Valuing the Views: The Mark of a Healthy Society

Tolerance for opposing points of view is important for maintaining any healthy society. In fact, such a society should relish disagreement as the only true way forward. If all agree, there is nothing more to discover, nothing to drive us onward, which, arguably, is a significant part of what makes us who we are. However, the way in which we handle those differences is what will ultimately define us. It is more valuable to have a unified community possessing divergent views than one of uniformity and enforced presumptions.

Review of Aviya Kushner's "The Grammar of God"

"A Hebrew Speaker's Response to the Bible in English." xxxii.

It is important to note that most of the reading I do is in biblical academia, so my judgment of this book is not based on the same criterion. The reason I mention it is because I read some other reviews of this book in which they were quite unfair, attempting to judge it as a work of biblical or linguistic scholarship. That is not what this book is, nor does the author claim this (see Introduction xxxii); reading the book you will find that to not be the point.

This book was recommended to me and now I am so glad it was; what a fantastic work! I appreciated her insights and background of having been raised in a Jewish home where speaking and reading Hebrew was at the center of the family life.

Again, while it is not a scholarly work, The Grammar of God does contain many trails for the chasing, if the reader possesses the notion. This book will thrill both the grammarian and lover of the Bible, as it is written beautifully and is full of heart. She investigates the histories of English translational difficulties and tells the story of her own personal journey with the realization that "some of the most politically charged issues of our time are rooted in biblical translation." xxiii

Here is one of my favorite quotes from the book:

"It [the Bible] is a story that is part of every man and woman who has ever felt the need to claw against destiny, to insist on a different future than what God appears to be offering. And sometimes, in the Bible, what man wants so passionately is unacceptable to God. What man wants is so destructive that is is a threat to the earth, to the creatures that live on it, to other humans." 114.

Also, the book is available in multiple formats and editions, including audiobook.

Gospel as Peace: Final Part

In his book “Surprised by Scripture,” N. T. Wright has a fantastic chapter; “Jesus is Coming – plant a Tree.” He describes this hope of renewal when God’s people will live on the renewed earth in peace with one another and with creation itself. 

“‘When Christ shall come,’ we sing in a favorite hymn, ‘with shout of acclamation, and take me home, what joy shall fill my heart.’ What we ought to sing is, ‘When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation, and heal this world, what joy shall fill my heart.’ In the New Testament the Second Coming is not the point at which Jesus snatches people up, away from the earth, to live forever with him somewhere else, but the point at which he returns to reign not only in heaven but upon the earth.”[1]

The new creation God is wielding through Jesus is a wonder surpassing even that of Eden. Violence between God’s creatures and creation has no place there. 

“The Liberation of creation is to happen at the end of history, when Christian believers will attain their full salvation in the glory of the resurrection. . . . Like the Kingdom of God, we cannot achieve the liberation of creation but we can anticipate it.”[2] 

The Bible gives a meta-narrative, but its way of telling the story is often through symbolism, mythologized or parabolic form, and falls outside the kind of reality that includes static knowledge.[3]

Bauckham summarized the meta-narrative[4] in this way: it is the story of humanity and all the nations that comprise it. This story involves God’s chosen clan whose objective was to model a proper community of faith. The story takes a large step forward in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus. The story as a whole then expanded to include the rest of the nations within this community, as originally intended. Through Jesus, as idealized Israel and humanity, God has inaugurated the new creation and revealed that restoration is on its way. 

“What we can know from the Bible’s prophetic visions is that it is a new future for the whole creation, not just for humans.”[5] 

We are able to anticipate this kingdom, but it does not mean taking preemptive measures regarding God’s eschatological action. Establishing the kingdom in its universal fullness is God’s prerogative.[6]

Heaven is neither our inheritance nor our hope. The “gospel” has often been reduced merely to “accepting Jesus” as Lord for the purpose of entering into personal salvation and thereby leaving the body and corporeal reality upon death. This is borderline Gnosticism.[7] Thus, sharing the “gospel” with someone is giving them the “secret knowledge” by which they too can escape “hell” and flee into an eternal heavenly bliss. I suggest that this paradigm misses the whole intended point and purpose of our participation in this good creation. 

“Our inheritance is the whole renewed, restored creation . . . the whole world is now God’s holy land. That is how Paul’s retold Exodus narrative makes full and complete sense.”[8] 

I love the way Wright framed it in another place, 

“We find, not ransomed souls making their way to a disembodied heaven, but rather the new Jerusalem coming down from heaven to earth, uniting the two in a lasting embrace.”[9]

God introducing shalom into chaos is a theme found throughout the Bible. At creation, the earthlings are made from the ground and placed in a garden to manage, enjoy and dwell with God in an intimate environment. As the narrative depicts, God dwelt with humanity in perfection, everything was right. There was safety and shalom, no fear or violence; everything was in its proper sphere. Humanity chose to rebel, but God continues the work toward restoration. Jesus, through obedience, [10] has become the ultimate ruler, mediator and high Priest of God’s kingdom. This is our hope: if God raised Jesus, we too can be raised.[11]

“The task of creating communities where shalom is lived out may not be easy, but we can know whether or not we are successful in our efforts. How can a community tell if it is practicing shalom? Fortunately, a consistent standard is given throughout the sacred Scriptures. Shalom is always tested on the margins of a society and revealed by how the poor, oppressed, disempowered, and needy are treated.”[12]

As Christians, may we strive to do everything in our power to defeat chaos with shalom, but leave the rest to God. We can pray as though everything were dependant upon God, but we must act as though it is dependant on us. Fear is powerful, but it is no match for hope.

---

[1] N. T. Wright, Surprised By Scripture: Engaging Contemporary Issues (New York, NY.: HarperOne, 2014), 102.

[2] Bauckham 2010, 99-100.                                                                          

[3] Ibid., 143.

[4] Ibid., 144.

[5] Ibid., 125.

[6] Ibid.

[7] The view of a “lesser God” within the Hebrew Bible as a mean, violent God contrasted with Jesus, the meek and mild peace-loving savior is stronger in some Protestant traditions than others.

[8] Ibid., 93.

[9] N.T. Wright, Surprised by Hope (London: SPCK, 2007), 26.

[10] Acts 2; Phil 2; Heb 5.

[11] Acts 17; 2 Cor 4:14.

[12] Randy Woodley, Shalom and the Community of Creation: An Indigenous Vision (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2012), 15.

Photo credit: Jon Imhoff, Glacier National Park, MT

Gospel as Peace: Part Three

This brings me to the topic of new creation. God created, and it was good. To truly love God's good creation as intended, we must despise all that threatens and destroys it. In the Apocalypse of John, when justice is being done, it was said that those who “destroy the earth” were to be judged.[1] While being careful not to read an anachronistic, post-modern, polluted and industrialized world back into the text, it is worth noting that if there were those guilty of “destroying” the earth then, how much guiltier are we today?

I have found that dualism,[2] as a theological paradigm, has caused a certain amount of damage in the faith community and has resulted in a negative impact upon the environment. Here is what I mean. When the hope of Christianity shifted from bodily resurrection on a renewed and renovated earth to a disembodied, ethereal escape into the heavens and outside of the physical world, the attitude toward the earth changed.

The old cliché, “it’s all going to burn” is a phrase I heard frequently growing up.  When apocalyptic imagery of fire, brimstone and destruction pervades our eschatological motif and accompanies the idea of dualism, there remains little incentive for maintaining an attitude of remediation. The point is fixing, not fleeing. God is going to mend our broken, violent relationship with creation. Biblical prophecy is not only meant to be predictive, but also meant as a call to action by highlighting misconduct now in light of a future reality; inaugurated eschatology.

Jesus’ action – as ours should be – was in anticipation of a greater kingdom, where the defeat of chaos will be universal, throughout all of creation and to every creature. Christians are to be conquering people, howbeit not through the sword, violent measure or human strength, but as channels of mercy, love and grace which bring healing.

“The renewal of creation, the birth of the new world from the laboring womb of the old, will demonstrate that God is in the right . . . the New Testament invites us, then, to imagine a new world as a beautiful, healing community; to envisage it as a world vibrant with life and energy, incorruptible, beyond the reach of death and decay; to hold it in our mind's eye as a world reborn, set free from slavery of corruption, free to be truly what it was made to be.”[3]

I will finish up this series in the next post, concluding with the new creation.

---

[1] Rev 11:18; cf. 2 Bar 13:11.

[2] I am specifically referencing the dualistic notion of body/soul: humans are mortals that have spiritual experiences, not immortal spirits having human experiences. Bauckham touches on this: Richard Bauckham, The Bible and Ecology : Rediscovering the Community of Creation (Waco, TX.: Baylor University Press, 2010), 148-49, 171.

[3] N. T. Wright, Evil and the Justice of God (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 118.

Click here for part two

Gospel as Peace: Part Two

The Synoptics portray Jesus as a tireless itinerant preacher of the gospel of the kingdom about 30 times. In Matthew 4, Jesus is preaching the kingdom, and in chapter 9 he is still preaching that same kingdom. He was also teaching ethics (i.e. Sermon on the Mount), and the proper behavior of citizens belonging to that kingdom.

I am not minimizing the tremendous impact that the resurrection had as “assurance”[1] or its importance regarding atonement. The gospel of the kingdom was certainly further illuminated in light of Jesus’ resurrection, and subsequently incorporated into this message. The kingdom of God still seemed to remain as the primary message.[2] In Acts, Paul’s mission was “proclaiming the kingdom” and for him was “the whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:24-27).

Even today, when reciting the Lord’s Prayer, we pray “your kingdom come.”[3] The disciples were taught to pray for something to come “on earth as it is in heaven,” which is a way of anticipating the “new heaven and new earth.” It is not a NT concept; its roots are firmly planted in the Hebrew Bible. This is why Jesus was able – often to the consternation of Christians – to use the phrase without defining it.[4] Jesus’ hearers would certainly have been well-acquainted with this theme. The kingship of God is closely related to creation, not merely over humanity, which is a favorite subject of the Psalms.

Jesus, as an apocalyptic prophet, was proclaiming the reign of God coming with power and introducing shalom over the kingdoms of the world. It would be an actual kingdom, where the powers of evil would be overthrown. The disciples were even told that they would be given administrative positions in this theocracy which was to appear onto the scene of human history at some unknown point in the future.[5] This is the rule of God and the renewal, not destruction and replacement, of creation itself.   

The good news of the kingdom of God could be summarized as, “everything wrong with the world being made right; God’s will being done on earth as already is done in heaven.” It is in this sense that I find the fullest expression of shalom. In a way, I do believe that the kingdom has already come in the hearts and minds of those who “love his appearing,”[6] but also realize that as a Christian, I wait for the blessed hope[7] while living at peace with all.[8] We wait for the reconciliation of all things. The shalom of then can still fill us now.

---

[1] Acts 17:31.

[2] Acts 8:12; 19:8; 28:23, 30, 31.

[3] Matt 6:10; Luke 11:2

[4] E.g. Isa 40:9-11; 52:6-10; 65:17; 66:22; Jer 23:5, 6; Dan 2:44; 7:14, 27; Obad 17-21; Zech 9:10; 14:3, 9, 16; 2 Pe 3:13; Rev 21:1.

[5] Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York, NY.: Oxford University Press, 1999), 128.

[6] 2 Tim 4:8; Heb 9:28.

[7] Tit 2:13

[8] Rom 12:18
To see part one, click here.

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.

Christian Patriotism and the War Machine

There's got to be a better way 

What is it good for?

. . .

War, I despise 'cause it means destruction of innocent lives

War, means tears to thousands of mothers how

When their sons go off to fight and lose their lives

. . .

War, it ain't nothing

But a heartbreaker

War, friend only to the undertaker

It's an enemy to all mankind

The point of war blows my mind

War has caused unrest

Within the younger generation

Induction then destruction

Who wants to die

War, what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing

Edwin Starr, War

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

The allegiance of members within the community of God to a "nation state," as though God were taking a particular side, is troubling. There are many who are convinced that God is with the United States, including its perpetual military endeavors. For some, this is rooted in the mistaken notion that this nation was founded upon and still is an inherently "Christian" nation, blessed by God. What about those who serve God in territories we have invaded and afflicted? If they cry to God against us, who is God obliged to answer? 

“For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by another worshipper of God.” - Lactantius, A Treatise on the Anger of God (ANF 7.271). 

Far too often, theology has been poured into an ideological mold for the purpose of casting a nationalized image of God to fit worshiped, political agendas. 

"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.” Patricia M. McDonald, God and Violence: Biblical Resources for Living in a Small World (Scottdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2004), 77.

When did Christianity become so inseparably intertwined with political agendas and identities? Why is it that a "conservative" Christian will question the faith of someone they deem as "liberal" or who identifies with another political party?

The history of humanity, including Christianity, is strewn with a trail of blood where imperialistic aspirations have been religiously justified as though they were God’s own desires. See David A. Leiter, Neglected Voices: Peace in the Old Testament (Scottsdale, PA.: Herald Press, 2007), 10.

“You kill one person, they lock you up and throw away the key. You kill three-hundred thousand and they give you a knighthood.” PBS Masterpiece, Endeavor, S1E1, 48:46 (In the context of what happened to Hiroshima).

What does Jesus have to do with Caesar?

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.

Storied Salvation: Assurance

Salvation According to Paul: Assurance

“Paul would certainly see 'salvation' as secured through 'belief in the Lord Jesus', however much such belief would have to be spelled out in any particular case.”[1]

The book of Jude with its unique content and non-canonical citations contains a noteworthy warning to its readership:

“Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe” Jud 1:5.

The idea that belief and obedience are mutually exclusive or autonomous is not found in the OT or apostolic tradition. God does indeed secure his people, but not without their consent or cooperation. Security and safety are found in continual obedience to God; it’s his word not ours. Once the later idea that grace and obedience are separate from each other is removed – one being accomplished by God’s fiat alone and the other optional by us – Jude’s warning is perfectly appropriate. “Those who did not believe” are not those who wandered into heresy,[2] but rather those who after participating in God’s renewing and restoration power refused to participate and act in the obedience required to be part of that kingdom. This is not a matter of maintaining proper theology, but rather a failure to put into action God’s commands. There are numerous examples of faith as obedience, where those who were once obedient but did not continue on that path were subsequently judged by God.

The psalmist wrote:

“The salvation of the righteous is from the LORD; He is their strength in time of trouble. The LORD helps them and delivers them; He delivers them from the wicked and saves them, Because they take refuge in Him” Ps 37:39-40.

There is no question that Yahweh is the source, character, nature, substance, and reality of salvation. It depends on his faithfulness, consistency and reliability, not our wavering attempts. Does this then describe our eternal security; are we eternally secure? I believe that is the wrong question to ask. A better question is, “Who are the righteous,” which the passage describes? This passage (and others like it) is about the righteous, a topic about which the OT (especially the Psalms) has a lot to say. Jesus came teaching Israel what the actions of a righteous (kingdom citizen) look like. God himself is our guarantee, as Paul said, “by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption” Eph 4:30.[3]

Within the idiomatic way biblical language works, salvation can be spoken of as an accomplished action, although in modern ways of reckoning it causes substantial confusion regarding that from which we are being “saved.”

The proof of spiritual transformation in the Gospels is the confirmation of the people and the spirit of God. There is a sense in which the principle, first taught in the OT, and taught also by Jesus with the witness of at least two, is appropriate. It’s not a matter of self-confirming statements, but rather community affirmation. Obedience is obvious.

“The sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death” 2 Cor 7:10.

The declaration by many dedicated men of God should ring in our ear; hineni, “here I am,” your servant waits for your instruction. Obedience is the best gauge in the present regarding one’s salvation being a reality in the future.

“The righteous dead still await the promised resurrection, 'God' has singled out Jesus, bestowing on him, uniquely, resurrected existence and making him thereby the exemplar of what believers can hope for and the assurance that their hope in 'God's' readiness and power to raise the dead is not in vain (esp. 1 Cor 15:20-58; Heb 2:5-18; 1 John 3:1-3). Resurrection, thus, is presented as the essential means by which ‘God’ will demonstrate faithfulness to believers, and their hoped-for salvation/vindication is directly patterned after what 'God' did in/for Jesus. . . . So, 'God' in the NT is emphatically known as the deity who raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to glory, which justifies and even demands now that Jesus be proclaimed as 'Lord' (e.g., Phil 2:9-11). But God's resurrection of Jesus also serves to signal incomparably this God's great power and purpose, which are to eventuate in a personal/bodily glorification of believers that is patterned after that given to Jesus.”^[4]

---

[1] J. D. G. Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, Christianity in the Making, vol. 2 (Erdmans, 2008), 674.

[2] 1 Tim 4:16.

[3] Eze 9:4; Eph 1:13-4; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:21-2; 5:5; 2 Tim 2:19; Rev 7:3; 9:4.

[4] L. W. Hurtado, God in New Testament Theology (Abingdon Press, 2010), 42.

Servetus

Today marks the 463rd anniversary of the martyrdom of Michael Servetus (October 27th, 1553). I continue to have a hard time comprehending how an individual can feel that they do the work of God when brutal execution is carried out upon individuals possessing "other opinions" regarding doctrinal confessions. In the case of Servetus and Calvin, it was the doctrine of the Trinity.

How are people comfortable with a god who will torture someone eternally for merely having wrong opinions or beliefs about his "nature" or relationship to his son? Those who claim to be people of the Scriptures must bend, twist, copy, paste, contort and distort that to which they pay verbal obeisance in order to come to that perverted conclusion.

Unfortunately, those who wield the metaphorical (and other times literal) sword and spear for the sake of persecuting those having heterodox opinions are convinced they do so with the authority of God and their reading of the Sacred Writings. They feel they stand with the Almighty in the destruction of the "ungodly," i.e. those who don't believe as they do.

Does God disdain all those we do? 

If so, what period of Christianity, and what particular vein? 

Was Christianity (used here anachronistically) in its early form (meaning Jesus and Apostles) a set of creeds and beliefs to which one must subscribe? ("Believing" in the "Lord Jesus Christ" was a recapitulation of Moses' salvation upon his people as well, howbeit with differences -  Ex 14:31).

If so, why is there no record of such? 

Why does the book of Acts depict something quite different as having set their world on fire?

Why is it that the concerns of so many labeled "Christian" today reflect little of Jesus' actual teaching and purpose? 

Why aren't more Christians asking these questions?

Storied Salvation: Part XVIII

Salvation According to Paul: Present

“The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” 1 Co 1:18.

The NT sometimes indicates that salvation, justification, redemption, adoption, glorification, and resurrection are both past and present realities.[1] However, the larger scope of salvation is indeed God's rescue operation for all humanity from sin and death through messiah, which culminates in resurrection where death is destroyed for those who sleep in the dust. It cannot be ignored that this is also an eschatological final deliverance of Israel and the saints from their physical enemies.

“Jesus believed that there was one God who had made the world, and who had called Israel to be his people; that this one God had promised to be with his people, and guide them to their destiny, their new exodus; that his presence, guidance and ultimately salvation were symbolized, brought into reality, in and through Temple, Torah, Wisdom, Word and Spirit. He was a first-century Jewish monotheist.”[2]

Along with the role of God as savior and deliverer, Scripture also places an emphasis on the role his people play in the present, as it is the present that determines the future. Endurance, persistence, determination, tenacity, patience, and ultimately obedience are all intimately connected as actions of the faithful. Faith is an action-oriented dynamic based on God’s covenant-keeping character, not something I retain as a medallion.

Participation is the reality. Faith without action has no validity. Upon consideration of the Shema one will discover that hearing, as a Jew would describe it, is done in ones “feet,” meaning it is action-based, hearing that immediately translates into action, a.k.a. obedience.

“Theologically, salvation depends to some extent on the individual's faith in Yahweh. Ps. 37:40 affirms that Yahweh saves ‘because they take refuge in him’ (cf. 13:5[6]; 25:5; 42:5[6]; 65:5[6]; 78:22; 86:2; 119:94; Lam 3:26; et al.). Ps 119:146 appeals your personal deliverance to achieve a purpose – ‘I will keep your statutes.’”[3]

When Paul wrote in Romans 10:17 that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ,” he no doubt had the Shema in mind. While the “word of Messiah” is without question the Good News about the Kingdom of God which he proclaimed, in Paul’s mind faith, i.e. action/obedience, results in salvation. We have been conditioned far too long to think that salvation is an object of our possession that can exist independent of our behavior. Yahweh, the covenant-keeping God, is secure; it is us, when un-faith-ful, who have no salvation. If we choose to act as though we possess a free pass and nothing more is required, we have chosen to abandon the relationship and the means by which we are made righteous.

It is in this present time – while we wait, train for service and live as citizens of a kingdom to come – that we can say with Paul, that we too are working out our salvation with fear and trembling.[4] Deliverance is the result of our dynamic interaction with him through his promise. Salvation exists by God’s grace towards his people and the obedience on their behalf with his assistance. Our work is God’s work too. In the NT, the work in and through a believer is an expression of God’s renewing, restoring and salvific action. Salvation is not about going to heaven, but rather being raised from death for life on God’s renewed earth. We anticipate in the present what will become full reality in the future.

---

[1] Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14.

[2] Wright, Victory, 652.

[3] William A. VanGemeren, “ישע,” New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (Grandrapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1997), 2:560.

[4] Phil 3:20; 2:12, 

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.