsibility to trade with it. The parable focuses on successful trading by two servants and extreme caution by the third.

Jewish teachers used to say that anyone who immediately buries money entrusted to him is no longer liable, because he has taken the safest course possible in protecting the money. On the other hand, if a man wraps the money in a cloth and it is lost, then he is responsible to replace the money.

So there’s a bit of background. Tell us what you think this parable is about. I will respond with part 2 (esp. if Geoff pressures me further…).