I received a desk copy of the long anticipated Inductive Bible Study, the updated and expanded version of the late Robert Traina's earlier Methodical Bible Study, edited and expanded in conjunction with David Bauer, who was my primary mentor at Asbury.
In my mind, this should replace any seminary using Grant Osborne's Hermeneutical Spiral for its inductive Bible course. I thumbed through the book and found the familiar strengths of the IBS method they teach at Asbury with the distinctive style of David Bauer. David and Traina worked out the revision just before Traina passed away last year.
I'll have to carefully consider whether to adopt it as the standard of Wesley Seminary. It seems to me now to be the best book of its kind, and I think our adoption of it may be inevitable. The problem of the book relates directly to Dr. Bauer and Traina's great strength. They are so methodical. On the one hand, make no mistake, this version is much better than Traina's original, in my opinion. I just wish I could chop out about a fourth of it where Bauer's predilection for filling in every logical blank has taken over.
Some of you will know that I wrote a little book called Making Sense of God's Word. It is basically the Reader's Digest version of this new book. But my book does not put enough flesh on inductive method for a full seminary consideration.
Baker, I may be contacting you soon for permission to translate that 3/4 part into Spanish for our Spanish MDIV ;-)
Friday, April 29, 2011
Hebrews 1:1-4 (CEB, Wesley Study Bible)
Over the course of the summer, I hope to work through the new Common English Bible (CEB) translation of Hebrews, as well as the notes for the NRSV Wesley Study Bible on Hebrews. So since I didn't have any juicy comments to say about politics or Rob Bell today, I thought I would post on the much less popular topic of the Bible (I've been surprised at the massive spike in readership to my blog these last couple days ;-)
CEB
1:2--"in these final days"
This is a fairly good equivalent to the literal expression, "in these last days" which echoes Jeremiah 31.
1:3--"The Son is the light of God's glory"
I suppose most interpreters go with "radiance" as the connotation of the word here. The interesting thing, though, is that the parallel, "imprint," fits much better with another possible translation of the word, namely, "reflection."
1:3--"He maintains everything with his powerful message"
Interesting choice. Some sort of spoken word seems to be pictured. I'll have to think if I like "message" as a translation.
1:4--Christ became greater than other messengers, such as angels.
Very interesting. I'm not sure that the author at this point of the sermon had any messengers other than angels in view. It is an interesting take, though, that fits with an introduction that speaks of various ways God has spoken in the past. But I often think that interpreters see more profundity in passages than the original author's meant. This quote of Udo Schnelle pointed out by Nijay Gupta struck me that way.
I feel that way sometimes about interpretations by people like N. T. Wright and Richard Hays. I used to think, man they see so much depth that I didn't see. I'm so stupid. Now I think. That's deep and you are really smart, guys. But Paul wouldn't know what you were talking about. Be honest that you're playing a theological descant that transcends the original meaning.
Wesley Study Bible
Very nice and succinct words on this opening to the sermon. deSilva (I think) gives the main point--the accomplishment of purification. He gives the clear contrast between the many revelations before and the unique revelation now in Christ. He mentions the intriguing allusion to Christ as Wisdom. Perhaps it is wise that he does not try to explore what that allusion might mean. I certainly have ideas, but one will not find any consensus here.
CEB
1:2--"in these final days"
This is a fairly good equivalent to the literal expression, "in these last days" which echoes Jeremiah 31.
1:3--"The Son is the light of God's glory"
I suppose most interpreters go with "radiance" as the connotation of the word here. The interesting thing, though, is that the parallel, "imprint," fits much better with another possible translation of the word, namely, "reflection."
1:3--"He maintains everything with his powerful message"
Interesting choice. Some sort of spoken word seems to be pictured. I'll have to think if I like "message" as a translation.
1:4--Christ became greater than other messengers, such as angels.
Very interesting. I'm not sure that the author at this point of the sermon had any messengers other than angels in view. It is an interesting take, though, that fits with an introduction that speaks of various ways God has spoken in the past. But I often think that interpreters see more profundity in passages than the original author's meant. This quote of Udo Schnelle pointed out by Nijay Gupta struck me that way.
I feel that way sometimes about interpretations by people like N. T. Wright and Richard Hays. I used to think, man they see so much depth that I didn't see. I'm so stupid. Now I think. That's deep and you are really smart, guys. But Paul wouldn't know what you were talking about. Be honest that you're playing a theological descant that transcends the original meaning.
Wesley Study Bible
Very nice and succinct words on this opening to the sermon. deSilva (I think) gives the main point--the accomplishment of purification. He gives the clear contrast between the many revelations before and the unique revelation now in Christ. He mentions the intriguing allusion to Christ as Wisdom. Perhaps it is wise that he does not try to explore what that allusion might mean. I certainly have ideas, but one will not find any consensus here.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Remembering England...
I'm not really into the royal wedding. I'm sure I'll see it tomorrow morning because my wife Angela will watch it. I was watching a picture of Westminster Abbey on the news this morning and it brought back memories. I did my doctorate at Durham in the north, so I went to London every time I flew in and out of the country for those three years.
Like most of life looking back, those were wonderful days, despite their challenges. Seeing Westminster cued my first real visit to England to interview for a position as a residential tutor (RD) at St. John's College in Durham. On my way back I walked from the Tower of London all the way to Buckingham Palace in an afternoon. Back then, my first time in a city like that imprinted the city on my young 26 year old brain. The setting this morning of Westminster brought back vivid memories.
It was a great time of life. I was in grad school, so all I had to worry about was what God thought about issues, not what ye old scallywags out there thought (you know who you are ;-). I was in another country, which brought the stimulation of thinking about the world in completely new ways and seeing my country from the outside. I was around experts the likes of which many could not even imagine. It was the privilege of feeling stupid every day.
So be young if you are young. Soak up life and the unprecedented opportunities of youth.
Like most of life looking back, those were wonderful days, despite their challenges. Seeing Westminster cued my first real visit to England to interview for a position as a residential tutor (RD) at St. John's College in Durham. On my way back I walked from the Tower of London all the way to Buckingham Palace in an afternoon. Back then, my first time in a city like that imprinted the city on my young 26 year old brain. The setting this morning of Westminster brought back vivid memories.
It was a great time of life. I was in grad school, so all I had to worry about was what God thought about issues, not what ye old scallywags out there thought (you know who you are ;-). I was in another country, which brought the stimulation of thinking about the world in completely new ways and seeing my country from the outside. I was around experts the likes of which many could not even imagine. It was the privilege of feeling stupid every day.
So be young if you are young. Soak up life and the unprecedented opportunities of youth.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Birtherism, Racism, and Xenophobia...
Given that no one has ever asked any other president to produce his birth certificate, is it really possible to explain the birther phenomenon apart from a conscious or subconscious element of racism and/or xenophobia? I pose it as an honest question, but I sincerely have not been able to come up with any likely answer other than yes.
I am long convinced that most of us do not believe what we believe because of evidence or a real interest in the objective truth. We believe what we believe overwhelmingly because we want to believe certain things. Only someone who is willing to change his or her opinion given reasonable evidence is really interested in the truth. This more than anything else is what education is supposed to teach you.
I am long convinced that most of us do not believe what we believe because of evidence or a real interest in the objective truth. We believe what we believe overwhelmingly because we want to believe certain things. Only someone who is willing to change his or her opinion given reasonable evidence is really interested in the truth. This more than anything else is what education is supposed to teach you.
Rob Bell's Love Wins
I don't know if I'll get around to reviewing Rob Bell's controversial book Love Wins. As most of you probably know, he's accused of universalism (the view that everyone goes to heaven/will be in the kingdom of God). He has provided a target for those who have had a gnawing feeling that younger Christians have no real sense of hell. In a video, Bell has explicitly acknowledged belief in hell.
They're calling it neo-universalism and I believe it is a clear cultural trend especially among younger Christians. Bell is simply capturing the trend and giving opposition a target. If there proves to be demand, I can still read through the book later, but since Scot McKnight has already done it, I thought I would pass on his review for now:
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
One word to Wesleyans. Because we are a heart-oriented tradition, we often let others do the thinking for us. In good frontier spirit, we even make fun of scholars and are suspicious of education. We are thus very prone to the influence of those outside our tradition who tend to share our social values. Because so many of us are social conservatives, many have a tendency to jump on evangelical Calvinist trains without even realizing what we're doing.
So let's be very clear here. Bell is far less extreme for a Wesleyan-Arminian than he is for an evangelical Calvinist. Since McKnight is Arminian, his review is much more balanced than a lot of the stuff we're hearing out there from evangelical Calvinists. I've never viewed Bell as a serious authority on anything, but his spirit comes much closer to the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition than John Piper or Mark Driscoll's does.
They're calling it neo-universalism and I believe it is a clear cultural trend especially among younger Christians. Bell is simply capturing the trend and giving opposition a target. If there proves to be demand, I can still read through the book later, but since Scot McKnight has already done it, I thought I would pass on his review for now:
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
One word to Wesleyans. Because we are a heart-oriented tradition, we often let others do the thinking for us. In good frontier spirit, we even make fun of scholars and are suspicious of education. We are thus very prone to the influence of those outside our tradition who tend to share our social values. Because so many of us are social conservatives, many have a tendency to jump on evangelical Calvinist trains without even realizing what we're doing.
So let's be very clear here. Bell is far less extreme for a Wesleyan-Arminian than he is for an evangelical Calvinist. Since McKnight is Arminian, his review is much more balanced than a lot of the stuff we're hearing out there from evangelical Calvinists. I've never viewed Bell as a serious authority on anything, but his spirit comes much closer to the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition than John Piper or Mark Driscoll's does.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Quote on Protestantism and the problem of biblical theology
What do you make of this quote?
"The Protestant Reformation rejected allegorical interpretation because allegory had allowed the medieval church to go beyond the original meaning in ways they rejected. The Reformers wanted to peel back developments in the catholic tradition and used sola scriptura as the method. But what they really wanted to do was peel back developments to about 450CE, and their sola scriptura unintentionally set Protestantism on a trajectory that would eventually undo the glue of the first five centuries and, after the Enlightenment, the books of the Bible began to fall apart from each other. This is the problem of biblical theology."
"The Protestant Reformation rejected allegorical interpretation because allegory had allowed the medieval church to go beyond the original meaning in ways they rejected. The Reformers wanted to peel back developments in the catholic tradition and used sola scriptura as the method. But what they really wanted to do was peel back developments to about 450CE, and their sola scriptura unintentionally set Protestantism on a trajectory that would eventually undo the glue of the first five centuries and, after the Enlightenment, the books of the Bible began to fall apart from each other. This is the problem of biblical theology."
Fulbright Sabbatical in Fall
I received notice several weeks ago that my application to do a Fulbright in Germany this Fall had been approved by the Fulbright Commission. We've started the logistics of the process (medical approvals, etc) but it looks like my wife Angela and our two youngest will be able to go.
We did our last sabbatical in Germany in 2004 in Tuebingen but we will be at the Universität München this time with Knut Backhaus as our host. The proposed topic is "Salvation in the Making" and I hope to do something like what James Dunn done did in Christology in the Making but do it for soteriology. And since Hebrews is my specialty, I have some ideas ;-)
I'm grateful to Indiana Wesleyan for granting me a sabbatical. IWU hasn't fully worked out the category of Administrative Faculty, so it wasn't a foregone conclusion that I would be able to go on a sabbatical. But they thankfully granted it. With the MDIV curriculum effectively written and implemented, I could use the break.
I'd also like to be a scholar for a few days ;-) There is of course SBL each year. I get the occasional invitation to write a chapter in this or that project. But most of the time I'm expected to be "high priority relevant" (as opposed to more typical research scholarship in biblical studies). It will be a delight to spend a whole semester pursuing truth for its own sake with no one asking me how it relates to anything.
It will be nice to sail in the ocean of the history of human ideas for a few months, even though its more urgent to know how to navigate local creeks.
We did our last sabbatical in Germany in 2004 in Tuebingen but we will be at the Universität München this time with Knut Backhaus as our host. The proposed topic is "Salvation in the Making" and I hope to do something like what James Dunn done did in Christology in the Making but do it for soteriology. And since Hebrews is my specialty, I have some ideas ;-)
I'm grateful to Indiana Wesleyan for granting me a sabbatical. IWU hasn't fully worked out the category of Administrative Faculty, so it wasn't a foregone conclusion that I would be able to go on a sabbatical. But they thankfully granted it. With the MDIV curriculum effectively written and implemented, I could use the break.
I'd also like to be a scholar for a few days ;-) There is of course SBL each year. I get the occasional invitation to write a chapter in this or that project. But most of the time I'm expected to be "high priority relevant" (as opposed to more typical research scholarship in biblical studies). It will be a delight to spend a whole semester pursuing truth for its own sake with no one asking me how it relates to anything.
It will be nice to sail in the ocean of the history of human ideas for a few months, even though its more urgent to know how to navigate local creeks.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Why Believe in the Resurrection?
In my opinion, whether you believe in the resurrection of Jesus boils down to one thing: do you believe resurrections can happen? If you do not believe resurrections can happen, then of course you will find some alternative explanation for what happened that Sunday so long ago. But if you do believe resurrections can happen, then I believe you will conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.
There are two reasons. The first is the fact that no one seems to have been able to account for the body of Jesus from Sunday on. The second is the multiple eyewitness accounts to having seen him alive after his death.
1. I believe that even an objective atheist should conclude that individuals like Peter, James, Paul, and John were convinced they had seen Jesus alive after he was dead. Paul knew these individuals (e.g., Gal. 2) and passed on their common testimony to Jesus' resurrection (e.g., 1 Cor. 15). Paul himself gives clear testimony to seeing Jesus alive as well (e.g., 1 Cor. 9).
We can debate what they thought they saw. But we have every reason to believe Paul's account that multiple people on multiple occasions were convinced that they had seen Jesus alive after he had died. And they were convinced enough to undergo quite a bit of hardship and ultimately to face death. If they had any significant doubt, why would they have persisted?
And surely either the Corinthians or the Jerusalem church would have jumped on the opportunity to correct Paul if his story about Peter, James, and himself was not commonly accepted. His multiple writings leave no trace of such counter rhetoric.
Some point to difficulties in reconciling the resurrection accounts as a reason to doubt them. But consider, if oral traditions go in various directions, it points to some big splash at their root. In other words, we are not talking about a single story that changed over time. We are talking about waves that went out in multiple directions.
And what was the splash likely to be? What is the common ground behind the variations? It is sightings of Jesus alive after he died.
2. Certainly the canonical gospels indicate that a group of women were unable to find the body of Jesus on Sunday. I don't suppose you would invent women as the ones to find the empty tomb, if the story were made up. It would be much more believable to have some man, maybe even someone important find it empty. The specifics of the names point most likely to people who continued to talk about the story of the empty tomb and were remembered for telling the story for decades.
The idea of a Joseph of Arimathea--an otherwise completely unknown character--taking the body of Jesus and putting it in a tomb also is exactly the sort of oral tradition we would expect. Matthew further tells of a rumor that the disciples had stolen the body. Notice what is being disputed--not that there is no body, only why there was no body. In other words, we have evidence that at least some of those who disputed the resurrection accepted that the tomb where Jesus had been laid was later found empty.
So we have an empty tomb and a number of eyewitnesses. A final thing to mention is that it does not seem likely at all to me that the disciples were expecting Jesus to rise from the dead. If Peter denies Jesus, if Judas betrays Jesus--these are not the sorts of things that happen in a climate of expectation. Peter was thus firmly convinced over and against his likely expectations.
So if you believe resurrections can happen, you should certainly believe in this one.
May all have a blessed day celebrating Christ's victory over death!
There are two reasons. The first is the fact that no one seems to have been able to account for the body of Jesus from Sunday on. The second is the multiple eyewitness accounts to having seen him alive after his death.
1. I believe that even an objective atheist should conclude that individuals like Peter, James, Paul, and John were convinced they had seen Jesus alive after he was dead. Paul knew these individuals (e.g., Gal. 2) and passed on their common testimony to Jesus' resurrection (e.g., 1 Cor. 15). Paul himself gives clear testimony to seeing Jesus alive as well (e.g., 1 Cor. 9).
We can debate what they thought they saw. But we have every reason to believe Paul's account that multiple people on multiple occasions were convinced that they had seen Jesus alive after he had died. And they were convinced enough to undergo quite a bit of hardship and ultimately to face death. If they had any significant doubt, why would they have persisted?
And surely either the Corinthians or the Jerusalem church would have jumped on the opportunity to correct Paul if his story about Peter, James, and himself was not commonly accepted. His multiple writings leave no trace of such counter rhetoric.
Some point to difficulties in reconciling the resurrection accounts as a reason to doubt them. But consider, if oral traditions go in various directions, it points to some big splash at their root. In other words, we are not talking about a single story that changed over time. We are talking about waves that went out in multiple directions.
And what was the splash likely to be? What is the common ground behind the variations? It is sightings of Jesus alive after he died.
2. Certainly the canonical gospels indicate that a group of women were unable to find the body of Jesus on Sunday. I don't suppose you would invent women as the ones to find the empty tomb, if the story were made up. It would be much more believable to have some man, maybe even someone important find it empty. The specifics of the names point most likely to people who continued to talk about the story of the empty tomb and were remembered for telling the story for decades.
The idea of a Joseph of Arimathea--an otherwise completely unknown character--taking the body of Jesus and putting it in a tomb also is exactly the sort of oral tradition we would expect. Matthew further tells of a rumor that the disciples had stolen the body. Notice what is being disputed--not that there is no body, only why there was no body. In other words, we have evidence that at least some of those who disputed the resurrection accepted that the tomb where Jesus had been laid was later found empty.
So we have an empty tomb and a number of eyewitnesses. A final thing to mention is that it does not seem likely at all to me that the disciples were expecting Jesus to rise from the dead. If Peter denies Jesus, if Judas betrays Jesus--these are not the sorts of things that happen in a climate of expectation. Peter was thus firmly convinced over and against his likely expectations.
So if you believe resurrections can happen, you should certainly believe in this one.
May all have a blessed day celebrating Christ's victory over death!
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Last Seminary Praxis Course in the shoot...
Spent the better part of the day with a group of friends laying out the scope and sequence of the final praxis course of our MDIV curriculum, "Congregational Relationships." I think it looks to be a good course. In fact, I'm quite proud of all our core courses. ;-)
Friday, April 22, 2011
Good Friday
As mentioned in yesterday's post, Jesus' last supper and time in the Garden of Gethsemane were really the beginning of Friday by Jewish reckoning. Now Judas comes with a group to grab him in the Garden and identifies him. I cannot think of any reason to invent this sequence of events, either intentionally or in the whims and fortunes of oral tradition. The story permeates the tradition.
We find more diversity in relation to what happens in the night. Many scholars suggest that the somewhat private meeting between Jesus and Annas in John 18:13, then Caiaphas in 18:24, 28 is more likely than a full Sanhedrin in the middle of the night (e.g. Mark 14:55). Luke seems to have the Sanhedrin more in the morning (Luke 22:66). In either case Peter follows and denies Jesus three times in the courtyard of the high priest, something that does not seem likely to be invented at all.
The appearance before Pilate not only has the unanimous testimony of the tradition, but appears in Josephus, the Jewish historian, as well. Pilate offers to release to the people Jesus or a violent man named Barabbas. They choose Barabbas. Again, hard to imagine why such a story would either be invented or would develop naturally through oral tradition. An appearance before Herod is only attested in Luke 23:6-12.
Allison has well affirmed that tidbits like a man named Simon from Cyrene carrying the cross, them crucifying Jesus at a place called Golgotha, a man named Joseph from Arimathea burying him--these have no reason to suggest invention of any kind. Christians also are not likely to have come up out of the blue with the idea that he shouted Psalm 22:1 from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." In fact, Luke omits this cry even though he is probably copying from Mark.
They crucify him at 9am in Mark 15:25 between two criminals (in John at about noon, 19:14, when people were sacrificing lambs for the evening Passover meal). The charge appears to be sedition--"The king of the Jews," written above his head (Mark 15:26). From noon till three, Mark says it is very dark (15:33). Then he shouts at 3pm and dies.
Joseph of Arimathea then takes the body and buries him in a rock tomb.
We find more diversity in relation to what happens in the night. Many scholars suggest that the somewhat private meeting between Jesus and Annas in John 18:13, then Caiaphas in 18:24, 28 is more likely than a full Sanhedrin in the middle of the night (e.g. Mark 14:55). Luke seems to have the Sanhedrin more in the morning (Luke 22:66). In either case Peter follows and denies Jesus three times in the courtyard of the high priest, something that does not seem likely to be invented at all.
The appearance before Pilate not only has the unanimous testimony of the tradition, but appears in Josephus, the Jewish historian, as well. Pilate offers to release to the people Jesus or a violent man named Barabbas. They choose Barabbas. Again, hard to imagine why such a story would either be invented or would develop naturally through oral tradition. An appearance before Herod is only attested in Luke 23:6-12.
Allison has well affirmed that tidbits like a man named Simon from Cyrene carrying the cross, them crucifying Jesus at a place called Golgotha, a man named Joseph from Arimathea burying him--these have no reason to suggest invention of any kind. Christians also are not likely to have come up out of the blue with the idea that he shouted Psalm 22:1 from the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." In fact, Luke omits this cry even though he is probably copying from Mark.
They crucify him at 9am in Mark 15:25 between two criminals (in John at about noon, 19:14, when people were sacrificing lambs for the evening Passover meal). The charge appears to be sedition--"The king of the Jews," written above his head (Mark 15:26). From noon till three, Mark says it is very dark (15:33). Then he shouts at 3pm and dies.
Joseph of Arimathea then takes the body and buries him in a rock tomb.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Pedagogy of Faith in the Science Classroom
Indiana Wesleyan University is hosting a conference on campus, June 27-29, on the question of how faith and science should or might co-exist in classrooms of all kinds. Here is the website for the conference.
The purpose of the conference is not to discuss the merits of various positions on issues (e.g., theistic evolution) but to discuss pedagogy and to discuss it in the pursuit of insight, not indoctrination. So not only will there be young earth creationists there, but Karl Giberson of BioLogos will be keynoting. J. P. Moreland the apologist from Talbot at Biola will also be keynoting.
It should be interesting! Dennis Brinkman, chair of the School of the Physical and Applied Sciences here, has had no shortage of angry emails, ranging from those who think faith and science should have nothing to do with each other to those who think Christian pedagogy should only indoctrinate against evolutionary theory. Papers of all sorts are on the program, including a paper from a self-avowed atheist who insists he cannot help but discuss questions of faith in his classes because, whether he likes it or not, his students always bring the issue up.
Admission is $125 if you have your own lodging. It is $225 if you need to stay in our lodges.
The purpose of the conference is not to discuss the merits of various positions on issues (e.g., theistic evolution) but to discuss pedagogy and to discuss it in the pursuit of insight, not indoctrination. So not only will there be young earth creationists there, but Karl Giberson of BioLogos will be keynoting. J. P. Moreland the apologist from Talbot at Biola will also be keynoting.
It should be interesting! Dennis Brinkman, chair of the School of the Physical and Applied Sciences here, has had no shortage of angry emails, ranging from those who think faith and science should have nothing to do with each other to those who think Christian pedagogy should only indoctrinate against evolutionary theory. Papers of all sorts are on the program, including a paper from a self-avowed atheist who insists he cannot help but discuss questions of faith in his classes because, whether he likes it or not, his students always bring the issue up.
Admission is $125 if you have your own lodging. It is $225 if you need to stay in our lodges.
Thursday Last Supper
It is of course incorrect to say Thursday Last Supper. The supper happened after dark and thus was at the beginning of Friday. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke this is the Passover meal (e.g., Mark 14:16). Similar to when Jesus sent for a donkey, Jesus either foresees that a man with a jar will appear and lead some of his disciples to a master with an upper room, or Jesus has prearranged it. They go and prepare the Passover meal, which would involve killing a lamb and preparing it.
John seems to picture a slightly different scenario. In John, the morning Jesus is crucified seems to be the morning before Passover (e.g., John 18:28; 19:14, 31). If we take these comments in John straightforwardly, then, Jesus would be crucified at about the same time as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed for dinner that night, and Jesus' last supper would not be a Passover meal but a meal the day before Passover.
Thursday seems to be the day when Judas arranges to betray Jesus. We've seen plays and heard speculation that Jesus might have made such arrangements with Judas, to try to trigger God's hand. But none of the gospels remember the story this way, and Allison has convinced me that, even from a secular historical perspective, such collective memories should generally be trusted. Every tradition before us remembers it as a betrayal.
Was Judas himself trying to force God's hand? Was Judas upset because Jesus corrected him, if it was he who objected to the woman with perfume? Had Judas come to the conclusion that Jesus was not the messiah and he was turning him in? This is the stuff of novels. It's just hard to know given the evidence we have.
I am more convinced than ever that, even from an objective historical approach, Jesus knows he is about to die. For example, Allison points out the collective memory of all our materials that Jesus faced his death as an act of will, of obedience. He knows Judas has betrayed him. He knows he is going into the city to die.
The memory of Jesus' words at that last meal, even in Paul who knows Peter and has direct access to the earliest memories (1 Cor. 11), already understands Jesus' death as a sacrifice. The Synoptics do not remember Jesus speaking much about himself in this way--Jesus as a means of salvation does not seem to have been a major theme of his ministry. But they do remember a trace--Mark 10:45. Jesus is dying for Israel's redemption. The intrinsic comparison of Jesus to a Passover lamb seems there from the very beginning.
The earliest memory in Paul also remembers "new covenant" imagery from that final meal. Such language was around among the Essenes and the Dead Sea community. So again, even from an objective historical perspective, I find it very plausible that Jesus spoke in such terms. John especially remembers Jesus talking about the coming of the Spirit at this last supper. This fits in the same milieu and would naturally explain the prominence of Spirit-imagery in the thinking of the earliest Christians.
They are already in the city when they eat their meal. They go to Gethsemane to pray. Where is Judas? Jesus knows. He knows what is coming. He doesn't run. He wrestles, but he stays put.
John seems to picture a slightly different scenario. In John, the morning Jesus is crucified seems to be the morning before Passover (e.g., John 18:28; 19:14, 31). If we take these comments in John straightforwardly, then, Jesus would be crucified at about the same time as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed for dinner that night, and Jesus' last supper would not be a Passover meal but a meal the day before Passover.
Thursday seems to be the day when Judas arranges to betray Jesus. We've seen plays and heard speculation that Jesus might have made such arrangements with Judas, to try to trigger God's hand. But none of the gospels remember the story this way, and Allison has convinced me that, even from a secular historical perspective, such collective memories should generally be trusted. Every tradition before us remembers it as a betrayal.
Was Judas himself trying to force God's hand? Was Judas upset because Jesus corrected him, if it was he who objected to the woman with perfume? Had Judas come to the conclusion that Jesus was not the messiah and he was turning him in? This is the stuff of novels. It's just hard to know given the evidence we have.
I am more convinced than ever that, even from an objective historical approach, Jesus knows he is about to die. For example, Allison points out the collective memory of all our materials that Jesus faced his death as an act of will, of obedience. He knows Judas has betrayed him. He knows he is going into the city to die.
The memory of Jesus' words at that last meal, even in Paul who knows Peter and has direct access to the earliest memories (1 Cor. 11), already understands Jesus' death as a sacrifice. The Synoptics do not remember Jesus speaking much about himself in this way--Jesus as a means of salvation does not seem to have been a major theme of his ministry. But they do remember a trace--Mark 10:45. Jesus is dying for Israel's redemption. The intrinsic comparison of Jesus to a Passover lamb seems there from the very beginning.
The earliest memory in Paul also remembers "new covenant" imagery from that final meal. Such language was around among the Essenes and the Dead Sea community. So again, even from an objective historical perspective, I find it very plausible that Jesus spoke in such terms. John especially remembers Jesus talking about the coming of the Spirit at this last supper. This fits in the same milieu and would naturally explain the prominence of Spirit-imagery in the thinking of the earliest Christians.
They are already in the city when they eat their meal. They go to Gethsemane to pray. Where is Judas? Jesus knows. He knows what is coming. He doesn't run. He wrestles, but he stays put.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Wednesday Withdrawal
In Mark's presentation, Jesus seems to stay in Bethany on Wednesday. Probably he has stirred up a hornet's nest in Jerusalem. Perhaps it is very clear that if he shows himself in the city again, there will be trouble.
The only event Mark tells us about on this day is Jesus' dinner at the home of "Simon the leper." A woman anoints him with expensive perfume. Some of Jesus' followers complain. It could have been sold; the profit could have been given to the poor. Jesus tells them to back off. She is anointing him for burial.
As an aside, Luke intriguingly puts a very similar story in Luke 7 with a Pharisee of the same name. John places a very similar event 6 days before Passover with Mary (sister of Martha) as the woman and Judas as the complainer. It is of course possible that these are amazingly similar events within a week's time, but it really seems more likely that they are different versions of the same event.
Jesus' comment that this woman is anointing him for burial and the idea that people everywhere would talk about this woman later on--these elements sound exactly like the kinds of things that would stick in your mind from the day before Jesus was arrested. It also points to Jesus knowing what was coming. I know most of you never doubted that, but I'm engaging the person for whom these things have to be argued.
The only event Mark tells us about on this day is Jesus' dinner at the home of "Simon the leper." A woman anoints him with expensive perfume. Some of Jesus' followers complain. It could have been sold; the profit could have been given to the poor. Jesus tells them to back off. She is anointing him for burial.
As an aside, Luke intriguingly puts a very similar story in Luke 7 with a Pharisee of the same name. John places a very similar event 6 days before Passover with Mary (sister of Martha) as the woman and Judas as the complainer. It is of course possible that these are amazingly similar events within a week's time, but it really seems more likely that they are different versions of the same event.
Jesus' comment that this woman is anointing him for burial and the idea that people everywhere would talk about this woman later on--these elements sound exactly like the kinds of things that would stick in your mind from the day before Jesus was arrested. It also points to Jesus knowing what was coming. I know most of you never doubted that, but I'm engaging the person for whom these things have to be argued.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Budget Thoughts...
I know few of you are interested in my thoughts on economics or the budget--and it is especially a shame to speak of such things in the middle of Holy Week--but I am sitting here watching Hannity interview Sarah Palin and thought I would jot down my thoughts.
1. The S & P announcement, whatever the politics behind it, confirms to me that Obama's budget proposal is not enough. We should be looking at something more extensive like the bipartisan budget commission's recommendations this past Fall.
2. The debt ceiling has to be raised. I think almost everyone recognizes this, and it is really too serious of an issue to use for political bargaining. Anyone who votes against it is a danger to the US, almost on the level of impeachment. We should immediately eliminate from our minds any candidate who suggests we should not do so--these are very, very dangerous, loony people.
3. Ryan's proposal to privatize Medicare and push Medicaid down to the states is a non-starter. Not only does it have no chance of passing--I get so annoyed with people who can't handle reality and prefer to beat their heads against the wall until they knock themselves out--it seems to deconstruct the very purpose of these programs, which was to provide medical care for the most vulnerable in our society--the elderly and those unable to take care of themselves. Instead, it likely lops off these in favor of those partially able to take care of themselves. Cut it we must, finance it some other way we must. But Ryan's idea is DOA, period.
4. We should increase revenues at the same time we make deep cuts. Perhaps we could compromise by only returning to pre-Bush rates for those who earn over 500,000. Or perhaps we could institute a flat tax on these individuals without any exemptions. I am as unconvinced as ever that tax breaks at this level for this group return more economically than the taxes do, and there is no moral argument to be made here that stands up against even the smallest scrutiny.
My thoughts in troubling times... It's compromise, compromise, compromise. The fear that Congress and the President will not be able to compromise, more than anything else, stands behind the S&P statement.
1. The S & P announcement, whatever the politics behind it, confirms to me that Obama's budget proposal is not enough. We should be looking at something more extensive like the bipartisan budget commission's recommendations this past Fall.
2. The debt ceiling has to be raised. I think almost everyone recognizes this, and it is really too serious of an issue to use for political bargaining. Anyone who votes against it is a danger to the US, almost on the level of impeachment. We should immediately eliminate from our minds any candidate who suggests we should not do so--these are very, very dangerous, loony people.
3. Ryan's proposal to privatize Medicare and push Medicaid down to the states is a non-starter. Not only does it have no chance of passing--I get so annoyed with people who can't handle reality and prefer to beat their heads against the wall until they knock themselves out--it seems to deconstruct the very purpose of these programs, which was to provide medical care for the most vulnerable in our society--the elderly and those unable to take care of themselves. Instead, it likely lops off these in favor of those partially able to take care of themselves. Cut it we must, finance it some other way we must. But Ryan's idea is DOA, period.
4. We should increase revenues at the same time we make deep cuts. Perhaps we could compromise by only returning to pre-Bush rates for those who earn over 500,000. Or perhaps we could institute a flat tax on these individuals without any exemptions. I am as unconvinced as ever that tax breaks at this level for this group return more economically than the taxes do, and there is no moral argument to be made here that stands up against even the smallest scrutiny.
My thoughts in troubling times... It's compromise, compromise, compromise. The fear that Congress and the President will not be able to compromise, more than anything else, stands behind the S&P statement.
Tuesday Controversies
Mark presents Tuesday as a day of controversy, a day when Jesus gets into debates with various parties. Matthew and Luke--which seem to use Mark as the skeleton for their presentations--follow suit.
The controversies are these:
1. Some temple people ask him where his authority comes from. He responds by asking them where they think John the Baptist's authority came from. Fun pictures this incident triggers in my mind. No doubt Jesus' disruption in the temple drew a lot of attention to him. Many would say that, logistically, it more than anything else set him on a trajectory for crucifixion as a revolutionary type figure. You can imagine Jesus actually teaching about the movement started by John the Baptist, triggering this question.
2. Jesus tells the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, clearly an indictment of the Jerusalem leadership, with Jesus as the son the tenants killed, bringing God's judgment. One of the most interesting features of this parable is that it includes a quote from Psalm 118:22, which is the same psalm that is quoted in relation to Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. It supports the picture of Jesus knowing that he is going to Jerusalem to be rejected and thus that actions like the one he makes in the temple could have been pre-planned, intentionally provocative.
3. Some Pharisees and Herodians try to trap Jesus on the subject of taxes. If as is usually said, the Romans were the ones to put people to death, then this subject could be a trap. Jesus pretty much dismisses coinage as having nothing to do with God. Money has nothing to do with God. If Caesar has lost a coin, give it back to him.
4. Some Sadducees try to make Jesus look stupid for believing in resurrection. Sadducees of course did not believe in any meaningful afterlife of any kind.
5. A teacher of the law asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is. Love God; love neighbor. This would have been an answer many Pharisees would have agreed with.
6. Then Jesus gives them a tricky question about the interpretation of Psalm 110. It would be interesting to know if Jesus winked when he raised this question. Were they saying he could not be the messiah because he was from Galilee?
7. Jesus comments on how much more a widow gave to the temple than many rich people. This fits with my sense that there is a "wealth/poor" theme involved in the temple action.
8. Comments on hypocritical leadership by teachers of the law/Pharisees. Matthew, probably writing at a time when the Pharisees had become the leadership of Israel, not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, expands Jesus' condemnation of them to its most feverish pitch in the New Testament (chap. 23). Luke-Acts has a much less harsh view of the Pharisees, and did not see being a Pharisee as incompatible with being a believer.
9. Chapter 13 gives the "eschatological discourse," Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in AD70. We find Matthew's version in chapters 24-25 and Luke's in chapter 21. Each has unique features in keeping with their theological emphases.
It is easy to see tension in all these related to what Jesus has done in the temple, related to Jerusalem's rejection of him, related to his sense of God's impending judgment on Jerusalem for their values and their rejection of him.
The controversies are these:
1. Some temple people ask him where his authority comes from. He responds by asking them where they think John the Baptist's authority came from. Fun pictures this incident triggers in my mind. No doubt Jesus' disruption in the temple drew a lot of attention to him. Many would say that, logistically, it more than anything else set him on a trajectory for crucifixion as a revolutionary type figure. You can imagine Jesus actually teaching about the movement started by John the Baptist, triggering this question.
2. Jesus tells the Parable of the Wicked Tenants, clearly an indictment of the Jerusalem leadership, with Jesus as the son the tenants killed, bringing God's judgment. One of the most interesting features of this parable is that it includes a quote from Psalm 118:22, which is the same psalm that is quoted in relation to Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. It supports the picture of Jesus knowing that he is going to Jerusalem to be rejected and thus that actions like the one he makes in the temple could have been pre-planned, intentionally provocative.
3. Some Pharisees and Herodians try to trap Jesus on the subject of taxes. If as is usually said, the Romans were the ones to put people to death, then this subject could be a trap. Jesus pretty much dismisses coinage as having nothing to do with God. Money has nothing to do with God. If Caesar has lost a coin, give it back to him.
4. Some Sadducees try to make Jesus look stupid for believing in resurrection. Sadducees of course did not believe in any meaningful afterlife of any kind.
5. A teacher of the law asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is. Love God; love neighbor. This would have been an answer many Pharisees would have agreed with.
6. Then Jesus gives them a tricky question about the interpretation of Psalm 110. It would be interesting to know if Jesus winked when he raised this question. Were they saying he could not be the messiah because he was from Galilee?
7. Jesus comments on how much more a widow gave to the temple than many rich people. This fits with my sense that there is a "wealth/poor" theme involved in the temple action.
8. Comments on hypocritical leadership by teachers of the law/Pharisees. Matthew, probably writing at a time when the Pharisees had become the leadership of Israel, not long after the destruction of Jerusalem, expands Jesus' condemnation of them to its most feverish pitch in the New Testament (chap. 23). Luke-Acts has a much less harsh view of the Pharisees, and did not see being a Pharisee as incompatible with being a believer.
9. Chapter 13 gives the "eschatological discourse," Jesus' prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem that took place in AD70. We find Matthew's version in chapters 24-25 and Luke's in chapter 21. Each has unique features in keeping with their theological emphases.
It is easy to see tension in all these related to what Jesus has done in the temple, related to Jerusalem's rejection of him, related to his sense of God's impending judgment on Jerusalem for their values and their rejection of him.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Cleansing of Temple (Monday)
In Mark's chronology (chap. 11), Jesus enters Jerusalem on Sunday, looks around, then returns to Bethany. On Monday, then, he returns to Jerusalem, curses a barren fig tree on the way, and then overturns the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. Then in the evening they return to Bethany again.
The chronology of Matthew, Luke, and John is a little different, which is why we cannot be absolutely certain about what happened on which day. In Matthew 21, Jesus seems to overturn the tables on the same day that he entered Jerusalem, in contrast to Mark. In Mark also, Jesus curses the fig tree right before overturning the tables on Monday, and it is only on the next day, Tuesday, that they find it withered. In Matthew, Jesus curses the tree and it withers immediately, the day after the temple action.
Luke seems to follow Matthew's chronology at this point, but does not have the story of the fig tree. John seems to move the temple action to the first year of Jesus' ministry. It is of course possible that Jesus did this twice, but after you have compared the gospels even a little in detail, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that they intentionally move things around from time to time. This shouldn't be a problem for us. It has to do with our (faulty) expectations rather than any problem on their part.
There are differing interpretations of Jesus' action in the temple. Was Jesus angry because they were selling things in the temple? But they had to sell things so that travelers would have something to sacrifice. Were they selling in the wrong place? I really don't think the relevant texts will bear this weight even though this is often said. Was it a symbolic action, planned out and meant to symbolize God's coming judgment of Israel and even the destruction of the temple itself? I think it is very likely that Christians read it this way, especially after the temple was destroyed.
The key to me at this point (meaning after this round of reflection ;-) is Jesus' quotation of Jeremiah 7:11: "Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?" (NRSV). The context in Jeremiah is a prediction of the temple's destruction because Israel's leaders have oppressed "the alien, the orphan, and the widow" (7:6), which fits in with Jesus' focus on the poor and powerless in his earthly ministry.
So I find the spirit of John's presentation to fit very much with a general distaste Jesus must have had for the wealthy, profiteering atmosphere he must have seen before him. It couldn't have been disapproval of the selling per se, because that was necessary. But the spirit of what he saw must have represented to him everything that was wrong about the values of Jerusalem.
His action was thus an indictment of the spirit of Jerusalem's leadership and a foreshadowing of coming judgment. It is no surprise that Mark "sandwiches" the event inside the incident with the fig tree. Just as the fig tree did not bear fruit and withered under Jesus' curse, so the Jerusalem of that day was eventually judged for its failure to bear the kind of fruit pleasing to God.
The chronology of Matthew, Luke, and John is a little different, which is why we cannot be absolutely certain about what happened on which day. In Matthew 21, Jesus seems to overturn the tables on the same day that he entered Jerusalem, in contrast to Mark. In Mark also, Jesus curses the fig tree right before overturning the tables on Monday, and it is only on the next day, Tuesday, that they find it withered. In Matthew, Jesus curses the tree and it withers immediately, the day after the temple action.
Luke seems to follow Matthew's chronology at this point, but does not have the story of the fig tree. John seems to move the temple action to the first year of Jesus' ministry. It is of course possible that Jesus did this twice, but after you have compared the gospels even a little in detail, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that they intentionally move things around from time to time. This shouldn't be a problem for us. It has to do with our (faulty) expectations rather than any problem on their part.
There are differing interpretations of Jesus' action in the temple. Was Jesus angry because they were selling things in the temple? But they had to sell things so that travelers would have something to sacrifice. Were they selling in the wrong place? I really don't think the relevant texts will bear this weight even though this is often said. Was it a symbolic action, planned out and meant to symbolize God's coming judgment of Israel and even the destruction of the temple itself? I think it is very likely that Christians read it this way, especially after the temple was destroyed.
The key to me at this point (meaning after this round of reflection ;-) is Jesus' quotation of Jeremiah 7:11: "Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your sight?" (NRSV). The context in Jeremiah is a prediction of the temple's destruction because Israel's leaders have oppressed "the alien, the orphan, and the widow" (7:6), which fits in with Jesus' focus on the poor and powerless in his earthly ministry.
So I find the spirit of John's presentation to fit very much with a general distaste Jesus must have had for the wealthy, profiteering atmosphere he must have seen before him. It couldn't have been disapproval of the selling per se, because that was necessary. But the spirit of what he saw must have represented to him everything that was wrong about the values of Jerusalem.
His action was thus an indictment of the spirit of Jerusalem's leadership and a foreshadowing of coming judgment. It is no surprise that Mark "sandwiches" the event inside the incident with the fig tree. Just as the fig tree did not bear fruit and withered under Jesus' curse, so the Jerusalem of that day was eventually judged for its failure to bear the kind of fruit pleasing to God.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Palm Sunday
I wish you all a meaningful day of reflecting on the day Jesus entered Jerusalem in his final days! I don't have time for a full post, but wanted to jot down some notes if I were going to write one ;-)
- We think of Jesus' entrance happening on Sunday largely because of counting back using Mark. However, the chronology of Matthew seems slightly different and it is difficult to know with absolute certainty.
- Jesus sends disciples ahead to a village to get a donkey (Matthew has two animals probably reflecting a tradition that conformed the story to a particular interpretation of Zechariah). One question is whether Jesus had prearranged to get the donkey or whether this was more miraculous.
- They spread their garments and lay palm branches down. Different readings here. Horsley thinks he was mocking Herod Antipas, who would have entered the city with immense splendor. Was he symbolically acting out Zechariah and thus indicating that he was the Messiah? I tend toward this last idea. I am sympathetic also to those who see a middle ground between Jesus entry being an "in your face" statement of his identity and more one that mostly insiders understood.
- The laying down of palms seems reminiscent of Psalm 118:26-27. A picture of Jesus emerges in which he has mediated on Scripture in relation to God's purpose for him. The practice of connecting events in his life to OT passages thus originates with him.
- This verse in Psalm 118 also has overtones of rejection. The one who comes in the name of the Lord enters but with overtones of rejection by his people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
