... continued from yesterday.
____________
Nevertheless, we do find Jewish literature that located demonic forces in the lowest "heaven," the lowest sky immediately above the earth. This situation is arguably presumed by the New Testament, even though the New Testament does not explicitly spell it out. A writing called the Testament of Levi divides the skies into three "heavens" (cf. 2 Cor. 12:2). The lowest heaven or lowest sky is the place where evil spirits live.
Whenever these evil spirits came into power, Jesus' exorcist ministry indicated their dethronement from control over the earth. Jesus puts it this way: "If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20). By casting out demons, Jesus was signaling the arrival of the kingdom of God over the earth. God's rule over the earth was thus not just political. It was for Jesus perhaps even more centrally spiritual.
Jesus was dethroning the "ruler of the kingdom of the air" (Eph. 2:2), Satan. Jesus was driving out the "prince of the world" (John 12:31). His exorcist ministry meant that Satan was being dislodged from his rule in the sky (Luke 10:18).
Jesus' enemies of course had a different interpretation. They suggested Jesus cast out demons because he was empowered by the prince of demons, Beelzebub (Mark 3:22). His response, of course, is that things don't work that way. Satan doesn't fight Satan. In order to plunder Satan's house, you would have to bind him first. So, once again, each demon Jesus' cast out was an indication of the end of evil's power over the earth.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all tell of a time just before Jesus' ministry when he was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness. This tempting took place between his baptism and the beginning of his preaching. Matthew and Luke tell of three specific temptations. One is for Jesus to use supernatural power to turn stones into bread. Another is for Jesus to use the angels, the company jet, to save him from a random act of throwing himself from the top of the temple. The most significant, though, is when Satan tempts Jesus to switch his loyalty to him and away from God.
Jesus thus begins his earthly preaching with a clear sense of focus and loyalty to God. He goes on, not to serve the ruler of this world but to cast out the servants of the prince of the lower atmosphere. In this area perhaps more than any other, Jesus began to bring the rule of God to earth in his ministry.
Evil clearly continues to be a powerful force in the world today. As Christians, we believe that the power of evil has been defeated, but that the full manifestation of that defeat is not yet apparent. The gospels leave us with an optimism, that no matter how bleak the forces of evil may look, evil does not get the final word. We must not despair. We must not acquiesce. We must go on casting out demons in faith that evil's back is broken. It's defeat only needs to be played out.
Thursday, February 02, 2012
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
ESV not best for Wesleyans... another reason
Here's a promo quote on the collected study notes of the ESV: "Understanding Scripture: An
Overview of the Bible’s Origin Eighteen of the ESV Study Bible articles,
published separately in book format. The articles have been edited by Wayne
Grudem, C. John Collins, and Thomas R. Schreiner."
These are not names that should be primary sources for anyone who is Wesleyan in theology.
These are not names that should be primary sources for anyone who is Wesleyan in theology.
Satan 8
continued from yesterday
________
Jesus' exorcist ministry not only illustrated his love for people and the good news he brought to the enslaved. It indicated the end to Satan's rule over the world. Over the centuries, we as Christians have filled in some of the gaps of this story-line. Satan was an angel who rebelled against God along with many other angels. They were kicked out of heaven and now wreak havoc on the earth in the form of demons.
The New Testament may presume this story, although it is interesting how little of it is actually in the Bible. The Old Testament says nothing of the fall of Satan. Genesis 2-3 do not mention Satan, although Jews around the time of Christ began to equate the serpent with him. [1] Isaiah 14:12, "How you have fallen from heaven," says nothing about Satan but in context is clearly about the human king of Babylon (14:4). We do hear of evil spirits in the Old Testament in a couple places, but we are told nothing about what they are or where they came from.
Satan himself arguably does not appear until the latest layer of the Old Testament, long after Israel returned from captivity in Babylon. If you compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1, you see that Israel's understanding of temptation has expanded from God tempting David in 2 Samuel to Satan doing it in 1 Chronicles. While the story of Job seems to picture the time of the patriarchs, this says nothing about when it was written. It appears in the third and arguably latest section of the Old Testament, the "Writings," and it is even possible that the first chapters that mention Satan date later than the story itself.
Satan's role in the prologue to Job is as tester of loyalty to God. He seems to work for God, going out to test people's faithfulness to their divine king. In that sense, he does not seem even here yet to be the fallen angel of Jewish understanding around the time of Christ. The first hints of this understanding come around 200BC in the book of 1 Enoch, a book that Jude 14-15 quote, and even here he is not called Satan.
Further, the fallen angels in 1 Enoch fall not at the time of Adam but around the time of the Flood. 1 Peter 3:19-20 may allude to this story when it tells of Jesus preaching to disobedient spirits imprisoned around the days of Noah. Similarly, 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6 also seem to allude to this story in 1 Enoch when the fallen angels were judged around the time of the Flood.
None of these stories are explicitly told in the New Testament. In fact, even the two passages that sound like they are about Satan's "fall" from heaven arguably were originally about Satan's defeat because of Christ. Jesus says that Satan has fallen from heaven like lightning (Luke 10:18), but he is talking about the fact that the demons have become subject to his disciples and the fact that they are able to cast out demons.
In context, therefore, Jesus is not talking about the distant past but about what was happening right then in his ministry, the final defeat of Satan. His disciples are able to cast out demons because the kingdom of God is arriving on earth and Satan is defeated. Similarly, Revelation 12:9 speaks of Satan and his angels being hurled down to the earth, but it is talking about something that was happening after the birth of Christ as part of the final conflicts between good and evil.
Nevertheless, we do find Jewish literature that located demonic forces in the lowest "heaven," the lowest sky immediately above the earth. This situation is arguably presumed by the New Testament, even though the New Testament does not explicitly spell it out. A writing called the Testament of Levi...
[1] The first known instance where Satan is equated with the serpent is in a Jewish writing from the first century BC called The Life of Adam and Eve.
________
Jesus' exorcist ministry not only illustrated his love for people and the good news he brought to the enslaved. It indicated the end to Satan's rule over the world. Over the centuries, we as Christians have filled in some of the gaps of this story-line. Satan was an angel who rebelled against God along with many other angels. They were kicked out of heaven and now wreak havoc on the earth in the form of demons.
The New Testament may presume this story, although it is interesting how little of it is actually in the Bible. The Old Testament says nothing of the fall of Satan. Genesis 2-3 do not mention Satan, although Jews around the time of Christ began to equate the serpent with him. [1] Isaiah 14:12, "How you have fallen from heaven," says nothing about Satan but in context is clearly about the human king of Babylon (14:4). We do hear of evil spirits in the Old Testament in a couple places, but we are told nothing about what they are or where they came from.
Satan himself arguably does not appear until the latest layer of the Old Testament, long after Israel returned from captivity in Babylon. If you compare 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1, you see that Israel's understanding of temptation has expanded from God tempting David in 2 Samuel to Satan doing it in 1 Chronicles. While the story of Job seems to picture the time of the patriarchs, this says nothing about when it was written. It appears in the third and arguably latest section of the Old Testament, the "Writings," and it is even possible that the first chapters that mention Satan date later than the story itself.
Satan's role in the prologue to Job is as tester of loyalty to God. He seems to work for God, going out to test people's faithfulness to their divine king. In that sense, he does not seem even here yet to be the fallen angel of Jewish understanding around the time of Christ. The first hints of this understanding come around 200BC in the book of 1 Enoch, a book that Jude 14-15 quote, and even here he is not called Satan.
Further, the fallen angels in 1 Enoch fall not at the time of Adam but around the time of the Flood. 1 Peter 3:19-20 may allude to this story when it tells of Jesus preaching to disobedient spirits imprisoned around the days of Noah. Similarly, 2 Peter 2:4-5 and Jude 6 also seem to allude to this story in 1 Enoch when the fallen angels were judged around the time of the Flood.
None of these stories are explicitly told in the New Testament. In fact, even the two passages that sound like they are about Satan's "fall" from heaven arguably were originally about Satan's defeat because of Christ. Jesus says that Satan has fallen from heaven like lightning (Luke 10:18), but he is talking about the fact that the demons have become subject to his disciples and the fact that they are able to cast out demons.
In context, therefore, Jesus is not talking about the distant past but about what was happening right then in his ministry, the final defeat of Satan. His disciples are able to cast out demons because the kingdom of God is arriving on earth and Satan is defeated. Similarly, Revelation 12:9 speaks of Satan and his angels being hurled down to the earth, but it is talking about something that was happening after the birth of Christ as part of the final conflicts between good and evil.
Nevertheless, we do find Jewish literature that located demonic forces in the lowest "heaven," the lowest sky immediately above the earth. This situation is arguably presumed by the New Testament, even though the New Testament does not explicitly spell it out. A writing called the Testament of Levi...
[1] The first known instance where Satan is equated with the serpent is in a Jewish writing from the first century BC called The Life of Adam and Eve.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Addiction 7
continued from yesterday
____________
What did Jesus' exorcist ministry mean? For one thing, it certainly fit well with his overall mission to "proclaim freedom for the prisoners... to set the oppressed free" (Luke 4:18). It fit with Jesus' mission to include all of Israel in the coming kingdom, not merely the privileged and "normal" of society. The good news was not just for their equivalent of the employed, middle class today.
As we saw in the previous chapter, Jesus did not come for the "healthy." His primary audience was those who were not currently included. Certainly those possessed by demons were an extreme example of people who were completely outside. They so just how far the good news could go.
When we look at applying these values today, we in the Western world do not often run into the demon possessed. For some, it is because we do not have the eyes to see them. For some, Satan has convinced us that it just doesn't happen any more. Yet even the Roman Catholic Church continues to have exorcists on hand. While every possible medical diagnosis is explored before turning in this direction, there is a recognition of a point where such explanations are exhausted.
But there are others on the edges of society to whom we are to bring God's love. The mentally ill and those whose minds are deteriorating in their older years come to mind. Society has always found it easy to forget such people and even has put such individuals to death in the past. Jesus' care for those possessed shows us that he would not only have noticed these sorts of people, but he would have focused on them more than the "normal" person with a comfortable life.
There are also all sorts of addictions to which we humans are prone. Drugs, alcohol, smoking quickly come to mind. Our enslavement can be more subtle but just as destructive. Addiction to possessions and material things has probably destroyed just as many homes and families as drinking has, with individuals getting themselves into levels of debt that eventually destroy them. A whole generation of young boys is sabotaging itself in gaming, unable to leave the screen in front of them, and in the process throwing out the very education and livelihood necessary to live. Right now, the continued existence of sex trafficking has powerfully been brought to our attention.
Attention to how Jesus approached demon possession is instructive of how we might approach addiction and enslavement today. Jesus did not preach against demon-possession, as if the individual possessed had a choice not to be possessed. In the same way, it would be foolish for us to preach to an alcoholic that he or she needs to stop drinking. They can't. It is not in their power. It's foolish to preach against addiction. Instead, we should work for their deliverance.
The person who is addicted, like many people in a cycle of poverty, does not have the power in him or herself to change. I have heard stories from the 1800's and 1900's of people instantaneously freed from their addictions, stories of these "demons" instantaneously cast out. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to happen so much that way any more. People seem healed much more these days by a process. I personally don't know why things might have changed, although I have heard some say it is because we no longer expect instantaneous deliverance.
The key points, though, seem to be these. First, those enslaved to demons of various sorts cannot help themselves. If they are going to be delivered, it will take someone coming alongside them from the outside. Secondly, Jesus cares about them and wants to see them delivered, and we can be his agents of deliverance. Thirdly, the process of deliverance can differ from time to time and place to place, but we should be committed to it.
There are people with expertise in such things. We should not overestimate ourselves or our own abilities. God can work through anyone, but it would be senseless to let some messiah complex keep us from referring those in dire need to those with special knowledge and training. Human enslavement is pervasive and dire. Some have a special gift to minister to those who, more often than not, seem to return over and over to their chains. Yet we must always remember that Jesus died for them as well...
____________
What did Jesus' exorcist ministry mean? For one thing, it certainly fit well with his overall mission to "proclaim freedom for the prisoners... to set the oppressed free" (Luke 4:18). It fit with Jesus' mission to include all of Israel in the coming kingdom, not merely the privileged and "normal" of society. The good news was not just for their equivalent of the employed, middle class today.
As we saw in the previous chapter, Jesus did not come for the "healthy." His primary audience was those who were not currently included. Certainly those possessed by demons were an extreme example of people who were completely outside. They so just how far the good news could go.
When we look at applying these values today, we in the Western world do not often run into the demon possessed. For some, it is because we do not have the eyes to see them. For some, Satan has convinced us that it just doesn't happen any more. Yet even the Roman Catholic Church continues to have exorcists on hand. While every possible medical diagnosis is explored before turning in this direction, there is a recognition of a point where such explanations are exhausted.
But there are others on the edges of society to whom we are to bring God's love. The mentally ill and those whose minds are deteriorating in their older years come to mind. Society has always found it easy to forget such people and even has put such individuals to death in the past. Jesus' care for those possessed shows us that he would not only have noticed these sorts of people, but he would have focused on them more than the "normal" person with a comfortable life.
There are also all sorts of addictions to which we humans are prone. Drugs, alcohol, smoking quickly come to mind. Our enslavement can be more subtle but just as destructive. Addiction to possessions and material things has probably destroyed just as many homes and families as drinking has, with individuals getting themselves into levels of debt that eventually destroy them. A whole generation of young boys is sabotaging itself in gaming, unable to leave the screen in front of them, and in the process throwing out the very education and livelihood necessary to live. Right now, the continued existence of sex trafficking has powerfully been brought to our attention.
Attention to how Jesus approached demon possession is instructive of how we might approach addiction and enslavement today. Jesus did not preach against demon-possession, as if the individual possessed had a choice not to be possessed. In the same way, it would be foolish for us to preach to an alcoholic that he or she needs to stop drinking. They can't. It is not in their power. It's foolish to preach against addiction. Instead, we should work for their deliverance.
The person who is addicted, like many people in a cycle of poverty, does not have the power in him or herself to change. I have heard stories from the 1800's and 1900's of people instantaneously freed from their addictions, stories of these "demons" instantaneously cast out. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to happen so much that way any more. People seem healed much more these days by a process. I personally don't know why things might have changed, although I have heard some say it is because we no longer expect instantaneous deliverance.
The key points, though, seem to be these. First, those enslaved to demons of various sorts cannot help themselves. If they are going to be delivered, it will take someone coming alongside them from the outside. Secondly, Jesus cares about them and wants to see them delivered, and we can be his agents of deliverance. Thirdly, the process of deliverance can differ from time to time and place to place, but we should be committed to it.
There are people with expertise in such things. We should not overestimate ourselves or our own abilities. God can work through anyone, but it would be senseless to let some messiah complex keep us from referring those in dire need to those with special knowledge and training. Human enslavement is pervasive and dire. Some have a special gift to minister to those who, more often than not, seem to return over and over to their chains. Yet we must always remember that Jesus died for them as well...
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Exorcisms 6
... continued from here
________
Another activity that Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us about Jesus doing is casting out demons, exorcism. Not only did they bring Jesus the sick, but the demon possessed as well (e.g., Mark 1:32). Interestingly, this is one aspect of Jesus' earthly ministry that John tells us nothing about, but it permeates the synoptic gospels.
Situations in the gospels where people are possessed by spirits are different from those where they are healed of sickness. In almost every case, the evil spirits speak and they are beings distinct from the person whose body they inhabit. Jesus heals many people where no connection is made to an evil spirit, and most of the times where a demon is mentioned there is no clear physical sickness involved.
There are only a couple instances where we might wonder if something was described as demon possession that we might describe differently today. For example, on one occasion Jesus heals a man who was mute (Matt. 9:32-33). The demon does not speak. In another well known instance, a boy has symptoms that would make us think of epilepsy (Mark 9:17-20). The boy has seizures and foams at the mouth. Again, the demon does not speak.
The important point is that Jesus healed them more than their precise diagnosis. Were there instances where the people Jesus healed were schizophrenic rather than truly demon possessed? The reason I ask this question is because we know that there are people today who speak in voices who are mentally ill rather than demon possessed. At the same time, Christians in the two-thirds world continue to report numerous incidents of demon possession where people act in ways that seem well beyond normal schizophrenia.
We do not have to pick one or the other. We can believe both in schizophrenia and in demon possession. But we must be very careful. Very few if any individuals reading this blog are qualified to make this sort of diagnosis. Throughout history, numerous individuals have been put to death who were mentally ill rather than possessed.
We should exhaust every possible medical avenue before we conclude someone is possessed. We do not need to know exactly what is wrong with a person to pray for them, even to lay hands on them. God knows the precise diagnosis, and it is the Spirit who does the healing or performs the exorcism. This issue should not be something that causes you to have doubts, nor should we ever hesitate to pray for someone no matter what their problem...
________
Another activity that Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us about Jesus doing is casting out demons, exorcism. Not only did they bring Jesus the sick, but the demon possessed as well (e.g., Mark 1:32). Interestingly, this is one aspect of Jesus' earthly ministry that John tells us nothing about, but it permeates the synoptic gospels.
Situations in the gospels where people are possessed by spirits are different from those where they are healed of sickness. In almost every case, the evil spirits speak and they are beings distinct from the person whose body they inhabit. Jesus heals many people where no connection is made to an evil spirit, and most of the times where a demon is mentioned there is no clear physical sickness involved.
There are only a couple instances where we might wonder if something was described as demon possession that we might describe differently today. For example, on one occasion Jesus heals a man who was mute (Matt. 9:32-33). The demon does not speak. In another well known instance, a boy has symptoms that would make us think of epilepsy (Mark 9:17-20). The boy has seizures and foams at the mouth. Again, the demon does not speak.
The important point is that Jesus healed them more than their precise diagnosis. Were there instances where the people Jesus healed were schizophrenic rather than truly demon possessed? The reason I ask this question is because we know that there are people today who speak in voices who are mentally ill rather than demon possessed. At the same time, Christians in the two-thirds world continue to report numerous incidents of demon possession where people act in ways that seem well beyond normal schizophrenia.
We do not have to pick one or the other. We can believe both in schizophrenia and in demon possession. But we must be very careful. Very few if any individuals reading this blog are qualified to make this sort of diagnosis. Throughout history, numerous individuals have been put to death who were mentally ill rather than possessed.
We should exhaust every possible medical avenue before we conclude someone is possessed. We do not need to know exactly what is wrong with a person to pray for them, even to lay hands on them. God knows the precise diagnosis, and it is the Spirit who does the healing or performs the exorcism. This issue should not be something that causes you to have doubts, nor should we ever hesitate to pray for someone no matter what their problem...
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Moon colonies
I only intend to post on politics this year when it's clear I'm not going to offend anyone...
Let me just say how it warms my heart in so many ways to hear Newt Gingrich talk about a colony on the moon. First, I'd love to have a colony on the moon. Second, what a hilarious thing to say in a Republican presidential debate!
My heart was strangely warmed... ;-)
Let me just say how it warms my heart in so many ways to hear Newt Gingrich talk about a colony on the moon. First, I'd love to have a colony on the moon. Second, what a hilarious thing to say in a Republican presidential debate!
My heart was strangely warmed... ;-)
Friday, January 27, 2012
Science Friday: Evolution of Adam
Normally I want to post more pure science or culture on Friday, but since I haven't come to anything really interesting to me in the biography I'm reading about James Clerk Maxwell, I thought I would post about the introduction to the new book by Peter Enns I'm also reading, The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say about Human Origins.
This is going to be a hard book to read, not because Enns himself is caustic or confrontational. In fact, quite the opposite. I have been impressed with how sensitive and "exploratory" a tone he has adopted in this book. His evangelical background as an OT scholar comes through clearly, not as someone who has been burned (Westminster Theological Seminary effectively pushed him out, even if he did the resigning), not as someone bitter because they feel stupid from the past (very, very common). The tone is thoroughly respectful and truth seeking. It doesn't have the condescending tone Giberson and even Collins sometimes seem to have.
His audience is Christian, especially evangelicals, and especially American evangelicals. Yet he is also addressing those who believe evolution must be taken seriously. Respect of Scripture is a primary value, although he clarifies that "the most faithful, Christian reading of sacred Scripture is one that recognizes Scripture as a product of the times in which it was written and/or the events took place--not merely so, but unalterably so" (xi).
I will not debate this claim, although I think there may be more to Christian hermeneutics than the original meaning. Nevertheless, I agree it does no honor to the Bible to pretend that it meant something different than it did (even if I think there is room for self-consciously different readings).
In any case, the reason the book will be a hard read is because of his conclusion: "If evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word "historical," the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis, specifically 1:26-31 and 2:7,22" (xiv). In particular, he does not believe we should speculate about Adam in ways foreign to the original meaning of Genesis. For example, he will not let us say that Adam and Eve were the first two homo sapiens in which God put a soul because that is certainly not anything Genesis itself was thinking.
Enns does not believe, rightly I think, that Genesis is, in the end, the real point of conflict between evolution and the Bible. Paul is. He sees four options:
1. Accept evolution and reject Christianity (he will say no to this).
2. Accept Paul's view of Adam as binding and reject evolution (he will say no to this as well).
3. Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point in the evolutionary process (he thinks this doesn't respect Genesis enough in terms of its original meaning).
4. Rethink Genesis and Paul (clearly the option he believes has the most integrity).
So the book begins.
This is going to be a hard book to read, not because Enns himself is caustic or confrontational. In fact, quite the opposite. I have been impressed with how sensitive and "exploratory" a tone he has adopted in this book. His evangelical background as an OT scholar comes through clearly, not as someone who has been burned (Westminster Theological Seminary effectively pushed him out, even if he did the resigning), not as someone bitter because they feel stupid from the past (very, very common). The tone is thoroughly respectful and truth seeking. It doesn't have the condescending tone Giberson and even Collins sometimes seem to have.
His audience is Christian, especially evangelicals, and especially American evangelicals. Yet he is also addressing those who believe evolution must be taken seriously. Respect of Scripture is a primary value, although he clarifies that "the most faithful, Christian reading of sacred Scripture is one that recognizes Scripture as a product of the times in which it was written and/or the events took place--not merely so, but unalterably so" (xi).
I will not debate this claim, although I think there may be more to Christian hermeneutics than the original meaning. Nevertheless, I agree it does no honor to the Bible to pretend that it meant something different than it did (even if I think there is room for self-consciously different readings).
In any case, the reason the book will be a hard read is because of his conclusion: "If evolution is correct, one can no longer accept, in any true sense of the word "historical," the instantaneous and special creation of humanity described in Genesis, specifically 1:26-31 and 2:7,22" (xiv). In particular, he does not believe we should speculate about Adam in ways foreign to the original meaning of Genesis. For example, he will not let us say that Adam and Eve were the first two homo sapiens in which God put a soul because that is certainly not anything Genesis itself was thinking.
Enns does not believe, rightly I think, that Genesis is, in the end, the real point of conflict between evolution and the Bible. Paul is. He sees four options:
1. Accept evolution and reject Christianity (he will say no to this).
2. Accept Paul's view of Adam as binding and reject evolution (he will say no to this as well).
3. Reconcile evolution and Christianity by positing a first human pair (or group) at some point in the evolutionary process (he thinks this doesn't respect Genesis enough in terms of its original meaning).
4. Rethink Genesis and Paul (clearly the option he believes has the most integrity).
So the book begins.
Healing People 5
... continued from here.
___________
Another important aspect of Jesus' miracles is their purpose. Sure, Jesus' miracles reflected the power of God and God's approval of his mission. They showed his authority and power. But Jesus arguably did not primarily perform miracles to show off. Jesus performed miracles to help people.
In fact, Mark implies that many of Jesus' miracles happened after people brought those in need to Jesus. In other words, Jesus healed many in response to others who came to him with needs. A man with leprosy comes to Jesus (Mark 1:40). Some men dig open a roof to bring a paralyzed man to Jesus (Mark 2:4).
In one familiar story, Jesus is in a crowd and a woman manages to touch him and is healed of a bleeding problem (Mark 5:27-29). This story highlights another important element in Jesus' healing ministry. Healing usually was closely connected to the faith of the person healed. In this instance, Jesus doesn't even know who has just been healed. He just knows that someone has touched him (Mark 5:30).
Similarly, Jesus is not able to do many miracles in his home village of Nazareth because the people there do not have faith (Mark 6:5). This incident again highlights the fact that Jesus played by the human rules and healed in the way someone might heal today through the Spirit's power. In such instances, Jesus was more the catalyst for healing, the mediator in a transaction between the faith of the individual healed and the power of God to heal.
It seems hard today for Christians to find a balance on topics like healing. We as humans seem prone to extremes on every side. So there are some Christians and traditions that tend to deny the miraculous altogether. Even if Jesus did them, that was something just for their day. Others go to the other extreme and say that if you had enough faith, you would always be healed.
It is both dangerous and wrongheaded to think that you will always be healed if you have enough faith. God does not always heal. God did not remove Paul's thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7-10), perhaps eye problems of some sort. Paul leaves Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). The idea that healing is only a matter of faith has almost certainly kept individuals from seeking medical attention that might have otherwise saved their lives. It in effect tells God how he can heal and how he cannot.
It seems to me that we should stay somewhere in the middle. Miracles happen, however you want to define them. Perhaps God sometimes heals us through medicine. Perhaps God sometimes intervenes directly in our physical situations. We can be thankful either way, and we can be hopeful either way. Faith does make a difference. It is not closed minded to believe that miracles can happen, quite the opposite.
___________
Another important aspect of Jesus' miracles is their purpose. Sure, Jesus' miracles reflected the power of God and God's approval of his mission. They showed his authority and power. But Jesus arguably did not primarily perform miracles to show off. Jesus performed miracles to help people.
In fact, Mark implies that many of Jesus' miracles happened after people brought those in need to Jesus. In other words, Jesus healed many in response to others who came to him with needs. A man with leprosy comes to Jesus (Mark 1:40). Some men dig open a roof to bring a paralyzed man to Jesus (Mark 2:4).
In one familiar story, Jesus is in a crowd and a woman manages to touch him and is healed of a bleeding problem (Mark 5:27-29). This story highlights another important element in Jesus' healing ministry. Healing usually was closely connected to the faith of the person healed. In this instance, Jesus doesn't even know who has just been healed. He just knows that someone has touched him (Mark 5:30).
Similarly, Jesus is not able to do many miracles in his home village of Nazareth because the people there do not have faith (Mark 6:5). This incident again highlights the fact that Jesus played by the human rules and healed in the way someone might heal today through the Spirit's power. In such instances, Jesus was more the catalyst for healing, the mediator in a transaction between the faith of the individual healed and the power of God to heal.
It seems hard today for Christians to find a balance on topics like healing. We as humans seem prone to extremes on every side. So there are some Christians and traditions that tend to deny the miraculous altogether. Even if Jesus did them, that was something just for their day. Others go to the other extreme and say that if you had enough faith, you would always be healed.
It is both dangerous and wrongheaded to think that you will always be healed if you have enough faith. God does not always heal. God did not remove Paul's thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7-10), perhaps eye problems of some sort. Paul leaves Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). The idea that healing is only a matter of faith has almost certainly kept individuals from seeking medical attention that might have otherwise saved their lives. It in effect tells God how he can heal and how he cannot.
It seems to me that we should stay somewhere in the middle. Miracles happen, however you want to define them. Perhaps God sometimes heals us through medicine. Perhaps God sometimes intervenes directly in our physical situations. We can be thankful either way, and we can be hopeful either way. Faith does make a difference. It is not closed minded to believe that miracles can happen, quite the opposite.
Wine Making in Ancient Israel
Jim Davila of St. Andrews, Scotland, noticed this article in the Jerusalem Post today on wine and wine making in ancient Israel: http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/FoodAndWine/Article.aspx?id=255308
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Psalm 3 Translation
Psalm 1
Psalm 2
Now Psalm 3
______________
[A psalm attributed to David when he fled from the face of Absalom his son]
1 LORD, how are my troubles multiplying,
the multitudes of those rising against me!
2 Multitudes are saying of my person,
"There will be no help for him with God."
Music
3 But you, YHWH, [are] a shield for me,
my glory, and one who lifts up my head.
4 [With] my voice to YHWH I called,
and he answered me from the hill of his holiness.
Music
5 I myself lay down and slept.
I awoke because YHWH helped me.
6 I will not fear the multitudes of people
who surround and set themselves against me.
7 Arise, YHWH,
save me, O God,
for you strike all my enemies on the cheek,
the teeth of the wicked you shatter.
8 To YHWH is the salvation,
over your people, your blessing.
Music
_________
Not much to say about this psalm. The title was certainly not original, since David would not attribute a psalm to David. It is rather a context against which later readers read the psalm. We can read it that way, but we might also fruitfully read the psalm on its own terms.
No one knows what Selah meant, other than the fact that it was probably some sort of musical or reading instruction. I originally rendered it as "Pause," but have decided instead simply to put "Music."
Psalm 2
Now Psalm 3
______________
[A psalm attributed to David when he fled from the face of Absalom his son]
1 LORD, how are my troubles multiplying,
the multitudes of those rising against me!
2 Multitudes are saying of my person,
"There will be no help for him with God."
Music
3 But you, YHWH, [are] a shield for me,
my glory, and one who lifts up my head.
4 [With] my voice to YHWH I called,
and he answered me from the hill of his holiness.
Music
5 I myself lay down and slept.
I awoke because YHWH helped me.
6 I will not fear the multitudes of people
who surround and set themselves against me.
7 Arise, YHWH,
save me, O God,
for you strike all my enemies on the cheek,
the teeth of the wicked you shatter.
8 To YHWH is the salvation,
over your people, your blessing.
Music
_________
Not much to say about this psalm. The title was certainly not original, since David would not attribute a psalm to David. It is rather a context against which later readers read the psalm. We can read it that way, but we might also fruitfully read the psalm on its own terms.
No one knows what Selah meant, other than the fact that it was probably some sort of musical or reading instruction. I originally rendered it as "Pause," but have decided instead simply to put "Music."
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Biblical Relationships and Ancient Culture
Here's a 26 minute vidcast I created for our online Congregational Relationships class at Wesley.
http://www.screencast.com/t/mk8ObXZX1F
http://www.screencast.com/t/mk8ObXZX1F
Jesus' Humanity 4
continued again...
___________
... Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus. The wrong view of sin is the one that views sin in terms of absolute perfection against an absolute standard, as if God is a legalistic accountant of some kind.
Did Jesus ever accidentally "wrong" someone by forgetting to meet them at sunrise to fish on the Sea of Galilee? Did he make them wait? Obviously we don't know. But if he did, this is probably not what Hebrews had in mind when it said Jesus was without sin (Heb. 4:15). Paul does at some points at least seem to invoke an absolute standard in order to do away with it (e.g., Gal. 3:10), but this is not the primary standard of sin in Scripture--or within Judaism at the time.
The normal sense of sin was that of intentionally wronging God or another, intentional wrongdoing. This is surely the sense of sin that is primary in Scripture, and it is arguably this sense of sin that Paul had in mind when he said that Jesus "had no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). Arguably Jesus was a model for us in this sense of sin--that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can also follow Jesus' example. As 1 John 3:9 puts it: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them." This is not an expectation of absolute perfection. It is about being able to follow through with a heart that intends to do the right thing.
Can we do miracles today? The perspective of Scripture and Christian history gives a "yes" answer. From a Christian perspective, we live in the same part of history that Jesus inaugurated. Jesus may not appear to people in the same way today as he did the apostles. In that sense we can question whether there are any apostles today of the sort we find in the New Testament. But the Spirit has arguably continued to work miracles throughout history, and Christians believe we have that same Spirit today.
A person can both over- and under-emphasize such things. A person can miss opportunities because of a lack of faith, and a person can get preoccupied with "signs and wonders." Jesus flatly refused to do signs on demands. "No sign will be given," he flatly says at one point (Mark 8:12). Similarly, those who refuse obvious medical treatment arguably reject an offer of healing God has brought through a knowledge of his own creation.
The key is to recognize that Jesus' humanity was not only a true humanity, but a perfect indication of what humanity can be and was supposed to be. We should not read the story of Jesus as something beyond the reach of the rest of us through the power of the Spirit. And we should not idealize him in a way that takes him beyond the realm of true humanity...
___________
... Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus. The wrong view of sin is the one that views sin in terms of absolute perfection against an absolute standard, as if God is a legalistic accountant of some kind.
Did Jesus ever accidentally "wrong" someone by forgetting to meet them at sunrise to fish on the Sea of Galilee? Did he make them wait? Obviously we don't know. But if he did, this is probably not what Hebrews had in mind when it said Jesus was without sin (Heb. 4:15). Paul does at some points at least seem to invoke an absolute standard in order to do away with it (e.g., Gal. 3:10), but this is not the primary standard of sin in Scripture--or within Judaism at the time.
The normal sense of sin was that of intentionally wronging God or another, intentional wrongdoing. This is surely the sense of sin that is primary in Scripture, and it is arguably this sense of sin that Paul had in mind when he said that Jesus "had no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). Arguably Jesus was a model for us in this sense of sin--that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can also follow Jesus' example. As 1 John 3:9 puts it: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them." This is not an expectation of absolute perfection. It is about being able to follow through with a heart that intends to do the right thing.
Can we do miracles today? The perspective of Scripture and Christian history gives a "yes" answer. From a Christian perspective, we live in the same part of history that Jesus inaugurated. Jesus may not appear to people in the same way today as he did the apostles. In that sense we can question whether there are any apostles today of the sort we find in the New Testament. But the Spirit has arguably continued to work miracles throughout history, and Christians believe we have that same Spirit today.
A person can both over- and under-emphasize such things. A person can miss opportunities because of a lack of faith, and a person can get preoccupied with "signs and wonders." Jesus flatly refused to do signs on demands. "No sign will be given," he flatly says at one point (Mark 8:12). Similarly, those who refuse obvious medical treatment arguably reject an offer of healing God has brought through a knowledge of his own creation.
The key is to recognize that Jesus' humanity was not only a true humanity, but a perfect indication of what humanity can be and was supposed to be. We should not read the story of Jesus as something beyond the reach of the rest of us through the power of the Spirit. And we should not idealize him in a way that takes him beyond the realm of true humanity...
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Miracles Today? 3
... continued from yesterday.
______________
There were others both in the Jewish and Roman world who were thought to perform miracles. This is a significant thing to know if we are to see Jesus as they saw Jesus. No one would have assumed that Jesus was God or a god simply because he performed miracles. Judaism had its own stories of individuals past and present who could do wonders. Not only were there the prophets of the past in the Bible, but such people popped up from time to time in Israel as well.
One such individual was Honi "the circle drawer," who lived some time before the Romans took over Israel in 63BC. [1] He was famous for drawing a circle during a time of drought and standing in it to pray for rain. Although he was going to stay in it until God answered prayer, it rained almost immediately. Hanina ben Dosa was also known for his ability to work miracles, and he came from Galilee in the period perhaps just after Jesus. Like Jesus, he is known for healing from a distance and having authority over evil spirits causing sickness.
And it is significant that more than one New Testament book frames Jesus' miracles in terms of the power of the Holy Spirit working through him. Jesus was "a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him"(Acts 2:22). Something arguably happens to Jesus both after the Spirit descends on him at the river Jordan and after his temptation in the desert--he returns to Galilee "in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:14). Even after he dies on the cross, both Acts and Paul word the event of Jesus' resurrection in terms of God's power: "God raised him from the dead" (e.g., Acts 2:24).
There is probably a subtle message for us here, namely, that Jesus did not merely show us God's power while he was on earth. Jesus arguably modeled what any believer can be or do by the power of the Holy Spirit, from his power to do miracles to his power not to sin. We are forced to go a little beyond what the biblical text says to take a position on such questions, but we can make some reasonable suggestions nonetheless.
So Christians believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. We do not believe he was half man and half God. And from a historical perspective, Christians clearly understood his humanness long before they worked out the details of his divinity. Up until the year 400, many Christians still believed that Jesus was the first creation God made rather than him being fully God.
So it is no stretch to suggest that, while we believe Jesus was fully God from eternity past, he played it by the human rules while he was on earth. In other words, he lived in such a way as to show us what humanity could be. It should not be odd to suggest that, through the Spirit, we can do miracles today like the ones Jesus did then. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples in John 14:12 that they will do even greater miracles than he did. He himself will empower them.
Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus...
[1] I first learned about Honi from a book on Jesus written from a Jewish perspective, Geza Vermes' Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1983), 69-72. See also his material on Hanina ben Dosa, pp. 72-78.
______________
There were others both in the Jewish and Roman world who were thought to perform miracles. This is a significant thing to know if we are to see Jesus as they saw Jesus. No one would have assumed that Jesus was God or a god simply because he performed miracles. Judaism had its own stories of individuals past and present who could do wonders. Not only were there the prophets of the past in the Bible, but such people popped up from time to time in Israel as well.
One such individual was Honi "the circle drawer," who lived some time before the Romans took over Israel in 63BC. [1] He was famous for drawing a circle during a time of drought and standing in it to pray for rain. Although he was going to stay in it until God answered prayer, it rained almost immediately. Hanina ben Dosa was also known for his ability to work miracles, and he came from Galilee in the period perhaps just after Jesus. Like Jesus, he is known for healing from a distance and having authority over evil spirits causing sickness.
And it is significant that more than one New Testament book frames Jesus' miracles in terms of the power of the Holy Spirit working through him. Jesus was "a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him"(Acts 2:22). Something arguably happens to Jesus both after the Spirit descends on him at the river Jordan and after his temptation in the desert--he returns to Galilee "in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:14). Even after he dies on the cross, both Acts and Paul word the event of Jesus' resurrection in terms of God's power: "God raised him from the dead" (e.g., Acts 2:24).
There is probably a subtle message for us here, namely, that Jesus did not merely show us God's power while he was on earth. Jesus arguably modeled what any believer can be or do by the power of the Holy Spirit, from his power to do miracles to his power not to sin. We are forced to go a little beyond what the biblical text says to take a position on such questions, but we can make some reasonable suggestions nonetheless.
So Christians believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. We do not believe he was half man and half God. And from a historical perspective, Christians clearly understood his humanness long before they worked out the details of his divinity. Up until the year 400, many Christians still believed that Jesus was the first creation God made rather than him being fully God.
So it is no stretch to suggest that, while we believe Jesus was fully God from eternity past, he played it by the human rules while he was on earth. In other words, he lived in such a way as to show us what humanity could be. It should not be odd to suggest that, through the Spirit, we can do miracles today like the ones Jesus did then. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples in John 14:12 that they will do even greater miracles than he did. He himself will empower them.
Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus...
[1] I first learned about Honi from a book on Jesus written from a Jewish perspective, Geza Vermes' Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1983), 69-72. See also his material on Hanina ben Dosa, pp. 72-78.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Jim Luttrull on Justice, Recidivism
Heard Jim Luttrell, Grant County Prosecutor, talk today at IWU about the question of what the primary element should be in determining the punishment for a crime. It was a wonderful dip into the complexity of such issues. In ethics we cover the four key factors in making moral determinations: 1) the act itself, 2) the consequences of the act, 3) motive, and 4) character. All of them surfaced at some point in his presentation.
But the main issue he was addressing is the question of justice oriented punishment versus punishment based on likely recidivism, likely repeat offense. There is a significant trend in many judicial circles to see the reform of the criminal as the primary factor in sentencing. Jim clearly senses this is a mistake, although I don't think his presentation aimed to be a straightforward argument.
But I strongly resonate with his sense that the starting point for sentencing should be justice. I also agree with him that "mitigating circumstances" should focus on motive and intent in conjunction with criminal acts, not on likely recidivism. But these are clearly very complex issues that involve multiple variables, all of which have their place.
Luttrell would agree.
But the main issue he was addressing is the question of justice oriented punishment versus punishment based on likely recidivism, likely repeat offense. There is a significant trend in many judicial circles to see the reform of the criminal as the primary factor in sentencing. Jim clearly senses this is a mistake, although I don't think his presentation aimed to be a straightforward argument.
But I strongly resonate with his sense that the starting point for sentencing should be justice. I also agree with him that "mitigating circumstances" should focus on motive and intent in conjunction with criminal acts, not on likely recidivism. But these are clearly very complex issues that involve multiple variables, all of which have their place.
Luttrell would agree.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
What is a Miracle 2
continued from yesterday
_______
... Most of Jesus' miracles had to do with people. In itself, this is a key insight. Sure, he walked on water (Mark 6:47-50; Matt. 14:25-33; John 6:16-21). He calmed storms (Mark 4:35-40; Matt. 8:23-27; Luke 8:22-25). He multiplied bread and fish (Mark 6:30-44; Matt. 14:13-21; John 6:1-13). Such events tell us that Jesus had power over what we think of as "nature."
And perhaps it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is a fairly recent one. It has only been since the rise of science in the 1600's that Western culture came to draw a sharp distinction between events that follow the "laws of nature" and events we might call miracles or the supernatural. Even just 500 years ago, Martin Luther--the one who started Protestantism--still thought of storms as God expressing his anger rather than the result of high and low pressure systems meeting, the exchange of electricity from one polarity to another, and so forth.
We have come to define a miracle as a divine intervention into the natural sequence of events that would have happened in the normal flow of causes and effects following the rules of science. In Jesus' day, they thought spiritual forces were constantly causing things. They did not think in terms of nature following rules like a machine. When the sailors on Jonah's boat encountered the storm, they figured someone on board had ticked off his god.
Today we would give thanks to God not only for the inexplicable but for what seems explicable as well. Sometimes doctors do surgery and it works. Sometimes we take medicine and it works. Sometimes we undergo chemotherapy, and it works. In such situations, is usually impossible for us to know where the hands of science and any direct intervention of God begin and end, but we are thankful nonetheless. God created the science.
Some Christians have a sense that God directs the minutest details of how such things turn out. I personally think that we must keep God distinct in our minds from his creation. Otherwise, we will have to explain how a God who says he is love causes so many bad things to happen. It is much easier to think that God allows many bad things to happen but that he has given his creation rules and largely allowed it to continue on its own path of cause and effect. God sees, God knows, God allows. Sometimes God intervenes. But he is not directly responsible for all the pain, evil, and suffering that happen in the world.
So our sense that Jesus could do things that do not follow the laws of nature is a fairly modern way of looking at them. For them, he was able to do the kinds of wonders that God, angels, demons, and Satan did. Jesus' enemies claimed that he took some of his powers from Satan (e.g., Mark 3:22). Others clearly thought he received his powers from God (e.g., John 3:2).
There were others both in the Jewish and Roman world who were thought to perform miracles...
_______
... Most of Jesus' miracles had to do with people. In itself, this is a key insight. Sure, he walked on water (Mark 6:47-50; Matt. 14:25-33; John 6:16-21). He calmed storms (Mark 4:35-40; Matt. 8:23-27; Luke 8:22-25). He multiplied bread and fish (Mark 6:30-44; Matt. 14:13-21; John 6:1-13). Such events tell us that Jesus had power over what we think of as "nature."
And perhaps it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is a fairly recent one. It has only been since the rise of science in the 1600's that Western culture came to draw a sharp distinction between events that follow the "laws of nature" and events we might call miracles or the supernatural. Even just 500 years ago, Martin Luther--the one who started Protestantism--still thought of storms as God expressing his anger rather than the result of high and low pressure systems meeting, the exchange of electricity from one polarity to another, and so forth.
We have come to define a miracle as a divine intervention into the natural sequence of events that would have happened in the normal flow of causes and effects following the rules of science. In Jesus' day, they thought spiritual forces were constantly causing things. They did not think in terms of nature following rules like a machine. When the sailors on Jonah's boat encountered the storm, they figured someone on board had ticked off his god.
Today we would give thanks to God not only for the inexplicable but for what seems explicable as well. Sometimes doctors do surgery and it works. Sometimes we take medicine and it works. Sometimes we undergo chemotherapy, and it works. In such situations, is usually impossible for us to know where the hands of science and any direct intervention of God begin and end, but we are thankful nonetheless. God created the science.
Some Christians have a sense that God directs the minutest details of how such things turn out. I personally think that we must keep God distinct in our minds from his creation. Otherwise, we will have to explain how a God who says he is love causes so many bad things to happen. It is much easier to think that God allows many bad things to happen but that he has given his creation rules and largely allowed it to continue on its own path of cause and effect. God sees, God knows, God allows. Sometimes God intervenes. But he is not directly responsible for all the pain, evil, and suffering that happen in the world.
So our sense that Jesus could do things that do not follow the laws of nature is a fairly modern way of looking at them. For them, he was able to do the kinds of wonders that God, angels, demons, and Satan did. Jesus' enemies claimed that he took some of his powers from Satan (e.g., Mark 3:22). Others clearly thought he received his powers from God (e.g., John 3:2).
There were others both in the Jewish and Roman world who were thought to perform miracles...
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Jesus and Miracles 1
Returning to writing on Jesus. I'm thinking this might be chapter 3.
___________
Herod Antipas, son of the notorious Herod the Great, threw John the Baptist into prison, no doubt recognizing the political danger his movement represented. From the location John baptized to the very notion of what a messiah is, John's preaching shouted revolution. It said, God is about to conquer the land and place his king in control. Repent of your sins and wash yourselves, because judgment is coming on those who are not ready for a restored and purified kingdom.
If we forget Luke 1 for a minute, we would read Luke 7 and Matthew 11 easily enough. John the Baptist is in prison and hears about what Jesus is doing. He sends some of his followers to Jesus to ask if Jesus is the coming messiah or if they should continue to look for someone else. The complication comes if John already knows Jesus, either because he is his relative or because of the Spirit at Jesus' baptism. [1]
What is more important is Jesus' response to John's followers. What are the signs that Jesus is the messiah, the coming king? He is healing the blind and the lame. Lepers are cleansed. The deaf hear. The dead are raised, and he is preaching good news to the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22).
Miracles were clearly a key element of Jesus' brief ministry in Galilee. This memory is so strong in all the traces Jesus has left on history that even historians who don't believe in miracles generally accept that Jesus at least seemed to perform them--a lot of them. Mark 1:32-34 summarizes Jesus' activities like this: "That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was."
Jesus apparently did most of his miracles in the far north, north of the Sea of Galilee. Matthew 11 tells us that "Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.'"(Matt. 11:20-21). These are very interesting comments, since none of the gospels really tell us about any of these miracles. It's also interesting that miracles don't necessarily convince others, even though you would think they would.
[map]
Most of Jesus' miracles had to do with people...
[1] Thus the speculation of some that John was helping his own followers discover who Jesus was and of others that Jesus wasn't doing the things John expected the messiah to do.
___________
Herod Antipas, son of the notorious Herod the Great, threw John the Baptist into prison, no doubt recognizing the political danger his movement represented. From the location John baptized to the very notion of what a messiah is, John's preaching shouted revolution. It said, God is about to conquer the land and place his king in control. Repent of your sins and wash yourselves, because judgment is coming on those who are not ready for a restored and purified kingdom.
If we forget Luke 1 for a minute, we would read Luke 7 and Matthew 11 easily enough. John the Baptist is in prison and hears about what Jesus is doing. He sends some of his followers to Jesus to ask if Jesus is the coming messiah or if they should continue to look for someone else. The complication comes if John already knows Jesus, either because he is his relative or because of the Spirit at Jesus' baptism. [1]
What is more important is Jesus' response to John's followers. What are the signs that Jesus is the messiah, the coming king? He is healing the blind and the lame. Lepers are cleansed. The deaf hear. The dead are raised, and he is preaching good news to the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22).
Miracles were clearly a key element of Jesus' brief ministry in Galilee. This memory is so strong in all the traces Jesus has left on history that even historians who don't believe in miracles generally accept that Jesus at least seemed to perform them--a lot of them. Mark 1:32-34 summarizes Jesus' activities like this: "That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was."
Jesus apparently did most of his miracles in the far north, north of the Sea of Galilee. Matthew 11 tells us that "Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.'"(Matt. 11:20-21). These are very interesting comments, since none of the gospels really tell us about any of these miracles. It's also interesting that miracles don't necessarily convince others, even though you would think they would.
[map]
Most of Jesus' miracles had to do with people...
[1] Thus the speculation of some that John was helping his own followers discover who Jesus was and of others that Jesus wasn't doing the things John expected the messiah to do.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Science Friday: Maxwell
I have been reading from a biography of James Clerk Maxwell. He was by most accounts the most important scientist of the 1800's, whose work with electricity and magnetism more than anyone else opened the door for the radio, television, cell phones, etc. The book I'm reading is The Man Who Changed Everything.
Unfortunately, today I have little to say but that I am giving notice that I'm reading the book. I'm up to about the point where he goes to college. He's about 16 and has had a paper presented for him (he wasn't considered old enough to read it himself) on making ellipse shapes in new ways by tying the strings around the foci differently.
The author, Basil Mahon's style gnaws at me a little because it reminds me of a certain style that is too flattering. In ancient biography, for example, there was a sense that if a person became great, there must have been great signs of this destiny in childhood. Mahon just feels like he's grasping at greatness in childhood sometimes, maybe even glossing over weaknesses.
We all know Maxwell turned out to be brilliant and a nice guy. That doesn't mean he had to be perfect or great as a child. He sounds like a fairly normal, upper class Scottish kid of the time to me.
Unfortunately, today I have little to say but that I am giving notice that I'm reading the book. I'm up to about the point where he goes to college. He's about 16 and has had a paper presented for him (he wasn't considered old enough to read it himself) on making ellipse shapes in new ways by tying the strings around the foci differently.
The author, Basil Mahon's style gnaws at me a little because it reminds me of a certain style that is too flattering. In ancient biography, for example, there was a sense that if a person became great, there must have been great signs of this destiny in childhood. Mahon just feels like he's grasping at greatness in childhood sometimes, maybe even glossing over weaknesses.
We all know Maxwell turned out to be brilliant and a nice guy. That doesn't mean he had to be perfect or great as a child. He sounds like a fairly normal, upper class Scottish kid of the time to me.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Oldest fragment of Romans?
John Byron over at The Biblical World has drawn our attention to a CNN clip with Steve Green of Hobby Lobby presenting some of the manuscripts of his collection including a fragment of Romans that Scott Carroll dates to the mid-second century. That would be about 50 years earlier than the Chester Beatty papyrus p46 (ca. AD200) and would thus be the oldest fragment of Romans to date (about the size of the oldest NT manuscript of all, p52 of John, which dates to about AD125).
IWU's Jerry Pattengale is heavily involved in the administration of the Green Collection as well, and Green is the principal donor for Wesley Seminary's upcoming new building.
IWU's Jerry Pattengale is heavily involved in the administration of the Green Collection as well, and Green is the principal donor for Wesley Seminary's upcoming new building.
Faith in Jesus/Faith of Jesus
Dave Larsen asked me on Twitter where I stood on the "faith in Jesus"/"faith of Jesus" debate but realized 140 characters might not do it. Frankly, there's no silver bullet so several books wouldn't do it. Here's the skinny on my thoughts.
1. First, most probably don't even know what we're talking about. In a number of key places in Paul, the literal expression Paul uses is "faith of Jesus Christ," even though most translations thus far have translated it "faith in Jesus Christ." Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16, 20 are a couple for starters.
2. I believe that in most of Paul's discussion in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3, as well as verses like Rom. 3:28, Paul has human faith in view. These are not places where he uses the expression "faith of Jesus" but speaks of faith in general as the mechanism of justification. However, such faith is primarily directed toward God, not Jesus (e.g., Rom. 4:17).
I disagree with Wright that faith is a "badge" of membership in God's people for Paul. I wrestled with this for a good long while. What is Wright saying? He's so smart and deep. As has happened with many such things I have struggled with, I finally decided the problem was not that I was stupid but that Wright (in this case) is just wrong. He's a Reformed Anglican and Paul isn't. Faith is a mechanism of justification for Paul, despite later debates about monergism, synergism, etc.
I might add, however, that I agree with Wright on many other things.
3. Romans 5:19 and Luke Timothy Johnson gnawed at me for a good long while. The language is almost exactly parallel to Romans 3:22. Obedience of one man is similar to what the faith of Jesus would mean. Many will be made righteous is pretty much the same as to be justified (same exact word). Strangely, 2 Corinthians 4:13 pushed me over the edge and I have an article in CBQ about it. The train of thought makes most sense if Paul there speaks of our faith imitating the faith of Jesus.
4. So my hunch is that the "faithfulness of Jesus" was a tradition of the earliest church coming out of Jerusalem. Paul seems to use the phrase, "through the faith of Jesus Christ" in a formulaic way, as if he is presenting tradition. And my sense of the development of early Christian soteriology, the topic I started writing on during my sabbatical, sees this phrase as corresponding directly to the earliest understandings of Jesus' death--the death of a righteous person that satisfies God's wrath toward Israel and thus catalyzes Israel's redemption from enslavement. As Philippians 2 puts it, "obedience to the death," the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" that is an atoning sacrifice. On that half I agree with Hays.
5. But I agree with Dunn that Paul quickly moves to our faith... in God though more than in Christ. Paul does have a place for faith in Christ in his theology (e.g., Rom. 9:33) but it is subsidiary to faith in God. I've argued that he may exploit the ambiguity of the phrase "faith of Christ" to move from what traditionally referred to Jesus' faithfulness to his emphasis on the necessity of our faith.
As I put it in the article, Paul moves "from Hays to Dunn," "from faith to faith." This is a very complex argument and unprovable, but it makes sense of all the data in an elegant way, in my opinion.
1. First, most probably don't even know what we're talking about. In a number of key places in Paul, the literal expression Paul uses is "faith of Jesus Christ," even though most translations thus far have translated it "faith in Jesus Christ." Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16, 20 are a couple for starters.
2. I believe that in most of Paul's discussion in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3, as well as verses like Rom. 3:28, Paul has human faith in view. These are not places where he uses the expression "faith of Jesus" but speaks of faith in general as the mechanism of justification. However, such faith is primarily directed toward God, not Jesus (e.g., Rom. 4:17).
I disagree with Wright that faith is a "badge" of membership in God's people for Paul. I wrestled with this for a good long while. What is Wright saying? He's so smart and deep. As has happened with many such things I have struggled with, I finally decided the problem was not that I was stupid but that Wright (in this case) is just wrong. He's a Reformed Anglican and Paul isn't. Faith is a mechanism of justification for Paul, despite later debates about monergism, synergism, etc.
I might add, however, that I agree with Wright on many other things.
3. Romans 5:19 and Luke Timothy Johnson gnawed at me for a good long while. The language is almost exactly parallel to Romans 3:22. Obedience of one man is similar to what the faith of Jesus would mean. Many will be made righteous is pretty much the same as to be justified (same exact word). Strangely, 2 Corinthians 4:13 pushed me over the edge and I have an article in CBQ about it. The train of thought makes most sense if Paul there speaks of our faith imitating the faith of Jesus.
4. So my hunch is that the "faithfulness of Jesus" was a tradition of the earliest church coming out of Jerusalem. Paul seems to use the phrase, "through the faith of Jesus Christ" in a formulaic way, as if he is presenting tradition. And my sense of the development of early Christian soteriology, the topic I started writing on during my sabbatical, sees this phrase as corresponding directly to the earliest understandings of Jesus' death--the death of a righteous person that satisfies God's wrath toward Israel and thus catalyzes Israel's redemption from enslavement. As Philippians 2 puts it, "obedience to the death," the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" that is an atoning sacrifice. On that half I agree with Hays.
5. But I agree with Dunn that Paul quickly moves to our faith... in God though more than in Christ. Paul does have a place for faith in Christ in his theology (e.g., Rom. 9:33) but it is subsidiary to faith in God. I've argued that he may exploit the ambiguity of the phrase "faith of Christ" to move from what traditionally referred to Jesus' faithfulness to his emphasis on the necessity of our faith.
As I put it in the article, Paul moves "from Hays to Dunn," "from faith to faith." This is a very complex argument and unprovable, but it makes sense of all the data in an elegant way, in my opinion.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Psalm 2 translation
My translation of Psalm 2 is now finished (see Psalm 1):
1 Why are nations in an uproar
and peoples contemplating pointlessness?
2 Kings of the land seat themselves
and princes are conferring together
against YHWH and against his anointed.
3 "Let us break apart their bonds
and let us throw from us their ropes."
4 The one who sits in the skies will laugh,
the master will make fun of them.
5 Then he will speak to them with his nose [i.e., in his anger]
and with his burning he will make them terrified.
6 "But I myself have anointed my king upon Zion, hill of my holiness.
7 Let me pronounce a decree,"
says YHWH to me.
"My Son [are] you.
I today have given birth to you.
8 Ask from me, and let me give the nations as your inheritance,
and as your possession, the ends of the earth.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron,
like a vessel of a potter, you will shatter them."
10 But now, kings, be wise;
receive correction, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve YHWH with fear
and shake with trembling
12 Kiss the Son so he will not huff his nose [i.e., be angry]
and you perish from the way,
For his fury burns quickly.
Blessed are all who flee to him.
__________
This of course was originally a psalm in honor of the king of Judah and thus must date to the period of the monarchy (pre-586BC). Some think it is an enthronement psalm, a psalm sung when a king of Judah was anointed as king. Thus "I today have given birth to you."
The NT of course then applies the verse with a secondary meaning to Christ's enthronement to God's right hand when he is exalted after the resurrection. The NT of course does not show interest in the whole psalm but only in the part it relates to Jesus (2:7-8). We cannot prove or disprove whether they also related the "breaking with a rod" parts to Jesus' second coming, although it is possible.
1 Why are nations in an uproar
and peoples contemplating pointlessness?
2 Kings of the land seat themselves
and princes are conferring together
against YHWH and against his anointed.
3 "Let us break apart their bonds
and let us throw from us their ropes."
4 The one who sits in the skies will laugh,
the master will make fun of them.
5 Then he will speak to them with his nose [i.e., in his anger]
and with his burning he will make them terrified.
6 "But I myself have anointed my king upon Zion, hill of my holiness.
7 Let me pronounce a decree,"
says YHWH to me.
"My Son [are] you.
I today have given birth to you.
8 Ask from me, and let me give the nations as your inheritance,
and as your possession, the ends of the earth.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron,
like a vessel of a potter, you will shatter them."
10 But now, kings, be wise;
receive correction, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve YHWH with fear
and shake with trembling
12 Kiss the Son so he will not huff his nose [i.e., be angry]
and you perish from the way,
For his fury burns quickly.
Blessed are all who flee to him.
__________
This of course was originally a psalm in honor of the king of Judah and thus must date to the period of the monarchy (pre-586BC). Some think it is an enthronement psalm, a psalm sung when a king of Judah was anointed as king. Thus "I today have given birth to you."
The NT of course then applies the verse with a secondary meaning to Christ's enthronement to God's right hand when he is exalted after the resurrection. The NT of course does not show interest in the whole psalm but only in the part it relates to Jesus (2:7-8). We cannot prove or disprove whether they also related the "breaking with a rod" parts to Jesus' second coming, although it is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
