Trust and Belief

Peter Enns has written a phenomenal book, "The Sin of Certainty." I am not going to take the time to write a review now, but maybe some day in the far, distant future. What I will say, however, is that this book is worth your while to read. If you claim to be a Christian and your heart is still beating, you should definitely plunge in. It is written on a popular level rather than an academic one.

It is an easy read, but it will no doubt challenge certain aspects of your walk with God, and this is a great thing. If you find it heretical (like this group) and decide to burn the book after you finish it (or only begin), then you are all the better for having sharpened your defenses and become more equipped to fight the wiles of the devil, who, apparently, parades through the halls of Eastern University.  

While reading a bit of Hans Küng’s “Christianity” (as I do from time to time for fun), I came across a couple of statements where he had the same critique as Peter Enns in "The Sin of Certainty":

“Jesus nowhere said, ‘Say after me’, but rather ‘Follow me. . . . Faith is now no longer understood, as it is in the New Testament, as primarily believing trust (in God, Jesus Christ) but above all as right belief, as orthodoxy, as a conviction of the correctness of particular doctrinal statements of the church sanctioned by the state.” 

Küng, Christianity: Essence, History, and Future, 50, 198.

So if you don't want to read Enns then read Küng. 

P.S. Enns is funnier.

Learn War No More - Micah 3:1-4:5

“If only God were worshipped, there would not be dissensions and wars. For men would know that they are the sons of one God.” – Lactantius.[1]

“No one will make them afraid.” More beautiful words have rarely been uttered. There will be worship instead of war and wickedness, bounty rather than bribery and bloodshed, peace in place of perversion.

There is nothing pleasant surrounding the prospect of judgment or impending doom. But at this time, the proclamation of justice against civil authorities and spiritual leaders of the nation[2] would have been welcome news. Micah posits to deliver the words of Yahweh, making accusations against the rich who have acted oppressively by coveting, seizing fields, houses and inheritance (2:2); tearing the skin off (3:2); eating the flesh and breaking the bones (3:3) of the people. This is “the sin of abusing one’s fellow man.”[3] Unfortunately, it was not the only time when the leadership of Israel was convicted of this charge.[4]

Yahweh in this oracle is portrayed in an “old tradition of the theophany of the divine warrior,”[5] having been roused to action due to the injustice, cruelty, and abominations done by a select group.[6] Finally, because of God’s action, peace and salvation would come to the troubled remnant of Israel.

Commentators have suggested these visions and others similar (Isa 2; 60) reflect the culmination of the ages, or eschaton where all wars will cease. David Leiter observed that such outlining is often perceived as having “little or no practical implications for our current age. . . . The vision indeed had contemporary implications for Israel and if taken seriously can also have implications for our world today.”[7] Yet, there are social critiques within this oracle that are able to be applied to various situations in the present, as well as hope for peace in the future.

In consideration of the warrior imagery, Scott Holland noted that we are more comfortable with a God who fits our own ideology and are sometimes willing to substitute divine “otherness” for our own system of ethics. “We tend to make God in our image and thus in the process make ourselves like God.”[8] If a religious group becomes violent about their religion, it is possibly because their violent perspective has created a god to meet that desire. I conclude – from a meta-narrative perspective – that ultimate redemption and reconciliation is the final objective.  However, the way God goes about that is not always clear. [9]

Ultimately, we must leave vengeance up to God, “precisely because God has the prerogative to give and take life that we do not have.”[10]  These words of Scott Holland have stuck with me since I first read them: “Could it be that because Yahweh is a warrior, we can be a people of peace?”[11] Willard Swartley, also citing this statement, eloquently explained that attributing violence to God is an inaccurate and wrong accusation from a Scriptural perspective. It undermines God’s moral character and redemptive intentions as well as confuses the perversion of human violence with God’s divine prerogative to establish justice. It can also depend on how "violence" is defined. If it entails a violation of a norm, Swartley would argue that for Christians the terms should not apply to God, who is the transcendent source of norms. Nevertheless, judgment characterizes the sovereign and holy God, who punishes humanity for their sins expressly to end human violence.[12]

Micah’s promise of restoration and deliverance is one of hope, and relevant to all those who long for peace and justice to be the order of the day.[13] Embedded within the purpose of prophetic oracles is the call for repentance. If repentance occurs, right relationship with God is restored, divine judgment can be averted and peace will be the result.[14]    

---

[1] The Divine Institutes, 5.8.66 (ANF 7.143).

[2] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 10 vols. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 10:305

[3] Ralph L. Smith, Word Biblical Commentary: Micah-Malachi, vol. 32 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 5.

[4] E.g. Isa 3:12-15; 56:11-12; Ezek 13; 22:24-31; 34; Jer 10:21; 12:10-11; 23:1-5; 50:6-7; Zech 10:2-3.

[5] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: Second Edition (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2014), 340.

[6] 2:1–2, 8–9; 3:2–3, 9–11; 7:2–6.

[7] David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 72.

[8] Scott Holland “The Gospel of Peace and the Violence of God,” Seeking Cultures of Peace: A Peace Church Conversation, ed. Fernando Enns, Scott Holland, and Ann Riggs (Telford, PA.: Cascadia Publishing House, 2004), 141.

[9] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (London: SPCK, 2007), 206.

[10] Holland 2004, 141.

[11] Ibid., 144.

[12] Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 395.

[13] Elelwani B. Farisani, “Micah” The Africana Bible: Reading Israel’s Scriptures From Africa and the African Diaspora, ed. Hugh R. Page, Jr. (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2010), 192.

[14] Leiter 2007, 93-4.

Let’s Be On Our Way – John 14:25-31

“For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by another worshipper of God.”

–Lactantius[1]

            Historically, it is no secret that diverse Christianities have had difficulties dwelling together peacefully. Strife among God’s people can be traced almost anywhere, anytime to anything imaginable under heaven.

C. S. Lewis famously remarked that the quickest way to a desired destination – if a wrong turn has been taken – is to get back to the right road. The individual making an about-turn first, though seemingly counter-productive, is the most progressive.[2]

Doctrinal dissension has arguably proven to be divisive and destructive throughout the history of the Church.[3] This text is a prime example of such a battleground. It is a theological lithosphere of christological, pneumatological and ultimately Trinitarian layers which shifted[4] early and shook Christianity to its core for centuries.[5] Not only is there what some see as a proto-Trinitarian formation,[6] there is also an unavoidable subordinationist Christology present.[7]

As it happened, to argue that Jesus was equal in divine majesty to God the Father required “considerable literary ingenuity”[8] to explain these texts. The result was a widened rift between the subordinationists and those in favor of the Nicene Creed. Gregory of Nyssa described, 

“If in this city you ask anyone for change, he will discuss with you whether the Son is begotten or unbegotten. If you ask about the quality of bread, you will receive the answer that, ‘the Father is greater, the Son is less.’ If you suggest that a bath is desirable, you will be told that ‘there was nothing before the Son was created.’”[9]

Having personally been involved in unavoidable, chaotic feuds merely for being open-minded theologically, I am more convinced than ever that relating to our brothers and sisters in Christ with peaceful and humane dialogue is the only way forward. One’s conviction on any given text is never grounds to degrade or deride a perceived theological opponent or, in consideration of Church history, use violence. “Loving one another,”[10] as so frequently and plainly taught within the Johannine corpus, should never be annexed for that which is speculative, and the subject of constant debate.

Regardless of one’s Christology, Jesus – as God’s executive agent and revealer[11] – has given a supreme example of perfect peace.[12]  Though conflict came to him, 

“Christ did not become what men were; he became what they were meant to be, and what they too, through accepting him, actually became.”[13]

Before actually leaving, Jesus prayed: “[that] they may be one, as we are one” (John 17:22 NRS). Believers in Jesus have the hope that he will indeed return, 

“He is the promise, but the Father is the fulfillment. What Jesus says here about his own death applies also to the death of individual Christians.”[14] 

Until that time, we have the responsibility of emulating his example to love each other, even if our theological, doctrinal or political views don’t always mesh. By grasping onto the theme of the Prince of Peace we can bring the shalom[15] of the age to come into our present, one selfless action at a time. Let’s make an about-turn and get-on. “Let us go from here.” Let’s keep conversing, but be of the same mind and in the same love through humility while we do.[16]

---

[1] A Treatise on the Anger of God, 13.99 (ANF 7.271).

[2] C. S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity,” The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics (New York, NY.: Harper One, 1952, 2002) 33.

[3] Swartley seems to imply that some are not as prone toward provocations of this nature: “Even among Mennonites, historically considered sectarian, one finds both high christology adhered to be some and a considerably lower christology adhered to by others.” Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 296 (fn. 48).

[4] Hans Küng, Christianity : Essence, History, and Future (New York, NY.: Continuum Publishing Co, 1996), 170-71.

[5] See Professor of Conflict Resolution Richard Rubenstein’s excellent book, When Jesus Became God: The Epic Fight over Christ’s Divinity in the Last Days of Rome (Orlando, FL.: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1999), 7-8.

[6] George R. Beasley-Murray, Word Biblical Commentary: John, vol. 36 (Dallas, TX.: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 261; Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Academic, 2003), 2:976.

[7] C. K. Barrett, “The Father is Great Than I,” Essays on John (London, SPCK, 1982), 19-36; Karl-Josef Kuschel, Born Before All Time? : The Dispute Over Christ’s Origin, trans. John Bowden (New York, NY.: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1992), 388.

[8] Charles Freeman, A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, of the Monotheistic State (New York, NY.: Overlook Press, 2009), 60.

[9] Joseph H. Lynch, Early Christianity: A Brief History (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 166.

[10] John 13:34-35; 15:12, 17; 17:26; 21:15-17. Even the Johannine Epistles carry this theme: cf. 1 Joh 3:10-11, 14, 16, 18, 23; 4:7-8, 11-12, 16-21; 5:2; 2 Jo 1:5.

[11] Barrett 1982, 23.

[12] F. F. Bruce points out, “the world can only wish peace; Jesus gives it.” F. F. Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition and Notes (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1983), 307 (Fn. 14).

[13] John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John, ed. J. F. Coakley (Oak Park, IL.: Meyer-Stone Books, 1985), 378.

[14] Ernst  Haenchen, Robert W. Funk, and Ulrich Busse, John 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of John, Chapters 7-21 (Philadelphia, PA.: Fortress Press, 1984), 128. See (Keener 2003, 982).

[15]  “Peace was believed to be a feature of righteous royal rule and of the messianic age.” Marianne Meye Thompson, John: A Commentary (Louisville, KY.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2015), 316

[16] Phil 2:1-3.

The Bloody City – A Reflection of Ezekiel 22

As I sit at my desk reading, writing and listening to the enchanting melodies of master guitarist Phil Keaggy,[1] I am transported into the ancient world of a Zadokite[2] priest. Ezekiel lived in Jerusalem and was active (594 – 571 B.C.E.)[3] before the first group of exiles were taken to Babylonia by Nebuchadnezzar in 597 B.C.E.[4] He was at the heart of Judean society and a proponent of Zionist covenantal theology, which was a tradition emphasizing them as Yahweh’s choice people, Jerusalem as the capital of a perpetual Davidic dynasty, and Zion (Jerusalem) –with the Solomonic Temple – as the divine habitation.[5] The exile considerably challenged this belief, as it called into question God’s promised protection of the holy city.[6]

Following the destruction of Jerusalem, the tone of Ezekiel’s proclamations changed. This is reflected in the book’s division into three distinct sections: chapters 1-24 are primarily oracles against Jerusalem and Judah and contain material preceding the Babylonian invasion.[7] Chapters 25-32 are directed against foreign entities, and the third – chapters 33-48 – contains oracles regarding Israel’s future salvation and restoration. Chapter 22 is also divided into three units: vv 1-16, 17-22 and 23-31.[8] The textual and historical tradition of Ezekiel has a long, complicated history of criticism and is far too extensive to address here.[9]

“The bloody city” rings loud and clear at the onset of these oracles in chapter 22. This is a phrase used to describe Nineveh in Nahum 3:1. The divine decision was been made to punish God’s chosen, but guilty city.[10] The list of wrongs is detailed throughout this chapter: v 6 rulers are shedding blood; vv 7, 25, 29 aliens suffer extortion, fathers and mothers are treated contemptuously, orphans and widows are wronged; vv 10-11 women are violated in horrific ways, adultery, fornication and incest are taking place; v 12 bribes are made for killing; v 26 priests have done violence; v 27 officials portrayed as wolves; v 28 prophets are declaring lies as though from Yahweh; v 29 the poor and needy are oppressed.[11]

It is also important to note that God warns people to adjust their course and honors repentance. Even in verse 30, with its military metaphor,[12] there is the hyperbolic sense of God looking for one for whom the city could be spared.[13] Regardless, the people’s actions have brought these consequences on themselves.[14]

Surveying this spectacle, I cannot help but shudder at the eerie familiarity it has to our own day. Jesus made pronouncements similar to that of Ezekiel when dealing with the corruption of his own time. Israel in our time still finds itself as the center of attention for unethical behavior. As a Christian who has some Jewish ancestry, I can appreciate that these issues are sensitive for many. Yet, there are still questions. When will God deal with corruption? Does God still protect Israel? Does Israel still oppress its own people and countrymen?

In a class lecture,[15] John Goldingay made this statement,

“God still protects the Jewish people. In our time we have to make a distinction between the state of Israel, which is a state like any other and the Jewish people, most of whom live outside the state of Israel. And declaring that God is committed to the Jewish people does not mean that you reckon that God is committed to the state of Israel, particularly over against the Palestinians. But it’s hard, I think, for Christians to make those distinctions.”

This is crucial because today there are Christian and messianic Zionist movements who have not been able to make a distinction. Some are of the mind that Israel – the state – can do no wrong. “We must bless Israel,” goes the mantra. This is not about Israel but rather an ideology that desires to nationalize God to fit political agendas.

Regardless of one’s eschatology and opinions of political policy, categorizing the State of Israel as though it is the legitimate recipient of God’s favor before all others is a gross mistake with detrimental ethical repercussions.

“For believing that God accompanies one’s army is always comforting, and a people can perhaps be braver the more inclined they are to view God as able and willing to come out in their defense.”[16]

The history of humanity, including Christianity, is strewn with a trail of blood where imperialistic aspirations have been religiously justified as though it were God’s own desires.[17]

“It is always easier to assume that God is with us more than he is with our enemies. In war, how can God be on the side of the foe? Whether it was the time of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, or the Persian Empire (etc) those Israelites who heard or read the story . . . were all people who chafed under subjugation by a foreign power. Their natural tendency would be to presume that God was with them and not with their oppressors.”[18]

---

[1] “Study helps for the book of Ezekiel should include a musical instrument—a guitar or recorder. Ezekiel is noted as a musician, one who has a beautiful voice and plays well on an instrument (33:32).” Millard Lind, Ezekiel, Believers Church Bible Commentary (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1996), 13.

[2] John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible: Second Edition (Minneapolis, MN.: Fortress Press, 2014), 371.

[3] Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary (Philadelphia, PA.: The Westminster Press, 1970), 1.

[4] Ezek 33:21; 40:1.

[5] Katheryn Pfisterer Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” New Interpreter’s Bible, A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. VI,  Leander E. Keck, et al., eds. (Nashville, TN.: Abington Press, 1994), VI:1082-3.

[6] Michael Coogan, The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version, 4^th ed. (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 1160.

[7] L. S. Tiemeyer, “Ezekiel, Book of,” Dictionary of the Old Testament Prophets: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, IL.: IVP Academic, 2012), 219.

[8] Leslie C. Allen, Word Biblical Commentary: Ezekiel 20-48, vol. 29 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1990), xx.

[9] G. W. Bromiley, “Ezekiel,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988; 2002), 2:250-52; David Noel Freedman, “Ezekiel, Book of,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 4 vols. (New York, NY.: Doubleday, 1996, c1992), 2:714-16.

[10] Eichrodt 1970, 308.

[11] This is my compilation, cf. Lind’s list, “Ezekiel has his own list of Ten Commandments”: (Lind 1996, 187).

[12] Darr 1994, 1315.

[13] Cf. Gen 18:20-33; Jer 5:1-5, although seemingly contradictory to Ezek 14:12-20.

[14] Cf. 9:10; 11:21; 16:43. Jesus, when dealing with the corruption of his own time made references similar to that of Ezekiel: Matt 23:37-39; Luk 13:33-35; 23:28-30. Upon contemplation of this, I recalled the poem by William Blake, “Prologue, Intended for a Dramatic Piece of King Edward the Fourth.”

[15] John Goldingay, class lecture, Chronicles and Esther Part 2 (27:49),” OT500: The Writings as an Introduction to the Old Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Fall 2010.

[16] Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for living in a small world (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 77.

[17] David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 10.

[18] Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 502.

With Us or Them?

I am currently working on a project that is related to the book of Jonah. Here is some commentary on Jonah's attitude in chapter 4 that struck me as being particularly relevant to our day:

"It is always easier to assume that God is with us more than he is with our enemies. In war, how can God be on the side of the foe? Whether it was the time of the Assyrian Empire, the Babylonian Empire, or the Persian Empire (etc) those Israelites who heard or read the story of Jonah were all people who chafed under subjugation by a foreign power. Their natural tendency would be to presume that God was with them and not with their oppressors. But they could not confine God to serving their own interest! Jonah’s resentment at having his fears come true strikes at the complacency of the audience." 

Douglas Stuart, Word Biblical Commentary: Hosea-Jonah, vol. 31 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 502.

Before too long, I will be posting a more detailed look at this idea of nationalism and political hegemony as it relates to God being with "us," and against "them."

Dr. John Goldingay on Israel and Palestine

This is a brilliant statement of crucial importance:

“Does God still protect Israel? Well, God still protects the Jewish people. In our time we have to make a distinction between the state of Israel, which is a state like any other and the Jewish people, most of whom live outside the state of Israel. And declaring that God is committed to the Jewish people does not mean that you reckon that God is committed to the state of Israel, particularly over against the Palestinians. But it’s hard, I think, for Christians to make those distinctions.” 

Dr. John Goldingay

Hans Küng on John's Christology and the Shema

In a little reading of Hans Küng's Judaism; Between Yesterday and Tomorrow, I came across these statements:

“In this Gospel [John] ... there cannot yet be any question of a ‘metahistorical drama of Christ’, the objection often put forward by the Jewish side. Precisely in this late, fourth Gospel, we still have statements like: ‘And this is eternal life, that they may know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.’ Or, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Here there is a clear distinction between God and Jesus Christ.

No, this Gospel too does not contain any speculative metaphysical Christology – torn from its Jewish roots – but rather a christology of sending and revelation associated with the world of Jewish Christianity. However, its statement about pre-existence, understood in an unmythological way, takes on heightened significance: ‘John does not investigate the metaphysical nature and being of the pre-existent Christ; he is not concerned about the insight that before the incarnation there were two pre-existent divine persons who were bound together in the one divine nature. This way of conceiving of things is alien to John. So too is the conception of a 'begetting within the Godhead.' 'I and the Father are one.' This statement has nothing to do with any dogmatic-speculative statements about the relationship of the natures within the Godhead.' So what was John's positive concern? What stands in the foreground is the confession that the man Jesus of Nazareth is the Logos of God in person. And he is the Logos as a mortal man; but he is the Logos only for those who are prepared to believe, trusting God's word in his word, God's actions in his praxis, God's history in his career, and God's compassion in his cross’ …

If the Jewish tradition has always held unshakeably to a basic truth of Jewish faith, then it is the ‘Shema Israel’, Hear, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh alone! … This confession of the unity and uniqueness of God meant the strict repudiation not only of any dualism but also of any trinitarianism.”

Hans Küng, Judaism; Between Yesterday and Tomorrow (Continuum, 1991), 382-3.

Resources for Educational Purposes

I have benefited greatly in the past from the generosity of various professors and institutions of higher education, who have made resources freely available to those who may otherwise never have the opportunity.

With the rise of the internet has come a tool of incredible power to share and learn, but with it comes the danger of widely disseminating falsehood as well. There are endless circular quotations and content that is taken as legitimate but is often not the case. Fake news, propaganda, falsified information and amateurs purporting to be experts can find unsuspecting audiences, unaware of what they are consuming. As individuals, it is our responsibility to be prudent with the information we take as "truth" and "fact." This is where reputation can play a large factor; find it in a book.

One particular tool that has been useful is iTunes University. It is like podcasts or video-casts provided by Colleges, Universities and Seminaries. There is an incredible amount of classes able to be taken on your own and at no expense. Many even contain the handouts and syllabi to provide the full experience. I have utilized this resource on many occasions including (but not limited to) classes from Yale, AMBS and Fuller Theological Seminary. The disadvantage is that it is limited to Apple users, but it has been worth it to me to have an Apple device for this reason alone.

Another option is "The Great Courses." Some of the most well-known teachers from respected institutions have lectures covering any range of topics and areas of study. These can be downloaded, or (my personal favorite) found in your local library system. If you have not been a regular patron of your local library, you are missing out on an incredible resource with dedicated people possessing an extraordinary knowledge for aiding you in your quest. As Matt Damon's character Will said in Good Will Hunting,

"You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library."

  

There are other options as well, such as reputable professors making their classes available on a site like YouTube. One in particular I will note is Craig Keener. He has magnanimously made various of his lecture series available to all, such as Romans and Matthew. Dr. John Walton has similar lectures: Job.

There are lectures given in a series, such as those the Lanier Theological Library in Houston has done at regular intervals. They host various scholars giving talks on a variety of topics. Their videos are archived on Vimeo. 

For someone who may be interested in learning a foreign language, I highly recommend Simon and Schustler's Pimsleur (and Little Pim for Children). Again, these are resources that will be readily available at most local libraries. 

Mueller's Hebrew

“I now studied much, about 12 hours a day, chiefly Hebrew … [and] committed portions of the Hebrew Old Testament to memory; and this I did with prayer, often falling on my knees … I looked up to the Lord even whilst turning over the leaves of my Hebrew dictionary.”

George Mueller, Autobiography of George Mueller (London: J. Nisbet and Co., 1906), 31.

Supercilious Scripture Snobs or Careful Custodians

Reading biblical text within its historical, social and literary contexts places it where it was always intended to be, thus bestowing upon it the highest possible honor. Some, who are unacquainted with this as proper treatment of text, choose rather to label it “scriptural elitism” and thereby uncharitably disregard the valiant efforts of multitudes of scholars from varieties of disciplines, stretching years into the past, whose life mission has been to better understand this priceless treasure.

John Walton summarized it well, 

"God is not superficial, and we should expect that knowledge of him and his Word would be mined rather than simply absorbed. This means that all of us will be dependent on others with particular skills to help us succeed in the enterprise of interpretation. This is not elitism; it is the interdependence of the people of God as they work together in community to serve one another with the gifts they have." Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP Acedemic, 2009), 171.

I have posted this quotation in the past, but James McGrath was also spot on when he said,

"Does someone claim that they simply read the Bible and have no need for scholars, when they are reading the Bible in translation, or reading critical editions of the texts in the original languages, or using manuscripts copied by scribes, having learned Hebrew and Greek with the help of textbooks and lexicons? That person is a liar, plain and simple."

This is not to say that there haven't been or are not irresponsible conclusions or distortions (whether intentional or not is not for me to say). Brent Sandy perhaps has a balanced perspective,

"Evangelicals who support the concept of inerrancy have undoubtedly been guilty at times of claiming too much for the term and claiming that we know too much (e.g., about what historical accuracy demanded and about what authorship entailed). But critical scholarship is not innocent of similar unwarranted certainty and belief in 'assured results' as they apply the surgical knife to biblical books with such self-confidence." Walton and Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture; Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority (IVP Academic, 2013), 276. 

A Free Gift: Romans

You are probably supposing that the title of the post relates to Paul's theological motif in Romans. Well, it does, but not in the way you might expect. Here's the deal, every month, Faithlife Corp. (who has brought us great tools such as Logos Bible Software) generously gives away a free resource (no strings attached, really), such as a digital book or commentary. 

This month (October, 2016) is a phenomenal prize, Craig Keener's Romans commentary. If you aren't familiar with this Asbury distinguished scholar and are a NT biblical studies and research person, you have been missing out. His list of works are extensive. I have used his written and media content and greatly benefited. He is well researched and articulate. Best of all, this is free. Who doesn't like a free gift? Click, and it shall be given.

Pauline Psyche

Philippians is a phenomenal letter. Paul, even through the trial he faced, was able to reach out and minister to others as a channel of God's truth. 

Early on in the letter, he communicated (1:23) that he had a -

"desire to depart and be with Christ-- which is far better-but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you."

The question is often asked, is Paul here speaking of being absent from the body in some sort of spirit state prior to the return of Messiah? Is he speaking of ascending to heaven, and there await the "rapture" as some theologians posit? What was the purpose of this statement within his letter to the believers in Philippi? (For any interested in this "rapture" question in Paul, please check out Kurt Willems' podcast episode, "The Resurrection - "Physical" or "Spiritual" Bodies.")

The Old Testament, or as I prefer to call them, the Hebrew Scriptures, are relatively silent on this matter. There are however, occasional hints. Jesus, when referencing the resurrection, used Exodus 3 (the “burning bush passage”) to say that his father was not the God of the dead but of the living. What expositor or theologian today would dub this as a resurrection passage? Jesus obviously had reasoning for making reference to this passage (which is another study). 

There are passages (however insignificant to our ways of thinking) that shaped the theology Paul shared in his writings, both in the Hebrew Scriptures and other literature. This other body of writing, to the consternation of some Christians, influenced Paul's theology, whether some like it or not. He was shaped in part by writings categorized as pseudepigraphic and apocryphal. Paul did not necessarily contradict Jesus' teaching on the matter, but merely expanded, expounded and midrash-ed it.

It may be news to some, but believe it or not, Jesus was not a Greek philosopher and neither was Paul. I don't think either of them taught the Pathagorean doctrine of afterlife with its disembodiment, reward and punishment. Psyche (Gk soul) did not mean the same for Jesus and Paul as it did for Pathagoras and Plato. God created man as a whole soul, and the body was not evil. While the Greek uses psyche where the Hebrew uses nephesh, this does not communicate that nephesh was the inward, immaterial, spiritual essence and counterpart in opposition of the body in a dualistic sense. Nephesh is rather the whole person, the entirely of what it means to be human.

Paul (in other passages, e.g. 2 Cor. 5:8) indicates two options, the first of which was being alive (absent from the body), and second, being with Messiah (present with the lord). It is important when we study, to try and not rely on any anachronistic doctrine, preconceived notion of what it means or what we have been taught it means.

We know what Jesus taught on specific matters, but with Paul, eisegesis has become a common practice (inserting ideas and propositions into his writing that would not have been indigenous). So naturally our reading of Philippians can be radically swayed by our worldview or foundation in determining what we think the Scriptures say versus what the author actually intended. We read far more into specific texts than most realize. Was Paul a Platonist? As a Jewish Rabbi, is he to be understood as proposing a cosmological dualism as propounded in Hellenistic Philosophy? Did Paul embrace the idea that the world was essentially evil and that the body was the prison of an internal (soon to be disembodied) soul?

If I held to a doctrine that declared an intermediate disembodied spirit domain or holding tank until the bodily resurrection, I would have to read such a thing into the Pauline corpus. The real question though becomes, is this view compatible with Paul's identity as a first-century, Jewish, Rabbinical sage and his Scriptures, or am I inserting my own preconceived and learned presupposition as to what he meant? Does it come from Pauline theology or has it developed in later tradition and then crept into the mainline stream of Christian thought? Does history give any evidence one way or another? There are all questions that scholars and historians have discussed and wrestled with.

As hard as it may be to believe, Greek philosophy played a significant role in the formation of Christian doctrine in the first few centuries as the "church" suffered an identity crisis, and became largely comprised of gentiles. Those responsible for shaping and molding Christian thought were converts from other religions and some were even trained philosophers. The great shift had begun and Christianity became a religious smoothie of blended belief containing ingredients entirely foreign to Jesus' and Paul's teaching.

Now, we know that Messiah will return (appear) in the same manner in which he left. We know there will be a resurrection of the righteous (and unrighteous). We know that the saints will be with him at some point and there will be a type of judgment (not of condemnation) and reward. We know that the ultimate “theocracy” and governing hand of God has been inaugurated and will come through “the one he anointed” for the task (Paul - Acts 17). We know that it is the “last day” on which the dead will be raised (even Daniel said something like that).

Paul began his letter to the Philippians by admonishing them regarding work that was being done in their lives. Paul seemed to think (in other places of his writing) that the Messiah’s return could readily be approaching, perhaps even in his lifetime. He said that he was confident that such work being done in and through these people would be “complete” on the day of Jesus, i.e. the Lord. He also referenced the anticipation of “Jesus’ day” that would accompany such a work. Paul then talks about his own matters and trials.

One of the key factors specifically in relationship to living and dying (although I do not pretend this thought is by any means original to me) is time. When a person (in Messiah) closes their eyes in death, the Scripture is quite clear about the status of that “soul." It is dead. The breath returns whence it came; to God. The hope of the believer is in resurrection (God did this for Messiah, he will also do it for us – Paul). It is quite evident that time is a unique phenomenon that can (even in our physical dimension) have unusual sensations. A simple example would be the quick passage of time when one is in a comma or deep sleep. In the same sense, (from the perspective of a believer who closes their eyes in death), time ceases for them. The next waking moment for them would literally be the call to awake or “come up here” (as seemingly suggested in Revelation 11). To them, no calculable time would have passed at all. As soon as they departed in death, all would be waking to their inheritance and experiencing being united in fullness with the Messiah.

From a corporeal perspective, those who have died await their calling, and the dead will rise first (on that day). With that said, I find Paul’s words in perfect alignment with this thought:

“But continuation of my natural life would mean productivity in my work. Therefore, I am in a quandary. I am mutually attracted, having a strong desire to graduate to be with Christ—a much better option. But to remain here in my physical state is what you need even more.”

We cannot say for certain what it was this particular group of believers were “in need of” (with Paul), but it is clear that his greatest desire was to be with his lord. Perhaps the next phrase is a key to understanding what he meant –

“staying on here in the flesh is more vital for your sake. Since I have been convinced of this, I know that I will remain here, and stay alongside all of you, to help you to advance and rejoice in your faith, so that the pride you take in King Jesus may overflow because of me, when I come to visit you once again.”

Paul wants to be with the Messiah, but realizes that they are still in need of him. Paul also has the mindset that he is a slave, a bondservant of Messiah. As such, his desire is for that of his lord/master. With that perspective he says,

“Christ will be held in high honor in my body, whether by my living or dying. For my life consists of Christ, and death would be to my advantage.” 

Of course he wants to be with Messiah, but not if it is against the Messiah’s wishes.

To take this passage out of the confines of Paul’s own definition and his theological context is to put words in his mouth and say something that was never intended. There is no sense that Paul spoke of dying and going to “heaven” as sometimes thought. To assume Paul was a Platonist and held contemporary Christian views of cosmology and dualism is to make him something he wasn't. There is much more that could be said in reference to the whole philosophical and abstract notion of “immortal souls" embodied in flesh, but that will have to wait for another time.

Even though I never did take the time to wright a review of his book “Paul” (which was a great read for the most part), I will leave you with a few words from N.T. Wright: 

“Much of the second-Temple literature is precisely concerned to tell the story again and again to show how the plot was progressing and, perhaps, reaching its climax. Unless we recognize this and factor it into our thinking about Paul and his Jewish world from the very start we will have no chance of grasping the fundamental structures of his thought. And if, as has so often been done, we substitute for his controlling narratives those of other traditions and cultures, we are asking for hermeneutical trouble” p. 12.

Storied Salvation: Part XVII

Salvation According to Paul: Past

Paul occasionally uses the past tense when referring to salvation: 

I. “For in hope we have been saved” (Rom 8:24, cf. Tit 2:11).

Although the verb used is in the aorist tense – denoting something that has been done – for Paul the nature of hope is anticipation,

“We . . . groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of the body” (Rom 8:23).

The adoption for which believers long for is their final salvation. The “inward groaning” experienced by believers and creation (8:22) is as Dunn describes,

“the inward sense of frustration of individual believers (as a whole) at the eschatological tension of living in the overlap of the ages seems the most obvious reference, not least in view of the parallel with v 26 and 2 Cor 5:2, 4.” J. D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 2002), 38A:474.

It is the redemption of the body, i.e. resurrection which is to be fully realized. This is evident in what the apostle explains,

“hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees . . . if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it” (Rom 8:24-25, cf. 2 Cor 5:7).

“Hope in the NT is always future oriented, and unseen in the sense that the object of hope is yet to be revealed. Yet hope is not wishful thinking, but what the writer to the Hebrews describes as both ‘sure’ and ‘certain’ (Heb 11:1).” Colin G. Kruse, The Pillar New Testament Commentary: Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2012), 350. [1] 

II. “For by grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph 2:8).

In the context of this passage there are clues that through Paul’s strong use of metaphor and the use of the past tense, he alludes to a future reality. Paul’s wording “made alive” (v. 5) and “raised us up and seated us with Him in the heavenly places” (v. 6) seems to specify “so that in the ages to come” (v. 7) a reference to glorification that awaits the saints. 

It is also possible that Paul sees believers being represented in heaven, Christ having been seated at the right hand of God (cf. Rom 8:16-24). [2]

III. “He [God our Savior] saved us, not on the basis of deeds” (Tit 3:5).

Here, the mention of “saved” although past, is tied to the hope of future life in the age to come (v. 7).

IV. “He [the Father] rescued us from the domain of darkness” (Col 1:13).

The context in Paul’s greeting is the inheritance that is being shared with the saints. Through the spirit, the guarantee, the first-fruits of what is to come, was given. This is sometimes called “now and not yet.”

Regardless of one’s eschatological orientation, it seems most are agreed that this present age – with its domain of darkness – is not as it should be and as it will be in the age to come. What is ahead, how to fix the problems now, and what God intends are usually where debate centers. Paul, though, envisions the people of God connected with the Messiah and saved in the manner which he described in detail to the Corinthians, “first-fruits.”

“The Messiah has been raised from the dead, as the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep” 1 Cor 15:20 (Wright, KNT).

First-fruits was an offering of the first-ripened grain, harvested and presented to God in celebration and thanks for the whole harvest which would follow.

“‘We were saved,’ says Paul in Romans 8:24, ‘in hope.’ The verb ‘we were saved’ indicates a past action, something that has already taken place, referring obviously to the complex of faith and baptism of which Paul has been speaking in the letter so far. But this remains ‘in hope’ because we still look forward to the ultimate future salvation of which he speaks ‘in (for instance) Romans 5:9, 10. This explains at a stroke the otherwise puzzling fact that the New Testament often refers to salvation and being saved in terms of bodily events within the present world.” Wright, Surprised by Hope, 210-11.

____________________________

[1] See also J. D. G. Dunn, Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity, Christianity in the Making, v. 3 (Erdmans, 2015), 714.

[2] See F.F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Epistle to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids, MI.:William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 287.