F Y I

I'm busy working on two major - very unrelated - projects. These will radically affect the lives of many of my students - and the second project will radically affect my life. So here's hoping and praying for God's grace. To keep you busy though, I found these two articles:

The Healing of the Hemorrhaging Woman: Miracle or Magic? by Donald Howard Bromley (Trinity College, University of Bristol) 1-20

God-Fearers: Literary Foil or Historical Reality in the Book of Acts by J. Brian Tucker (Michigan Theological Seminary) 21-39

Haven't had a chance to devour them yet, still plundering my way through four commentaries on Colossians [thanks for the help and emails!] and hope to blog on this soon.

Prayers are always encouraged, especially given this. And I must steal this quote from Ben:

God is beautiful

“The most elementary statement of theological aesthetics is that God is beautiful: not only that God is beauty or the essence and archetype of beauty, nor even only that God is the highest beauty, but that ... God is beauty and also beautiful, whose radiance shines upon and is reflected in his creatures.... God’s beauty is delight and the object of delight, the shared gaze of love that belongs to the persons of the Trinity.... True beauty is not the idea of the beautiful, a static archetype in the ‘mind’ of God, but is an infinite ‘music,’ drama, art, completed in—but never ‘bounded’ by—the termless dynamism of the Trinity’s life.”

—David Bentley Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 177.

Come Play

The issue is finding a language game that adequately summarises what the early Christians actually say.[1]

And I would add, that this game should also explain what they were thinking, and what that now means for contemporary followers of Jesus. Otherwise, the job is only half done.

[1] McKnight, Jesus and His Death, pg. 348

Faith?

As I perceive the theological scene today, we have far too many who want to agree that in Jesus Christ, that is, in history, God has acted definitively for the salvation of all people, far too many who think we do have a faith in history, but who for various reasons are unwilling to subject history to a careful examination because it might tip their boat of faith. I am contending that such people believe in faith, not in Jesus, not in what God did for salvation in Jesus, but in faith. Their creed then is: "I believe in faith, faith in the Christian interpretation of life. [1]

[1] McKnight, "The Hermeneutics of Confessing Jesus Christ as Lord" Ex Audito

JETS Articles

Incorporated Righteousness: A Response to Recent Evangelical Discussion Concerning the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness in Justification - Michael F. Bird

Practicing the Gospel in a Post-Critical World: The Promise of Theological Exegesis - Joel B. Green

Toward A Biblical Model of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of Nature and Order - J. Scott Horell

Law, Sin, and Death: An Edenic Triad? An Examination With Reference to 1 Corinthians 15:56 - Chris Alex Vlachos

Wright Article

Paul: In Fresh Perspective: Creation and Covenant

Community Hypothesis

Contrary to a widespread view, none of the four Gospels was written only for one particular community; far less do they simply reproduce the views of one individual community. They give primarily the views of their authors. We cannot even say with certainty whether they ever came into being only in one community, for the missionaries of the early church traveled a great deal and could be authoritative teachers at different places. So we should stop talking automatically about 'the community of Mark', 'of Luke', 'of Matthew', 'of John' as the one really responsible for the composition of a Gospel writing and its theology. The four Gospels have nothing to do with 'letters' which were occasioned by a community. These are relatively rare in the New Testament and its environment. Even more nonsensical is the term 'Q community', i.e. the community of the Logia source (we do not even really know in what forms this source [or these sources] existed). The authors of these works do not represent the view of a collective community, but of an individual yet authoritative teacher of one or more communities (or a school), and in their quite different forms proclaim the one truth which should be binding on all believers. This is true regardless of the fact that of course authors were in constant dialogue with a community, or more frequently several communities, and with their disciples or school.

Martin Hengel, The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ, pg. 106-107

Canon # 5

Ehrman goes on to discuss the criteria with which the early church used to decide what was to be "canonised". The quote by McDonald summarises, with references, essentially what Ehrman says about this process.

The generally accepted criteria for canonicity, however unevenly applied by the early church, included: (1) apostolicity, that is, whether a writing was written by an apostle (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.25.4–7); (2) orthodoxy, whether the writing conformed to a widely accepted canon of faith, or regula fidei (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.25.6–7 and also Serapion’s criteria for his rejection of the use and reading of the Gospel of Peter in his churches [c. 195] discussed in Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 6.12.1–6) (3) antiquity, whether it was written during the apostolic period; and (4) usage, whether it was generally accepted in prominent or large numbers of churches and used in their worship and catechetical programs (Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.24.18 and 3.25.6).[1]

It appears at this point that Ehrman then leads himself into a bit of an historical conundrum. He argues, ala much NT scholarship, that the "authors" were manufactured and later added to the writings of the NT. This is especially made with reference to the gospels. But why would a document gain such a wide hearing, and authority if the author could not - at least to some degree - be verified or traced? Paul's letters were widely circulated beyond the churches that he specifically wrote to [Col 4:16; 2 Pet 3:16]. And with regards to the Gospels, Hengel's arguments [Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ] have been neglected by Ehrman, thus weakening his position considerably.

[1] L. M. McDonald, “Canon” in DLNTD

Canon # 4

In proto-orthodox circles it was not Jesus’ secret teachings but those found in apostolic authorities that were seen as authoritative. And just as important as his teachings were the events of his life. Accounts of Jesus’ life – his words and deeds, his death and resurrection – were eventually placed in circulation and accepted as sacred scripture, at least as authoritative for most proto-orthodox Christians as the texts of the Jewish Bible.[1]

Probably ever Christian group of the second and third centuries ascribed authority to written texts, and each group came to locate that “authority” in the status of the “author” of the text. These authors were thought to be closely connected to the ultimate authority, Jesus himself, who was understood to represent God.[2]

[1] Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pg. 233

[2] Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pg. 234

Universal or Limited?

Chris Tilling had a wonderful little excursus on Universalism which was rather thought provoking and readily recognises the complexities of the issue. Then recently, someone brought up the topic of the Reformed Tradition's notion of “limited atonement”. I’m rather perplexed about these issues. Currently, I’m also reading Ben Witherington’s The Problem of Evangelical Theology. Ben deals with many of these things in the opening chapters [although, he misses some significant literature in this debate, which seems to weaken the overall argument – even though I find myself in much agreement with what he says.

But what I’m curious about, is how people explain the follow scriptures:

For to this end we toil and struggle, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Saviour of ALL people, especially of those who believe. 1 Tim 4:10

he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the WHOLE world. 1 Jn 2:2

Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for EVERYONE. Hebrews 2:9

and through Jesus, God was pleased to reconcile to himself ALL things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. Col 1:20

With all wisdom and insight he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up ALL things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. Eph 1:10

Now I recognise that these have been used to argue for universalism, and I’m not quite convinced of that. But how does someone who holds to limited atonement exegete these scriptures? Surely there must be one or two monographs that tackle this issue? Could the apostle Paul honestly have believed that Christs work was of only limited value? And is the issue in these verse relating possibly to the Jew/Gentile issue, and from that can we conclude that our questions regarding the extent of Christs work is unknown and cannot be known, because this is a question foreign to the text's worldview and story?

Thoughts?

Canon # 3

Even when he [Jesus] appears to abrogate the Laws of Moses in some of the so called Antitheses of the sermon on the Mount, he does so in order to bring out what is, in his judgement, their true meaning and intent: The Law says do not murder, Jesus says not to be angry; the Law says not to commit adultery, Jesus says not to lust; the Law says take an eye for an eye, Jesus says turn the other cheek [Matt 5:21-48]. The deep intentions of these laws, for Jesus, are to be followed, not simply their surface meaning. Jesus saw the Law as a direction from God about how to live and worship.[1]

Christians saw Jesus not as the founder of a new religion that cast aside the old, but as fulfilment of the old, who brought something new to an understanding of God that was already anticipated in the Hebrew bible.[2]

[1] Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pg. 232 [2] Ehrman, Lost Christianities, pg. 233