Book Review: Derek Flood's "Disarming Scripture"

Today on my blog I am reviewing a great new book by author and theologian Derek Flood: Disarming Scripture: Cherry-Picking Liberals, Violence Loving Conservatives, and why we need to learn to read the Bible like Jesus did. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Impressions

Flood’s latest offering is addressing a deep problem in the way Christians have (mis)read our Scripture. The problem of violence is not just an anachronistic oddity of interpretation of Scripture. As Flood comments, “genocide narrative is a central theme of the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, and constitutes a major component of the defining story of the Israelites as they came into the promise land.”[1] Sadly the Bible has a long history of being used to justify, and legitimate violence throughout history. Texts like the conquest narrative of the book of Joshua have been rallying points for crusades, manifest destiny, and genocide. The problem of the violence of the Bible is a problem for Christian precisely because we claim these Scriptures as our sacred text. Flood in his latest book, gives us the vocabulary and hermeneutic to address these problem passages head on.

What Derek Flood does exceptionally in this book is to challenge both liberal and conservative readings of Scripture. A liberal reading, according to Flood, is “to point to the good parts… deny the problem and simply whitewash over the evidence.”[2] The conservative reading of the violent texts is to “advocate for things we know are profoundly wrong in an attempt to defend the Bible and our faith.” [3] In so far as Flood has done this, you should expect to be challenged by this book. 

I personally grew up in a tradition that has more or less ignored the troubling passages of Scripture. This book has given me a renewed encouragement to re-engage those troubling passaging with a "faithful questioning" that asks tough questions of the text in light of how Jesus read his bible.

A good challenge that Derek Flood brings to those of us from traditions (like Anabaptist) who have a practice of Jesus-lensed interpretation on the violent passages, is to not base our understanding of Scripture purely on authority.  As Flood comments, "As long as we are basing something on authority, we are not understanding it. This is the way of unquestioning obedience which inevitably leads to hurtful interpretations because it has no means to differentiate between what is hurtful and what is loving." Instead, we need to take the next step to imitate the way Jesus reads and engages Scripture. Why is this important? Well, without giving away too much in the book, because ultimately Jesus did not speak out on all the issues that we may find morally problematic today. (e.g. slavery, discipline of children) 

Something I also appreciate about Flood in this book is his thorough engagement with some of the best academic minds and information in the field. Authors and theologians such as N.T. Wright, Richard Hays, James Dunn, Peter Enns, John Yoder, Susan Niditch and many more are being engaged and cited throughout this book. Flood does a great service in summing up arguments, critically engaging scholarship, and providing helpful footnotes all throughout this book. I honestly feel as if Flood is intentionally empowering his readership to engage his book as a launching point to further study. For this reason, I would encourage everyone who is interested in the topic of violence in Scripture to check out Flood's latest book.

Exceptional Particulars 

Chapter Three: Paul’s Conversion From Violence 

I think I share Brian Zahnd’s sentiments in that we both think this was an amazing chapter in the book. Basically put, Flood makes the convincing case that Paul’s conversion on the Damascus Road is one away from violent zealotry of religious fanaticism and into an interpretation of his Scriptures in light of the non-violent Messiah. As Flood brilliantly comments, 

“Paul’s conversion to Christ was not one of a “sinner” who finds religion. Paul already had religion, and describes himself in fact as a religious zealot who could boast that his observance of the Torah was faultless… Paul’s conversion was one away from religious fanaticism. In other words, Paul did not see himself as rejecting his former violent interpretation of Israel’s scriptures, but rather as rejecting his former violent interpretation of them. Paul’s great sin - as he came to understand it- had been participation in what he understood as religiously justified acts of violence, motivated by religious zeal.” [4]

Flood then spends a good chunk of chapter three showing how Paul’s citation of Torah in his writings deliberately edits the original context to strip it of violence. One such example Flood provides is Paul’s quotation of Deuteronomy 32:43 found in Romans 15.

“Rejoice with his people, you Gentiles, and let all the angels be strengthened in him.For he will avenge the blood of his children; he will take revenge against his enemies.He will repay those who hate him and cleanse his people’s land.”-Deuteronomy 32:43

Paul, Flood argues, is not just being a sloppy exegete but, “artfully and deliberately reshaping [scripture] from the original cry for divine violence into a confession of universal culpability, highlighting that all of us need mercy.”[5]

A Trajectory Reading of Scripture

Flood has divided the book into two parts: (1)Violence in the Old Testament & (2)Violence in the New Testament. In the later half of the book, Flood invests considerable time introducing his readership to the concept of a trajectory reading of scripture. This I believe is an important point to consider in relation to how we formulate our ethics in the New Testament. Many Christians understand that Scripture is a progressive narrative from the story of Israel being fulfilled in the story of Jesus. We get that something new has arrived on the scene with the new covenant. What may be a surprise to many Christians is that the New Testament is not a static monolith of arrived ethical perfection. As Flood explains,

“If we read the New Testament as a storehouse of eternal principals, representing a “frozen in time” ethic, where we can simply flip open a page and find what the timeless “biblical” view on any particular issue is- as so many people read the Bible today- then we would need to conclude that the institution of slavery has God’s approval and maintain it today. This is in fact exactly how many American slave-owning Christians did read the Bible in the past. Yet all of us would agree today that slavery is immoral.” [6]

I often feel this unresolved tension and partial fulfillment in the writings of Paul. For instance, Paul in Galatians boldly proclaims, “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” [7] Yet in other instances we see the tension of Paul commending a slave Philemon to return to his Master, which is further exemplified by Paul’s multiple exhortations that slaves should, “obey your earthly masters in everything”.[8] How do we resolve this tension? Flood encourages us to read the direction and trajectory of the New Testament authors (e.g. Gal 3.28) and try to progress on that journey ourselves. 

From Unquestioning Obedience to Faithful Questioning

The problem we face our readings of Scripture is one of unquestioning obedience. Or in other words, our practices can sometimes be reduced to turning to any page of the Bible and yelling “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” This, Flood suggests, is not a faithful representation of how Jesus or Paul would read their Scriptures.

So a few basic points that Flood makes in favour of a faithful questioning:

1. The Hebrew Scriptures are multi-vocal documents of  sometimes opposing views- testimony and counter testimony. 

“In the Hebrew Bible, we do not hear only a single unified voice, rather we encounter multiple competing voices - each claiming to be the correct view, each claiming authority.” [9]

2. When Jesus & Paul read their Scriptures they did not affirm every voice and every assumption in the Hebrew text.

“Jesus, while embracing the prophets’ priority of compassion over ritual, rejects their common tactic of blaming the victim, and instead acts to heal those who are sick, effectively undoing God’s supposed “judgement” on them. Jesus, in fact, does not associate sickness with God’s judgement at all, but with the kingdom of satan, and thus acts to liberate people from its bondage, rather than upholding it as right and calling for repentance as the prophets do.”[10]

3. Faithful questioning requires us to enter into the discussion with humility, knowing that the function of Scripture, as summed up by Jesus, is to love God, and our neighbour as ourselves. 

“Because of the multiple conflicting narratives we simply must choose, we must take sides in the debate, we are forced to embrace some narratives, while rejecting others.” [11] 

“Jesus is calling us as his disciples, to a mature, intelligent, responsible and empowered reading of Scripture that is rooted in life and our shared human experience together. Our hermeneutical key then is that our interpretation needs to be evaluated on its merit - we need to look at the fruits. If we see that it results in love then this is the aim of Scripture.” [12]

Possible Points of Improvement

Is Judgement inherently violent? 

In the nine chapter, “Undoing Judgement”, Flood enters into a discussion on Matthew’s use of violent language. Flood highlights that the Gospel according to Matthew adds phrases that appear to highlight divine retribution. As Flood comments, “We read of the unfaithful being “tortured” (Mt 18:34), “tied hand and foot”(Mt 22:13), “cut into pieces” (Mt 24:51, par Lk 12:46), “thrown into darkness” (Mt 8:12; 22:13;25:30), and “thrown into the blazing furnace” (Mt 13:42 & 50).” [13]

Flood’s proposal is that, “Matthew has added apocalyptic language to the parable of Jesus with the intent of tapping into the hopes of the Jewish people for liberation from bondage.” [14] To this I say amen! I agree wholeheartedly. 

My “possible point of improvement”, alongside Flood's points would be to also suggest a partial preterist reading of some of the violent passages in Matthew. (This will not bring an easy resolution to all of Matthew’s texts) This is to say that if Matthew’s community is primarily Jewish, then we are to read much of Matthew’s judgement passages as warnings of God’s coming judgment upon Israel. As Fredrick Dale Bruner comments on the Olivet discourse, "Jesus saw the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world as being almost contemporaneous.” This is of course does not immediately resolve any tension without clarification to how God is judging Israel. Is it a matter of God being retributive or violent? Or is it a matter God surrendering us to this ontological realities of sin? I would like to suggest that God’s judgments are a matter of punitive withdrawal, which is God “giving us over” to consequences of our choices. This is not violence in any sense of the term but rather the very fulfillment of our free will choices. God’s judgement is not the position of an active tormentor, but of the Prodigal Father that willingly lets us divide our inheritance and go the other way. (Luke 15) This is the reason, I believe, why Matthew is being so vivid and apocalyptic is partly because this fate of the nation of Israel could have been avoided, and he is likely warning his faith community over danger of the rejection of the good news. [15] This perhaps would explain Matthew’s striking prediction of judgement to be fulfilled within “this generation”. (Mt 23:36; 24:34)

I think Luke helps us grasp God’s heart toward judgement on Israel, and subsequently a picture of God’s attitude to all judgement. Luke tells us that when Jesus was making his final journey to Jerusalem, 

“He wept over [Jerusalem] and said, “If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.”[16] 

 God in Christ arrives at the City that has rejected his way of peace which leads to them ultimately putting him upon the Cross of his execution and weeps over the state of affairs. It is striking picture of the God allowing us to rebel. To go our own way."If they had believed in Jesus as the messianic Prince of Peace instead of a messianic Lord of War, Jerusalem could have actually become the City of Peace. Instead, they chose the path that led to a hellish nightmare of siege, famine, cannibalism, destruction, and death."[17] I would suggest that this is God’s attitude in all  judgements. As N.T. Wright comments on the above passage:

“When you reflect on Jesus’ words and deeds of judgement, don’t forget the tears. And remember, with awe, … that those tears are not just the human reaction to a frustrating situation. They are the tears of the God of love.” [18]

What is violence?

I thought a helpful addition to Disarming Scripture might have been a focused discussion around the nature of violence.   I should note that I do not think for a moment that Flood has limited violence to the physical realm in his book as evidenced by many of the examples he provides. It is merely a "possible point of improvement" that I suggest a concentration on the nature of violence. Often the assumption is to limit the defining parameters of violence to the physical realm. This is certainly fits into the provided  examples of slavery and child discipline in the sixth chapter on "Reading on a Trajectory".  I believe that if we expand our understanding of violence beyond the physical and into other realms- such as cultural or sexual violence- we might be able to bring further understanding on just how necessary a trajectory reading of Scripture is to the responsible reader. 

An example that comes to mind of non-physical violence in the text is Paul's trajectory reading on the role of women. Certainly their can be no doubt that a first century cultural view of a woman was inherently violent and oppressive under a host of categories of violence.  "It was the view of Ancient Greeks that a woman was a 'failed man.' Women essentially existed on the same level with slaves. Wives always lived under the authority, control, and protection of their husbands. Women, especially wives, led lives of seclusion. Men confined their spouses to the household in order to make certain the legitimacy of their children.” [19]To many modern readers, violence is being perpetuated by Paul in his passages dealing with gender roles. Paul has often been labeled as a misogynist. But if we see the direction Paul was heading and the reasons as to why he gave the prohibiting passages, we might reconsider Paul, and hopefully reconsider that way that women are oppressed today. (You can read more about Paul and issue of women here.)


Thanks for reading! 

Citations

1. Flood, Derek. Disarming Scripture: Cherry-Picking Liberals, Violence Loving Conservatives, and why we need to learn to read the Bible like Jesus did, (San Francisco: Metania Books, 2014) pg. 4

2. 18

3. ibid. 

4. 48. emphasis original 

5.56.

6. 123.emphasis original 

7. Galatians 3:28

8. Colossians 3:22 also see: Eph 6:6; 

9. 33.

10. 38. 

11. 41. 

12. 139. 

13. 210. 

14. 218

15. My proposal is of course dependant on an early dating of Matthew that is pre 70 a.d. 

16. Luke 19:41-44 NIV emphasis mine.

17. http://brianzahnd.com/2014/06/armageddon-left-behind/ 

18. Wright, Tom. Luke For Everybody,( Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, 2002) 233.

19. Gritz, Sharon Hodgin. Paul, Women Teachers, and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus. Lanham,(University Press of America Inc, 1991) 32. 

Living Liberation Through Healing

'Freedom' by Lina Ostapovich

I was contacted with the unique opportunity to participate in a group blog effort on the topic of liberation for the upcoming Wild Goose Festival. Each blogger in the MennoNerds network received a list of topics related to the larger theme of liberation. I have chosen to blog about “liberation through healing”.

What do we mean by liberation? 
I was not provided a working definition, so let’s first sort out some terms before we move forward. Our trusty friend Google pulled up the following definition for us:

There are also some of us, like myself, that immediately thought, “Oh Liberation Theology.” (You know who you are!) So let’s bring everyone up to speed on what liberation theology is. 




“Liberation Theology grew out of a Conference of Latin American Roman Catholic Bishops meeting in Medellin, Columbia, in 1968, liberation theology is rooted in the idea that Christian salvation must include and be based upon social, political and economic liberation. It seeks to develop a Christian faith from the perspective of the poor and the oppressed. Peruvian theologian Gustavo Guitiérrez, who published, A Theology of Liberation in 1971, is generally seen as a foundational thinker of the movement.” [1]

There you have it. When we talk about liberation we are talking about releasing captives from bondage and oppression. We are talking about Salvation in the broadest sense of the term. 

Liberation theology is a necessary correction to a soteriology that is reduced to “how to get saved”rather about the whole salvific journey of Christian life— and consequently, whatever habitual disciplines or practices we might identify as helpful towards fostering our progression along this saving journey. If we only view salvation through a judicial lens- that is primarily about becoming free from condemnation- we will miss the wider use of the term by the writers of Scripture. Salvation also pertains to the liberation and the healing of humanity. As Green suggests,“the most common usage of these terms in the Greco-Roman world is medical. ‘To save’ was ‘to heal.’”[2]

What do we mean by healing? 

Again, I was not provided with any working definition, so I am going to turn again to our trusty friend Google pulled up the following definition for us. I went with the root word here:

Healing is the repairing of wounds, sicknesses’ and injuries. Our wounds and ailments may come from many places. We may have been born with a sickness.We may have acquired a sickness or wounds later in life. Our wounds may be the physical pain we carry in our bodies. Wounds can also be a deep emotional pain that we carry our souls. The pains and wounds of this life come in many forms. No one can escape this life without experiencing suffering and pain. No one is immune. We all have our need of liberation from wounds. 

Sickness is not limited to the personal realm. Sickness, if we see it as bigger than physical ailment, is pervasive on all levels of the human condition. Our societal, political, and economic systems are just as susceptible to the suffering of the human condition. Our structures and systems can perpetuate the suffering and pain in this world. Broken people can perpetuate brokenness. Hurt people, hurt people. 



Whole families can be held captive by the anguish of cycles of sickness. I know of families where grandpa was an alcoholic, dad was an alcoholic and the kids are entering into the whirlpool of addiction. Can they fight against the strong current of  addiction and swim to safety? Some do. Some don’t.


Churches can be sick, wounded, and injured. It is perhaps appropriate that the Apostle Paul compares the Church (ekklessia) to a body with many parts. (1 Cor 12) There are parts of the Body of Christ that are wounded, sick and injured. Right now, there are Churches all around the world in desperate need of healing. I have seen churches struggle with past wounds inflicted by a nasty split. I have seen churches suffer the marks of abusive leaders who caused deep heartache in members of the Body. I have seen churches endure ‘Corporate Cancer’- a deadly condition in which diseased cells divide and grow uncontrollably, forming malignant tumours. Churches that have suffered ‘Corporate Cancer’ might be missing a body part that had to be removed in order to save the body. I find it heartbreaking when I see a local Church missing a lung or a kidney from a long battle with ‘Corporate Cancer’. 

I have seen entire cities in need of healing: socially, politically and economically. There is a city just ten miles down the road from the bustling market town where I live and work. It’s a town where Second and Third generations of families live close to the poverty line and require on-going government assistance. It’s a community that has more police and more crime per capita than cities and towns in its surrounding area. When you go to this community you will see boarded up businesses, libraries, and homes. No one speaks well of this city. “What good could come from this city”, some might say. I don’t know why this city has this reputation. I do not pretend to understand why a city a mere ten miles away is so different, so lacking, and in such desperate need of healing, restoration, and resurrection.


This is all to say that before we can talk about living liberation through healing, we need to understand that we need healing in far greater ways than we realize. We can sometimes reduce our need of healing to the individual in need of emotional or physical healing and forget to address the systemic wounds, sicknesses’ and injuries. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. sums this up beautifully in an apt illustration from the Parable of the Good Samaritan:



“We are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but one day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed.  True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar.  It comes to see that a system that produces beggars needs to be repaved.  We are called to be the Good Samaritan, but after you lift so many people out of the ditch you start to ask, maybe the whole road to Jericho needs to be repaved.”


Okay, let’s move forward....



I believe that to live liberation through healing is to embody a Jesus-centered, Spirit-empowered lifestyle. God is the author of our healing and liberation. True healing and liberation must be Christ-centered and yoked to the inauguration of God’s Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. True liberation through healing, views Jesus as the pinnacle of all examples to follow- the exemplar of the new creation. Jesus came to liberate us- to release captives from bondage and oppression. Jesus came to heal us- to repair our wounds, sicknesses’ and injuries. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. (1 John 3:8b) We could say that liberation and healing are in many ways the same thing. Both actions seek to release captives, and return us to a state of peace. You might even say that liberation is the end goal and healing is the means. Certainly, Jesus demonstrates this to us. Derek Flood comments: 


“When we look at the ministry of Jesus, we see that the majority of his actions are not focused on calling people to repentance, but rather on ministering to the sick, disabled, and mentally ill, all of which have a direct connection to poverty. In the time of Jesus, illness was seen as God’s curse, and as a result people with chronic illness and disability were often ostracized from love and social support. This marginalization understandably led to a spiral of destructive behaviour: substance abuse, prostitution, theft, and so on. So we can see that sin (understood as bad behaviour) and physical sickness are deeply intertwined.



Once we realize this, the fourfold ministry of Jesus—healing the sick, freeing the demonically oppressed, forgiving the sinner, and caring for the poor—can be seen as addressing the full scope of human brokenness. All of these are part of his salvation work which was not only focused on dealing with moral problems, but dealt with the full person: physically, mentally, spiritually/ethically, and socially.


This fourfold ministry of Jesus all together made up the gospel as Jesus understood and lived it. Each was an integral part of the mission he had come to do. Jesus had not come only to forgive sin, but to liberate us from everything that could separate us from God and life, whether that meant crushing illness, dehumanizing poverty, or spirals of destructive behaviour. This is a gospel that addresses us on both an individual and social level, and that takes on the estrangement resulting from suffering and injustice, just as it does the alienation of guilt and shame.” [3]

So how do we live liberation through healing?

This might sound a bit cliché. (I am okay with that. -and please don't think that I have a complete answer here) 

Be a person of faith. 

I am not talking about feeling psychological certitude, or trying your best to conjure up enough faith points in order to see healing and liberation.  

I am talking about a covenant trust. I am talking about a faith that is embodied. It's a faith that will act in accordance with the covenant. It is through this kind of faith that we participate in bringing God's future eschatological reality into the present. 

I am talking about a faith that simply and profoundly trusts; in all things; and through all things. This means trusting Jesus as the Good Physician, who will have the ultimate final word over the power of sin, death, and the grave. 

This means trusting God in the absence of our healing; in the absence of our liberation. We may not see liberation in this life. We may not see healing in this life.  It can be painful to have faith that trusts beyond circumstances, beyond status quos, and beyond ourselves. Will we still trust when our faith is not our sight? Do we dare to believe and hope for the day when God will set things right? I submit that this is the tension of the now and the not yet of the Kingdom of God. 

So may you embody a life of New Creation that speaks of a new world in Christ. 

May you invite The Healer to breathe on you.

And may you live a life of Healing and Liberation.

Thanks for reading!

The Wild Goose Festival is a gathering at the intersection of justice, spirituality, music and the arts. Happening June 26-29 outside of Asheville in Hot Springs, NC. You can get more information and tickets here: www.wildgoosefestival.org. 

Works Cited

1.“Liberation theology”, Pocket Dictionary of Church History, Feldmeth, Nathan (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1999) 90. 
2. Green, Salvation, 35–36.
3. Flood, Derek. Healing the Gospel (Eugene: Cascade books, 2012) 63. (e-version)

Opening artwork: "Freedom" by Lina Ostapovich

Who are the meek?

This past weekend I taught on the third of the Beatitudes, which are located at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's Gospel. "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (You can listen to the sermon here.) I knew going into this week of study that I would have to spend considerable time explaining what exactly "meek" meant to my congregation. I was not comforted when I cracked open one of my commentaries and read the following words:

“Meekness- is one of the most misunderstood words in the English language.”Life in the Spirit New Testament Commentary
, pg. 151

'Meek' is not really a word that we use in conversation today. I can't think of the last time my wife said to me, "I noticed you were acting meek tonight!" Likewise, I've never heard of someone causally saying, " Boy, did he act rather meek tonight." As far as I know, no one brings up 'meek-ness' on the list characteristics they hope to find in a spouse. It really is a word shrouded in obscurity and vagueness. Perhaps, the lack of clarity and popularity of the word is itself a clue to the meaning of 'meek'? 

I remember in Sunday School being taught as a child,"meekness is not weakness", but I don't recall being taught anything to what meek actually meant. I hope to solve that problem with this blog. 

Here is a 'sketch' from my study notes:

‘MEEK’- πραΰς (prä-ü’s)

gentle, kind, humble, benevolent, humane


(Matt 5.5, 11:29, 21.5; 1 Peter 3.4; Gal 5.23)

Meek (NIV, ESV, KJV)


The mild, patient, long-suffering (AMP)


Humble (CEB, CEV, ERV, GNT, NLT)


Gentle (NASB) 


Content with who you are (The Message) 

Greek Context:

Aristotle (384- 322 BCE) 

“Meekness is not about powers forgone but powers controlled and exercised with discernment.”
- Aristotle

Xenophon (430- 354 BCE)

“A wild stallion that has been tamed is meek”-Xenophon (430-354 BCE)

Hebrew Context: 

"The promise stands out: “for they will inherit the earth [Land].” Clearly the promise evokes both the land promise in Genesis 12 and the promises to the oppressed and waiting in Psalm 37:11 (“the meek will inherit the land and enjoy peace and prosperity”); 37:22 (“those the LORD blesses will inherit the land”); and 37:34 (“he will exalt you to inherit the land”). The Qumran community prized Psalm 37.33 While it has been customary for Christians to see in the NIV’s word “earth” a synonym for “world” now or in the new heavens and earth, there is little likelihood that Jesus would have “world” in mind. We must wrap our minds around the Bible’s Story for the first-century Jew: those to whom Jesus spoke didn’t care two figs for owning Italy or Gaul. They simply wanted shalom in the Land of Israel." -Dr. Scot McKnight, Sermon on the Mount Commentary

1Do not fret because of those who are evil
    or be envious of those who do wrong;
2 for like the grass they will soon wither,
    like green plants they will soon die away.
3 Trust in the Lord and do good;
    dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
4 Take delight in the Lord,
    and he will give you the desires of your heart.
5 Commit your way to the Lord;
    trust in him and he will do this:
6 He will make your righteous reward shine like the dawn,
    your vindication like the noonday sun.
7 Be still before the Lord
    and wait patiently for him;
do not fret when people succeed in their ways,
    when they carry out their wicked schemes.
8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
    do not fret—it leads only to evil.
9 For those who are evil will be destroyed,
    but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.
10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more;
    though you look for them, they will not be found.

11 But the meek will inherit the land
    And will delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

The 'Meek person' of Psalm 37:1-11: 

• “Trusts in the Lord” (v3) 
• “Takes delight in the Lord” (v4)
• “Commit their ways to the Lord” (v5) 
• “Patiently trusts God alone for vindication” (v6-7, 9-10)
• “Refrains from anger & wrath” (v8) 
• "Inherit the land" (v9, 11) 
• “Delights themselves in peace” (v11) 


I also spent the last week asking Christian scholars, leaders, bloggers and authors to 'tweet' me their definition of meek. Here is what they have to say about "meek-ness": 

“Biblical meekness isn’t letting yourself be a doormat.  It is about loving someone so much that you completely forget yourself in the process."- Robert Martin of Abnormal Anabaptist

Michael Hardin

“Meekness: a gentle non-coercive approach to relationships.” - Michael Hardin of preachingpeace.org 

Dr. Scot McKnight

“The “meek” are those who suffer and who have been humbled, and yet they do not seek revenge. They lovingly trust God and hope in God’s timing and God’s justice.” 
- Dr. Scot McKnight, Sermon on the Mount Commentary 

Dr. Brad Jersak

Meekness (synonym - gentleness) is 'strength under control for the purpose of goodness.'


- Dr. Brad Jersak, Westminster Theological Centre

Dr. N.T. Wright 

The word ‘meek’ is always a challenge. The usual answer is ‘like wild horse tamed’ – i.e. with all the energy and fire of the wild horse but now under wise control. This is to stop the word simply sounding ‘weak’ or wimpish.
  I suppose the word goes with others like ‘gentle’ (though that is more directly related to how someone behaves in relation to others) and ‘humble’ (though that is more to do with one’s belief about oneself). It is, as it were, half way between these two: it denotes a particular character but also the way that character behaves to others.
In its famous location in the Beatitudes, at the start of the Sermon on the Mount, it is one of the characteristics Jesus highlights not just for its own sake but one of the types of personality through whom God is starting to bring wise and healing order to his world. Here you could define it in terms of its opposites: the idea that the meek will inherit the earth is astonishing to most people in most cultures, who expect that it will be the pushy, the arrogant, the bossy, the power-brokers, the bullies who will grab the earth and inherit it for themselves. No, says Jesus; in God’s world things work the other way up. The word ‘meek’ stands at the heart of that claim. (I don’t do tweets, by the way… sorry!)

Thanks for reading...