Search in ARCHIVES

Published Articles

A Review of ‘African Bible Commentary’

My qualifications for reviewing this commentary are over two decades in full time pastoral church leadership and a decade of academic research and teaching. Right up front, however, let me describe the limitations of this review. Firstly, I have not read all 1,585 pages of this one-volume commentary on the whole Bible. Instead, I have focused on the first three chapters of Genesis, the first 15 chapters of Exodus, Malachi, John, Acts, First Corinthians, and Revelation.

I have not read all of the 78 articles but I have attempted to follow key threads through them. The second limitation is my own cultural background and education. I was born in South Africa, have lived here my whole life and my ancestors go back to the 1820 settlers. However, my cultural upbringing was decidedly Western in orientation. My education too was heavily influenced by European thought patterns and traditions. The commentary I have been asked to review has been produced almost exclusively by black Africans whose roots go back not to the 1820 English settlers but to the migratory tribes of the African continent. Compared to them I lack understanding of many of the cultural nuances and heart attitudes implicit in much of the work I am reviewing.

In the vision statement it has ‘The general aim of the commentary is to make the word of God speak relevantly to African realities today.’ The African Bible Commentary (ABC) has certainly fulfilled this aspect of the vision. The commentaries include references to African traditions and cultural idiosyncrasies as well as aspects of modern application within the current African reality. In addition to this, the majority of the articles cover issues ranging from ‘Christian Education in Africa’ to ‘HIV and AIDS’, and ‘Initiation Rites’.

I found most of the articles I read informative and I do not doubt that they will be of benefit to Christian pastors and teachers throughout Africa.
The quality and depth of the various commentaries differs fairly substantially. For instance, I found the commentary on the first 15 chapters of Exodus excellent. The author’s comments are very informative. He uses several African sayings and makes many helpful applications of the text within the African context. He avoids liberationist themes as well as allegorical interpretations. The commentary on John’s Gospel is also very good. The treatment of 1 Corinthians chapter 14 is particularly good. The commentary on Malachi, however, is not as good. In Mal 2:13-16 the author misses a key opportunity of dealing with the endemic problem of wife abuse. Also, in 3:8-9 the author essentially endorses the practice of tithing without commenting on other understandings and applications of the concept of Christian financial giving. I was disappointed with the commentary on the first 3 chapters of Genesis. I found that it failed to introduce some important current theological issues such as the evolutionist versus creationist debate – this issue is skipped over with the words, ‘This account of the creation in six days (whether taken literally as twenty-four hour days or figuratively as representing long periods of time) reveals a methodical God who created different things one after another with precise purpose.’ Also, it does not give at least introductory pointers to the major treatments of key doctrines such as the Holy Trinity – all the two authors write about this key doctrine is, ‘the plural “let us” also suggests the community of the Godhead, which involves three persons – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’. In addition, it deals inadequately with major current African issues such as stewardship of the natural habitat, and domination of women by men – the author’s comments on the issues they do address are rather moralistic and ‘preachy’. A more serious problem for me is that the authors place the nature and impact of original sin primarily in the context of a break down in original community rather than rebellion against God. I was also surprised that the authors give no introduction to, or evaluation against scripture of, the major African creation myths such as the Shilluk ‘an African story of the creation of man’ and the Yoruba ‘the creation of the universe and life.’
The ABC gives a lot of valuable information on, and insight into, African traditions, customs, and cultural peculiarities. In most of the commentaries I read, the authors have made a serious attempt to provide relevant and helpful insights and applications.
There are however some disappointing exceptions. Citing the commentary on Genesis again, the authors make a number of ‘contextual applications’ that I don’t find helpful. For instance, with reference to God’s creative words ‘let there be’ they attempt an application to African context with, ‘If we listen to his word and submit our plans to his will, he can speak to raise Africa to new heights’ Generally true perhaps but not specific enough to be either helpful or particularly contextual. Another attempt at making the commentary on Genesis relevant to Africans is, ‘We who are in the image of God should imitate his creation in what we create. Thus, for example, we should build a church in Africa that is a place of order, of diversity,’ Again, generally applicable but neither particularly African nor within the context of the passage.

I would expect a one-volume commentary produced by so many scholars to contain a range of doctrinal understandings. I think the editor was correct in not enforcing strict compliance to one particular doctrinal or philosophical position. For instance, the commentary on Ephesians 1:4 appears to support typical Calvinist teaching (although the commentary on the next few verses appears to moderate or even negate this). It would have been very helpful if the author had been required to present at least the essence of the major competing views. I found this to be a weakness in the ABC as a whole. Another example is 1 Corinthians 12 where the author gives a particular, and conservative, interpretation of what constitutes a Word of Wisdom and a Word of Knowledge, without exposing the reader to other major understandings of these ‘gifts’. Much of the material I reviewed is essentially one-dimensional in that the authors present their views without introducing the other major viewpoints.

The greatest strengths of the ABC are its African character and its many excellent articles and commentaries. However, its Africanisation is also its most problematic area. Syncretism is a constant potential threat to the integrity of both the Bible and the church.
Another allied challenge is the need to guard against interpreting the Bible from current cultural context. The ABC does not demonstrate a consistent policy concerning these issues. In several instances, the authors approach perilously close to the line between exegesis and eisegesis. Here are a few examples: In the article ‘New family relationships’ the author refers to sacrifices for protection but does not comment critically or evaluate in any way against the biblical revelation. In the article on Taboos, the author states that ‘…we should carefully examine taboos to see what they tell us about God and his self-revelation.’ The conservative evangelical approach would be to evaluate taboos against the scriptural record rather than to accept them as a peculiar form of general revelation. The article ‘The role of the ancestors’ contains a number of potentially problematic statements such as ‘… some African theologies have proposed that Jesus be presented as an African ancestor. This idea is not without merit, for Jesus is like the ancestors in that people can take their problems to him…’ The author then qualifies his statement with ‘But there is a danger that making him an ancestor may be tantamount to reducing his post-resurrection elevation as Lord of Lords.’ He then proposes that ‘the best approach may be… (to say) that Jesus has come to fulfil our African ancestral cult…’ This approach is fraught with difficulties and dangers. It assumes that most traditional African religions are both ‘of God’ and generally similar to the religion of the ancient Hebrews. I do not believe that either of these assumptions can reasonably be supported from scripture or from an analysis of many forms of traditional African religion. In the article, ‘Yahweh and other gods’ the author makes a similar claim when he writes that ‘… we can use the name of the Supreme Being of African peoples to refer to God.’ Could we equally argue that Allah is just another name for the God of the Old Testament, or that Krishna is just another name for Jesus? Counterbalancing these tenuous contentions, I found the article ‘Syncretism’ to be well reasoned and helpful. Here the author argues for the legitimacy of  ‘adopting any traditional elements that make one’s faith more culturally relevant’.  He goes on to caution that ‘Evangelicals must not allow their fear of syncretism to prevent them from contextualizing their faith to allow for meaningful local expression of it’. Then he makes the all important observation that ‘…such contextualization must be accompanied by a firm stand for the absolutes or cores of the gospel message. We need to be rigorous in guarding against any form of Christo-paganism, but there is nothing wrong theologically and missiologically with integrating culture and the gospel as long as the finality and supremacy of Jesus Christ alone as our Lord and Saviour is not sacrificed at the altar of multicultural and religious relativism’. Well put indeed!

Just as the first commentary in the ABC is problematic, so is the first article ‘Scripture as the interpreter of culture and tradition’. This lead article contains a number of questionable statements. Contextualisation and enculturation are complex issues and perhaps a longer and deeper article would have more adequately presented the author’s ideas. As it stands, however, I found the article contentious and potentially misleading. For instance, ‘Africans have a strong sense of their pre-Christian religious journey and should be alive to this participation in Scripture’ assumes acceptance, as I have previously noted, that most traditional African religions are ‘godly’ and that African history parallels, or even equates to, biblical history. Certainly several traditional beliefs and practices appear to belie the contention that in general African traditional religion should be regarded as ‘holy’. The author also states that ‘We should not focus on extracting principles from the Bible and applying these to culture.’ In my opinion, that is exactly what we should be doing. Culture certainly influences the way we ‘read’ doctrine but the general direction of interpretation should be from scripture to culture and not from culture to scripture. The commentator later writes ‘If people recognize that Onyankopon (as God is called by the Akan of Ghana), the God they have known from time immemorial, is their Saviour…’ Here a traditional African god is presented as the God of scripture and a manifestation of Jesus! In my view, the author has stepped well over a crucial contextual line here.

The ABC is a valuable contribution to the body of commentaries available and has a unique range of Africanised comment and applications. However, parts of it need to be read with discretion. Most of it is excellent but some commentaries and articles are questionable.
Whilst it provides valuable background and African context material, it tends to lack adequate introductory treatment of several key issues and doctrines. A careful re-editing could greatly improve this work and provide a second edition purged of dubious comment and enhanced by the inclusion of a fuller range of introductions to doctrines and key societal issues. The commentary will most likely continue through several reprints and we should regard it as a work in progress. It constitutes a major undertaking and the editor has done a remarkable job of bringing great diversity generally within sound scriptural parameters. With suitable attention to its tendency towards theological one-dimensionality and its attempts to justify traditional African religions rather than evaluate them against the biblical record, the ABC should evolve into an even more worthy one-volume ‘African’ commentary of the Bible.

 

A Review of ‘African Bible Commentary’ Read More »

The Word became Flesh

Ask most Christians to quote their favourite verse and a good number will cite John 3:16. One of my favourite verses is John 1:14 ‘The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us…’

I thrill every time I read those words. God the Son chose to take the very form of a man! (Philippians 2:7) Because of his love for us he voluntarily laid aside his divine powers and became like one of us! He who existed from eternity past in unimaginable glory was willing to live for a while on this dark planet. More than that, he was prepared to suffer terribly and then be put to death in the most barbaric way so that we could have life in his name!

I don’t understand how God accomplished the feat of incarnating divinity into human frailty. Over the centuries theologians have tried in vain to explain this mystery. Most of these attempts ended in some or other heresy. Ebionism, docetism, monophysitism, applonarianism, nestorianism, kenoticism… the list goes on – one unpronounceable formulation after the other! I confess that I don’t even understand the Chalcedonian formula that Jesus was consubstantial with the Father, according to his divinity, and consubstantial with us according to his humanity. Consubstantial means ‘having the same substance’ but, to be frank, this doesn’t help me much. However, this I know – Jesus is the image of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15). I know further that God the Father was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Colossians 1:19) and that Jesus is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being (Hebrews 1:3).

I balk at the idea of trying to explain how all this can be. We exist at present in what Einstein described as a space-time continuum. God is not limited to the dimensionality of this world. His ways are so much higher than our ways. I can’t even explain how light can simultaneously exist as both a wave and a particle. I am told on authority that it does. I choose to believe that it does. The biblical statements are clear – Jesus was and is both God and man. I choose to believe this. I feel no more need to know how God achieved this than to know how light can be both quantum and wave.
Just when did this miraculous union of God and man take place? Most scholars are unanimously of the opinion that it didn’t happen on the 25th December. A far more probable date is Jewish New Year of 3 BC. However, the Holy Spirit chose not to record Jesus’ birthday. Perhaps so that we would not overemphasize his humanness to the detriment of our appreciation of his divine pre-existence.

It is quite popular in some church circles to scorn December 25th. We are told that it was an ancient pagan ‘holy’ day and that we shouldn’t associate ourselves with it. But allow me to let you into a secret. It seems that something very special did happen on 25th December 2 BC. On that day, fifteen months after the birth of the messiah, wise men from the East arrived at a little village called Bethlehem. Any of the computerised astronomy programmes available will confirm that on that night there was a significant stellar event. The planet Jupiter reached the end of its procession through the heavens and appeared to stand still in the constellation of Virgo. From the vantage point of Jerusalem the planet would have seemed to be hovering brightly over Bethlehem! That same planet, which the ancients called a wandering star, was in conjunction with Regulus in the constellation of Leo fifteen months earlier. Jupiter was the king of the gods in the Roman pantheon. Regulus was a royal star of the Persians, and Leo was the constellation of kings and was particularly associated with the tribe of Judah.

What thrills me about Christmas is that on that day the world still comes to bow before the king of kings, the Lord Jesus Christ! Two thousand years ago the Magi brought him their worship and gifts. Their modern counterparts are still doing so to this day. Every Christmas the churches, all over the world, are filled with politicians, bankers, scientists, and scholars. Many of them don’t come near a church building at other times of the year, but on December 25th they flock in to sing carols of worship and to drop their money into the collection bag. One of the hymns sung in most churches on this special day is ‘Hark the herald angels sing’. Its second verse contains the words ‘…veiled in flesh the Godhead see; Hail the incarnate deity! Pleased as man with men to dwell, Jesus, our Immanuel.’

Immanuel means ‘God with us’. The wonder of the incarnation is that God came to be with us. Through the Holy Spirit he is still with us. Because he came, we can be with him, both now and eternally. I love Christmas day!
 

The Word became Flesh Read More »

The Mystery of the Trinity

The doctrine of the tri-unity of the Godhead is a mystery! We can create symbols, diagrams, and analogies to try to explain it, but we really do not understand how God can be three, yet one. It is not a revealed doctrine. It is implied in the references to Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father as… God. Yet the doctrine of the Trinity is central to how we define orthodox Christianity.

Genesis 1:26 states, ‘Let us make man in our image’. The Hebrew word Elohim is a plural name used of God. God is more than one. In the New Testament, the Father is called God, the Son is also called God, and so is the Holy Spirit. Yet the consistent Old Testament declaration is that God is one. So, if God is one yet the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God, then God must be three-in-one, a trinity.

Over the years, people have come up with many analogies to try to explain the three-in-oneness of God. Perhaps the best of these is the reference to H2O. Imagine a sealed glass jar, half-filled with water that has just boiled. Three cubes of ice float in the water. Steam fills the upper portion of the jar. For a short time, the H2O in the jar co-exists in three different forms – water, ice, and steam. In this analogy, the water represents the Father, the ice represents the Son, and the steam represents the Holy Spirit. Then the ice melts, and the steam condenses, and all you have is a jar half full of tepid water. In the same way, the analogy fails to satisfy us intellectually and creates as many problems as it perhaps solves.

A better idea is to focus on our lack of comprehension. Rather than seeking to understand how God can be three yet one, we can try to grasp why we cannot comprehend tri-unity.
We exist in three dimensions of space. God, on the other hand is multi-dimensional. He does not seem to be limited to time or place. In any event, if he created this 3D universe then he must logically exist in more than three dimensions. [As I write this, I am smiling wryly to myself because here I am trying to explain God. Forgive me Lord; I am just trying to find a way to appreciate you better.]

In the early twentieth century, a man by the name of Edwin Abbot Abbot came up with an innovative way of helping us to comprehend higher dimensions. He reasoned that although we have no idea of what higher dimensions are like, we do know what lower dimensions consist of. A line is a two-dimensional construct and a dot is one-dimensional. His idea was to invent a 2D world, which he named Flatland, populated by 2D people. They had length and breadth but no height. In Flatland, a square would appear as a straight line. A circle would look like a straight line that blurred at both ends. A triangle would be a line that appeared to be darker in the middle. Remember, there is no dimension of height in Flatland. Edwin reasoned that a 3D creature entering Flatland would resemble a multi-dimensional creature entering our 3D world.

Now, what would the citizens of Flatland see if a 3D object, like a sphere, were to pass through the 2D plane of their world? As the sphere made contact with their 2D plane, they would see a dot. Then, as the sphere passed through their world they would see a line. At first, the line would grow in length. After the circumference of the sphere passed through Flatland, the line would shrink back down to a dot. Do you get the picture?

What would they see if a three-legged stool were to pass through Flatland? At first they would see it as three dots and then as three lines. As the seat passed through their world, they would see just one long line. At first, they would see it as three, but then they would perceive it as one. But how would  3D creatures see the stool? They would describe it as one object with a seat and three legs.

The Holy Trinity is not a mystery to the angels. They exist in higher dimensions of space and time. It is only a mystery to us because we cannot comprehend higher dimensions. We are like Flatlanders.
Fortunately for us, God understands our limitations. God the Son came into our world of limited dimensions to reveal to us the mystery of the Godhead. In essence, this is what Jesus said; “If you want to see God, look at me” In answer to Phillip’s request that he show them the Father, Jesus replied “…anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” (John 14:9) Hallelujah! The concept of ‘trinity’ may be mysterious to us but we can comprehend Jesus. He is the revelation of the Godhead to humanity. ‘For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form…’ (Colossians 2:9). As always, when things appear mysterious… look to Jesus.

 

The Mystery of the Trinity Read More »

Why Study Theology

For me theology is not the study of God. I find this concept incomprehensible. Imagine an ant looking back up a microscope and attempting to describe to his fellow ants the nature of the one examining him. The idea is preposterous. I understand Christian theology as the discipline that seeks to coherently describe and collate the doctrines of the Christian Faith. More than that, Systematic Theology helps us to answer the question ‘what does the Bible teach us today about any given topic?’

The Bible is not a spiritual dictionary. It does not arrange everything we need to know into categories. To understand what it teaches concerning faith and life we need to study and collate all that it teaches. This is Systematic Theology. In truth, all of us have a theology but often it is disorganised instead of systematic.

It is fatuous to argue that we do not need theology. We speak and act out of what we believe. Theology affects our lives and the lives of others. The better we can understand the Word of God, the better we can live, witness and influence others. All Christians, but pastors in particular, have a sacred duty to be proficient theologians (2 Tim 2:15). Ill-equipped ministers, both lay and professional, have greatly harmed believers and have discredited the church. On the other hand, gifted pastors who do have a developed systematic theology, have blessed and equipped so many believers.

Sometimes I come across someone who says “I don’t need theology because the Holy Spirit reveals to me all I need to know.” People might get such an idea from 1 John 2:27 of course;

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit — just as it has taught you, remain in him.
Now I really do not want to be offensive, but frankly anyone who quotes this text as a reason for not being concerned with theology is simply demonstrating their great need of it!

The verse in First John is part of a passage that starts in verse 18 and ends at verse 27. It is all about being on our guard against false teachers. John cites two protections against these men. Firstly, we are protected by the apostolic teaching (verse 24) and secondly, by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Someone with a disorganised theology might try to separate verse 27 from verse 24. However, a systematic theology would protect from that error. The very first Christians devoted themselves to the Apostles Teaching (Acts 2:42) and the teaching ministry is both taught and demonstrated in many places in both Old and New Testaments (Eph 4:11 etc.). Sound and systematic theology demands that we acknowledge both the anointing of the Holy Spirit and the teaching ministry of the church.

Developing a systematic theology helps us to tap into the best the church has offered over the last 2,000 years. It is true that there has been a lot of error taught over the centuries. It is equally true that God has raised up wonderfully gifted teachers who have left a significant deposit of true understanding. The anointing we have from the Holy Spirit helps us to discern good from bad theology. So, it’s not a case of either theology or anointing, it’s a case of theology and anointing.

We are such a privileged generation! We have the benefit of two millennia of church life. We have access to the best minds and the purest spirits from all generations of believers. We have understandable versions of the Bible. We have books by the thousands. We have great seminaries and Bible Colleges.
The issue is not ‘should I study theology?’ The issue is ‘how should I study theology?’ My advice would be to enroll in a good theological programme. Failing that, make it a discipline to read at least one of the splendid systematic theologies available. Dr Millard J Erikson has produced ‘Christian Theology’ and Dr Wayne Grudem has written ‘Systematic Theology’. These works are both sound and comprehensive. The most effective way to understand the benefit of theology is to ‘do’ it. Karl Barth wrote, ‘The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.’

 

Why Study Theology Read More »

Prisoners of Our Past

I put the phone back on its holder with a mixture of emotions ranging from irritation to condescension. I had been talking to a woman who, although in her seventies, regarded her failures and general unhappiness as the product of her childhood. She is not alone, for it seems that many people blame their parents, or childhood circumstances, for their current woes. I just don’t get it!

I understand that trauma, neglect, and abuse of any kind can leave emotional scar tissue, and that even late in life these negative legacies can trigger defense mechanisms in us. This I get. I also understand that sometimes people need to recognise the childhood causes of their reactions and some also need counselling or therapy to help them cope. What I don’t get is why anyone should believe that they are a prisoner of their past. Yet many people have bought into this strange concept and whole counselling practices have arisen to heal past hurts.

Parents are the obvious targets of these inner healing practices. Now I am a parent, and I realise just how many mistakes I made in raising my two children. There was no ‘How to be a perfect parent’ book available, and even if there was it would probably have been more wrong than right. Child-raising is a grand yet guilt-inducing process where one or more parents stumble through decades of trial and error, success and failure, joy and despair. However, this I know, that the vast majority of parents do the very best they can for their children. Sometimes we make monumental mistakes but mostly they are honest mistakes, made because of ignorance and not malice.

If these mistakes leave emotional scars on our children then the best we can do is to apologise, make right wherever possible, and learn to do better next time.
When I look back on my childhood, I realise that there were some events that indeed left me with emotional baggage, and I concede that my parents often played a role in these events. Yet I don’t blame them, because I know they were doing the best they knew how at the time. I also realise that for every unintended wrong they did me there were ten intended blessings that they imparted. My health, education, interests, and talents were all part of the good that they did me. For 17 years of my life I freeloaded off them, gave them problems, made unreasonable demands and seldom even thought to thank them. And now as a mature adult I should blame them for my deficiencies?! I think not!

The lady I had been speaking to on the telephone is not a Christian but even so it irritates and saddens me that she should blame her parents for her less than satisfactory adult life. She had no trauma inflicted on her, no abuse, and no physical deprivation. All she can claim is a feeling of not being loved enough, and that, she says, has caused her to be unfulfilled and unsuccessful. Give me a break! For those of us who are born again of the Spirit, there is even less reason to be prisoners of our past. “You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:22-24). We who know Jesus as saviour have been made new – we have a new self, created to be like God!

Yet, despite this glorious truth, thousands of Christians throng the sanctuary areas of countless churches every Sunday seeking ministry for some or other childhood hurt. During the week, thousands more take up lifetimes of pastoral attention and emotional energy as they seek counselling and inner healing.

For every one who really does need help there are a hundred who need rather to break out of the shackles of the past and walk thankfully and freely in the glorious reality of life in and with Christ Jesus.

 

Prisoners of Our Past Read More »

About Me

My name is Christopher Peppler and I was born in Cape Town, South Africa in 1947. While working in the financial sector I achieved a number of business qualifications from the Institute of Bankers, Damelin Management School, and The University of the Witwatersrand Business School. After over 20 years as a banker, I followed God’s calling and joined the ministry full time. After becoming a pastor of what is now a quite considerable church, I  earned an undergraduate theological qualification from the Baptist Theological College of Southern Africa and post-graduate degrees from two United States institutions. I was also awarded the Doctor of Theology in Systematic Theology from the University of Zululand in 2000.

Four years before that I established the South African Theological Seminary (SATS), which today is represented in over 70 countries and has more than 2 500 active students enrolled with it. I presently play an role supervising Masters and Doctoral students.

I am a passionate champion of the Christocentric or Christ-centred Principle, an approach to biblical interpretation and theological construction that emphasises the centrality of Jesus

I have been happily married to Patricia since the age of 20, have two children, Lance and Karen, a daughter-in-law Tracey, and granddaughters Jessica and Kirsten. I have now retired from both church and seminary leadership and devote my time to writing, discipling, and the classical guitar.

If you would like to read my testimony to Jesus then click HERE.