Initial Explorations

Eternal subordination of the Son?

2012-01-24T23:02:00.001+02:00

I don't usually get involved in complicated theological arguments. But I was recently asked a question that I've done some thinking on, and here is my all too brief response.

Is the Son eternally Subordinate to the Father?

Firstly, I would suggest that ontological equality in role and authority with functional subordination (during the incarnation) is biblical and orthodox. However, the eternal subordination in function & authority of the Son, is problematic. It is when the Son takes on a human nature that he assumes a subordinate relationship to God the Father (Jn 5:18-19). Phil. 2.5-11 makes clear, the pre-existent Son of God had the condition and status of being equal to God, but he chose not to take advantage of it, but rather humbled himself (involving a choice, not an inherent condition or state of the divine Son) and took on a human nature. And then we have Matt 28:19 which notes that “all authority in heaven and earth has been given to the Son in his resurrected state. This suggests that the Father has handed over authority to the Son, which the Son will then return to the Father at the end of history (1 Cor 15:28). Are we thus to suggest that the Father is functionally subordinated to the Son at this point?

What is more, Paul the author of 1 Cor 15:28 elsewhere envisages the Son extending his rule and authority at the eschaton, not of it ending. When the end comes all will bow before Jesus Christ as Lord (Phil 2:10), all will stand before him as the judge (2 Cor 5:10), believers "will be glorified with him" (Rom 8:17), and "be with him forever" (1 Thess 4:17), and they will "reign with him" (Rom 5:17). Thus, there is no subordination after the ascension, since at least seven texts explicitly speak of the Son's rule and authority as continuing “forever” (2 Sam 7:2-4; Isa 9:7; Luke 1:33; 2 Pet 1:11; Rev 7:10-12; 11:15; cf. Eph 1:20-21). These texts are eschatologically christocentric, not theocentric. On the basis of this dominant teaching in Scripture on the eternal rule and authority of the Son, the Council of Constantinople in 381 added to what we call today the Nicene Creed the words, "and his [the Son's] kingdom will have no end," thereby rejecting the teaching of Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (d. 374), who appealed to 1 Cor 15:28 to deny the eternal rule and authority of the Son.

Finally, I question whether intra-Trinitarian relationships can be or should be applied to male-female relationships. It is never done so in the New Testament writings, and doing so creates more problems than it solves. As Michael Bird and Robert Shillaker have noted:

we should not assume that every aspect of intra-trinitarian relationships carries over into human existence and into male-female relationships. For a start, the Trinity has three persons in an eternal relationship whereas marriage has only two persons in a temporal relationship. The Trinity also has two male persons and human marriage has one male and one female. That means that unless you are immortal and involved in some bizarre love-triangle (with at least two males) that the application of Trinitarian relations to male-female relations is going to break down at some point. Thus we should be very careful about suggestions that what is true of Trinitarian relationships is also true of male-female relationships. Scripture gives us a better analogy to apply directly to male-female relations and that is the image of Christ and the church in Eph 5:21-33.[1]

I object to Bird’s use of masculinity in relationship to God here, as God is Spirit and transcends male/female gender distinctions. But I think his main point still stands.

Functional subordination cannot mean submission of the Son's will to the Father's will within the Godhead, as they have the same will.

Thoughts? Comments? Critiques? All welcome...

[1] Michael F. Bird and Robert Shillaker, “Subordination in the Trinity and Gender Roles: A Response to Recent Discussion,” Trinity Journal 29/2 (2008): 267-83.

Forgotten Elements of Leadership in 1 Tim 3:1-7

2012-01-19T21:48:00.001+02:00

I’m busy working my way through the so-called “Pastoral Epistles” in preparation for a course I’m teaching in April. While working through this passage, I’ve noticed that within much contemporary preaching and teaching on the topic of leadership, or at least what I’ve experienced, there has been an emphasis on certain elements within this “list of qualifications.” What usually gets discussed or debated is the “one woman man” phrase; whether or not all elders have to be “skilled teachers”; and then “managing one’s household”. It is also taken for granted that those in leadership should not be addicted to alcohol. But what of the other elements in this passage?

Firstly, the passage mentions that those who want to be leaders should be people “against whom no charge can be brought” (Barrett, 58). This indicates someone of impeccable character with no obvious defects in their behaviour. Then the double whammy of “self-controlled” and “self-disciplined.” The first word refers “to being restrained in conduct, self-controlled, level-headed,” while the second is a cardinal virtue in the Graeco-Roman world, a characteristic of those who are in control of their faculties and their responses to stimuli or situations. Such people evoke confidence in their ability to handle crises and make difficult decisions. Then we have the word “respectable” or “dignified” which was often used as an epithet for honourable people.

Then, the one I’ve learnt the most about recently, is “not given to violence.” The word has a wide meaning, including bullying, verbal abuse and physical acts of violence. To the contrary of this negative aspect of character, leaders are called to be “gentle” and those who “create peace,” as opposed to those who cause “fighting”. Gentle, “as a human virtue can almost subsume all virtues into itself, coming to mean a “virtuous equilibrium” that expresses itself in a balance between honesty, tolerance, and gentleness” (Towner). And those who “create peace” or are “peaceable” are those who do not stir up fights, both physical and non-physical, but bring healing and restoration. It is the exact opposite of what is described in Titus 3:9 and 2 Tim 2:23-24.

I wonder what would happen if we restored the balance and gave as much attention to these elements of character and life as we did to the other elements. I wonder what kind of leaders we would produce by focussing on such elements. I wonder if those who are in leadership positions shouldn’t spend a bit more time reflecting on these elements of their biblical “job description.” On a final note, Jesus embodies these virtues perfectly, and it is by implementing his character and concern for others, empowered by the Spirit (Titus 3:5-6), that we will be able to be such leaders in God’s household.

Cardinal Virtues in the Undisputed Paul

2011-12-01T22:49:00.002+02:00

I'm currently reading James W. Thompson, Moral Formation according to Paul: The Context and Coherence of Pauline Ethics.(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011). It's a fantastic book, so far, but there is one small mistake that Thompson makes, that I'd like to correct here. Thompson claims that, "unlike the undisputed Pauline letters, the Pastoral Epistles employ the language of the cardinal virtues" (205). This is incorrect. Paul does employ the cardinal virtues of phronesis (Rom 12:3; 1 Cor 13:11), sophrosyne (2 Cor 5:13; Rom 12:3) and dikaiosyne in the undisputed letters. Just because the noun isn't used, doesn't mean that the concept is absent. We may also add that Paul employs synonyms for andrea in 2 Cor 5:6; 10:1 and 1 Thess. 2:2.

I also wonder about Thompson's insistence that Paul accommodates ideas from Hellenistic Judaism, and not directly from the Graeco-Roman world. Perhaps I've overstated this feeling I get, but he appears overly concerned to locate Paul's ethics within the tradition of Hellenistic Judaism and not in the Graeco-Roman world. I'm not sure why this is a problem, as Paul reframes his understanding of all virtues and vices through the story of Christ and the gospel. Virtues and vices are not neutral for Paul but have to be understood with reference to the story of God and his climactic activity in and through Christ. But perhaps I'm overstating my feeling thus far... Time will tell...

Justice and Peace

2011-11-21T22:01:00.000+02:00

Matt Hosier provides a thoughtful post on War and Peace, offering this penetrating question: *Does the pacifist emphasis on peace, love and reconciliation lead to a neglecting of the equally biblical emphasis upon justice? *

I'm quite sure that the NT vision of Justice is not justice by any means, and there is such a thing as passive resistance (ala Ghandi and Jesus). In fact, in Matt 5:39 Jesus specifically instructs disciples not to engage in violent resistance by using a technical term ἀντιστῆναι. Josephus uses the word with the sense of “violent struggle” 15 out of 17 times. Thus, what Jesus is saying here is that disciples are not to follow the way of violent resistance [like many Jews of the period. cf. Shammaite Pharisees and other messianic movements who started several revolutions] but rather, to follow his path of creative non-violent resistance. Thus, as Richard Hays notes, *Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus re-enacted in the church.*

The book of Revelation provides the strongest support for this position. Rather than taking up arms and engaging in violence, they overcome the beast by peaceful protest in worshipping the Lamb, and laying down their lives. The eschatological vision of Revelation is that God's future will bring vindication and ultimate justice. So the question becomes not *is there not something rather perverse in the tolerance of a tyranny compared to which resistance may be a lesser evil?* But rather, do we trust God? Do we trust God enough to lay down our lives in peaceful protest, knowing that God's future will bring justice and vengeance for the oppressed? The NT commands us never to “repay evil with evil” but instead to “overcome evil with good” (Rom.12:17; cf. I Thess 5:15; I Pet 3:9).

Communion - According to Paul - A Spiritual Encounter

2011-11-16T00:55:00.000+02:00

Francis Watson in his excellent essay, ““I Received from the Lord. . .”: Paul, Jesus and the Last Supper,” makes the following opening comment which I thought was helpful.

“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the lord Jesus, on the night on which he was handed over, took bread. . .” (1 Cor. 11:23). By repeating a tradition the Corinthians already know, Paul seeks to reawaken their sense of awe in the presence of holy mysteries: the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper, through which they participate in the Lord's own body and blood, imbued with the supernatural power of his risen life.[1] To eat this bread and to drink this wine as if they were ordinary bread and wine, heedlessly and without preparation, is to risk converting their life-giving power into a poison that causes weakness, illness, or death.[2] The abused bread and wine can become the agents of the Lord's judgment – a judgment that intends final salvation rather than condemnation but which one would still wish to avoid.[3] Some at Corinth are already guilty of an abuse of this kind, ungraciously going ahead with the meal without waiting for the whole congregation to be assembled.[4] By the time the latecomers arrive, the food and drink have all been consumed so that they are left hungry and humiliated. Perhaps those responsible will plead that the hour was late and that they too were hungry? In that case, they should have taken something to sustain them before they left home. Only when the whole congregation is gathered together can the Lord's Supper truly be celebrated. This apparently trivial discourtesy to fellow Christians is symptomatic of a more serious error, the failure to reckon with the invisible presence of the Lord himself in the sharing of bread and cup. The Last Supper tradition is fully integrated into the exhortations and warnings of 1 Cor. 11:17-34, since this tradition underlies Paul's point about the lifegiving yet potentially threatening holiness of its re-enactment as the Lord’s Supper.[5]

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

[1] The Eucharistic bread and wine are “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” (1 Cor. 10:3-4), in the sense that they enable participation in “the blood of Christ” and “the body of Christ” (10:16; cf. 11:27) – that is, in the heaven existence of the crucified and risen Lord who is “lifegiving Spirit” (15:45).

[2] Cf. 1 Cor. 11:28-30

[3] Cf. 1 Cor. 11:31-32.

[4] “So, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:33). Going ahead with the meal without waiting for latecomers would be a specific instance of the unworthy consumption of the bread and the wine against which the preceding verses warn (vv. 27-32).

[5] Francis Watson, ““I Received from the Lord. . .”: Paul, Jesus and the Last Supper” in Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate. ed. Todd D. Still. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 103-105.

The Story of Ephesians

2011-11-09T22:10:00.000+02:00

After the opening greetings, Ephesians 1:3-14 celebrates the initiative and action of God in planning, coming, rescuing, and restoring people. God’s plan is to ultimately restore the entire world back to harmony with God (1:10). One of the main victories of God is bringing people to a place of trust and allegiance in Him (1:13). The goal of God’s restoring work is that “we might live for the praise of His glory” (1:12). But the ability to live for the praise of His glory, comes from the fact that we are “in Christ” (1:11, 13), and marked with the empowering presence of the Spirit (1:14).

Paul then prays that the Spirit would give them both revelation and wisdom (1:15-19). Revelation of what God has done and is doing, and wisdom so that they may live and act appropriately in light of what God has done and will do. Moving from there, Paul highlights the sovereignty and Lordship of Jesus over all other powers (1:20-23), demonstrating his defeat over death and the ruler of darkness (‘the devil,’ see 4:27 & 6:11) by outlining the victories of Christ which are displayed in the rescue of the audience (2:1-10), and in the uniting of Jews and Gentiles into one new humanity (2:11-22). All these activities of God are the outworking of his kindness, mercy and grace (2:4, 7), in pursuit of a reconciled, restored and renewed world (1:10).

In 3:1-12 we have the story of Paul’s own efforts to advance the reconciling cause of God in Christ and the Spirit with a focus on the Gentile mission. Paul highlights in 3:10 that it is through the Church, the renewed humanity reconciled to God and each other, that God declares and shows forth his victorious reconciling efforts to the principalities and powers. In other words, the Church is the concrete display of God’s ages-old plan coming into full-effect through Jesus, and is the very centre of God’s plan in how he will bring “all things” together. Paul goes on to pray again that they might have a revelation of this (3:18), as this demonstrates the loving kindness of God at work in the world (3:19) to help and to heal, as well as bring hope to the desperate state of the world. This is crowned with a celebration of the capabilities of God’s limitless power, focussed in the Church (3:20-21).

It is from this story of God’s work and the audience being “in Christ” and having access to the Spirit’s power, that we are now encouraged to live worthy of the calling we have received (4:1). It is as if Paul was saying, “Become what you are.” Or better yet, “Work out what God has worked in you.” It is because of their new identity as those adopted into God’s family (1:5), as those who are “in Christ,” as those who are God’s inheritance (1:18), with God’s Spirit marking their lives (1:13), that Paul now outlines an ethical vision. But we should note, that this is not about ‘right and wrong’ but rather about living worthy of the calling we have received as God’s people, “created to be who we are in Christ” (2:10), the vocation to be the children of God amidst a broken and often destructive world.

The first element in Paul’s focus on living worthy of the calling is unity in the body of Christ as representative of the unity in the trinity of Father, Jesus and Spirit. Ephesians 4:1-6 emphasises the essential oneness of the church. But this is not uniformity, but rather a unity of purpose and togetherness in what God is doing to build his Church and reconcile his world. The writer has already shown that previous divisions in the community have been overcome (2:11-22), and that the church is now one (re)new(ed) humanity (1:15), thus they are exhorted to “make every effort to maintain” that which God has done among them (4:3). They are to partner together in God’s reconciling efforts to bring back together, in hope and healing, the broken and fragmented world they inhabit.

The second element is that of gifting which is for the benefit of the body, the maturity of God’s people, and the realisation of our Christ-focussed lives. In 4:7-16 this is seen in that different people have different gifting, but all are to serve the community and household of God (in unity, not uniformity), in helping each other to mature and partner together in God’s mission. Each person has a different gifting and function within the community, but all are to partner together in building the community and helping in God’s ongoing work of redemption. There is a unity of purpose in the diversity of gifting, and this is so that each may play their part in helping one another and the church in God’s unfolding mission.

It is only then that the third element, the instruction to “no longer live as Gentiles” in 4:17-5:14, can make sense. It is because of their commitment to unity, and the diverse gifting of people as the renewed humanity of God that Paul calls them to live a different kind of life. Here we see Paul offering various characteristics of the new community in Christ. This is not to be seen as a new law or catalogue of do’s and don’ts. Rather, here we have both a positive description of what the church will be, and a negative description of what the church shall not be. The portrait here is of the kind of life the community should aspire to, and the kind of actions the community should avoid.

All of this sets the audience up for the instructions to be wise, filled with the Spirit and mutually submitting to one another (5:15-21), which is then directly connected to the household codes of 5:22-6:9. It is only in the context of being wise, being continually filled with the Spirit, and submitting to one another in the fear of the Lord, that the household codes can make sense. 5:15-21 provide the context and heading for all the instructions in the household code. Living together requires mutual submission to one another, and primarily the Lord. Thus it requires a constant engagement with His Spirit which marks out the Church as the people of God, and it requires constant wisdom from above, hence Paul’s prayer in 1:17 and 3:16-21.

The final instruction to the community is to embody the way of God by standing firm in the battle they find themselves. 6:10-20 should not be isolated from what has gone before, nor relegated to some esoteric spiritual battle, but should be seen as a helpful summary of how to implement and integrate the theological vision of life into the often mundane realities of life. This vision is built on the foundation of what he has said in 1:3-3:21 and the vision of life cast in 4:1-6:9. This is how we are to live in Christ, amidst a hostile world, empowered by the Spirit in giving thanks and praise to a God who is worthy of our attention, our affection, and our allegiance. And this God is worthy, because he has initiated a response that comes from his loving kindness, mercy and grace, that stems from His commitment to humanity as their Creator.

Recommended Reading: Timothy G. Gombis, The Drama of Ephesians: Participating in the Triumph of God.

Sean du Toit, 24th March, 2011.

Intertextuality - Understanding Types of Audiences

2011-11-04T06:06:00.000+02:00

Christopher Stanley in his work, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul, suggests that the only references “that Paul’s first-century audience definitely would have recognized are those that are marked as such within the text” (e.g., as with “an explicit quotation formula”). Stanley thus cautions “against the presumption that Paul’s first-century audience recognized and appreciated his many unmarked references to the biblical text.” I say cautions, as there may be legitimate appeals to intertextuality where formal quotation formulae are absent. Stanley's helpful contribution comes to us in his analysis of types of audiences.

Types of Audiences

(a) The informed audience – ‘a person who knows the original context of every one of Paul's quotations and is willing to engage in critical dialogue with Paul about his handling of the biblical text.’

(b) The competent audience – the ‘hypothetical person who knows just enough of the Jewish Scriptures to grasp the point of Paul's quotations in their current rhetorical context.’

(c) The minimal audience – ‘...people in this category were aware of the high degree of respect given to the Scriptures in Christian circles. As a result, they would have been inclined to take seriously any argument that claimed to be grounded in the biblical text. But their ability to follow the argument of a passage laced with quotations would have been limited.’

Richard Hays has suggested that, “The implied readers of these letters appear to be primarily Gentile Christians with an extensive knowledge of the LXX and an urgent interest in interpretation.” Is this a valid assumption? Does this work for all the letters of Paul or the New Testament, or just some of the letters? The question remains, what type of audience will be able to recognise, recall, connect, assess and trust Paul’s intertextual reading?

Intertextuality - Author vs. Audience

2011-10-31T07:15:00.002+02:00

In my previous post I noted Hays key foundation in claiming an intertextual echo.

The concept of allusion depends both on the notion of authorial intention and on the assumption that the reader will share with the author the requisite “portable library” to recognize the source of the allusion…

For an intertextual echo to be affective and effective, the audience must be able to the following successive mental steps: they must be able to recognise, recall, connect, assess and trust an intertextual reading. Without these successive steps, the echo/allusion is missed, and the communicative intent of the author is potentially mistaken. Like Virgil's phrase, Audentes Fortuna iuvat, misunderstanding the context and the communicative intent could lead to serious misrepresentation and misunderstanding.

Fortune favors the bold is one of those phrases that are quoted so frequently that they bear none of the weight of their original contexts. The appeal of its underlying message — luck is not something that merely happens to people, but rather the other way around — ignores the fact that it was originally written, by the Roman poet Virgil, as the battle cry of a fool whose boldness shortly leads to his death.

One strategy around this herculean boulder of what the audience would have understood or picked up on, is to pass the audience and focus solely on the author. Thus Stanley Porter,

Although investigation of an audience-oriented approach has merit in establishing the shared assumptions and biblical knowledge of the audience (in fact, much more could and should be done in this area), it is questionable whether it provides the proper basis for establishing the author’s use of the Old Testament. If one is interested in establishing a given author’s use of the Old Testament, it would appear imperative to orient one’s discussion to the language of the author, rather than supposed, reconstructed “knowledge” of the audience.

Why would an author go to so much trouble to allude to a text, knowing the audience would probably not pick up on the allusion or echo? Thus, in response to this it must be noted that rhetors in the ancient world would be aware of the audience to whom they were speaking, and would speak accordingly. Thus to ignore the problem of the audience's ability to recognise, recall, connect, assess and trust an intertextual reading, could seriously undermine the integrity of the proposed intertextual echo. And it would not pass Hays' criteria noted before. What we need is a better model for understanding the audiences to whom NT authors wrote. And thankfully, such a model exists and provides us with helpful insights and a way of carefully assessing the validity of such claimed echoes.

Intertextuality - Hays Criteria and Assumption

2011-10-30T19:42:00.001+02:00

Richard B. Hays in his celebrated work, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, offers seven criteria for determining an “echo” or an “allusion” to Scripture.

Availability: Was the proposed source of the allusion/echo available to the author and/or original hearers?
Volume: What is the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns?
Recurrence: How often does Paul elsewhere cite or allude to the same scriptural passage?
Thematic Coherence: How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing?
Historical Plausibility: Could Paul have intended the alleged meaning effect?
History of Interpretation: Have other readers, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same echoes?
Satisfaction: Does the proposed reading make sense?

Intertextuality is built on several key assumptions, which Hays outlines below.

Prominent among these conventions are the convictions that a proposed interpretation must be justified with reference to evidence provided both by the text’s rhetorical structure and by what can be known through critical investigation about the author and the original readers. Any interpretation must respect these constraints in order to be persuasive in my reading community. Claims about intertextual meaning are strongest where it can credibly be demonstrated that they occur within the literary structure of the text and that they can plausibly be ascribed to the intention of the author and the competence of the original readers.

The concept of allusion depends both on the notion of authorial intention and on the assumption that the reader will share with the author the requisite “portable library” to recognize the source of the allusion…
This last quote is the achilles heel in many claims to intertextuality, as many of the audiences to whom New Testament authors wrote, simply did not have that "portable library" to recognise, recall, connect, assess and trust Paul’s intertextual reading. And without this ability, claims to intertextuality are severely weakened and often undermined.

Intertextuality - What Constitutes an Echo or Allusion?

2011-10-29T20:18:00.001+02:00

Providing some methodological clarity and specificity to the topic of intertextuality in biblical studies, is the careful work of Christopher Beecham, which I draw from in this post. By specifying and clarifying his criteria, something many engaged in intertextuality have failed to do, Beecham brings guidance to an at times unclear conversation.

Items that are Essential to Identifying Something as an Allusion.

1. First, an allusion is an intentional, conscious attempt by an author to point a reader back to a prior text.

2. The second item that is essential to allusion is that an allusion has “in each instance, a single identifiable source.”

3. Third, an allusion must adequately stand out in order to be perceived by the audience. This presupposes that the author and reader share a common language and tradition. For an allusion to be successful, the prior text must be “. . . part of the portable library shared by the author and his ideal audience.” If the work is unfamiliar to the reader, the allusion will race past the ear like an arrow that missed its target.

4. The final item essential to allusion is that an author employing it expects that the audience will remember the original sense of the previous text and link the appropriate components that the new context requires in order to be most fully understood.

Items that are essential for identifying an Echo

1. First, unlike allusion, an echo may be either a conscious or unconscious act. Echoes are faint enough that often it is impossible to gauge whether its appearance in the text was consciously or unconsciously performed by the author.

2. Every echo derives from one specific text, event, tradition, person, or thing (whether animate or inanimate, concrete or abstract). If the echo is a textual or literary echo, it stems from a text that the author has read (or heard) at some point in the past.

3. Third, unlike allusion, by echo the author does not intend to point the audience to the precursor. Intention implies a conscious activity, and echo is often but not always a conscious act. Echo is a linking of texts accomplished without the aim to render a communication for public consumption… Echoes surface in a text largely because the author’s mind is saturated with the source text.

4. Unlike allusion, an echo is not dependent upon the original sense of the precursor to be understood. The meaning in the new context is not tied to the previous context; that is, the audience does not need to “recognize, remember, realize, and connect” the two texts to grasp the author’s intended public communication in the new context. The original context may or may not have been taken into consideration.

The strongest, most explicit mode of reference is quotation. The citation of the former reference is verbatim or nearly so, and is long enough to be recognized as such. An allusion, while still overt by definition, is less explicit, being more “fragmentary or periphrastic.”

Quotations may be further divided up into two categories: formal and informal. A formal quotation is a quotation that is accompanied by a quotation formula, which serves as a clear marker to the reader that what follows (or immediately precedes) is a citation from a previous source… An informal quotation, on the other hand, is a quotation that lacks a quotation formula. An informal quotation is just as much a quotation as a formal one; it merely wants for an explicit introductory marker.

This is from Christopher A. Beetham. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians. Biblical Interpretation Series 96. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 16-20.

Intertextuality - What is it?

2011-10-29T06:18:00.000+02:00

Recently I was giving a paper on Philippians, and made the claim that Philippians never quotes the Hebrew Bible. I thought this was a standard position given the claim of Moisés Silva, who notes that “Paul’s letter to the Philippians is totally lacking in direct OT quotations, and even its allusions to the OT are subtle enough that they can easily be missed.” [See Moisés Silva, “Philippians” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 835.] However, someone pointed out that Philippians 1:19 could be a quotation from Job 13:16 LXX, which states: τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν. Before exploring this, we must first clarify the key idea of intertextuality.

When two texts are juxtaposed, as occurs when an OT text is quoted in the Pauline epistles, an intertextual space is defined that forms a new interpretive context. Concepts from each text mutually play upon and amplify one another within this intertextual space. [K. H. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21-31” Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993) 299-320, here 305.]

When a literary echo links the text in which it occurs to an earlier text, the figurative effect of the echo can lie in the unstated or suppressed (transumed) points of resonance between the two texts… Allusive echo functions to suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed… Metalepsis places the reader within a field of whispered or unstated correspondences. [Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 20.]

These two quotes set the stage for what it is we are looking for, when we engage in the work of intertextuality. But this raises many methodological questions about what constitutes a quotation, allusion and even an echo.

In the next post, we’ll explore the work of Christopher A. Beetham. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians. Biblical Interpretation Series 96. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), who has offered a helpful analysis of what constitutes an echo, allusion and quotation. And does Philippians 1:19 constitute a verbatim quotation of Job 13:16 LXX?

Gehenna - What rubbish

2011-10-18T20:29:00.000+02:00

What do J. I. Packer, Rob Bell, and Edward Fudge have in common about Hell? They're wrong! Gehenna was NOT a rubbish dump outside Jerusalem. [I must confess that I too at one stage believed this myth.]

The simple fact is that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is true in the first century. There is no archeological or literary support for this claim. So where did the idea come from? It appears to have come from a Rabbinic commentary on Psalm 27:13, written in 1200 CE!

See further:

Peter Head, “The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The reader must understand: Eschatology in Bible and Theology. eds. K.E. Brower and M.W. Elliott; (Leicester: Apollos, 1997), 221-227.
G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Kingdom of God. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 376n.92.
Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. (Munich: Beck, 1922-56), 4:2:1030.
Lloyd R. Bailey, “Gehenna: The Topography of Hell,” Biblical Archeologist 49 (1986): 187-191.

Historical Jesus - Just the Facts

2011-09-28T12:25:00.000+02:00

Historians, of many ideological and philosophical persuasions, hold to the following almost certain facts concerning the historical Jesus.

Jesus came from Nazareth
He began his public life as a disciple of John
He was a teacher and healer/exorcist
He had a group of followers, with twelve being of central importance
There was a focussed mission on Israel
Jesus preached the coming of the “kingdom of God”
He clashed with the Jerusalem authorities concerning the temple
He was crucified as a Messianic pretender by the Romans on the authority of Pontius Pilate
Jesus’ followers believed they encountered him after his death
Jesus’ followers formed a movement, awaiting his return, winning new adherents.

Jesus’ message was that the Kingdom of God was arriving in and through his own ministry. He saw himself as a prophet announcing God’s word to Israel. His proclamation of the Kingdom was demonstrated and advocated in teaching and symbolic praxis. Jesus’ perspective and understanding of the Kingdom was significantly different to what his contemporaries, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees, were expecting and performing. Jesus’ call to Israel was specifically to repent of their nationalistic ambitions and embrace his new vision of being Israel with him as their new King. Jesus saw sin/satan as Israel’s real enemy, not Rome. In and around himself, Jesus was re-gathering a reconstituted Israel. Healings and exorcisms were a sign of God’s in-breaking reign. For those who would not heed his call and command, Jesus prophesied judgement and destruction within a generation, of nation, city and temple.

Overview of Revelation - Fee

2011-09-18T21:10:00.001+02:00

As a Christian prophet, John also sees this conflict in the larger context of the holy war the ultimate cosmic conflict between God (and his Christ) and Satan (see 12:1-9)in which God wins eternal salvation for his people. The people's present role is to "triumph over [Satan] by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony not lov[ing] their lives so much as to shrink from death" (12:11). As God has already defeated the dragon through the death and resurrection of Christ (the Messiah is caught up to heaven, 12:5), so he will judge the state for her crimes against his people.

The book plays out these themes in a variety of ways. The earlier parts (chs. 1 -6) set the stage for the unfolding drama, starting with a vision of the Risen Christ, who holds the keys to everything that follows (1:12-20), while letters to selective churches represent their varied strengths and weaknesses (chs. 2-3). These are followed by a vision of the Reigning Creator God and the Redeeming Lamb (chs. 4-5), to whom alone belong all wisdom, glory, and power and before whom all heaven and earth will bow. As John weeps because no one can be found to break the seals of the scroll (which is full of God's justice and righteous judgments), he is told that the "Lion of the tribe of Judah see Gen 49:9-10), the "Root of David" (Isa 11:1-2, 10). has "triumphed," but the only lion John sees is God's slain Lamb (echoing the Exodus Passover [and Isa 53:7]), who has redeemed people from all the nations.

Such a Conqueror can set the drama in motion by breaking the seals (Rev 6), which offer a kind of "overture" (striking ail the themes) for what follows [conquest, war, famine, death [first 4 seals] - followed by many martyrdoms [seal 5], to which God responds with judgment [seal 6]). It is especially important to note that, apart from his role in the final battle (19:11 -21), the only way Christ appears from here on in the narrative is as the slain Lamb; this is how his followers are expected to triumph as well (12:11).

The two interlude visions (ch. 7) - of those whom God has "sealed" from his coming judgements, but pictured in battle formation for their role in the holy war, and eventually redeemed - are then followed by the opening of the seventh seal, which unfolds as the vision of the seven trumpets (chs. 8-9). These "judgments" echo the plagues of Egypt, and like those plagues, announce temporal (and partial) judgments against their present-day Pharaoh. But as with the Egyptian Pharaoh, the plagues do not lead to repentance (9:20-21). The interlude visions between the sixth and seventh trumpets (10:1 -11:14) call on the church to prophesy and bear witness to Christ, even in the face of death, while also pronouncing the certain doom of the empire, and ending with a foretaste of the final glorious reign of God and of the Lamb (11:15-19).

The remaining visions (chs. 12-22) offer explanations for and apocalyptic descriptions of the final doom of the empire. Chapters 12-14 thus give the theological and historical reasons for both the suffering and the judgment. The doom of Rome itself is portrayed in the vision of the seven bowls (chs. 15-16), which echo the trumpet plagues but now without opportunity to repent.

The whole then concludes as the (original) "tale of two cities," represented by two women (the prostitute [Rome] and the bride of the Lamb), in which the city that represents enmity against God and his people is judged (chs. 17-18). This is set against the backdrop of God s final salvation and judgment (chs. 19-20) and of the final glory of the bride as the city of God, the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven (chs. 21-22).

Extracted from G. D. Fee, How To Read the Bible Book by Book.

Revelation - Authorship

2011-09-16T23:07:00.001+02:00

We know that someone named John (1:1, 4, 9) wrote the Revelation. The author is in exile, but we do not know whether this is self-imposed or due to some kind of official decree. The reason for his exile is clear, it is because of the Lord. However, it should be noted that the present location of the author, i.e., at the time of writing, is unknown. Rev 1:9 suggests that John had his vision on the island of Patmos, but it does not suggest that John is still there, nor does it suggest that John wrote Revelation while he was there.

Thus, John may have taken much time to pray, meditate and think through his visionary experiences and how best to communicate those to the communities that he served. Thus we should be careful in allowing presuppositions and assumptions to guide our understanding of how this text was put together and when and how it was written.

Some scholars have suggested that some sections of Revelation may have been written and used much earlier, and thus within Revelation there are both early and later materials. Although, I must admit to a certain scepticism regarding our ability to discern various layers of tradition and then date them. Such proposals and conclusions seem more to be driven by circular reasoning.

Rev. 22:6-7 suggest that he was a prophet, perhaps part of a prophetic group. Presumably he was well known to the audience as he does not explain to them who he is. He writes to the Churches with some authority, which may suggest an ongoing relationship with them.

John must normally have been active as a prophet in the churches to which he writes. The seven messages to the churches reveal detailed knowledge of each local situation, and 2:21 presumably refers to an earlier prophetic oracle of his, addressed to the prophetess he calls Jezebel at Thyatira. John was no stranger to these churches but had exercised a prophetic ministry in them and knew them well. (Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation)

The amount of specific information that the writer has not only about these specific churches, but also about the specific areas within which these churches are found suggests an intimate knowledge of these areas.

Traditionally the author is seen as the apostle, the son of Zebedee (Matt 10:2). Justin Martyr, calls him “John the Apostle.”

There was a certain man with us whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believe in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place.

While, Irenaeus merely notes that “John wrote the apocalypse at the end of the reign of Domitian,” which suggests a dating of around 95CE. Many, if not most, scholars suggest that a dating to the reign of Domitian, is accurate. Eusebius suggests that John went to Patmos during the reign of Domitian, and then later returned to Asia minor to continue his work.

John does not appear to be a pseudepigraphic writing, that is, a writing written under the name of someone else in whose authority one wished to write or communicate. John makes no special claims about himself, and very little is communicated about the situation within which he wrote. The writer is simply described as a slave of God, and a brother to those whom he writes.

Scholars have suggested that the author of this work has a distinctively Jewish background, given the numerous allusions and echoes to the Hebrew scriptures and various Jewish traditions. In fact, the genre of apocalypse appears to be most at home within a Jewish worldview.

Outline of Revelation - Bauckham

2011-09-16T22:41:00.000+02:00

Prologue (1:1-8)

Title and Beatitude (1:1-3)
Epistolary Opening (1:4—5a)
Doxology (1:5b-6)
A Scriptural Testimony (1:7)
A Prophetic Oracle (1:8)

Inaugural Vision of Jesus Christ among the Churches and his Messages to the Seven Churches (1:9-3:22)
John's Vision and Commission (1:9—20)
The Message to Ephesus (2:1—7)
The Message to Smyrna (2:8-11)
The Message to Pergamum (2:12-17)
The Message to Thyatira (2:18—29)
The Message to Sardis (3:1—6)
The Message to Philadelphia (3:7-13)
The Message to Laodicea (3:14-22)

Inaugural Vision of Heaven (4:1-5:14)
God on the Throne (4:1—11)
The Lamb on the Throne (5:1-14)

The Seven Seals (6:1-8:5)
The First Four Seals (6:1-8)
The Fifth Seal (6:9-11)
The Sixth Seal (6:12-17)
Interlude: The Sealing of the Elect (7:1-17)
The Seventh Seal (8:1-5)

The Seven Trumpets (8:6—11:19)
The First Four Trumpets (8:6-12)
The Fifth Trumpet (8:13-9:11)
The Sixth Trumpet (9:12—21)
Interlude: (a) The Scroll Given to John (10:1—n)
Interlude: (b) The Content of the Scroll (11:1-13)
The Seventh Trumpet (11:14-19)

The Story of God's People in Conflict with Evil (12:1—15:4)
The Woman, the Dragon and the Child (12:1—6)
Michael and the Dragon (12:7-12)
The Dragon and the Woman (12:13-17)
The Monster from the Sea (12:18—13:10)
The Monster from the Land (13:11—18)
The Lamb and the 144,000 (14:1-5)
Three Angelic Messages and a Voice from Heaven (14:6-13)
The Harvest of the Earth and the Vintage of the Earth (14:14-20)
The Song of the Conquerors (15:1-4)

The Seven Bowls (15:5-16:21)

Introduction (15:5—16:1)
The First Five Bowls (16:2—11)
The Sixth Bowl (16:12-16)
The Seventh Bowl (16:17-21)

Babylon the Harlot (17:1-19:10)
The Harlot: (a) The Vision (17:1—6a)
The Harlot: (b) The Interpretation (17:6b-18)
The Fall of Babylon: (a) The Voice of an Angel (18:1-3)
The Fall of Babylon: (b) A Voice from Heaven (18:4-20)
The Fall of Babylon: (c) The Voice of Another Angel (18:21-4)
The Fall of Babylon: (d) Voices from Heaven (19:1-8)
John and the Angel (19:9—10)

Transition from Babylon to the New Jerusalem (19:11-21:8)
The Rider from Heaven and his Victory (19:11-21)
The Millennium (20:1-10)
The Judgment of the Dead (20:11-15)
The New Heaven and the New Earth (21:1—4)
God Speaks (21:5-8)

The New Jerusalem the Bride (21:9—22:9)
General View of the City (21:9—14)
The Walls and the Gates of the City (21:15-21)
The Glory of God in the Temple-City (21:22-7)
The Throne of God in the City (22:1—5)
John and the Angel (22:6—9)

Epilogue (22:10—21)
The Angel's Instructions (22:10-11)
A Prophetic Oracle (22:12-13)
Beatitude (22:14-15)
A Scriptural Testimony (22:16)
Invitation to Come to the Water of Life (22:17)
Warning to Preserve the Book's Integrity (22:18—19)
A Prophetic Oracle and Response (22:20)

This is taken from Richard Bauckham's commentary on Revelation in the Oxford Bible Commentary.

Unity amidst Diversity - a tragic irony

2011-09-07T12:37:00.000+02:00

Philip Melanchthon, one of the great theological minds of the Reformation, described Romans as “an outline and compendium of all Christian doctrine”, and its interpretation has often been driven by theological interests and debates. Indeed, until recently Romans has been read primarily as an essay in propositional theology, and interpreters have often lost sight of the concrete and specific set of circumstances and interests that called this letter into existence. Attempting to abstract the timeless theology of Romans, Christians have repeatedly broken off fellowship with other Christians over the interpretation of minute aspects of this letter, for example, the question of predestination versus free will, the degree of human depravity, the nature of “saving” faith and so forth. A tragic irony emerges when we consider that in Romans, Paul provides his fullest treatment of the way God has brought together people of diverse heritage and practice into the one body of the church, and he also gives several chapters of practical advice for preserving unity in the midst of this diversity.

David deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 598. Italics mine.

An Example of Recurrent Attestation

2011-08-22T07:22:00.000+02:00

Dale Allison has argued for a criterion of recurrent attestation. These are themes, ideas, and elements that occur across a wide variety of materials and give a certain impression of the historical Jesus. Allison gives the following as an example:

The temptation narrative, in which Jesus bests the devil (Mark 1:12-13; Matt 4:1-11 par. Luke 4:1-13)
Stories of successful exorcism (Mark 1:21-28; 5:1-20; 7:24-30; 9:14-27; Matt 12:22-23 par. Luke 11:14; Matt 9:32-34; cf. the passing notices of successful exorcisms in Mark 1:32, 34, 39; 3:22; Matt 8:16; Luke 13:32)
Jesus’ authorization of disciples to cast out demons (Mark 3:15; 6:7; cf. 6:13; Matt 7:22; Luke 10:19-20)
The saying about Satan being divided (Mark 3:23-27; Matt 12:25-27 par. Luke 11:17-19)
The parable of binding the strong man (Mark 3:27; Matt 12:29 par. Luke 11:21-22; Gos. Thom. 35)
The story of someone other than a disciple casting out demons in Jesus’ name (Mark 9:38-41)
The declaration that Jesus casts out demons by the finger/Spirit of God (Matt 12:28 par. Luke 11:20)
The report of Jesus' vision of Satan falling like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18)
The announcement that the ruler of the world has been driven out (John 12:31; 16:11; cf. 14:30)

According to Allison, “one infers from all this material not only that Jesus was an exorcist but also that he and others saw his ministry in its entirety as a victorious combat with Satan. This holds, whatever one makes of the individual units, at least some of which may be difficult to think of as historical. What counts is not the isolated units but the pattern they weave, or the larger images they form.”

Coming out of Retirement - Recurrent Attestation

2011-08-12T08:58:00.005+02:00

So I'm coming out of retirement, I hope. And the first thing I'd like to do is note something I explored some time ago [2005] about what Dale Allison has recently called "recurrent attestation." I'll explore this more in an upcoming blog...

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

Stephen Patterson, in his book The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning offers an interesting idea, borrowed from R. W. Funk, about typifications. Patterson in explaining the problem caused by judging which events or deeds of Jesus are in fact historical, writes:

The best provisional solution to this problem is to say simply that the deeds of Jesus present us with the creative memory of the church. In the Jesus Seminar, it was seldom that we could assert, even tenuously, the historical accuracy of any particular event or occasion as it is depicted in the gospels, or in fact, that such and such an event occurred at all. But we did notice that certain types of events are depicted with great frequency in the Jesus traditions, and across a variety of sources and forms. Things like healings and exorcisms, cavorting with the unclean and the shamed, conflict with his family - such things began to emerge as "typical" of Jesus in the widespread memory of the early church. Such typifications became the basis for a general description of the sort of things Jesus probably did, even though the historicity of any single story in the gospels was always hard to demonstrate. Patterson, The God of Jesus, 57.

While I abhor many of the absurd presuppositions that the Jesus Seminar approach the gospels with when doing historical enquiry, this method seems to make much sense. We know for sure that the gospels don't record every single detail of the life of Jesus. Whatever we think of the historical value of John's gospel, his statement that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book [or any other I might add] appears a priori valid. It seems axiomatic that the gospels are a sampled survey of all the things about Jesus and they are not in an exact diary collection of facts and data.

Could the deeds of Jesus be likened to the position of Darrell Bock who has argued that the sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels are the "voice" of Jesus, and not the exact literal word for word dictation that many assume? Could we have echoes of the typical deeds of Jesus recorded in the gospels? Patterson notes that "the limits of ancient history are considerable, indeed."

Could this approach fit better with a critical realist epistemology, where certainty on any exact event [with a few notable exceptions such as the temple action, cross & resurrection, and perhaps a few others?] is unknown but the gist and typical features of Jesus' actions in healing, exorcism, interaction with Gentiles and Jews are known? The plausibility of this being the case seems almost certain given what we know about the limits and strengths of oral tradition as well. Maybe the memory of two separate encounters got blurred into one event [would that explain gospel differences better than or as well as editorial emphases?]

Wright notes that there is nothing to suggest that the sermon on the Mount and the sermon on the Plain are the same event. Jesus probably regularly gave a set piece of didactic speeches - Luke and Matt record summaries of them - in different locations because that was typical of Jesus teachings in various locations.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms? Are there any published critiques or advocates of this view? In my mind, which is now reeling over the possibilities, this could alter our conception of the criteria of authenticity and exegesis.

Happy Holidays Break

2009-12-09T01:18:00.002+02:00

Greetings friends and fellow bloggers. Well, blogging has been slow these last few months. I've finished up the first half of my MTh, and am now in the process of writing courses for next year. So I've decided to take a bit of a break from blogging and return in the New Year. So to everyone, have a great break, take a rest, enjoy your friends and families and read some good books.

Ciao for now...

Church in a Workship?

2009-11-26T07:25:00.002+02:00

McKinnish Bridges, in her recent commentary on the Thessalonian correspondence argues that the Church in Thessaloniki was composed of artisans who met in their workshop as a voluntary association.

If one imagines the community reading Paul’s words as a group of artisans linked by common vocation and workspace, is one able to understand this text more clearly? I believe so. The passages related to work, to community living, to physical labour have much more meaning when the community is visualised as a working community of manual labourers… The social world of artisans creates a new backdrop for understanding these letters. As I read Paul’s words, I see a community of skilled artisans who have gathered in their workroom to hear his letters read. They pause from their task, wipe the dust from their hands, and listen to their artisan-colleague, Paul, who in earlier days shared their same tools and workspace. In that context of dust and death, craft and faith, the members of the community learn how to live more closely in relationship to God and to one another.
See McKinnish Bridges, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 8, 10.

It's a fascinating proposal that I'll be giving some careful thought.

To Know GOD!

2009-11-24T09:04:00.001+02:00

James Merick has eloquently put what I have felt for a while now...

It says something terrible about the state of the discipline [contemporary theology] that it is utterly objective and scholarly, that one can be successful without ever having to pray, meditate upon Scripture, participate in the life of the church, serve the poor, counsel the downtrodden or just repent of one’s selfishness and become more loving. It is a blight against contemporary theology that the mark of success has to do with argumentation or even conformance to some tradition, intellectual or confessional, not holiness. That one can be considered a knowledgeable theologian without ever really having to be affected by the knowledge they have is at the very least curious for a discipline concerned with knowledge of the ultimate ontologically reality, God... Knowing God entails personal change, for one cannot truly know God without coming into active, transformative relationship to him. Theologians thus do not know various doctrines, even if they can argue compellingly for them, if their selves are not conformed, not taught by the content. Calvin thus recognized that theology is not only plagued by false gods or idolatry, but by false selves as well. For him, it is impossible to retain a false self and yet know God in truth. In this way, what makes for a successful theologian is not simply good intellectual traits, but, more fundamentally, virtue and piety. Theologians are those who do not simply pontificate and speculate about the truth for others, but above all those who have been personally taught by Truth, who have been grasped by the content of their task to the point of being conformed to it. True theologians do not fool themselves into thinking that theological problems are solved conceptually (in other words, enough babbling about the perils of capitalism and more getting on with providing relief to those who suffer from its oppression). True theologians don’t master their discipline, but are mastered by it, being moved not simply intellectually by thoughts, but personally by realities shorthanded by doctrines.

Jesus Interrupted

2009-11-22T23:34:00.002+02:00

Michael Kruger, Associate Professor of NT and Academic Dean at RTS in Charlotte, NC, reviews Bart Ehrman’s Jesus Interrupted. Here’s the conclusion:

In the end, Jesus Interrupted can be best summarized as a book filled with ironies. Ironic that it purports to be about unbiased history but rarely presents an opposing viewpoint; ironic that it claims to follow the scholarly consensus but breaks from it so often; ironic that it insists on the historical-critical method but then reads the gospels with a modernist, overly-literal hermeneutic; ironic that it claims no one view of early Christianity could be “right” (Walter Bauer) but then proceeds to tell us which view of early Christianity is “right;” ironic that it dismisses Papias with a wave of the hand but presents the Gospel of the Ebionites as if it were equal to the canonical four; and ironic that it declares everyone can “pick and choose” what is right for them, but then offers its own litany of moral absolutes. Such intellectual schizophrenia suggests there is more going on in Jesus Interrupted than meets the eye. Though veiled in the garb of scholarship, this book is religious at the core. Ehrman does not so much offer history as he does theology, not so much academics as he does his own ideology. The reader does not get a post-religious Ehrman as expected, but simply gets a new-religious Ehrman–an author who has traded in one religious system (Christianity) for another (postmodern agnosticism). Thus, Ehrman is not out to squash religion as so many might suppose. He is simply out to promote his own. He is preacher turned scholar turned preacher. And of all the ironies, perhaps that is the greatest.

The Neglected Apostle

2009-11-22T20:42:00.001+02:00

Given my research into all things Petrine, I'm really looking forward to this upcoming volume by the late Martin Hengel.

Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle (Paperback)~ Martin Hengel (Author), Thomas Trapp (Translator). Many biblical scholars treat the apostle Peter as a vague figure in the early church and regard the early tradition as something that cannot be trusted. In Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle Martin Hengel rejects the common minimalist view about Peter’s role in the Scriptures and in the early church. Arguing that Peter is wrongly underappreciated, Hengel shows that Peter was, in fact, central to developing both the Jewish and Gentile Christian missions. / Though Hengel’s work rests on meticulous scholarship, it is written in a manner that any interested reader will find clear and enlightening.

Reading an Apocalyptic Prophecy - Revelation

2009-11-19T22:03:00.002+02:00

Revelation seems to be an apocalyptic prophecy in the form of a circular letter to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia. This is explicit in 1:11, what is revealed to John (what he 'sees') he is to write and send to the seven churches which are here named. This command applies to all the vision and revelations which follow in the rest of the book. The habit of referring to chapters 2-3 as the seven ‘letters’ to the churches is misleading. These are not as such letters but prophetic messages to each church. It is really the whole book of Revelation which is one circular letter to the seven churches. The seven messages addressed individually to each church are introductions to the rest of the book which is addressed to all seven churches. Thus we must try to do justice to the three categories of literature – apocalypse, prophecy and letter – into which Revelation seems to fall. [Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 2.]

The whole book of Revelation is a report of visionary revelation, but it also includes oracular prophecy within it. This occurs in the prologue (1:8) and the epilogue (22:12-13, 16, 20); the seven messages to the churches (2:1-3:22) are oracles written as Christ’s word to the churches; and also throughout the book (13:9-10; 14:13b; 16:15) there are prophetic oracles which interrupt the accounts of the visions. [Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation, 3.]

Phil 2:5-11 as Pattern

2009-11-09T23:57:00.001+02:00

ilThe life of Christ shows that the way up is by stepping down, that the way to gain for oneself is by giving up oneself, that the way to life is by death, and that the way to win the praise of God is by steadfastly serving others. The teaching of Jesus during his years on earth was articulated not only by the words he spoke but by the life he lived… In his humility, Jesus did what he asked others to do. And it was his great act of humility that was sung about by the church as its members met together to worship and praise him who is now exalted to the highest station in heaven. Placing the Christ-hymn precisely in this place in his letter, Paul simply wants to say, “Follow this example, pattern your life after his life.” Imitation of Christ, then, is the pattern of discipleship in Philippians.[1]

[1] G. F. Hawthorne, “The Imitation of Christ: Discipleship in Philippians.” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament Edited by R. N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 169.

A Christological Paradigm

2009-10-28T22:59:00.000+02:00

When the first hearers of Matthew’s Gospel heard Jesus’ call to suffer rather than to inflict suffering, to accept death rather than to inflict death, to reject all efforts to save themselves from their plight by military action and to leave their deliverance to God, they knew that the one who gave such scandalous instruction had himself lived and died in accord with that call.

Gene Davenport, Into the Darkness: Discipleship and the Sermon on the Mount (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1988), 15.

Blessing the Revolution

2009-10-19T20:43:00.001+02:00

Just as the Decalogue begins with a declaration of fact – God’s liberation of Israel from bondage in proof of his love (Ex 20:2) – so the Sermon on the Mount begins in the beatitudes with a declaration of fact – God’s compassionate turning towards the disadvantaged, bringing them into his liberating reign of peace and justice.

Chris Marshall, “Blessing the Revolution,” 5.

Knock Knock!

2009-10-15T03:25:00.002+02:00

Something different, but really good.

HT: Alan Bandy

Beatitudes and Kingdom

2009-10-09T13:37:00.002+02:00

When God’s kingdom comes, and God’s will is done, no one will have to be poor in Spirit, mourn, be meek, or hunger and thirst for righteousness, but everyone who is ruled by God and does God’s will is merciful, pure in heart, committed to peacemaking, and willing to suffer for the sake of righteousness.

Mark Allan Powell, “Matthew’s Beatitudes: Reversals and Rewards of the Kingdom” CBQ July (1996) 460-478, here 475.

This is quite possibly the best article I've read thus far on the Beatitudes. Powell convincingly makes the case that the beatitudes be read in two stanza's (5:3-6 & 7-10 - each containing 36 words, 11-12 contain 35 words. 5:6 & 10 both end with righteousness, and 5:3-6 is marked by alliteration in the Greek text). The first section deals with reversals of misfortune, and the second deals with rewards for virtues embodied in praxis. Thus moving forward the debate between those who see it primarily as reversals or primarily as rewards. He also widens the referent of God's blessing to include those beyond the community of disciples. According to Powell, when God's kingdom reigns, everyone marginalised will benefit, not just those within the community of faith.

If you're interested in this section of scripture, make sure you engage with this article.

Beatitudes - Quote

2009-10-06T22:09:00.000+02:00

The initial reference point for exploring the Matthean beatitudes is given in Jesus’ proclamation that the kingdom of heaven has drawn near (4:17), coupled with the conviction that this is good news (4:23). It seems likely that the distinctive third person format of 5:3-10 allows these verse to serve functionally as an expanded restatement of 4:17: this is what is now imminent. This is good news specifically to those who find themselves in these identified situations (a list which is probably designed to echo key elements of the shared experience of God’s people: chastened by the humiliation of exile and beyond, and living as a subject people; longing for God to put things finally to rights; peacemakers, not motivated by a thirst for vengeance, having discovered the depth of their own need for mercy; seeking to be pure in heart; and ready to suffer, if need be, as those identified with the way of God). Jesus brings good news for those who have travelled the distance with God and been educated by the history of their people.

John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew NIGTC (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2005), 196-197.

Παρακάλυψις – Primary Source Website

2009-10-05T23:32:00.001+02:00

Another original language resource website: Παρακάλυψις. It’s got OT, NT, Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha, Patristics and classics. Some stuff comes up online, and other stuff you have to use djvu (like pdf) software.

HT: Παρακάλυψις – Primary Source Website

I just downloaded Dio Cassius' Roman History from the Loeb collection. This is a very useful resource.

Check it out.

Adolf Schlatter Commentaries on the New Testament

2009-10-05T08:09:00.001+02:00

Das Evangelium nach Matthäus

Die Evangelien nach Markus und Lukas

Das Evangelium nach Johannes

Die Apostelgeschichte

Der Brief an die Römer

Die Korintherbriefe

Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Kolosser und Philemon

Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher, Philipper, Timotheus und Titus

Die Briefe des Petrus. Judas, Jakobus, der Brief an die Hebräer

Die Briefe und die Offenbarung des Johannes

These are in pdf format. Enjoy!

HT: NT Gateway

Philippians 3 and the New Perspective

2009-10-01T06:53:00.002+02:00

The Law/Torah is not a system of legalism by which a person tries to earn/merit a place in God’s covenant community. The question Paul is often dealing with is: Should ex-pagan’s be circumcised or not? Or more directly, “how do you define the people of God?”[1] The Torah provides the governing paradigm for how the people of God are to demonstrate that they are indeed part of the covenant people. The question in Judaism is, “how do you know who’s in and who’s out?” What marks out God’s people? Historically, the symbols of circumcision, Sabbath, food-laws, temple and land have demarcated the people of God. A version of the New Perspective suggests that the faithfulness of Jesus has inaugurated a new era of the kingdom of God and in this era the people of God are demarcated by faith/loyalty to/in Jesus. Jesus is now the boundary marker of God’s covenant people.

What has all of this to do with Philippians 3? We’ll start with Wright’s translation of Philippians 3:2-11

Watch out for the dogs; watch out for the evil-workers; watch out for the mutilated ones. For it is we who are ‘the circumcision’ – we, who worship God in the Spirit, who boast in King Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh. I too, however, do have reason for confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks they have confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the race of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, as to the law a Pharisee, as to zeal a persecutor of the church, as to righteousness in the law blameless.

But whatever gain I had, that I counted loss because of the Messiah. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worthy of the knowledge of King Jesus, my Lord, through whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and reckon them as trash, so that I may gain the Messiah, and be found in him – not having a righteousness of my own, from the law, but that which is through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness from god that comes upon faith: that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, becoming conformed to his death, if somehow I may attain to the resurrection of the dead.[2]

It is important to note that Paul has not named any “works” which would merit salvation. Rather, he is appealing to Israel’s ethnic identity markers.

The point to be noted in the debate occasioned by the new perspective on Paul, is that what he objects to thus far is confidence in ethnic identity, confidence in the fact of belonging to Israel, the covenant people of God, confidence in having been circumcised and thus, even as an eight-day old, having been faithful to that covenant. In speaking of Jewish confidence before God he did not turn first to thoughts of self-achievement and merit-earning deeds. Rather, it was pride in ethnic identity, of the Israelite over against the other, of Jew over against Gentile, against which he registered his first protest in setting out to express afresh what the gospel of divine righteousness meant to him.[3] The passage confirms that a central problem, which found its resolution in Paul’s understanding of how God’s righteousness worked, was Jewish confidence in their ethnic identity as Israel, the people of God, the people of the Torah, ‘the circumcision’. The implication is fairly obvious that such reliance on ethnic identity carried with it the corollary that Gentiles, ‘the uncircumcision’ as such, were debarred from the benefits of God’s covenant with Israel.[4]

It is clear that Paul undermines these boundary markers by appealing to the Spirit and Christ (3:3) as the new boundary marker of God’s people.[5] But Paul is not denigrating his Jewish heritage. Rather, when compared to knowing the Messiah, he can look back upon his ethnic identity markers as utterly worthless in attaining the righteousness of God. Rather, according to 3:9, Christ’s faithfulness (taking πίστεως Χριστοῦ as a subjective genitive) to humanity has established the righteous relationship that Paul now experiences.

What is the point of this passage within the context of Philippians? Why did Paul choose to incorporate this chapter into his epistle? How does this fit with the themes of Philippians? Wright argues that Paul used his own example of confidence and privileged status according to the flesh, and his now sacrificing all such privileged status to know Christ, as a paradigm for the Philippians to follow suit.[6] Given that some of them were Roman citizens who were perhaps prone to elitism due to their own status, Paul uses this scenario as an exemplary paradigm to show them that none of that really matters. In fact, compared to knowing Christ, it’s all σκύβαλον. They are to imitate Christ’s attitude to privilege and status, and consider others, laying down their lives for one another (2:5). Thus, we see the convergence of the New Perspective and the themes of Philippians coalescing neatly.

Bibliography on Philippians 3 and the New Perspective

N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997, 124-125

N. T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision London: SPCK, 2009, 119-130

J. D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul Michigan: Eerdmans, 2008, 469-490

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

[1] N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997), 120.

[2] Wright, 123.

[3] J. D. G. Dunn, The New Perspective on Paul (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2008), 475-476

[4] Dunn, 490

[5] cf. 1 Cor 12:3.

[6] Wright, 124

Wright and Dunn on the New Perspective

2009-09-24T22:01:00.005+02:00

HT: Text, Community & Mission

Euangelion For those wanting more on the New Perspective: Mark Mattison: Summary of the New Perspective.

Dunn's seminal article that launched the NPP is available: The New Perspective on Paul - Dunn

For Mike Bird!

2009-09-20T11:32:00.001+02:00

Carey on Fowl - Theological Interpretation

2009-09-19T02:27:00.003+02:00

Greg Carey has a great set of reflections on Stephen Fowl's important little book, Theological Interpretation of Scripture. The first reflection is here, the second here, and now a third. I think Carey has done us a great service in offering his thoughtful responses. Do check it out, if you're interested in theological exegesis and interpretation - especially withregards to the issue of historical analysis. Carey has a great quote where he rhetorically asks: Isn't it wonderful how conflict often generates revelation? And isn't this a theological interpretation based on historical analysis? Do check these out.

Friendship in Antiquity & Philippians

2009-09-18T13:49:00.004+02:00

The ancients valued friendship and spent much time discussing this concept. Here's a few quotes that illustrate their various views. I've specifically focussed on the concept of μιᾷ ψυχῇ as found in Philippians 1:27.

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 9.8.2

Men say that one ought to love best one's best friend, and man's best friend is one who wishes well to the object of his wish for his sake, even if no one is to know of it; and these attributes are found most of all in a man's attitude towards himself, and so are all the other attributes by which a friend is defined; for, as we have said, it is from this relation that all the characteristics of friendship have extended to our neighbours. All the proverbs, too, agree with this, e.g. 'a single soul', and 'what friends have is common property', and 'friendship is equality', and 'charity begins at home'; for all these marks will be found most in a man's relation to himself; he is his own best friend and therefore ought to love himself best. It is therefore a reasonable question, which of the two views we should follow; for both are plausible.

Plutarch, De Amicorum Multitudine 96F

[I]n our friendship's consonance and harmony there must be no element unlike, uneven, or unequal, but all must be alike to engender agreement in words, counsels, opinions, and feelings, and it must be as if one soul were apportioned among two or more bodies.

Euripides, Electra 1045

My dearest, you who have a name that sounds most loved and sweet to your sister, partner in one soul with her!

A helpful discussion of friendship in antiquity, from a biblical scholar, comes to us from Luke Timothy Johnson.

In the Greek world, friendship was among the most discussed, analysed and highly esteemed relationships. Epicurus included it among the highest goods available to humans. The Pythagoreans founded a way of life on its basis. For Plato, it was the ideal paradigm for the city-state. Even the more pragmatic Aristotle considered friendship the prime metaphor and motive for society. The word “friendship” was not used lightly in these circles, nor was friendship considered simply a casual affection. On the contrary, it was regarded as a particularly intense and inclusive kind of intimacy, not only at the physical level, but above all, at the spiritual…
To be “one soul” with another meant, at the least, to share the same attitudes and values and perceptions, to see things the same way. Indeed, the friend was, in another phrase frequently repeated, “another self.”
L. T. Johnson, Brother of Jesus, Friend of God: Studies in the Letter of James (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004), 213-4.

This illuminates the genre of Philippians as a "Friendship" letter (Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, 2-7 and deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament, 653). It also suggests that the theme of unity in Philippians (O’Brien, Philippians, 38) is a central concern. I would also suggest that the element of κοινωνίᾳ (partenership/fellowship), is central in Philippians.

I'm struggling to find an adequate translation for μιᾷ ψυχῇ as one soul doesn't capture the concept in contemporary usage. One life is not much better. If anyone has ideas, let me know... Back to the drawing board... conceptually that is.

Roman Galilee?

2009-09-15T07:11:00.002+02:00

The debate rages on about how much of an influence Rome had in Galilee. For a while it looked as if Sean Freyne's older view of Galilee, as considerbly Jewish had been surpassed by Mark A. Chancey, See his «City Coins and Roman Power in Palestine.From Pompey to the Great Revolt» in Religion and Society in Roman Palestine. Old Questions and New Approaches (Routledge, 2004). and M. Chancey, Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus (Cambridge, 2005). But now Freyne has responded: Sean Freyne, “Galilee, Jesus and the Contribution of Archeology.” The Expository Times 119 (2008): 573-581 and Freyne, Sean. “Galilee and Judaea in the First Century.” Pages 37-51 in The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine. Edited by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M Young. (Cambridge University,2006). This appears to be a fluid area of debate, I'm not quite sure why, but let the discussion continue.

Philippians 1:28b

2009-09-12T06:50:00.003+02:00

ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας

This is an extraordinarily difficult section to interpret. It offers various options which provide very different views, and has thus given rise to dispute among exegetes.[1] Before entering into such discussion, we should remember the context in which this section is found.

Paul has noted that his apparent misfortune has actually helped to advance the gospel (1:12-14). In 1:15-18 Paul describes those who preach Christ from both pure and impure motives, yet his perspective is one of indifference since what matters is that Christ is proclaimed, and in this Paul rejoices (1:18b-19a). Paul then describes his own struggle in prison, being seized by two options: life and death (1:23), and yet his perspective is that to carry on living will benefit others, and help to advance the gospel (1:24-26). We then arrive at what many have labelled the thesis statement (1:27-28a) of Philippians where Paul’s governing imperative is to “focus solely on living as citizens, worthy of the gospel of the Messiah.” Regardless of what happens to Paul, they are Stand firm in the Spirit, united together in one accord, striving together for the advancement of the gospel, not being intimidated by society.[2] In all this however, before approaching our particular phrase, we must remember Gorman’s insight that “when Paul writes autobiographically, he writes paradigmatically.”[3] Paul has not just recounted these details to merely inform the Philippians. Rather, he is intentionally describing his own response to suffering and trials, and providing them with a model of how to respond. With this in mind, we are now ready to read and interpret 28b.

ἥτις ἐστὶν αὐτοῖς ἔνδειξις ἀπωλείας, ὑμῶν δὲ σωτηρίας

For them this is a sign of destruction, but for you salvation

The questions which are raised include the following: What is the sign? What sort of destruction is this? Who is the sign for? Who is destroyed? How does the sign communicate, and what does it communicate?

As Fowl notes, most commentators understand that the “sign” or “proof” to which Paul appeals, is in fact the steadfast loyalty of the Philippian Christians in the face of great opposition.[4] Thus, the argument concerning the referent of the antecedent ἥτις, is inconsequential. What matters, is what follows next.

Fowl describes the position of many commentators on the next phrase when he writes:

The majority of the recent commentators and recent English translations take it that Paul is claiming here that the Philippians’ steadfast faith in the face of opposition is a concrete manifestation to their opponents of the opponents’ destruction.[5]

But is this necessarily the case? This reading raises the interesting question of how the opponents would interpret this sign? How would they see Christian faithfulness as a sign of their own destruction?[6] This appears implausible, and does not fit neatly with the context we have outlined above.[7]

Hawthorne and Fowl have advanced a view that I find particularly helpful in answering and explaining the questions raised above. They see this verse (28b) as offering two different ways of evaluating the Philippians’ faithfulness in the wake of fierce opposition. Hawthorne thus offers the following translation:

For although your loyalty to the faith is proof to them that you will perish, it is in fact proof to you that you will be saved – saved by God.[8]

The Philippians are to view their situation of persecution as a positive sign that they are remaining faithful, and are in fact living as citizens of heaven (1:27a; 3:20), even though those who oppose them view their faithfulness as a sign that they are going to be destroyed, through incarceration by officials and through punishments from the gods.[9] Just as Paul is currently in prison and suffering for his living worthy of the gospel (1:12-26), yet maintains a godly perspective, this verse shows us that Paul is exhorting these Philippian followers to remain faithful and live worthy of the gospel of the Messiah, despite the perspective of outsiders. As

Fowl concludes,

In 1:28 Paul is displaying two competing conceptions of the result of the Philippians’ adhering to their faith in the ways Paul admonishes. To the opponents, it is wilful flaunting of Roman authority and anticipates the Christians’ imminent destruction. In reality, it marks the salvation of the Christians. On this account, debates about whether the destruction/salvation pairing here refers to the temporal or eternal realm simply miss the point. The opponents view the Philippians’ physical destruction as testimony to their eternal perdition. For Paul and the Philippians, their steadfastness demonstrates their salvation, whether they live or die. It is simply the way they magnify Christ in their bodies (cf. 1:20).[10]

Granted this reading is not perfect, and the traditional interpretation is still plausible, we find this reading fits better with the context outlined, and thus should be considered carefully.

[1] G. D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995), 168-170; G. F. Hawthorne, Philippians (Waco: Word, 1983), 58-60 and S. E. Fowl, “Philippians 1:28b, One More Time” in New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Gerald F. Hawthorne Edited by A. M. Donaldson and T. B. Sailors. (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2003), 167-179. “No one view stands head and shoulders above the rest. Indeed, all attempts to make sense of this verse end up having to supply words or concepts that are not directly expressed, but perhaps implied, in these two clauses.” (172).

[2] Fowl, 171 “As the rest of vv. 27-28 unfolds, it is clear that, for the Philippians, ordering their common life in a manner worthy of the gospel will require a set of practices in which they as a community will have to engage.”

[3] Michael Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004), 258

[4] Fowl, 173. See Fee, 168-169 as well as M. Bockmuehl, The Epistle to the Philippians (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1998), 101; P. T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1991), 154.

[5] Fowl, 174. See Bockmuehl, 101; Fee, 168f.; O’Brien, 156-157. Fowl also notes this is the interpretation taken by many translations, RSV, NRSV, NEB, CEV, and NAB.

[6] Fowl, 174

[7] Beare, while taking this question seriously, proposes that the opponents would be affected psychologically by the Christians response. While this is possible, it unlikely this is what Paul had in mind. See F. W. Beare, Philippians (London: Black, 1959), 68.

[8] Hawthorne, 54

[9] Fowl, 176, “It is a concrete manifestation to the opponents of the Christians’ impending destruction, a destruction that would have entailed not only physical death but also the judgement of the gods.”

[10] Fowl, 176

Bar Kokhba Coins Discovered

2009-09-10T09:01:00.004+02:00

GNEWS announces a discovery of important coins from the Bar Kokhba revolt. This is an exceptionally important find as it illuminates an area we are still quite ignorant about. This movement was finally dealt with by the Romans who annihilated, exterminated and eradicated them from the land (See Dio Cassius 59.13.3) in about 135 CE.

The Role of Audiences in Interpretation

2009-09-07T01:45:00.003+02:00

In light of my previous post, the Blog Father has just alerted us to The Role of the Audience in the Interpretation of Paul’s References to the Jewish Scriptures by Dr. Christopher D. Stanley.

πολιτεύεσθε - Phil 1:27a

2009-09-07T00:02:00.003+02:00

Phil. 1:27a Μόνον ἀξίως τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ Χριστοῦ πολιτεύεσθε

Only, live as citizens (πολιτεύεσθε) worthy of the gospel of the Messiah...

Reumann: This point only: Exercise your citizenship in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ...

NLT: But whatever happens to me, you must live in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ, as citizens of heaven.

NKJV: Only let your conduct be worthy of the gospel of Christ...

NCV: Only one thing concerns me: Be sure that you live in a way that brings honor to the Good News of Christ.

Living Bible: But whatever happens to me, remember always to live as Christians should

As you can see, contemporary English translations opt for the word live but probably because we don't really have many alternatives, and thus lose a particular nuance of the Greek word. Thus, Reumann's translation is interpretive, but carries the particular nuance of the Greek.

πολιτεύεσθε is a fascinating word with a rich heritage. R. R. Brewer, "The Meaning of Politeuesthe in Philippians 1:27," JBL 73 (1954) provided us with a helpful survey of how this word is used in various civic and Pauline contexts. He suggested that it was a way of describing one's obligations as a citizen. Then came E. C. Miller, "πολιτεύεσθε in Philippians 1:27: Some Philological and Thematic Observations," JSNT 15 (1982). Appealing to its use in the LXX (Esth. 8:12; 2 macc 6:1; 11:25; 3 Macc 3:4; 4 Macc 2:8, 23; 4:23; 5:16) and Josephus (Vita 12; Letter of Aristeas 31) Miller suggested that this refers to "the Jews living in fidelity to Torah as God's chosen nation."

Enter the discussion on Paul's understanding of this word in Phil. 1:27. Scholars are quick to note that Paul does not employ his usual word for "life" (An example is περιπατεω, as in 1 Thess 2:12; Rom 13:13; etc.). Given that Philippi is a Roman city, an imperial outpost if you will, should πολιτεύεσθε be taken as a reference to living as a citizen of Roma, or as those who conduct themselves faithfully in light of the Gospel's teaching, as God's chosen people? Are these mutually exclusive options, or can one be a dual citizen?

Perhaps Paul has left open the ambiguity of citizenship in this passage, and chooses to unveil that only in 3:20?

Bockmuehl is probably right to read this as a politically relevant act, which in the context is distinguished from alternative lifestyles that might have been chosen... The rhetorical force of Paul's languge is to play on the perceived desirability of citizenship in Roman society at Philippi, and to contrast against this the Christian vision of enfranchisement and belonging... Paul interposes a counter-citizenship whose capital and seat of power are not earthly by heavenly, whose guarantor is not Nero but Christ. (Bockmuehl, Philippians, pg. 97-98).

At play here is the sticky hermeneutical issue of how much we allow Paul's audience to determine the meaning of the passage. While Paul may be reading this word in light of it's usage in the LXX (plausible), would the Philippian audience be aware of this (unlikely)? Or would the majority of them understand it the way Romans usually understood it? Bockmuehl's interpretation probably navigates through this impasse.

How to Read Revelation - Bauckham

2009-09-04T09:24:00.002+02:00

Richard Bauckham preached at Crisweel College on How to Read the Book of Revelation. This is an excellent message. Thanks to Craig Downey, who runs a good blog [Lion and the Lamb] for this notice.

Great Resources

2009-09-03T22:18:00.003+02:00

There are some really helpful resources, podcasts and general stuff around at the moment, so here's a list of a few.

Scot Hahn articles, many of them published elsewhere.
Phil Harland has uploaded a podcast series on Paul and his communities, and the imperial background to early Christianity.
Doug Chaplan discusses leadership in Corinth.

Greg Carey deals with neglected passages of Scripture.
Matt has a good interview with Larry Hurtado.
Biblical Studies Carnival 45 – Bible Theme Park

Now go and enjoy these!

The Law & the Spirit

2009-08-28T03:13:00.001+02:00

In Graeco-Roman society, a pedagogue oversaw the up-bringing of a child. Included in the pedagogue’s charge were the supervision, care, guidance, protection, instruction, and discipline of the child. This metaphor of the pedagogue is suggestive of a broader familiar relationship, since a pedagogue was employed by a father who wanted his child to be nurtured in accordance with paternal expectations and hopes. The metaphor of the law as a pedagogue is well suited to Paul’s temporal argument; just as a pedagogue is relieved of duty once the child comes of age, so the law’s function as an overseer of God’s people comes to an end with the coming of Christ. It is with the benefit of Christian hindsight that the experience of being under a pedagogue (the law) can be seen as a form of confinement (3:23), since with the coming of Christ a form of guidance is available that sets people free for service: that is, the guidance of the Spirit. If is the Spirit, rather than the pedagogue, that is to form the character of God’s people come of age. The pedagogical role of the law has given way to the guidance of the Spirit. So Paul writes: ‘If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law… If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit’ (5:18, 25). The Spirit, who as we have seen produces the fruit of Christ-likeness in Christians, has been sent into the hearts of Christians reproducing in them Jesus’ own intimate cry to God: ‘ABBA, Father’ (4:6). Israel’s relationship to God had been a mediated one by means of the law acting as a pedagogue; by contrast, the Christian’s relationship to God is one of intimacy as the Christian enters into the boundaries of Jesus’ own cherished and distinctive sonship. While the people of Israel enjoyed a special relationship with God prior to Christ (signalled by the giving of the law), that relationship was of a different order altogether to the kind of unprecedented intimacy that comes in the wake of Christian union with Christ.

Bruce Longenecker, “Galatians,” in The Cambridge Companion to Paul, pg. 69-70

Authorial Intent and Theological Interpretation

2009-08-27T05:05:00.003+02:00

I'm currently engaged in multiple thought adventures, from studying the sermon on the Mount (exegetically, theologically, and ethically) to a historical-critical analysis of Philippians, to teaching an introductory course on the New Testament, to arguing with friends about hermeneutics. Amidst my reading, thinking and research I stumbled upon this, by Stephen Fowl:

To claim, as many biblical scholars do, that Paul never would have thought in such metaphysical terms is not in itself theologically relevant. Later creeds and confessions are best understood as scripturally disciplined ways of coherently ordering claims, inferences, and implications of scriptural language about God, the world, and God's purposes for the world. Scripture by its very diversity requires such an ordering. The question is not whether Paul thought this way himself. Rather, the question is whether one uses historical-critical, sociological, philosophical, or christian theological categories for order that diversity.
Fowl, Philippians, pg. 95-96.

First things first. Fowl's commentary is like a breath of fresh air for those wanting more than just careful historical and exegetical analysis. His interpretation of φρονεω, as a common pattern of thinking, feeling and acting, is accurate and instructive. However, Fowl has problems with the notion of authorial intent, and in his essay for Between Two Horizons, "The Role of Authorial Intention in Theological Interpretation" he advances his position on this matter. As one may guess, I cannot understand this position. Perhaps it is to complex for me, but having read Umberto Eco's The Limits of Interpretation and Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in this Text?, I am persuaded that any death or denial of authorial intent undermines the meaning of a text.

More specifically, the context of Fowl's quote above intrigues me. The discussion revolves around Phil 2:5-11. Fowl advances a plausible reading that suggests the "form of God" should be taken as a reference to God's glory. He does some good historical analysis, and then forsakes it in his theological construction. Now, if the creeds and confessions are scripturally disciplined, what does that mean? That we have read the scriptures and understood their intention, and formulated what we believe based on them? That seems most likely. However, were we to deny authorial intent, we could come up with any creed and just forsake what Paul says. When we claim that what Paul meant (or any author for that matter), is irrelevant, we sink into the despair of relativism. And that just won't do. Fowl himself constantly appeals to what Paul meant, and intends throughout his excellent commentary. But here, retreating into Philosophical particularities, loses the plot when he suggests that it doesn't matter if Paul himself thought this way or not. Reader-response criticism, despite Fowl's, and Wall's claims to the contrary, have no "controls" that are valid if one denies authorial intent as the governing dynamic.

For a better proposal, one need look no further than Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, which outlines a suitable hermeneutic which allows for careful theological reflection within the bounds of good exegetical work. Of course theology (especially systematics) will always want to go further, but it cannot go against what the authors of Scripture said. Nor can it claim much validity once the voice of Scripture's teaching is silenced. As Hays sees it, there are four steps: (1) The Exegetical Task, Reading the Text Carefully; (2) The Synthetic Task, Placing the Text in Canonical Context; (3) The Hermeneutical Task, Relating the Text to Our Situation; and (4) The Pragmatic Task, Living the Text.

It is therefore utterly relevant whether or not a particular Scriptural author thought in particular categories. Since failing to attend to those categories, could entail in a misunderstanding and misapplication of their teaching. I find myself increasingly sceptical of theological claims that are far removed from the categories of Scripture. They may have good ideas, but is it good theology?

Stanton and Dunn on the Kingdom

2009-08-26T07:59:00.000+02:00

Bauckham on the Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

2009-08-24T07:56:00.000+02:00

Matthew and Torah

2009-08-10T07:12:00.003+02:00

Have you ever read an essay that has just been utterly helpful, and organised your chaotic thoughts into a coherent understanding? This has been my experience today reading Roland Deines “Not the Law but the Messiah: Law and Righteousness in the Gospel of Matthew – An Ongoing Debate” in Built Upon the Rock: Studies in the Gospel of Matthew eds. D. M. Gurtner and J. Nolland (Eerdmans, 2008) pg. 53-84. His discussion proceeds like this:

1.1 Is there a New Consensus?

2.1 Texts in Favour of a Law-Abiding Christian-Jewish Community

2.2 Texts Supporting a New Understanding of Torah in the Kingdom of God

3. The Basic Concepts in the First Gospel as a Framework in which the Law is to be Understood.

4. Matt. 5:17-20 as a Crucial Text for Understanding Matthew's Concept of Torah and Righteousness

4.1 Why Does Jesus Have to Defend Himself Already at the Beginning of His Career? (5:17) 4.2 Matt 5:17: Fulfillment of the Whole Will of God as Jesus' Primary Goal

4.3 Matt 5:18: Iota and Jots/Strokes: A Clue to Legal Details or a Confession-Like Formula for the Ongoing Relevance of the Whole Will of God (Abbreviated in the Term nomos)?

4.4 Matt 5:19: From Christological Fulfillment to Disciples' Obligation

4.5 Matt 5:20: The Implementation of the Eschatological and Exclusive Jesus-Righteousness as the Condition for Entering the Kingdom of God.

5. Conclusion

Deines ruthlessly unpacks the problems, pointing us to more detailed discussions, while helpfully explaining the decisive issues along the way. This is arguably the best essay I've read on this topic thus far. If this topic interests you, as it should, go read and learn! I won't spoil it and give you his conclusions - where would the fun in that be?

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

Ok, I'll give you a couple of clues:

matt 17:24-27; 11:11-15 and most importantly 5:3-10!

Love your what?

2009-08-07T02:03:00.004+02:00

Today's study brings me to Matt 5:43-48. The opening two verses are shocking, and jolting to say the least - especially if one is a follower of Jesus and takes these words seriously:

Vs. 43 “You have heard it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ Vs. 44 However, I am saying to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

Reading Dale Allison's excellent book: The Sermon on the Mount: Inspiring the Moral Imagination, I found this quote which penetrated my thoughts:

Jesus quotes Lev 19:18 not to contradict it but to enlarge it. The Pentateuch, like subsequent Jewish tradition, understands “neighbour” to be Israelite (see Lev 19:17), and this reading allows one to confine love to one’s own kind, or even to define neighbour in opposition to enemy. Jesus, however, gives “neighbour” its broadest definition. If one loves even one’s enemies, who will not be loved? One is inevitably reminded of the story of the Good Samaritan, who is good to an Israelite, his enemy (Luke 10:29-37). Love must prove itself outside the comfortable world of family, friends and associates.
Allison, The Sermon on the Mount, pg. 100

This saying embodies the activities of Jesus perfectly - and thus it is a call to disciples to be perfect, as their Father in Heaven is perfect (vs. 48). Anyone who thinks being a follower is easy, has obviously not understood what Jesus requires!

Jesus of History vs. Christ of Faith

2009-08-04T01:56:00.001+02:00

Against any attempt by pious Christians of a mystical or docetic bent to swallow up the real humanity of Jesus into an “orthodox” emphasis on his divinity, the quest affirms that the risen Jesus is the same person who lived and died as a Jew in 1st-century Palestine, a person as truly and fully human – with all the galling limitations that involves – as any other human being. Against any attempt to “domesticate” Jesus for a comfortable, respectable bourgeois Christianity, the quest for the historical Jesus, almost from its inception, has tended to emphasize the embarrassing, nonconformist aspects of Jesus: e.g., his association with the religious and social “lowlife” of Palestine, his prophetic critique of external religious observances that ignore or strangle the inner spirit of religion, his opposition to certain religious authorities, especially the Jerusalem priesthood.

Meier, A Marginal Jew, 1:199

A New Covenant?

2009-08-03T09:51:00.005+02:00

Jeremiah 31:31 The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

Walter Brueggemann comments that:

It is clear, against such a Christian misreading, that the contrast of "old and new" concerns the Israelite community of covenant in both its parts. The "old" covenant belongs to that Israelite community which through its sustained disobedience forfeited covenant with God, even as it lost the city of Jerusalem. The "new" covenant now wrought by God also concerns the Israelite community. This is the community formed anew by God among exiles who are now transformed into a community of glad obedience. Thus we are right to posit a deept discontinuity between old and new, but that deep discontinuity is not between Jews and Christians, but between recalcitrant Jews prior to 587 and transformed Jews after 587 who embrace the covenant newly offered by God.
[Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming, pg. 292]

But is it more than this? I am continually intrigued by Terrence Donaldson's excellent book: Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. Donaldson argues that

one of the central features of Zion eschatology in the OT and throughout the Second-Temple period was the expectation of a great gathering of Israel to the holy mountain of Yahweh where they would be constituded afresh as the people of God. The gathering of the scattered flock to the holy mountain was to be the first act in the eschatological drama... In addition, one can also point to the fact that in Jewish expectation one aspect of the consummation on Mount Zion was to be a new giving of the Torah... in contemporary eschatological thought it was expected that the Messiah would bring about renewed obedience to the Torah, that he would interpret it more clearly and that he would even bring a new Torah.
[Terrence Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, pg. 116. See further Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, pg. 155-156]

Now the reason this intrigues me, is because I'm currently looking at the six antitheses of Matt 5:21-48. The solutions on offer at the moment suggest either that Jesus is intensifying the demands of the Torah, or that he is revising the demands of the Torah. Given the backdrop just noted, this changes everything. Jesus could be noting that the Torah applied to the people of old, the people under the leadership and direction of Moses and the teachings he gave. But given that this is a new messianic age, Jesus is giving a new set of teachings that draw from and emerge from the teachings of Torah, but go further and redirect some of it’s emphases and teachings. One could then go further and suggest that given the New Exodus theme (Wright, JVG et. al.), that Jesus envisioned his teachings replacing the demands of the old covenant, because they had been delivered from their former bondage of exile, and this was now the beginning of God's reign through the teachings of Jesus, and the Spirit, no matter where they found themselves (Matt 28:16-20).

Of course this requires much annotation and justification from the sources, but I'm a BIG picture thinker, and so I'm just thinking out loud here. Thoughts?

Imminent Eschatology?

2009-07-30T05:03:00.003+02:00

The widely accepted view that the whole early church believed in an imminent advent of Christ is based on a superficial reading of the evidence. The advent was imminent only in the sense that it might happen at any time, not because it must happen within a given period. The decisive act of God had already happened in the death and resurrection of Christ, and from then on men must live their lives under the shadow of the end. But the end would come when God’s purposes were complete, and this was something only he could decide (Mark 13:32; Acts 1:7).[1]
[1] Caird, Paul’s Letters from Prison, pg. 107

I find it fascinating that this perspective does not seem to have taken root in scholarship. How often do I read perceptions that still think the early Christians thought the world would end within their life time.

Graham Stanton Passed Away

2009-07-19T00:31:00.003+02:00

This is sad news indeed. We have lost two giants among New Testament scholars this month! I was reading Stanton's Jesus and the Gospels just yesterday - thinking that his contribution, although cautious, was an outstanding example of biblical scholarship. I was looking forward to his ICC contribution to Galatians! Stanton was an outstanding scholar, and I'm glad that Paul's promise will apply to him.

ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ θάνατος·

A God of Intolerable Violence?

2009-07-18T09:31:00.005+02:00

There is an interesting discussion on the God of the First Testament vs. the God of the NT on the question of God's violence in the Hebrew scriptures. See Michael Whitenton, Daniel Kirk and Michael Gorman.

As someone who studies the New Testament writings, I value and appreciate the Hebrew Scriptures as the necessary story within which to locate the narratives of the first Christian writers. I love the Hebrew scriptures and both affirm their value and necessity for understanding Jesus and the first Christians. BUT!

I cannot reconcile the GOD revealed in Jesus of Nazareth with a few of the depictions of YHWH in the Hebrew scriptures. In fact, this is a significant problem for me. I'm currently wrestling through this issue, and I've tentatively arrived at some very uncomfortable positions. It appears that only a Christological reading of the Hebrew scriptures can solve this dilemma. But But I take a more radical position than Daniel Kirk appears to take.

If, as I believe, Jesus fully reveals to us the identity of God, and we are to live and decide what's right and wrong within the trajectory of Jesus' teachings, actions, ethics, life, etc. (the NT), why can't we read the Hebrew scriptures retrospectively, and through the lens of Jesus, assess whether or not Israel got it right when they heard God? I realise this sounds slightly like Marcion, but I have no desire to throw out the Hebrew Scriptures. However, I've got to question whether or not they (Israel or the particular writers of these traditions) heard right, or faithfully represented the intentions of YHWH when engaging in such horrific acts. I'm perfectly happy to concede that we are quite ignorant concerning the surrounding circumstances of these events and actions, and so our conclusions are tentative, but I think this Christological approach may help us.

Anthony Thiselton argues, concerning prophecy, that: The authentic is to be sifted from the inauthentic or spurious, in the light of the OT scriptures, the gospel of Christ, the traditions of all the churches, and critical reflections (Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, pg. 1140). Could a sifting perhaps apply to the writings of the Hebrew scriptures themselves? Could we, in light of other portraits within the Hebrew Scriptures, the Christ event, the teachings of the New Testament, and critical reflection, sift our teachings/traditions of these violent narratives which do not in fact accurately portray the intentions of YHWH? I'm almost convinced we instinctively do this anyway. We read 2 Sam 13 and affirm that the actions are heinous and evil. We read of a Elisha's cruel punishment of childish pranks (2 Kings 2:23-24), and we conclude what? That God really gave him the power to do this?

While I would not advocate deleting these traditions, it would then be possible to see them as instances where Israel or a prophet appealed to the authority or agency of God for these horrific events, but were in fact wrong to do so. AGAIN these are tentative thoughts which I find very uncomfortable because it challenges what I believe about the Bible. But I can't help but think this may be a better solution to the problem than just claiming we don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Or perhaps I'm wrong.

Does this make sense? Questions, comments and criticisms are all welcome.

Introducing the New Testament Class

2009-07-17T07:05:00.004+02:00

Thanks to Rafael for asking about my teaching! So here's what I've decided regarding our intro course to the New Testament.

David deSilva's An Introduction to the New Testament will be the class text, but we'll also be making plenty of use of Cohick, Burge and Green's The New Testament in Antiquity. The reason I chose deSilva is simply because it's so comprehensive. [I may teach hermeneutics next semester and I'll use this text with Michael Gorman's Element's of Biblical Exegesis] deSilva is the best introduction I own, and I've worked through at least 10 of them in preparing this course. The New Testament in Antiquity is very good, colourful, and informative, but deSilva just has more! Plus, I teach in a seminary and we're just as interested in academic study as we are in character and Spiritual formation, and deSilva's material is good.
I have an overview lecture on the historical Jesus, focussing more his aims and intentions (following Ben Meyer and N. T. Wright) and his message of the reign of YHWH. I've set as an optional reflection an article on the Third Quest, and a compulsory reflection on Wright's chapter "The Mission and Message of Jesus" in The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions.
I've tried to include a discussion of either a Jewish or Roman source in every lecture. So, when I deal with 1 Thessalonians, I'll be picking up on the imperial background, when I deal with Galatians, I'll be dealing with covenantal nomism, and so forth. I've found a great resource on coins of the ancient world. I'll also be using The New Testament in Antiquity as a resouce for background information, as well as giving them a list of anthologies dealing with primary sources. They also have to reflect on chapters 2 & 3 of deSilva which cover this terrain well.
As noted above, we'll be using deSilva as the text, but also Cohick, Burge and Green. I've also put together a file of articles that they can reflect on or just read for themselves, as well as a small bibliography of helpful commentaries, books and articles on each gospel/epistle/apocalypse.
I've chosen to deal with Paul letter by letter, but grouping them together and emphasizing a particular theme from each letter. So the obvious one is Romans & Galatians, where I'll be dealing with the New Perspective, and 1 & 2 Thessalonians where I'll be dealing with eschatology.

The outline will be a) Introduction & Setting; b) Jesus: Mission and Message; c) Matt & Mark; d) Luke & Acts; e) 1 & 2 Thessalonians; f) 1 & 2 Corinthians; g) Romans & Galatians; h) Philippians & Philemon; i) Colossians & Ephesians; j) Pastoral Epistles; k) 1 & 2 Peter plus Jude; l) Hebrews and James; m) Gospel of John; n) Epistles of John; o) Apocalypse of John. We may also have a guest lecture on Hebrews by our First Testament lecturer. If that happens, I'll shift Jude with James and do a lecture on the "The Wisdom of the Brothers."

I have three hours to teach each class, with a 25min break of course. The hardest lecture to write was on Jesus. There is SO MUCH to include, but in the end it's just a sketch. One is tempted to overwhelm students, but that's not going to help them. Perhaps another time will afford me the opportunity to explore the historical Jesus in depth!

Anything else you want to know?

Anthologies of Primary Sources

2009-07-16T07:18:00.003+02:00

So following on the from the previous post, I've been thinking about alerting my students to some primary source material. I realise there are dangers in isolating various texts from their respective contexts, but I also feel that they are helpful in establishing the necessary context in which to read the New Testament writings. So here's a couple that I've found useful. If you know of any others, please suggest them!

C. K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents
M. Harding, Early Christian Life and Thought in Social Context
L. H. Feldman & M. Reinhold, Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans
V. M. Warrior, Roman Religion: A Sourcebook
J. Shelton, As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History
B. D. Ehrman, Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament
M. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers
B. Davenport, The Portable Roman Reader

These books have been utterly helpful with introducing me to the wide variety of literature that make up the world of the 1st Century (pertaining to the study of early Christianity). Many of them have valuable introductions, and background information which show how the source is to be understood. Many of these also provide helpful bibliographies for further research, which is excellent. Some of these are also very helpful in that they arrange them thematically, which can be excessively helpful for those doing research on particular topics.

Go and enjoy some primary sources!

Most Influential Primary Sources

2009-07-15T06:12:00.003+02:00

Kevin Scull has provided a helpful meme asking for different scholars and students to note their favourite primary sources. As Kevin notes, this is fast becoming an excellent resource and a steep learning curve as I discover sources I'd never heard of!

My own top 5 resources would include:

It would be interesting to see what specific quotes or sections of primary sources people have found most helpful. Also, are there specific inscriptions or archaeological finds that noteworthy? My own research last week discovered this oath on allegiance to the emperor:

This is the oath taken by the inhabitants of Paphlagonia and the Romans who do business among them. ‘I swear by Zeus, Earth, Sun, all the gods and goddesses and Augustus himself that I will be favourably disposed to [Cae]sar Augustus and his children and descendants all the time of my [life] in word and deed and thought… Whatever I may see or hear being said or plotted or done against them, I will report it and I will be the enemy of the person who says or plots or does these things . . . If I do anything contrary to this [oath] . . . I pray that there may come on me, my body and soul and life, destruction, total destruction until the end of all my line and of all my descendants…’ In these same words this oath was sworn by all the [inhabitants of the land] in the temples of Augustus throughout the local districts [of Paphlagonia] by the altars [of Augustus].

R. K. Sherk, The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian (1988). Another version of this same oath is offered below:

Imperator Caes[ar,] son of the god, Augustus the twelfth consulship, third year (of the province, 3 BC), on the day before the Nones of March in Gangra in [camp(?)], the oath completed by the inhabitants of [Pa]phlagonia [and the] R[omans] who do business among them; I swear by Zeus, Earth, Sun all the gods [and] goddesses, and Augus[t]us himself that I will be favourably disposed toward [Cae]sar Augustus and his children and descendants all the time of my [life] in word and deed and thought, considering as friends those whom they may consider (friends) and holding as enemies those whom they may judge to be (enemies), and for things that are of interest to them I will spare neither my body [nor] my soul nor my life nor my children, but in every way for the things that affect them I will undergo every danger; and whatever I might perceive or hear against them being said or plotted or done, I will report it and I will be an enemy to the person saying or plotting or doing [any of] these things; and whomever they may judge to be their enemies, these, on land and sea, with arms and steel will I pursue and ward off. If I do anything contrary to this [oath] or anything not in agreement with what I have sworn, I pray that there may come upon myself, my body and soul and life, my children and all my family and whatever is of use to us, destruction, total destruction till the end of all my line [and] of all my descendants, and may neither the [bodies] of my family or of my descendants by earth or [sea] be received, nor may (earth or sea) bear fruit [for them.] In the same words was this oath sworn by all the [inhabitants of the land] in the temples of Augustus throughout the districts (of the province) by the altars [of Augustus.] And likewise the Phazimonians living in what is [now] called [Neapo]lis [swore the oath,] all of them, in the temple of Augustus by the [altar of] Augustus. [*]

What an extraordinary text describing the allegiance of some to the emperor!

Martin Hengel

2009-07-14T23:10:00.002+02:00

John Dickson has a wonderful tribute to the late Martin Hengel. What a scholar! I was dipping into his books this week as I prepare a lecture on the historical Jesus, it's still some of the most helpful material written thus far.

Do make sure you read as much of Hengel as you possibly can, you will be a better informed thinker!

Matt 5:3 - those who Lack the Spirit?

2009-06-30T08:37:00.004+02:00

Dr. Bob Robinson is taking our Kingdom Ethics: A Study of the Sermon on the Mount paper, and so far it's been fantastic. Today we discussed the Beatitudes. After the class I sat down with the text and just worked through them one by one. What struck me was the usual interpretation of Matt 5:3.

Μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι,

ὅτι αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν.

There is some interesting discussion on the translation of Μακάριος, which I translate as Blessed by God or Privileged by God... The interesting thing that I noted however, was the translation of πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι - which is usually translated as the poor in spirit - a reference taken to mean those economically marginalised and bankrupt. However, I'm not convinced this is accurate. Instead I'm thinking through a translation like this:

Privileged by God are those who lack the Spirit,

for Heaven’s Kingdom is theirs.

Here's my rationale: Matt 3:11; 12:28; 22:43 all refer to the Spirit of God. Matt 3:11 has noted John's prophecy that Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit. The background to the beatitudes is probably Isaiah 61, which notes that:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners...

If this is true, then we could have Jesus' announcement of blessing/privilege to his audience consisting of an announcement concerning the Holy Spirit, which is now available through Jesus to anyone who lacks the Spirit. What a blessing!

I recognise that there are possible problems with the construction (See the criticism of Luz, Matthew 1-7, pg. 191 n. 59), but it does appear to make more sense than the usual interpretation, which ignores τῷ πνεύματι.

France, The Gospel of Matthew, pg. 165 sees this as a "poverty in spirit" but in a positive spiritual orientation, the converse of the arrognat self-confidence which not only rides roughshod over the interest of other people but more importantly causes a person to treat God as irrelevant. This is closer to my understanding, but again, it forces πνεύματι to refer to the human spirit which is impoverished or lacking, when Matthew's usage suggests a reference to the Divine Spirit.

Thoughts? Have I missed something?

Matthew's Genealogy

2009-06-18T20:56:00.003+02:00

I'm currently doing some work on Matthew's gospel, and have briefly looked at his genesis narrative (1:1-2:23). This is a fascinating account. For more, see the entries by Goodacre, Bird, articles here, virgin birth here, and history in the infancy narrative here.

Matthew writes the next great Act in Israel’s developing story. The opening genealogy immediately recalls Israel’s sacred writings, as Matthew tells “the story of the genesis of Jesus the Messiah, son of David, son of Abraham.” In connecting the story of Jesus with the story of two of Israel’s greatest heroes, the founder Abraham, and the great king David, Matthew appropriately opens the New Testament Scriptures by immediately connecting them to the story of God and his people, Israel. Given Matthew’s concern for including the Gentiles, it is likely he sees Jesus as the means by which YHWH will fulfil his promise to Abraham to make him a great nation, and through him to bless all the families of the earth (Gen 12:1-3). By connecting Jesus to David in the beginning and throughout the narrative (cf. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15; cf. 22:42), Matthew shows us Jesus’ Davidic decent which was a necessary aspect of God’s Messiah (22:42), and thus Jesus is seen as an heir to the Davidic throne. Tom Wright is at this point very helpful where he notes the following:

[[Matthew presupposes a telling of the Jewish story according to which Israel has failed, has ended in exile, and needs a new exodus; and he undertakes to show that this new exodus was accomplished in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. He does this at a multiplicity of levels: the often-remarked ‘fulfilment’ passages (‘All this took place to fulfil what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet…’) are simply the tip of a very large iceberg. Matthew’s plot and structure presupposed the entire Jewish story-line to date. They claim to be bringing about that of which Moses spoke in Deuteronomy 30. They are not simply a collection of types, historical precedents arbitrarily repeated. They claim to be the continuation and proper completion of the whole history itself. Jesus, for Matthew, is both the new David and the new Moses, but also something more. Moses had promised that

YHWH your God himself will cross over before you. He will destroy these nations before you, and you shall dispossess them. Joshua also will cross over before you, as YHWH promised… Be strong and bold; have no fear or dread of them, because it is YHWH your God who goes with you; he will not fail you or forsake you (Dt. 31:3-6).

For Matthew, Jesus is the fulfilment of both parts of this prophecy. He is Emmanuel, Israel’s god in person, coming to be with his people as they emerge from their long exile, remaining with them still as they go on to possess the land (1:23; 28:20). And the land they now possess is the whole world; as the wise men from the east came to pay homage to Jesus, as the centurion demonstrated a faith which Jesus ‘had not found in Israel’, and as the Canaanite women had ‘great faith’, so the ministry of Jesus, which at the time was only to the ‘lost sheep of the house of Israel’, will result in salvation for ‘all nations’.]]

[N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, pg. 388-89]

I am increasingly persuaded that rather than a waste of time, Matthew's opening chapters, including the genealogy, provide the necessary context for understanding Matthew's entire gospel. Just as the Sermon on the Mount cannot be isolated from the gospel of Matthew, so too, it is unwise to isolate Matthew's gospel from it's own genesis narratives. As Dale Allison instructively notes: The broader context must always be kept in mind. Likening the First Gospel to a sentence, the Sermon is only one word: and who could determine the meaning of a word while ignoring the sentence in which it occurs? [Allison, The Sermon on the Mount, pg. 10]

Reading Romans

2009-06-12T21:42:00.004+02:00

Mike Bird is has a reading list for Romans for a course he will presumably be teaching. I'm not brave enough, nor have I read enough to teach a course on Romans. My experience in reading Jewett's tome (which I never finished) left me completely baffled as to the purpose and meaning of Paul's letter to Rome. However, in reading Jewett's articles, I've come to appreciate much of his perspective, and his pastoral heart. For example, at the end of brilliant and utterly helpful article, Jewett writes the following:

If Paul's grandiose argument were better understood, it might still provide a basis for achieving its original vision: to bring "all the peoples" (Rom 15:11) to praise the One whose gospel can still restore our eroded and fractured world to its intended righteousness.
Robert Jewett, "Following the Argument of Romans," in Word & World Volume VI, Number 4, pg. 389

I can't help but think that the world, including the church, should be helped by such scholarship with a pastoral and apostolic concern. Of course there will always be quibbles. I'm not sure about the supposed interpolations in Romans 16:17-20a and the concluding doxology in 16:25-27. [[I accept that these could undermine Jewett's case somewhat.]] But his work on Shame, unity, and the missionary purpose of Romans is, to this student, undeniable in its accuracy. His structuring of the argument employing the rhetorical features provided by Quintilius is helpful in unpacking Paul's argument.

My five top reads on Romans:

Paul Achtemeier, Romans (WJK)
N. T. Wright, “Romans,” in NIB (Abingdon)
R. Jewett, Romans (Fortress)
J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, 9-16 (Nelson)
C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 1-8, 9-16 (T & T Clark)

Romans is like a black hole. You could spend the rest of your life just studying this letter. Oh well, back to 1 Peter. :)

Missional Hermeneutics

2009-06-10T07:02:00.002+02:00

How can we not interpret the Scriptures in light of the mission of GOD? How could we ignore mission as central to the core movement of the biblical narrative? Isn’t this what the Bible is all about? While we must at once recognise that the Scriptures are multivocal, and come in a variety of literary genre’s and expressions, the canon as a whole tells the [one?] story of God’s mission. This mission includes creating people, calling people, teaching people, leading people, rescuing people, restoring people and redirecting people. This is the story about God and people, and God’s mission to connect with them in a variety of settings, in a variety of ways, but ultimately through Jesus who perfectly reveals the identity of the missional GOD.

Exegesis of any particular passage must also attend to the [controlling? meta?] narrative which pervades every facet of Scripture and is thus integral to understanding both of the specific passage and also the entire Scriptural symphony. Specific passages cannot be properly understood in isolation from the whole canon/story. God’s mission thus provides the interpretive key to unlocking the central message and mission of Scripture.

How does our text advance the mission of God?

What does our text add to our understanding of the mission of God?
What counsel does our text give to those involved/situated in the mission of God?
How does our text understand/construct the identity of God’s missionary people?
How does our text help or equip those engaged in the mission?

God is directing his missional movements throughout history through the symphony of Scripture, inspiring and inciting God’s people to understand and improvise, and thus advance God’s mission on planet earth. A failure to engage the voice of God revealed in the symphony of Scripture would be a failure to understand, appreciate and therefore participate in God’s unfolding and reconciling mission.

Michael Gorman is advancing this discussion, see his posts. See also the essays at the Gospel and Our culture. Goheen and Bartholomew provide several articles pertaining to this topic. An excellent article by J. V. Brownson, "Speaking the Truth in Love" in International Review of Mission VOL. LXXXIII No. 330. See also Michael Barram "The Bible, Mission, and Social Location: Toward a Missional Hermeneutic" Interpretation 43.

Roman History and Background

2009-06-08T12:30:00.000+02:00

In doing some research on the Roman and imperial background for my upcoming course on the New Testament, I've found some excellent websites.

Greek and Roman Corinth

Augustus: Images of Power

Rome: From Republic to Empire

Roman Emperors

Augustus and Tiberius

The Roman Imperial Cult: Bibliography

Bruce Winter showed us a picture of ancient Corinth reconstructed at last year's SBL. But for the life of me, I can't find the picture online. Does anyone know where it is?

πιστις χριστου in Phil 3:9

2009-06-08T07:37:00.000+02:00

I'm currently engaged in a back and forth discussion with Mark Keown regarding the validity of the subjective genitive reading of πιστις χριστου in Philippians 3:9. Mark is remaining neutral, while I am persuaded that this is clearly a subjective genitive, and thus refers to the faithfulness of Christ. Commentators on Philippians are divided on this issue: Barth, O'Brien, Sumney, Fowl, Bockmuehl and Cousar have argued for a subjective genitive, while Hawthorne, Fee, Silva, and Reuman have argued for an objective genitive. The entries by O'Brien and Bockmuehl are particularly helpful in demonstrating the subjective genitive reading.

If anyone has any other references to scholarship that deal specifically with Phil. 3:9, please could you let me know. [[I've lost my copy of Morna Hooker's excellent article, 'πιστις χριστου,' NTS 35 (1989) pg. 321-42, so I'll have to go make another copy (EBSCO doesn't have it!) The discussion by Ian G. Wallis The Faith of Jesus Christ in Early Christian Traditions (Cambridge, 1985) is particularly helpful!]]

I've translated Philippians 3:9 as follows: not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness from God based on faith. The contrast between human righteousness and God's righteousness alone suggests to me that the faithfulness of the Messiah (sub. gen.) is the correct reading.

Since there is an echo of the Christ hymn (Phil 2:6-11) in chapter 3, the phrase dia pisteos Christou can serve as shorthand for the obedient self-surrender of Jesus - that is, to his faithful obedience unto death on a cross (2:8). Futhermore, if the subjective genitive is read, then one avoids duplication with the last phrase in 3:9, "the righteousness of God based on faith.
[Charles Cousar, Philippians and Philemon: A Commentary, NTL (WJK, 2009) pg. 73-74]

The righteousness of God is revealed and established "through the faithfulness of Christ" to which believers respond on the basis of faith.
[Stephen Fowl, Philippians, (Eerdmans, 2005) pg. 154]

Let the debate, I mean discussion, continue.

Teaching the New Testament

2009-06-07T05:57:00.004+02:00

So, in about two months time I'll be teaching my first Introduction to the New Testament course (1st year undergraduate course), and I'm super excited, and concerned. First off, this gives me a chance to exercise my generalist tendencies, since I'll be introducing the NT, not just Paul, Peter, John, the Synoptics or Jesus. However, there are some daunting elements, such as what to include and what to exclude. There is only so much one can cover, and I don't want to privilege anything, but give the NT a fair hearing. So here's my list of questions for those engaged in teaching, and for those who've done an Introduction to the NT.

Those who Teach

What text book(s) is the most helpful?
Should/did you include the historical Jesus?
Background contexts and information? [Overview of 2nd Temple Judaism? Roman history?]
Textbook or list of readings?
How do you deal with Paul? Letter by letter, or theme by theme?

Those who Study

What was the best part of your intro course?
What was the worst part of your intro course?
Text book or collection of readings?
More time given to lecturing, class discussion or group work?
Powerpoint or lecture outline?

Anyone: Got advice, tips, do's and dont's for a newbie? I recognise that some of this will be highly subjective, and I'll just have to proceed via trial and error. I've taught individual letters before (at this level), which I really enjoyed. But the thought of trying to cover the whole NT is scary. So any help would be appreciated!

NETS Available Online

2009-06-01T01:37:00.003+02:00

For those wanting to read an english translation of the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament the first Christians (most likely) read, The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS) is freely available online. This translation surpasses the old one of Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton (1851). See also The Septuagint online for the Greek texts. These are invaluable resources for those doing inter-textual study of the two testaments.

Enjoy!

Exegetical Summary Series

2009-05-27T21:45:00.003+02:00

Has anyone used these? I'd never heard of them until last night when Logos sent me their email about it. The write up suggests the following:

The 24-volume Exegetical Summaries Series asks important exegetical and interpretive questions—phrase-by-phrase—and summarizes and organizes the content from every major Bible commentary and dozens of lexicons. You can instantly identify exegetical challenges, discover a text’s interpretive history, and survey the scope of everything written about each verse and phrase.

“This series offers endless exegetical assistance . . . summarizing the major exegetical issues in interpretation. . . . It includes comprehensive analysis of the raw data of the text.”—Online reviewer

Since no single commentary provides all the answers needed for translation, exegesis, and interpretation, the Exegetical Summaries Series serves as a valuable supplement. This series has been developed by linguists and commentators affiliated with SIL International, and combines the best from the fields of linguistics and textual criticism with erudite biblical commentary.

The books in the Exegetical Summaries Series survey the scope of everything written about every phrase in nearly every book in the New Testament, along with two books in the Old Testament, giving you the tools you need to compare commentaries and lexicons and identify instances of both scholarly consensus and disagreement. Rather than replace the commentaries consulted, these books are meant to provide a comprehensive summary, thus making more sources of exegetical help available to preachers, scholars, and students of the Bible than they may have access to otherwise.

Fundamental Facts - Provenance of Philippians

2009-05-27T10:00:00.000+02:00

Hawthorne helpfully notes key issues we must address when discussing the provenance of Philippians.

There are certain fundamental factors that must be considered before even a tentative conclusion as to place and date can be reached. Some of these include (1) the fact that Paul was in prison when he wrote (Phil 1:7, 13, 17); (2) the fact that Paul faced a trial that could end in his death (1:19-20, 2:17) or acquittal (1:25; 2:24); (3) the fact that from wherever it was that Paul wrote there was the praetorium (1:13), and there were “those who belonged to Caesar’s household” (4:22); (4) the fact that Timothy was with Paul (1:1; 2:19-23); (5) the fact that extensive evangelistic efforts were going on around Paul at the time he wrote to Philippians (1:14-17); (6) the fact that Paul soon planned to visit Philippi if he were acquitted (2:24), and (7) the fact that several trips were made back and forth between Philippi and the place from which Paul wrote Philippians – all within the time-span of his imprisonment: (a) news travelled to Philippi of Paul’s arrest, (b) the Philippians therefore sent Epaphroditus to Paul with a gift to aid him in his distress, (c) news of Epaphroditus’ illness was sent back to Philippi, (d) word that the Philippians were greatly concerned about Epaphroditus reached Paul (See 2:25-30) and (e) Paul hoped to send Timothy to the Philippians and get encouragement back from them through him before he himself set off for Philippi (2:19, 24).
Hawthorne, Philippians, pg. xxxvii

Overall, I'm beginning to favour a Roman provenance, against Hawthorne who unusually advocates a Caesarean origin (See Acts 23:23-26:32). While I think Rome is probable, we must admit a certain epistemic humility in our judgements as the evidence is ambiguous and incomplete.

EDUCE Project

2009-05-26T03:57:00.002+02:00

Michael Halcomb has a brilliant post on Virtually Unwrapping Ancient Scrolls. This is an exciting development that may yield some astonishing discoveries! Check it out!

Barth and the Trinity

2009-05-22T06:38:00.005+02:00

So I had another day delving deep into theological mysteries to profound. Thanks to Khegan, my new found theological friend, I read Aaron Smith's paper "God’s self-specification: his being is his electing" SJT 62(1): 1–25 (2009) and George Husinger "Election and the Trinity: Twenty-Five Theses on The Theology of Karl Barth" Modern Theology 24:2 April 2008.

I ordered Engaging the Doctrine of God ed. Bruce L. Mccormack and will probably get Orthodox and Modern: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth by Bruce L. McCormack. I have not adequately understood McCormack's position, and the only way to fairly evaluate his views is to read his material. Bruce McCormack was most engaging at the recent Trinitarian Theology After Barth conference, and he really made me think.

I found Paul Molnar's article, available online, The Trinity and the Freedom of God exceptionally helpful and next week will give occassion to reading his book: Divine Freedom and the Doctrine of the Immanent Trinity.

The questions that arise from this thinking and reflecting thus far, are as follows:

What is the relationship between the immanent and economic trinity? Are they the same? Different? How? When? Where?
Is God’s being is constituted by God’s act?
Who is the logos asarkos? Is he exactly the same as Jesus of Nazareth?
What specific metaphysical presuppositions determine the answers to these questions, and how?
Withregards to Barth, how does his doctrine of election shape/determine his understanding of the trinity?
The ultimate question, which all of this finally leads to is, Who is God?
My last question: Who on earth can answer these questions?

All this to say, I've forsaken biblical studies this month...

But perhaps forsaking biblical studies in this discussion was my first mistake!

Trinitarian Theology After Barth

2009-05-15T12:26:00.004+02:00

Well, that was the title of the conference I've just attended. What an excellent selection of speakers and papers, which has provoked much thought. Bruce McCormack, Paul Molnar, Murray Rae, Ivor Davidson, Hayden Nelson, Ben Myers and Ashley Moyse among others gave papers on aspects of Barth's thought in light of his Trinitarian doctrine.

As someone devoted to biblical studies, I was completely unaware of the debate between Molnar and McCormack on Barth's understanding of the trinity. The discussion is thick, and I had one of those "Eureka!" moments as I understood what the discussion amounted to. The short of it is that Barth does not have a second doctrine of the trinity (sorry Ben). I am also now thoroughly convinced that Bauckham was absolutely right to abandon ontic and functional categories in favour of a Christology of Divine Identity - See Jesus and the God of Israel for a further exploration.

Anyway, Paul Molnar will be teaching a post-grad seminar on Christology and the Trinity next week, and I've managed to sneak my way into that one, so that'll be interesting. It's good being a student again. This is the life I was meant to live...

The Provenance of Philippians

2009-05-12T08:31:00.000+02:00

The three options for the provenance of Philippians are Rome, Caesarea, and Ephesus. The two most argued places of composition are Rome [See the commentaries by O'Brien; Fee; Bockmuehl and Hooker] and Ephesus [See the commentaries by J. H. Michael; Carolyn Osiek and Frank Thielman's, "Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians"]. Traditionally, Rome is the preferred option, although there is an increase in interest in Ephesus. Interestingly, The Acts of Paul note Paul's incarceration at Ephesus:

Now they who drew up the travels of Paul have related that he did many other things, and among them this, which befell when he was at Ephesus. Hieronymus being governor, Paul used liberty of speech, and he (Hieronymus) said that he (Paul) was able to speak well, but that this was not the time for such words. But the people of the city, fiercely enraged, put Paul's feet into irons, and shut him up in the prison, till he should be exposed as a prey to the lions. But Eubula and Artemilla, wives of eminent men among the Ephesians, being his attached disciples, and visiting him by night, desired the grace of the divine washing. And by God's power, with angels to escort them and enlighten the gloom of night with the excess of the brightness that was in them, Paul, loosed from his iron fetters, went to the sea-shore and initiated them into holy baptism, and returning to his bonds without any of those in care of the prison perceiving it, was reserved as a prey for the lions.
[Translation by M. R. James]

Interestingly, Charles Cousar in his latest commentary on Philippians suggests this, and notes that "Ephesus [is] the least problematic option of the three options... Ephesus seems the better choice and the one I use in the commentary."

Resident blogger, Mike Bird appears to opt for an Ephesian setting as well. Mark Keown argues strongly against this in his monograph, Congregational Evangelism in Philippians. Since Mark will be my teacher next semester, we'll have plenty of opportunity to thrash this around.

Leadership in Earliest Christianity

2009-04-26T12:54:00.006+02:00

Matthew Montonini posts on Philippians 1:1-2. This is a fascinating text for several reasons, one being the mention of overseers and deacons. Scholars suggest various positions along the continuum of whether this refers to an official position or just a function. Because many have adopted an evolutionary model of leadership in the early Christian community, Philippians throws some what of a curve ball, because it is written far to early for there to have been an established office of leadership - or so it is supposed. A key issue in this discussion is what we do with Luke's description.

For example, Luke tells us in Acts 14:21-23 that after they had proclaimed the good news to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, then on to Iconium and Antioch. 22 There they strengthened the souls of the disciples and encouraged them to continue in the faith, saying, “It is through many persecutions that we must enter the kingdom of God.” 23 And after they had appointed elders for them in each church, with prayer and fasting they entrusted them to the Lord in whom they had come to believe.

Is this Luke projecting backwards, or noting what actually happened? For various reasons, including 1 Thessa 5, this is an adequate summary of Paul's modus operandi regarding the appointment of leaders. I also concur with Charles Barrett, Acts 1-14, pg. 687 who notes that “This was, no doubt, a kind of ordination, in that it gave some Christians a special kind of responsibility and service; cf. 6:6; 13:1-3; 20:17, 28.” Which brings us back to our text in Philippians 1. Does this refer to a position or function? And more importantly, can we separate these two ideas in the 1st century? The dictum, you are what you do, raises several questions at this point. O’Brien, Philippians, pg. 48, comments that:

It has been suggested that these titles are to be understood in a functional rather than an official sense, that is, describing an activity rather than an office (cf. Rom 12:8; Gal. 6:6; 1 Thess. 5:12). Here, however, he has in view particular members of the congregation who are specifically described and known by these two titles; otherwise the additions seem to be meaningless.

Dunn, Beginning From Jerusalem, pg. 1017-1018 cautiously notes that:

we learn that there were two groups of office-bearers, or probably more accurately, two leadership roles which had already emerged in Philippi – ‘overseers (episkopoi) and deacons (diakonoi)’ (1:1). It will hardly be coincidental that these become the titles for regular offices or roles in the churches of the next generation. Whether the structures of church organisation which we see in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 were already emerging in Philippi, it is not possible to determine now. Certainly some leadership and administrative functions must be attributed to the episkopoi and diakonoi of Philippi. But how well defined or (alternatively) amorphous or embryonic these functions were some twelve years after the church began, and to what extent the use of these titles indicates a drawing on religious or secular precedents, we cannot tell.

This group was known in the capacity that they served for Paul takes it for granted that the Philippians will know who he is talking about when he greets this group(s). Paul did appoint leaders in newly founded/established communities of faith, and whatever specific functions or tasks these elders and deacons (or elders who serve, depending on how you translate it) they were distinct enough for Paul to offer them specific greetings, because they served specific/special functions.

Congregational Evangelism

2009-04-22T02:43:00.006+02:00

My friend Mark Keown has recently published Congregational Evangelism in Philippians: The Centrality of an Appeal for Gospel Proclamation to the Fabric of Philippians (Paternoster Biblical Monographs). Here, Mark is responding to the claim that Paul understood the proactive missionary task as the vocation of a few gifted people (apostles and evangelists, but perhaps others). Although Mark has focussed specifically on Philippians in his response, I believe that Colossians has something to say about this matter.

This is clear in studying Colossians 4:2-6. Houlden, followed by Dunn, suggests that mission was the task of the apostle, while the church was meant to pray.[1] I find this an awkward suggestion given that Paul, in this specific pericope, has been speaking of the mission in vss. 2-4, and the speaks directly to the issue of congregational mission (whether corporate or individual) in vss. 5-6.

While we must concur that Paul sees the congregation's prayers as intrinsically linked to his mission, we must not therefore assume or deduce that it is only apostles and their co-workers who are required to engage in the mission of God. Even Dunn, pg. 261 notes that "the evangelistic overtones and opportunities implied in 4:5-6 (in ordinary conversations) should not be ignored."

In fact, the logic of the verse is compelling: a) Conduct yourseves wisely before outsiders, b) make the most of the time you have, c) let your speech be gracious, d) seasoned with salt (Matt 5:13-16), e) ready to answer anyone who asks. This seems to be a list of instructions building on the previous elements noted. a) Conduct sets the context and either validates or invalidates what they will proclaim. b) Take the opportunities that arise in your daily lives. c) Proclamation should be done in welcoming a charitable manner so as to not offend or insult others, but the gospel should be shared, d) and when the gospel is shared, people will have questions, e) which means followers should be ready to respond!

I'm not quite sure in what other context these statements would gain coherence.

[1] Houlden, Paul’s Letters from Prison, pg. 215-216 and Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, pg. 261. This is also the position adopted by John Dickson, Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission (Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Incidently, Chapter 3 Heralds and partners of Dickson's book, which deals with this topic, is available online, just follow the link to a PDF.

Michael Gorman

2009-04-20T19:12:00.000+02:00

Gorman has proved helpful and useful in his offerings to students of Paul. His book, Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters , has been a breath of fresh air in studying Paul's letters, and I've made use of it often in my research - it's a fantastic book.

Extending Gorman's first offering, Cruciformity: Paul's Narrative Spirituality of the Cross, we now have the latest: Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul's Narrative Soteriology. Gorman has helpfully provided a summary on his blog, Cross Talk. Make sure you ponder these offerings, and check out his blog for regular NT topics.

Off to New Zealand

2009-04-19T12:30:00.001+02:00

So, Susan and I are off to New Zealand, hence the little activity on the blog recently. We've decided to move there so that I can begin to explore further options of studying, see my family, get involved in a Church plant, and have some fun. This blog will probably resume activity in May. With our arrival in NZ, I have several friends to catch up with, a supervisor to hound, and book-shops to peruse.

Incidently, this is my blogs 4 year birthday, so happy happy to me! I'll make sure I bye myself a book to celebrate this achievement!

Ciao... s. D.

The Sarcastic Cry - Mark 15:39

2009-04-18T11:18:00.002+02:00

Mark Goodacre has served us well with the reminder that Mark 15:39 need not necessarily be taken literally, but rather as another sarcastic taunt!

Is this a confession of faith, a meaningful statement or the final taunt of a mocker who stood by while Jesus was executed? Scholars seem to suggest at least one of these three.

Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20, pg. 510

Evans supposes that the centurion sees the power of Jesus death and the torn temple veil and this leads to his confession. It is further conjectured that this leads the centurion to switch allegiance from Caesar to Christ. Although it is admitted that this is not an ‘orthodox’ Christian confession, it is proposed that the centurion is impressed enough with the available details to ascribe “to Jesus what he earlier ascribed to Caesar.”

The two lines of evidence that Evans employs to justify this verdict are seen to be unreasonable. Firstly, it is unlikely that the centurion could see the torn temple veil. The distance, the crowds, his focus on the immediate situation make it highly improbable that this is the case. Secondly, what is there to suggest that the centurion would make this connection? Mark may have made the connection, but it is dubious to suggest that we know that the centurion would or did make this connection. Thirdly, there was nothing impressive about Jesus’ death. It was an utter shame and disgrace. There is nothing about the pathetic death of Jesus that commends itself as impressive. This was just another wannabe Jewish rebel who died at the hands of a ruthless imperial lord.

France, The Gospel of Mark, pg. 658-660

This argument begins by noting the geographical implausibility of the centurion seeing the tearing of the veil. Even at the narrative level, France notes, this is impossible and Mark does not say that the centurion saw the curtain tear.

France marshals the circumstantial evidence to suggest what could possibly have impressed him so deeply so as to make this confession. It is noted that “his manner of death has proved the truth about what he has been in life.” It is then suggested that what matters is that Mark’s readers see this as the triumphant declaration of who Jesus is.

Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, pg. 479-81

Appealing to theological motifs, Edwards proposes that “the fact that the passion and death of Jesus on the cross evoke the confession of the centurion indicates that he, by divine revelation, has been granted the mystery of faith in Jesus as the Son of God.” However, it seems unnecessary to impose a theological rationale at this stage of exegesis. Before jumping to theology, one must carefully consider the historical factors at work. Edwards himself notes Martin Hengel’s conclusion which notes that “a crucified messiah, son of God or God must have seemed a contradiction to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish.”[1] Is there any evidence in Mark to suggest that this is a divine revelation? Does Mark’s narrative lead us to this conclusion?

Witherington, The Gospel of Mark, pg. 400

Witherington adopts the understanding that the confession is akin to the Hellenistic model of son of god. It is at least conceded that the alternative that I shall propose is ‘possible’ with a reference to a proponent of this view footnoted.

Hooker, The Gospel According to Saint Mark, pg. 378-9

“… while it is true that the centurion, if he uttered these words, could only have meant by them a divine man or demi-god, yet for Mark they are a proclamation of the truth about Jesus… Whether Mark thinks that the centurion is aware of the true significance of his words is not clear. Perhaps Mark regards them as an unconscious acknowledgement of Jesus’ identity, like the taunts of those who mocked the dying Jesus, unaware of the true meaning of their words (15:18, 26, 29f., 31f.), and the incredulous questions of the high priest and Pilate (14:6; 15:2). The truth is thus spoken by Jesus’ judges and by his executioner. Nevertheless, the centurion stands at this point as the representative of those who acknowledge Jesus as God’s son.

Another Proposal

However, if the centurion did offer such a statement, and it was remembered by the women who, after hearing this statement left the scene, what could the centurion have meant?

Mk 15:18 And they began saluting him, “Hail, King of the Jews!”
Mk 15:26 The inscription of the charge against him read, “The King of the Jews.”
Mk 15:29-30 “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself, and come down from the cross!”
Mk 15:31-32 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.”
Mk 15:36 “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to take him down.”
Mk 15:39 Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

Given the context of mockery and disgrace it remains more likely that the confession is the final of a series of mocks by a host of different voices. Firstly, nearly all of the disciples have abandoned him. The titulus is an imperial mock, the scribes and priests offer various taunts, and finally the one who crucified Jesus offers the final nail in the coffin by sarcastically praising Jesus with the title reserved for Caesar. The so-called confession is about as meaningful as the titulus or declaration that Jesus is the saviour by the priests.

Is it historically plausible, and exegetically viable to suggest that the centurion’s confession is somehow meaningful and an accurate representation of his allegiance? It seems unlikely, thus we follow Goodacre, Fenton and Juel who see this is a sarcastic remark akin to the other mocks that Jesus has received.[2]

[1] Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, pg. 10 [2] See Goodacre for the Fenton reference, and Juel, Messianic Exegesis, pg. 28, 146.

Last Supper Singing

2009-04-11T12:24:00.004+02:00

What Did Jesus Sing at the Last Supper? This is the question Brant Pitre raises, and it's one I got side-tracked with a few weeks ago. In my quick distraction from Colossians, I found this beautiful quote by Jeremias which tells an interesting story...

We know the prayers with which Jesus concluded the Last Supper. They are all prayers of thanksgiving. They praise him who delivered Israel from the Egyptians, before whose presence the earth trembles (Ps. 114). They praise him as the one living God, in whom the people of God put their trust; and who blesses those who fear him, and who will be blessed evermore (Ps. 115). They promise to the merciful redeemer, who has delivered the living from death, sacrifices of thanksgiving and the payment of vows in the presence of all his people (Ps. 116). They call upon the heathen to join in praise (Ps. 117). And they conclude with a prayer expressing the thanksgiving and jubilation of the festal congregation: ‘O give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; his steadfast love endures for ever’ (Ps. 118:1). ‘Out of my distress has the Lord heard me’ (v. 5). Now the songs of jubilation resound: ‘I shall not die, but I shall live, and recount the deeds of the Lord’ (v. 17). ‘The rejected stone has become the chief cornerstone through God’s marvellous doing’ (vv. 22f.). ‘Blessed be in the name of the Lord he who comes’ (v. 26). To thee will I give thanks: ‘Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good; yea, his steadfast love endures for ever (v. 29). These were the words in which Jesus prayed.
Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, pg. 256

Enjoy celebrating the victory of God tomorrow morning!

Paul’s Gospel

2009-03-24T10:52:00.001+02:00

Recently I was reading John Dickson’s book, Promoting the Gospel, which has an appendix on the content of the gospel. Dickson makes the following summary statement:

The gospel message is the grand news about how God’s coming kingdom has been glimpsed and opened up to the world in the birth, teaching, miracles, death and resurrection of God’s son, the Messiah, who will one day return to overthrow evil and consummate the kingdom for eternity.

I very much appreciate the eschatological element within this summary, as it is often overlooked, or neglected. Colossians implies an eschatological aspect of the gospel (Col. 1:5, 23). In fact, Luke’s narration of Paul’s presentation to the Athenians (Acts 17:22-31) suggests an eschatological item in the announcement. Thus, we should be weary of appeal’s to Rom. 1:3-4; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Tim. 2:8 and others as the summary content of Paul’s declaration. There may have been other elements present, which for various reasons, have not been included in the summaries often quoted. Joel Willitts has recently noted this concerning 1 Cor 15:1-8 (See also the comments).

Paul nowhere gives us a full description of the gospel that he proclaimed. If Luke’s description in Acts is of any help to us, then we must admit that contextual factors shaped what elements of the gospel Paul highlighted and focussed on, or perhaps even left out! Now of course, central elements of Paul’s “great news of victory” would definitely include the resurrection, but there may be other elements either emphasised or neglected depending on the audience to whom Paul was speaking.

Colossians 1:9-12a

2009-03-18T11:52:00.001+02:00

Colossians 1:9-12a

Because of this, since the day we heard, we have not stopped praying for you and requesting that you may be filled with the knowledge of YHWH’s will by means of the Spirit’s wisdom and understanding, so that you may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him,

a) bearing fruit in every good work and

b) growing in the knowledge of YHWH,

c) being empowered with all the strength that comes from His glorious power, so that you are prepared to endure everything with patience,

d) joyfully giving thanks to the Father...

This seems an apt way to understand the various parts of this complex sentence which forms a single sentence from vs. 3-14. SHA! Although, we should quickly admit that this structure is by no means certain.

I think Paul is highlighting four specific areas that the Colossians can focus on in seeking to live worthy of the Lord (Jesus), fully pleasing to Him. As Sumney notes:

While this is a comprehensive goal, it is also vague, so the writer proceeds to fill his idea with content. He specifies four elements of the life he is commending or four modes in which it is manifested: bearing fruit in good works, growing in knowledge of God, being empowered by God, and giving thanks.
Sumney, Colossians, pg. 48

Other than 3:16, this is arguably one of the more difficult passages to structurally understand. The exegesis is straightforward, but first breaking it up into its structural units is a difficult task... What's interesting to note here is that this all starts and finishes with the work of God. It is Paul praying for the Colossians that they would know God's will, via the Spirit's wisdom and understanding that compels them to live a life worthy of the Lord. And it is bearing the Lord's fruit, which I take to mean his tasks and vocation, growing in knowledge of Him, being empowered by Him (by the Spirit?), while Joyfully giving thanks to Him that this is accomplished. It is the work of God from start to consumation. Something those involved with the vineyard should always remember...

Ethos Resource

2009-03-17T16:36:00.002+02:00

Ethos is a fantastic resource that allows you access to certain theses from UK universities. Make sure you check it out. I typed in the name of every epistle in the NT and there are stacks already ready to download. And the one's that interested me, that aren't yet available, I've ordered, so in 10 days, I'll be SUPER HAPPY!

Prayer in Colossians 4

2009-03-12T12:00:00.002+02:00

In my devotions this morning, I came to Colossians 4, where Paul addresses general issues, but also requests prayer. As someone who regularly moves in contexts where the gospel is on trial, and I'm the one trying to defend it, I found this invitation to prayer, particularly moving. Currently, I'm also enjoying David Crump's book: Knocking on Heaven's Door: A New Testament Theology of Petitionary Prayer. It is one of the best books on prayer I've ever read, plus it is filled with exegetical insights, deep theological reflection, and much pastoral wisdom.

Today I'm off to JHB (or Jozi, as it is affectionately termed). There I will preach the gospel to many young people gathered from all around this great city. So, if you're the praying type, pray that God not only opens a door, but helps the preacher be faithful to the apostolic message, explaining it clearly - as he should!

4:2-4 Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with thanksgiving. 3 At the same time pray for us as well that God will open to us a door for the word, that we may declare the mystery of Christ, for which I am in prison, 4 so that I may reveal it clearly, as I should.

Paul’s faithfulness to his calling (both to preach and to pray) was, in part, a consequence of the devoted intercessions offered by brothers and sisters in Christ. He was held up, buoyed toward heaven, by the supportive petitions of numerous communities dotted throughout the Mediterranean. To this degree, Paul’s urgency was a partial fruit of the communal intensity shared among his many disciples and prayer partners, wedded undoubtedly with a deep sense of mutual responsibility.[1]

The advancement of apostolic mission requires and invites prayer from the people of God. It is a necessary feature of Paul’s mission that he asks for those who are faithful to continually pray for him and those with him as they seek to minister to fellow believers, announce the gospel of King Jesus, and establish faithful communities of followers devoted to the King and the kingdom.

So pray!

[1] David Crump, Knocking on Heaven’s Door: A New Testament Theology of Petitionary Prayer, (Baker, 2006) pg. 245

Bearing Fruit in Colossians and Intertextual Echoes

2009-03-11T14:18:00.004+02:00

So I'm reading D. J. Moo's commentary on Colossians, and it's very good. But then I get to this quote on verse 6:

The language bearing fruit and growing is reminiscent of the Genesis creation story, where God commands human beings to “be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen. 1:28; see also 1:22). After the flood the mandate is reiterated (Gen. 8:17; 9:1, 7), and the same language is later used in God’s promises to Abraham and the patriarchs that he would “increase” their number and “multiply” their seed (e.g., Gen. 17:20; 28:3; 35:11). The nation Israel attains this blessing in Egypt (Gen. 48:4; Exod. 1:7) but then, or course, suffers judgement and dispersal. So the formula appears again in God’s promises to regather his people after the exile (Jer. 3:16; 23:3). Paul may, then, be deliberately echoing a biblical-theological motif according to which God’s original mandate to humans finds preliminary fulfilment in the nation Israel but ultimate fulfilment in the worldwide transformation of people into the image of God by means of their incorporation into Christ, the “image of God.”

Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, pg. 88

When I wrote my exegesis of this verse, I didn't come close to anything like this, which begs my perennial question related to so-called intertextual issues. How do we know this was in the mind of Paul, and not just in the mind of D.J. Moo? I mean, it sounds great, but with what confidence can we suggest this was Paul's intention? Or is it just a guess?

new articles

2009-03-10T13:31:00.000+02:00

New articles:

Jintae Kim The Concept of Atonement in the Gospel of John

Craig S. Keener Human Stones in a Greek Setting: Luke 3.8; Matthew 3.9; Luke 19.40

NIGTC on Non-Canonical Works

2009-03-09T12:00:00.000+02:00

It is rumoured that David Aune is writing a commentary on the Letters of Ignatius, and the Shepherd of Hermas, for a two-volume supplement on non-canonical works in the NIGTC series (as well as a book on early Christian Worship - which I'm really looking forward to). Does anyone know what other works they'll cover in this series? I'm trying to find some good material, or even a good commentary on 1 Clement - not as easy as I thought it would be.

The Colossian Hymn – a radical proposal?

2009-03-06T11:19:00.002+02:00

Ok, so I’ve been thinking outrageous thoughts today, and this one is about as outrageous as it’s going to get, possibly because it has some verisimilitude.

What if the first part of the Colossian Hymn started at vs. 12-14, and was addressed to the Father? With the second part of the Hymn addressed to Jesus? Here’s my tentative translation:

Giving thanks joyfully to the Father:

Who has enabled you to share in the inheritance

of the saints in the light.

Who has rescued us from the tyranny of darkness

and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son,

[[Transition]]

Who has redeemed us,

and pardoned our transgressions.

Who is the image of the invisible God,

Firstborn over all creation,

Because in him were created all

Things in the heavens and on the earth,

The seen and the unseen

Whether they be thrones or dominions

Or powers or principalities

Everything created through him was also created for Him

And he is before everything and everything coheres in him.

And he is the head of the body, the church.

Who is the beginning

The Firstborn from the dead

In order that he might take pre-eminence in all things

Because in him is pleased to dwell the fullness of GOD

And through him is reconciled everything for him,

Making peace through the blood of his cross

Whether things on earth or in the heavens

Now, I have not consulted any commentaries yet, and I have done no research, but this does strike me as at least possible… Back to the books to find out where I may have gone astray in my thinking…

House Churches in the 2nd Century

2009-03-05T15:43:00.002+02:00

Ben Witherington, in his response to Frank Viola's book: Reimagining Church notes the following:

we have clear archaeological evidence now in regard to houses being altered into church buildings already in the second century in the house of Peter in Capernaum (indeed, this may have transpired beginning in the first century), and we have further evidence of church structures in Jordan, and in Rome, some in the catacombs from before the third century A.D.

Is this accurate? I sure it is, but I've never heard of this before. If so, does anyone know where we may find out more about this?

Leadership in Colossae

2009-02-23T12:19:00.001+02:00

Colossians 1:7

This you learned from Epaphras, our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of the Messiah on our behalf...

καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ

Such a designation for leaders, even apostles, in the church speaks an important word about what it means to be called to such offices. Leaders are to see themselves as slaves of God. Paul even says in 2 Cor 4:5 that he is a slave of the Corinthians. This understanding of the place of the church’s leaders excludes the possibility of claiming status and privilege based upon that position. It calls for leaders to understand themselves as those who work in serve to the church rather than as those in charge who demand deference… This language for leaders certainly required the readers to adopt understandings of community and leadership that were contrary to those of other institutions in their world; such language calls them to envision a type of leadership that is consist with the gospel rather than with cultural expectations.

Sumney, Colossians, pg. 41

Leadership in the Churches of Paul

2009-02-13T11:40:00.004+02:00

I'm knee deep in Andrew Chester's contribution to A Vision for the Church. He begins with a stunning summary of Paul's ideal:

Paul’s vision for the communities that he wrote to can be summed up quite succinctly. He sees them as being a new creation in Christ, filled with the Spirit, possessing gifts of the Spirit and overflowing with the fruit of the Spirit, controlled above all by love; they are communities that should be pure and holy, mutually supportive and interdependent, completely united, transcending the oppositions and tensions between different groups within the community, and with every kind of barrier that would divide them in normal society broken down.[1]

The discussion that follows this is an excellent, until we get to the rather brief discussion about leadership. Brief, as in, here is the entire section on leadership:

2.3 Leadership and Hierarchy Paul’s vision may seem blurred on this issue as far as the Christian community is concerned. It is not surprising that the issue of leadership and hierarchy should arise, as very often happens in the case of new religious movements with strong expectations of a final decisive event. Compared with what can be observed elsewhere in the NT, and the rapid developments otherwise in early Christianity, Paul appears not to have a particularly developed or precise view. A few indications are given in Rom 12 and 1 Cor 12. Again, however, the larger questions arise of whether Paul would want effectively to give preference to some kinds of individuals, and whether is in danger of asserting or imposing his own authority; and in both cases, how compatible this is with his overall vision. Within the Pauline tradition, especially the Pastorals (e.g., 1 Tim 2-6; Titus 1:5-16), there are clear developments that compromise the ideal of Paul’s vision and move decisively in the direction of giving superior position to particular kinds of individuals. Hence it needs to be asked whether this represents a perversion of Paul’s vision, or a natural and inevitable development.[2]

To embrace this kind of perspective, one needs to neglect key Pauline evidence, namely 1 Thess 5:12-27. Incidental details like 1 Cor 16:15-16 and Phil 1:1 should also be discarded. One then needs to neglect the witness of Acts 14:23 and 20:17. Furthermore, one has to utterly neglect Paul’s Jewish background, which scholars suggest was highly influential (See Burtchaell’s From Synagogue to Church).

[1] Andrew Chester, “The Pauline Communities” A Vision of the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology eds. Markus Bockmuehl and M. B. Thompson (T & T Clark, 1997), pg. 105.

[2] Chester, “The Pauline Communities”, pg. 115.

New Testament Ecclesiology - Updated

2009-02-12T09:58:00.000+02:00

Chris Tilling requests some books on New Testament ecclesiology, here are some of the ones that I have found informative and helpful.

M. Bockmuehl and M. B. Thompson, A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology (T & T Clark, 1997)

J. T. Burtchaell, From Synagogue to Church: Public Services and Offices in the Earliest Christian Communities (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

R. W. Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 2004)

L. T. Johnson “Paul’s Ecclesiology” in The Cambridge Companion to Paul ed. J. D. G. Dunn (Cambridge, 2003)

R. Longenecker ed., Community Formation in the Early Church and in the Church Today (Hendrickson, 2002)

L. W. Hurtado, At the Origins of Christian Worship (Paternoster Press, 1999)

L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003)

R. Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community (Hendrickson, 1994)

P. F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (SPCK, 2002)

J. L. Houlden, The Public Face of the Gospel: New Testament Ideas of the Church (SCM, 1997)

R. P. Martin, Worship in the Early Church (Eerdmans, 1975)

R. P. Martin, The Spirit and the Congregation: Studies in 1 Corinthians 12–14 (Eerdmans, 1984)

R. P. Martin, “Patterns of Worship in New Testament Churches,” JSNT 37 (1989) 59–85

K. E. Brower and A. Johnson eds. Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (Eerdmans, 2007)

M. Hengel, “The Song About Christ in Earliest Worship” in Studies in Early Christology (T & T Clark, 1995)

M. J. Wilkins and T. Paige eds. Worship, Theology and Ministry in the Early Church, (Sheffield Academic Press, 1992)

C. F. D. Moule, Worship in the New Testament (John Knox Press, 1961)

A. Cabaniss, Pattern in Early Christian Worship (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1989)

G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A biblical theology of the dwelling place of God (IVP, 2004)

P. Bolt and M. Thompson eds. The Gospel to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission (Apollos, 200)

M. Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Hodder and Stoughton, 1973)

D. J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Orbis, 1991)

Andrew D. Clarke, Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Eerdmans Publishing, 2000)

R. H. Williams, Stewards, Prophets, Keepers of the Word: Leadership in the Early Church (Hendrickson, 2006)

J. D. G. Dunn's The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Eerdmans, 1998) also contains a useful chapter.

Obviously we would here need to decide if our quest is to understand the historical structures and features of "church" in the New Testament, or whether we are looking for a conceptual and theological understanding of the Church.

According to Mike Bird, Markus Bockmuehl has an interesting chapter in the recently released Scripture's Doctrine and Theology's Bible: How the New Testament Shapes Christian Dogmatics eds. Markus Bockmuehl & Alan J. Torrance (Baker, 2008).

These are good entry points into the discussion of NT ecclesiology.

2009-02-06T13:57:00.000+02:00

Does anyone have access to J. B. Green's article: "Doing Repentance: The Formation of Disciples in the Acts of the Apostles" Ex Auditu 17 (2002) 1-23?

please? email me: primalhcc AT gmail DOT com

Thanks...

What Happened?

2009-02-06T13:02:00.002+02:00

I was struck reading today, that early Christianity is very different from contemporary Christianity... Shockingly different... Take a look at Meeks' assessment...

Christians had no shrines, temples, cult statues or sacrifices; they staged no public festivals, musical performances or pilgrimages. As far as we know, they set up no identifiable inscriptions. On the other hand, initiation into their cult had social consequences that were more far-reaching than initiation into the cults of familiar gods. It entailed incorporation into a tightly knit community, a resocialisation that demanded (and in many cases actually received) an allegiance replacing bonds of natural kinship, and a submission to one God and one Lord excluding participation in any other cult. Moreover, this artificial family undertook to resocialise its members by a continual process of moral instruction and admonition; hardly any aspect of life was excluded from the purview of mutual concern, if we are to believe the writings of the movement’s leaders. The church thus combined features of household, cult, club, and philosophical school, without being altogether like any of them.[1]

[1] Wayne Meeks, “Social and ecclesial life of the earliest Christians” in Cambridge History of Christianity eds. Margaret M. Mitchell and Francis M. Young (Cambridge, 2008), pg. 152

Colossians 4:2

2009-02-05T13:06:00.004+02:00

τῇ προσευχῇ προσκαρτερεῖτε γρηγοροῦντες ἐν αὐτῇ ἐν εὐχαριστίᾳ

Working on Colossians today, I followed my usual pattern of trying to do as much exegetical work as possible without consulting the commentaries. When I got to the word highlighted above, keeping alert; being watchful, I didn't realise that I would depart from many of the major commentaries. I take it to refer to being watchful or alert in prayer, and this with thanksgiving. But most commentators take it as a reference to the eschaton, or the immenent return of Christ (So Moo, O'Brien, Dunn, et. al.).

While Moo is right that this term refers often (12 out of 22 times) in eschatological contexts, I'm not convinced that this is the referrent here. Given the context of Colossians 4, I would suggest that it refers to being aware of God speaking, or doing something in response to the devoted prayers of his people. Besides, Paul only uses the word 4 times, and only in 1 Thess 5 is the context eschatological. The reference in 1 Cor 16:13 is clearly not.

So can we can extrapolate from one word, to an eschatological context? For this word to be a "catch-word", we would have to assume a strong awareness of the Jesus traditions of Matt 25 and Mark 13 where this word is used. Is this plausible? I can't imagine the Colossians listening to this message and jumping to an eschatological interpretation based on the memory of Jesus tradition, so if this is what Paul meant, he is being exceptionally vague. Rather, this must refer to being aware of God's Spirit moving in the congregation in response to the prayers of His people - similar perhaps to 1 Thess 5:16-22 (on this passage see Witherington's commentary, which links prayer and praise to prophecy which would then possibly answer the prayers and cause further praise).

Does this make sense? Have I missed something?

Introducing Colossians...

2009-02-02T13:05:00.000+02:00

The reference to the Christians having been delivered by God from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of the Son (v. 13) sets the stage for the remaining discussion in the letter, which concerns itself with both the intellectual and the moral consequences of having been delivered from the “dominion of darkness.” Such a radical shift has apparently been difficult for the Colossian Christians to absorb completely, and this letter is an attempt to spell out the consequences of that shift.[1]

The first strophe is at pains to point out that there is no order of reality, visible or invisible, natural or supernatural, that was not created through the agency of Christ (Col 1:16). This means that, apart from Christ, the whole of creation would have no coherent centre and would fly apart or revert to the chaos from which it emerged (1:17). Christ is thus not only the agent of creation, he is also the agent of the world’s preservation.[2]

It may be that the Colossians confronted a religious amalgam made up of parts of Judaism and parts drawn from the worldview that permeated the Hellenistic world, with its fear of malevolent astral powers that would wreak havoc on the unwary.[3]

Whatever the origin of this “heresy,” it is clear that it argued that one needed to do more than just trust in Christ if one was to survive in a world dominated by powerful supernatural forces. One needed somehow to propitiate those forces. Against this, Paul argues for the total sufficiency of Christ… By his death and resurrection, he has defeated all other supernatural powers as surely as a Roman emperor has defeated the enemies he brings back to Rome and parades through the streets before their execution (that is the figure called forth by the language of 2:15). The Colossians are free to ignore this “heresy,” with its calls for further acts needed to protect a person from the depredations of evil supernatural powers, because Christ, working in the full and embodied power of almighty God, has in fact become ruler over all other powers that exercise any kind of rule in any portion of reality (2:9). Relation to Christ is quite literally relation to Almighty God, and hence any need to worry about any other spiritual powers, malevolent or otherwise, is rendered irrelevant.[4]

The word the RSV translates as “nature” and the NRSV as “self” (“old nature/self” in 3:9, “new nature/self” in 3:10) is the Greek word meaning “human being.” What is described is the “old” and “new humanity,” the point being that as persons develop within the structure of the Christian faith, they have the opportunity, now that sin’s hold has been broken, to become new human beings, with a human nature renewed now in the true image of their Creation. The image of God, lost to Adam in his rebellion against God, can now be recovered and restored because of the new reality God has introduced into the world with the death and resurrection of Christ. That is why the church is so central for Paul’s theology: it is the new community that be begin to reshape a humanity previously warped and corrupted by sinful rebellion against God.[5]

The second guideline Paul enunciates here is the need to do everything one does in the name of Jesus Christ, by whose self-sacrificing love the new reality has been brought into being. This guideline suggests that if one cannot perform an act in the name of Jesus, one ought not to do it.[6] [3:17]

Tychicus, named first, is apparently the one who is to deliver this letter. It was customary in the Greco-Roman world for the bearer of a letter to expand on its context and answer any questions the recipients might have about the letter or the situation of the sender (so 4:9b).[7]

[1] Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, pg. 409

[2] Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, pg. 409

[3] Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, pg. 414

[4] Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, pg. 414

[5] Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, pg. 415

[6] Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, pg. 415

[7] Achtemeier, Green, Thompson, Introducing the New Testament, pg. 416

Stuckenbruck on Colossians

2009-01-30T13:00:00.001+02:00

The author discourages the Colossian Christians from becoming involved in a series of practices which he regards as superfluous to one’s basic identity in Christ.[1]

Because the structure of the universe, whether heaven or earth, has been fashioned through the agency of Christ in creation (1:15-20), the state of being ‘raised with Christ’ and being devoted to ‘things that are above’ (3:1-2) require that one take seriously the created order as a whole. Hence attentiveness to what is ‘above’ finds legitimate expression, not in asceticism of the body or through participation in angelic life, but in love, mutual support, and ordered behaviour within the framework of existing relationships in the Christian community (3:5-14) and of existing social structures in the world (3:18-4:1).[2]

The hymn’s emphasis that throne’s, dominions, rulers, and powers were – along with everything else – created through the agency of Christ 1:13-22 (1:16) helps the author diminish the importance being attached to the angelic and elemental powers which the readers are being tempted to adhere to (2:8, 18, 20).[3]

The Christ event not only has brought forgiveness of sins and reconciliation (1:13, 20, 21; 2:13), but is the very framework within which the readers are to structure their lives. Through baptism they have been initiated into the triumph of Jesus’ death over the legal demands and inimical powers (2:14-15) and they have already been ‘raised with Christ’ (2:13; 3:1), whereby they may ‘put on’ a new form of life in which ethnic, social, and religious distinctions no longer count in the same way as before (3:9-11, 12-14). Hence it is imperative that the readers realise not only what their identity is in relation to the Christ event, but also that this be the sole basis on which they grow into maturity (2:6-7, 19). It is in Christ that they are to convert their identity into appropriate ethical and social behaviour (3:5-8; 3:18-4:1); in Christ spirituality and life in the community have their foundation; and in Christ the ‘glory’ destined for God’s people will become fully manifest (1:26-7; 3:4).[4]

[1] Stuckenbruck, “Colossians and Philemon” in The Cambridge Companion to Paul ed. J. D. G. Dunn (Cambridge), pg. 122

[2] Stuckenbruck, “Colossians and Philemon”, pg. 123

[3] Stuckenbruck, “Colossians and Philemon”, pg. 124

[4] Stuckenbruck, “Colossians and Philemon”, pg. 124-5

Brown on Colossians

2009-01-27T16:17:00.002+02:00

If these observations [concerning the Colossian Philosophy] leave a picture filled with uncertainties, that is an honest estimate of the state of our knowledge of the teaching... Those who write with great certainty about it are, to a considerable extent, guessing. Of course, there is nothing wrong with guessing, provided that all are aware of how much guesswork is involved. At this distance in time and place we may not be able to decipher all the elements that went into the syncretism attacked in Colossians or identify the end-product with precision.

Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 607

The Colossian hymn professes that Christ Jesus is the image of the invisible God – God’s Son in whom all things were created, in whom all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through whom all things were reconciled to God. How within fifty years (at the latest) did Christians come to believe that about a Galilean preacher who was crucified as a criminal?

Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, pg. 617

The Twelve?

2009-01-27T15:44:00.001+02:00

So, I'm still wrestling with the issue of "The Twelve", in ACTS especially. James Darlack provides some useful thinking, but then Scot McKnight went and confused me senseless with his Paper on Jesus and the Twelve, where he argues:

Jesus’ sending out the Twelve shows little parallel with the expectation of the reunification of the twelve tribes. Instead, the connotations of his choice and sending out of the Twelve show more significant parallels with Qumran leadership, T. Judah 25:1–2, and T. Benj. 10:7, and covenant reestablishment as found in Joshua 4. His expectation of the reunification of the twelve tribes in the land does emerge in the Q tradition (Luke 22:30 par. Matt 19:28; Luke 13:28–30 par. Matt 8:11–12), and his Twelve were to function in a leadership rule in that Kingdom. There is significant evidence for us to think that Jesus had in mind a restored Israel—twelve new leaders, the land under control, a pure Temple, and a radically obedient Israel. The two themes of covenant and eschatology that swirl around the number “twelve” form a combined witness to the centrality of Jesus’ vision for Israel: salvation-historical fulfillment—that is, covenant reestablishment—in his mission’s inauguration of the Kingdom and the embodiment of leadership in his twelve special leaders, who will rule and liberate the twelve tribes of Israel in the Kingdom.

Perhaps The Twelve only made sense amongst Jewish Christians (hence James?), and in the increasing Gentile mission, such symbolic significance was lost? Far more thinking is required on this topic....

Acts 1:20 - Prophecy?

2009-01-22T20:13:00.003+02:00

Reading through Acts 1 today, I stumbled across vs. 20 - a very interesting verse.

“For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his homestead become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it’; and ‘Let another take his position of overseer.’

Having looked at the Psalms to which Peter is here alluding, Psalm 69 and 109, I really struggled to see how this psalm had anything to do with Judas' betrayal. Looking through the commentaries provided no relief either. Until Bock, that is! Here he notes the typological-prophetic use of these two psalms, which explains the use quite well...

The psalms Peter cites (69:25; 109:8) are about the unrighteous or the enemies of God, who ultimately are judged. Judas belongs in this category, so Peter applies the text to him in what is called hermeneutically a typological-prophetic manner… The first text is Ps. 69:25: since the defection has occurred, there is a reference to the enemy’s house being left desolate. The second text, Ps. 109:8, refers to what needs to be done to replace Judas. Someone must take his place of responsibility.[1]

The psalm [69:25] discusses the enemies of God. The psalmist cries to God to be delivered from them and calls for God’s judgement so that their camp is lef desolate and no one is able to live in their tents. Peter applies the psalm typically-prophetically to indicate that Judas has experienced such a judgement. They type of death Judas experienced left the field desolate for him and others. Matthew 27:7 notes that the field became a cemetery… The point of Peter’s citation is that judgement has fallen on this enemy of the righteous Jesus.[2]

Once again the psalm [109] in the MT is a lament of the psalmist asking for God’s judgement. The request is that the enemy’s days may be few and “another may seize his position [or goods].” Peter also uses this text typologically-prophetically to declared Judas judged. Judas’ position is free to go to another. Scripture justifies the new election.[3]

I think this explanation is very helpful. It still baffles me why Luke chose to record this episode. But perhaps Theophilus had some questions regarding "the Twelve". I find it strange that they disappear from memory in early Christianity... What was the point of having them in the first place? Why did Peter feel the need to keep the Twelve "intact"? I understand why the historical Jesus would want Twelve disciples, but early Christianity?

It doesn't really make that much sense to me...

[1] Bock, Acts, pg. 82 [2] Bock, Acts, pg. 85-86 [3] Bock, Acts, pg. 86