Reviewing Seland's Studies on 1 Peter, Part 1

I have been reading Torrey Seland's Strangers in the Light: Philonic Perspectives on Christian Identity in 1 Peter. I am writing a book review on it. Blogging (and emailing, much to the frustration of my colleagues at IWU) helps me get brainstorms out of my head and into a form that I can play with (some people do this by talking--at least you have a choice whether to read me or not :-). In any case, I will get some of my thoughts out on Seland's book here now, to polish (and condense) subsequently.

I should perhaps mention that Torrey is from Norway and is known for his work on Philo as well as his interest in Diaspora Judaism, particularly the social world of Diaspora Judaism (5). He has a massive resource page that I have as a regular link below. It is not considered impressive in biblical studies to be able to read another language. Indeed, it is expected that a New Testament scholar be able to read at least Greek, Hebrew, German, and French (OT scholars usually know Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, German, and French, as well as perhaps Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Phoenician).

But it is another thing to be able to speak or write in these languages. I've been to conferences where there are world class English, German, and French scholars at the main table. Typically, the Germans and French can speak English... but the English speak English (to our shame)

All of that is to soften one criticism of Seland's book, namely, that it is filled with minor English infelicities. He would have done well to have a native English speaker proofread the manuscript. After saying that, I will confess to being a hypocrite. I gave a lecture in German once--and laughter was a regular feature of the hour.

This book is primarily a collection of articles and papers Torrey has published and delivered in separate contexts. The result is that these 5 chapters both duplicate material and at the same time are quite disperate in other respects.

Perhaps the signature thesis of the book is that "the author of 1 Peter considers his readers, the Christians in the Diaspora of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1:1), as living a life influenced by social circumstances very much comparable to those experienced in the Diaspora by proselytes to Judaism" (2). This is the focus of chapter 2.

However, this thesis does not really provide the focal organizing principle behind this particular selection of writings. Beside the fact that these are all essays on 1 Peter by Torrey Seland, the more common feature of these chapters is the placement of 1 Peter against the backdrop of that Diaspora Judaism typified by Philo. Seland himself gives three common features of the chapters: 1) the application of insights from social studies of the Graeco-Roman world to 1 Peter, 2) a focus on insights drawn from scholarship on the Jewish Diaspora, and 3) the special reference to Philo in several of the chapters (8).

For the purposes of blogging, I want to run through his chapters primarily in the order they were written rather than the order in which the book presents them. This will help me get a sense of any development or expansion of Seland's thinking. However, I will start with chapter 1, which was written specifically for this collection.

Chapter 1: The Making of 1 Peter in Light of Ancient Graeco-Roman Letterwriting and Distribution
In good historical-critical fashion, Seland seemed compelled to write a chapter for the collection that somewhat sets a context for his probes in the other essays. In keeping with his concrete interests, he approaches this context not from the usual "author, audience, date..." approach. Indeed, he pays very little attention to the question of authorship and audience in the book. Rather, he focuses on the mechanics of how ancient letters were generally produced and distributed.

Before he begins this exploration, he gives his basic thesis: "both the description of Silvanus in 5:12, and the vast areas of destination of the letter (1:1) should be read as indicating that Silvanus was the writer/secretary, but not the courier of the letter" (10). I agree, despite some vocal objections to the contrary.

In keeping with his interest in social scientific matters, Seland explores the typical setting in which literature was produced in the Greco-Roman world. Works were often underwritten by patrons, who would invite them to present portions of the work in process to guests (14). Early readings also took place among close friends. This process certainly involved correction, abbreviation, and expansion, which probably has contributed to some of the variation in the manuscripts of ancient works.

Seland does not find very convincing the suggestion that commercial bookstores of some sort existed before the end of the first century CE. Nor does he think it likely that private individuals had access to the cursus publicus, the official Roman mail system. Individuals would have to be found to write down and deliver an encyclical letter such as 1 Peter.

"[A] letter having only the address of 1 Peter 1:1 would hardly be deliverable" (19). Either the carrier would have to know the precise location of the intended audience or specific locations would need to be given on a separate sheet of papyrus or on the verso of the letter. Once the letter arrived, copies would likely be made at the destination location as well.

Seland then applies this general framework to 1 Peter. He suggests that individuals like Silvanus and Mark, mentioned in the letter's closing, might have been involved in the production of the letter, not least as individuals to whom the author had read and tested the letter before sending (20-22).

The expression, "I have written you through Silvanus" in 5:12 is of particular interest to Seland (and to me). He is aware of some strong sentiment, based on Ignatius' use of this phrase, that it points to Silvanus as the carrier of the letter rather than the amanuensis (22-23). However, I agree with Seland that the evidence in these three instances is far from definitive (25-26): Ignatius to Romans 10:1; Smyrna 12:1; Philadelphia 11:2. See also Polycarp's letter to the Philippians 15, which the book mislabels as Ignatius' letter to Polycarp (25).

It is true that Romans refers to Ephesians, plural, as the ones through whom Ignatius has written. Thus Norbert Brox argues they must be the carriers rather than the writers (26). In Acts 15:23 as well, Judas and Silas are apparently those who deliver the Jerusalem letter to Antioch (27).

However, these two references do not provide a sufficient basis by which to conclude that the expression "write through" only referred to letter carriers. Indeed, even these instances where it seems clear that the individuals involved did carry the letters we cannot rule out the possibility that one of them also served as amanuensis. In the case of Ignatius to the Romans, it is quite possible that one of these Ephesians was the scribe.

Similarly, we have no basis to exclude Judas or Silas as letter writer in Acts 15:23. And the contexts of Ign. Smyrn. 12:1; Phld. 11:2; and Pol. Phil. 15 give no certain indication of exactly what role Bourros and Crescens might have played. Finally, Seland has produced a reference in Eusebius to Clement as writer rather than carrier (Hist. eccl. 4.23.11).

We are thus forced to look at the context of 1 Peter 5:12 for evidence of Silas' role. Here Seland sides with interpreters like Goppelt and Radermacher that the qualifer "I have written briefly," points toward writing as that with which Silvanus helped (28), especially since the letter proceeds to describe the content of what has been written. While I agree with Seland here, his argument is not as strong as his conclusion. This is one of my critques of his book. He has very interesting and plausible ideas, I think, but he often does not argue for them or development nearly as much as they warrant (I'm being a hypocrite here, for this is often said of my first drafts of things too).

The final part of chapter 1 deals with the question of how the letter might have come to its destinations. In particular, he discusses the suggestion that the order of the provinces in 1:1 indicates the path that Silas took when delivering the letter. In the end he concludes that the order of 1 Peter does not likely represent the traveling route of the letter. For one thing, a single letter carrier would have to pass back through Galatia to get to Asia from Cappadocia.

But more importantly, he suggests that the areas covered in the prescript are so wide that a single letter carrier could hardly cover all of them. We suspect that when we arrive at this conclusion, we see one of the main (and somewhat hidden) reasons Seland does not think of Silas as the letter carrier: "as 1 Peter is a circular letter intended for a vast territory, such a mention would make little sense as it is very unlikely that Silvanus could be considered the carrier of the letter to all these regions" (36-37).

One critique I have of this book (I'm a hypocritic again to point out) is that Seland spends a lot of time on some things, but his richest thoughts often appear almost out of nowhere without clear warning or appropriate development. So it is at the end of chapter 1. One of the richest suggestions in this chapter barely shows up in the final paragraph of the chapter body and in the last paragraph of the conclusion:

"I would suggest that a more probable scenario should include several carriers; if a carrier brought the letter from Rome by sea to one of the harbors in Asia Minor, possibly in Pontus, the letter would most probably have been copied there, and then sent further on to other Christian communities in the same areas and then further on" (36).

More to come...

Friday Post #2: Garlington's Review of Piper

I'm sorry, but you're likely to get three posts today (in other words, I'm going Jim West on you today :-).

... but I wanted to point out Don Garlington's review of John Piper's The Future of Justification that came out today in the Review of Biblical Literature. Some of you will know that I extensively reviewed this book in the Fall as well. The entire review is now archived at my kenschenck.com site.

Don (a fellow Dunnite) agrees with Piper on a few things, disagrees with him on others. To me his most memorable critiques have to do with Piper's fearmongering over how dangerous Wright's thinking is and his rejection of trying to read Paul's writings in context in deference to reading Paul the way Augustine and Calvin do. In a memorable line, Don writes, "Once a Copernican revolution has occurred, it will not do to retreat into a pre-Copernican universe."

A Little Night Music... with Chopin

By chance I heard Chopin's Prelude in C Minor last night on the radio on my way back from a class I'm teaching in Indy. I'd suggest they play this piece at my funeral, except that my death would hardly warrant it.

I found it on the web this morning and have enjoyed listening to it in a fairly dim lit office to the gentle patter of rain outside. I could be in Durham again :-)

I feel like the business of knowledge sometimes is so much game playing. Last night I thought of Goethe's Faust and the Romantics, who after exhausting traditional study looked to feeling and the arts for something that transcended their all too human thoughts. Every once and a while in an all too mundane and mediocre life, I'm thankful for those God has graciously gifted with a genius that, for a brief moment, I can lose myself in, become swallowed up by greatness despite my nothingness.

Thanks Chopin for this last night.

Chopin's Prelude in C Minor

P.S. The piano player is Ivan Ilic, who has more downloads here.

Surprised by Coptic

Sarah Smith, a very bright IWU undergrad, is learning Coptic this summer using Bentley Layton's Coptic in 20 Lessons: Introduction to Sahidic Coptic with Exercises & Vocabularies. Watch out April DeConick, here she comes. :-)

Of course these sorts of independent studies have to be registered with a professor, which means that I am trying to learn Coptic on the side too. Thankfully, I know enough languages that it's not too bad. But oh for the brain I had when I was a 20 year old!

Issues of my New Testament Survey Class

I just finished teaching New Testament Survey for May term. Keith Drury has eternally served as a goad to make it relevant to students required to take it who at most will teach a Sunday School class. What does a nursing student need to take away from this class?

One thought we have had is to teach the course around issues. I have always thought that students enjoy my course more once we get to Acts and start to dig into issues. But as I went through the class this time, I kept the question in the back of my mind--how could I pair up the whole New Testament to all kinds of Christian issues both practical and theological.

If you took my NT course, boiled the non-issue material I cover of, what would it look like? I think it could look something like this (following my May term syllabus):

• Why are there so many different interpretations of the Bible?
• How would a non-Christian Jew read the OT differently than a Christian?
• Why are there so many different translations of the Bible?
• What do the things Jesus did say about him?
• What kinds of people do we see in the Parable of the Soils?
• What does the Parable of the Good Samaritan say about Jesus' teaching?
• How does the Parable of the Prodigal Son capture the response to Jesus?
• How did we get the New Testament?
• Why does Jesus hide his identity in Mark?
• Why aren't the Apocrypha in most Protestant Bibles?
• Why did Jesus die on the cross?
• Do Christian Jews have to keep all the OT laws?
• Can a Christian do anything contrary to love of others?
• What should a Christian's attitude be toward money and the poor?
• Why are Matthew, Mark, and Luke so similar and John so different?
• Do the gospels give precise or artistic presentations of Jesus' ministry?
• What are the unique contributions of each gospel?
• What was the essence of Jesus message and mission before he went to Jerusalem?
• What is the baptism of the Holy Spirit in Acts?
• How important is water baptism? When should it be done and how?
• Was becoming a Christian a change of religion for a first century Jew?
• Was Paul tortured by a guilty conscience before he came to Christ?
• Did the early Christians believe more in resurrection or the immortality of the soul?
• How should a Christian view pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality, divorce, and remarriage?
• Should a Christian sue another Christian?
• What are the basic principles to follow when Christians disagree over issues?
• What is the Lord's Supper all about?
• What are tongues and how should they be practiced if at all?
• What arguments does the NT provide for Christ's resurrection?
• Should sin be a normal part of a Christian's life?
• Can a believer "lose" their salvation?
• What does the NT mean when it speaks of predestination?
• How cultural or universal are the household codes of the NT?
• Is it appropriate for women to be in ministry and leadership?
• Are there pseudonymous writings in the NT?
• How frequently is Jesus flat out called God and flat out worshipped in the NT?
• What is the role of works in a Christian's life?
• How do you fit together biblical teaching that seems to conflict with itself?
• How will it all end?

Most of them are surfing the web during class... but those who are both mentally and physically present discuss almost all of these in the course of a semester in my class.

Explanatory Notes on Hebrews 9:15-28

Sorry I'm running behind on these. They may slow down to one a week... they are distracting me from other obligations...
___________
9:15 And for this reason he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, because his death has come as a redemption for the transgressions in the first covenant, those who have been called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance.
Hebrews fascinatingly has little to say about redemption of new covenant transgression. First those who were living around the time of the turning of the ages were enlightened and became a part of the new covenant. At that time they were redeemed from their past sins, which are thus dubbed "transgressions in the first covenant."

We are reminded of what Paul says in Galatians about the Law being a guardian until the heir comes of age. This imagery for Paul is not exactly the story of "everyman." It is rather the story of what happened in his day with the coming of Christ. The heir has been of age now for 2000 years.

With the language of calling, early Christian language of election peeks out. Such language functioned ex post facto for the early Christians, "derived from after the fact," despite the fact that the language makes predestinarian claims. The language works differently than what it seems to say. You know who is elected by God because they are among the elect.

9:16-17 For where there is a will, it is necessary to bring the death of the one who made the will, for a will becomes valid among the dead, since it does not take effect when the one who made the will is still living.
Hebrews now makes a play on the Greek word for covenant, διαθηκη. The Greek word can also mean a "will" or a "testament." The author thus shifts subtly from one meaning of the word, "covenant," to its meaning as a person's will. In general, a person's will comes into play after that person has died.

9:18 Therefore, the first [covenant] has not been inaugurated without blood,
Although some have tried to find a more subtle connection, the author's point basically amounts to a play on words. Just as a διαθηκη "will" usually goes into effect when the will maker dies, so the new διαθηκη "covenant" was inaugurated with the death of Christ.

9:19 ... for as every commandment of the Law was spoken by Moses to all the people as he took the blood of bulls [and goats] with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both himself, the book, and all the people,
The author's portrayal of the inauguration of the old covenant goes well beyond the biblical account. It shows his allegorizing tendencies. In keeping with the shadowy nature of the Levitical system, the author amalgamates together disparate Levitical rites to pit against the one real atonement provided by Christ. For example, the scarlet wool and hyssop harken from skin cleansing rituals.

None of these is an exact shadow of Christ. Rather, all together they collectively point by example to the reality of Christ's atonement.

9:20-21 ... saying, This is “the blood of the covenant that God commanded you,” and he similarly sprinkled with blood both the tent and all the vessels of service.
It is not unreasonable to think that the author was acquainted with Paul's version of Jesus' words at the Last Supper, found in 1 Corinthians 11:25. There Paul mentions Jesus saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." It is thus possible that he alludes to that meal here.

9:22-23 And almost all things are cleansed with blood according to the Law, and without shedding blood forgiveness does not happen. Therefore, [it was] necessary for the illustrations to be cleansed with these [sacrifices],
The author here speaks of the necessity of blood under the old covenant, the Law. Under the old covenant, forgiveness required a blood sacrifice. But this comment that forgiveness requires blood shedding is often taken out of context. The big picture of the author's argument is away from the offering of blood.

Unlike what is often made of this comment, the author is not revealing some rigid theology about the necessity of blood. He makes this comment while arguing that the blood of bulls and goats cannot in fact take away sins. He uses the given of the old covenant--its requirement of blood--in order to eliminate blood from the atonement equation. The author's dualistic framework, and the rhetorical dimension of these comments, argues against any real investment in blood per se.

The word "illustrations" here is the same word we earlier translated "examples." It refers to all the various elements of the Levitical sacrificial system. The cleansing to which the author refers is the inaugural cleansing of these things as part of the first covenant.

… but the heavenly [Holies] themselves with better sacrifices than these.
The idea that the heavenly sanctuary might need cleansed is somewhat odd. The suggestion that this is an inauguration rather than a more typical sin cleansing does not eliminate the issue, for the inaugural cleansing still relates to uncleanness.

The best solution is to remember that this entire discussion is somewhat metaphorical. There is no actual structure in heaven that needs cleansed, nor does heaven need cleansed. What needs cleansed are the consciences of human beings. We cannot take the inaugural cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary too literally.

9:24 For Christ did not enter into hand-made Holies, antitypes of the true [Holies], but into heaven itself, not to appear before the face of God for us…
It is certainly possible that heaven itself means more precisely a sanctuary in heaven. But it is more likely that heaven itself is the sanctuary he has in mind, the universe as the true temple of God. This is the tent that the Lord pitched (8:2).

The mention of Christ's appearance before the face of God reminds the audience again of Christ's intercession. We have already suggested that the focus of such intercession has to do with atonement. We find this idea in association with Psalm 110:1 already in Romans 8:34: “It is Christ, the one who died, even more was raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who intercedes for us.

9:25-26 … not so that he might offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the Holies yearly with the blood of another, since it would then have been necessary for him to suffer often since the foundation of the world. But now he has appeared once at the consummation of the ages to nullify sin through his sacrifice.
The author's dualism peeks out here as the author seems to associate the need for atonement with the very existence of the created realm. Such a statement is perhaps somewhat hyperbolic, but probably does reflect the fact that the author thinks of the created realm as intrinsically defective.

As in chapter 7, the author reiterates that Christ's offering is a one time offering, unlike Levitical sacrifices. The timeless scope of Christ's sacrifice comes out here more than it has anywhere else. The fact that the author sees himself and his audience living at the "consummation of the ages" reflects that he expects the return of Christ to take place soon. It is thus not surprising that he does not have much to say about the atonement Christ might supply in the future. His sense of atonement is primarily aimed at past sins.

9:27 And just as it is appointed for mortals to die once, an after this is judgment,
Hebrews is sketchy in its view of resurrection. It clearly mentions resurrection as an elementary principle of faith (6:2), and 13:20 speaks of God "bringing up" or "bringing again" Jesus from the dead. However, it is unclear exactly what such resurrection looks like for Hebrews, especially in the light of its pervasive dualism.

Another issue here is the timing of resurrection. Some see Hebrews to say that we experience judgment immediately upon death. One's judgment here might very well relate to your sense of whether Paul develops in this direction in 2 Corinthians 5 as well.

9:28 So also the Christ, who was offered once to bear away the sins of many, will be seen a second time without sin by those who await him for salvation.
The parallelism here might push us toward equating the judgment in 9:27 with the second coming. As mortals die once and then face judgment, so the sacrificial death of Christ is followed by a favorable verdict both for the sinless Christ and for those who trust in him. This salvation comes most literally when these individuals are saved from the coming judgment.

The parallelism of the two verses also seems to equate the offering of Christ with his death. This fact might seem to contradict the offering of Christ's sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary. But we remember that the entire argument is metaphorical--for the author the literal truth is the passage of Christ's eternal spirit into heaven itself. In these two verses the author uses the earlier Christian equation of Christ's death on the cross as the sacrifice.

Faith after High School: Planning for Future Re-entry

American churches are bleeding Chrsitians, it seems. A student in IWU's grad ministry program is doing his final project on the many former teens from his youth group who have lost faith or completely stopped going to church since they graduated from high school. He has several surveys going on surveymonkey.com.

Of course there are some books out there that are in the neighborhood. McLaren has his Everything Must Change, as does Bishop Spong from a different angle.

The student will have some solid research behind his conclusions, but I have some thoughts that I'll throw out here for discussion (the rest of Hebrews nine is underway, but this seemed more immediately interesting).

1. Christian faith seems irrelevant to our kids. I was having a somewhat frustrated conversation with a friend the other day over what Wesleyans should do for a sort of "confirmation" with kids who were baptized as infants. A nearby teen reaction to the conversation was something like what sort of freaks argue over baptism.

Of course my hunch is that just about everything truly meaningful in life is irrelevant to our upper middle class "Christian" teens, many (perhaps most) of whom are doing drugs, having sex, and drinking just like all the other upper middle class kids in their high school. It is not at all just the "lower" end doing these things. The wealthiest high school in a nearby town, full of rich brats, is permeated with drugs and alchohol. It seems like a drunk student from there kills him or herself by running into a tree or something at least once a year.

This bored, pleasure level subsistence is an American problem, not particularly a Christian one. We're a fat nation ripe for being conquered or undergoing crisis because we lack for nothing pleasurable and have no interest in anything lasting. When I lived in England, I was shocked by how stupid Europeans think we are. When I landed back at the Detroit airport and listened to the conversations on a bus leaving the plane, I saw their point. Then after Iraq, we became the scariest nation in the world to them because "stupid" was shooting missiles at everyone.

2. We are a hyper-individualistic culture. Say whatever you think about cults, polygamist Mormons, old fashioned holiness types. But they have a group dynamic that keeps people in the group. The ethos of the current generation of middle class Christian students graduating from college is to blend in with the secular world. And they are blending right into non-existence as Christians. Non-denominational meets non-identity.

3. No "youth lesson" can compete with human sexuality. Our youth pastors can go "blah, blah, blah" about saving sex till marriage or about homosexuality. But it seems that most of this generation are going to have sex anyway. You can't watch them 24/7 and indeed to do so might create a solution more damaging than the problem.

I'm not affirming it. I'm saying I have never been more discouraged about Christians being "holy" than I have become this past year. Maybe I've been blind all these years to what people in the church are really like. My verse of the year is from Joshua 24--"You cannot serve the LORD your God. It will be too hard for you."

I have no great wisdom here (and thankfully no problems with my own family). But I do think that we need to start planning for re-entry into the Christian community once prodigal teens begin to think about marriage and children. I'm not condoning the "testing" years. What I'm advocating is an ethos that somehow projects a bright Christian future when our teens eventually have families.

If we could put a picture in our teens' minds of a day when they raise a Christian family, then they may begin to remember the homeland from some far away country they eventually find themselves in. I have no great wisdom for those for whom homosexuality is the issue, except that the church without question should welcome those who choose to remain celibate. The church will have to wrestle with how to be Christ to those who do not.

But a day will come for most when the competition between sexual drive and church ends. How are we planning today, when they are teens, when they are children, for future re-entry, for those who leave us in the meantime? If we do no planning, we are planning for them to fade away rather than to return. But an ever increasing number, I fear, will leave as soon as they are free.

Values usually are not rational. They are stored deep in a child's subconscious before they can reason. They are triggered powerfully by rituals. Say what you want. "Teaching" is powerless next to this deep magic.

Monday Thoughts: Evangelical Manifesto

The Evangelical Manifesto has hit Christian talk radio. Scot McKnight also blogged on it today. Jim West had earlier had some questions about some signatories.

I wanted to draw the attention of Wesleyan Church leaders to it since we have generally identified ourselves with evangelicalism these last 50 years, since the rise of the neo-evangelicals in the forties.

There are so many lists in this 20 page document that I've decided not to reproduce them. I find nothing in it that I can really object to, although I find so much in it that perhaps it does not identify well what an evangelical is (identity is almost always more a matter of what something is not than what it is). It even distinguishes evangelical from Protestant in a way that, perhaps, a Roman Catholic or Orthodox believer might consider themselves evangelical.

But all in all, I think this is a helpful document and timely. McKnight really has summed it all up for me--what I choose to take away from it. I'll rework his list with an order and content for my own circles:

These are groups who have of late wrongly restricted the boundaries of what an evangelical is:

1. Calvinists like John Piper, the President of Louisville Southern Baptist Seminary, power mongers in the Evangelical Theological Society and so forth have tried to make a strict Calvinism the true evangelicalism, with all others as deviants (like Arminians). Possibly one besetting sin of this group of evangelicals is a failure to move from creed to life, for Jonathan Edwards to be the ideal evangelical rather than people like George Whitefield or Billy Graham.

2. Political conservatives like the Dobson machine cannot limit true evangelicalism to those who would vote the Republican way, voting only in relation to the issue of abortion and gay rights. Possibly one besetting sin of this group of evangelicals is materialism and a reduction of the gospel to "the American way."

3. Progressives like Jim Wallis and Sojourners, who recognize the Christian anemia of those who don't respect all of God's creation, who flagrantly disregard the biblical mandate to take care of the poor and oppressed, run the risk of doing the same thing political conservatives do--to make their political issues the true Christianity, so that someone who doesn't vote Democrat or Green isn't Christian. This will be the temptation of the coming generation who is graduating from college right now.

What do you think?

New Name for my Blog

I've been thinking about changing the name of my blog for some time. I started the blog back in 2004. That was back when I was doing "Deep Christian Thoughts" for IWU's Friday night live. "Schenck Thoughts" seemed like a fair enough name for a blog that, for the most part, was read by IWU students who found out I had a blog.

Over time it's become a bit more serious. I shoot off my mouth a little less than I used to, which of course means the blog is less entertaining. I mostly talk about politics elsewhere these days (I won't say where :-). The days of the Asbury presidential crisis are over, although those entries are still some of the most visited (they helped me not get a job offer too once upon a time).

But since no one knows who "Schenck" is, I've decided on a new name that reflects me and what I blog about just a bit more. I picked "Quadrilateral Thoughts" because it reflects the fact that I come from the Methodist tradition. Like the so called Wesleyan quadrilateral, Scripture is the primary focus of my blogging. Yet Christian tradition, reason, and experience are also essential components of our pursuits on the blog.

Wesley of course never called his hermeneutic a quadrilateral, and I make no claim to be imitating his approach to Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. In particular:

1. It is impossible to say "The Bible says" without reason playing the definitive role in integrating disperate biblical material together.

2. It is impossible to arrive at a Christian understanding of Scripture without allowing Christian tradition to guide that integrating reason.

3. We cannot ultimately divorce the way our reason works from the experience that has formed us as individual and corporate thinkers... and authentic experience of the Holy Spirit is a sure path to truth.

The URL remains kenschenck.blogspot.com. Links under the old name should still work. But perhaps links to this "biblioblog" will invite a tiny bit more interest than "Schenck Thoughts" would.

Theological Hermeneutics Versus Inductive Bible Study

I was reflecting this morning on the difference between inductive Bible study and the latest craze, "theological hermeutics." I'm not at the office to grab some books off the shelf but I associate this movement with names like Kevin Vanhoozer, Joel Green, and Anthony Thiselton, each in their own way.

Vanhoozer has put together The Dictionary for the Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Green has started the Two Horizons commentary series with its launching volume, Between Two Horizons, and his own book, Seized by Truth. I am sure those who are further ensconched in this literature could add other books. Mike, if you're out there, I'll go ahead and mention Jeannine Brown's, Scripture as Communication.

I had three thoughts today on the contrast between the theological approach to interpretation and the inductive approach I learned at Asbury Seminary and that is the stuff of the historical critical method. Here they are in brief:

1. Its fundamental method is deductive rather than inductive.
A deductive method primarily proceeds from certain assumptions and then plays out the likely consequences of those assumptions. Certainly theological hermeneutics interacts significantly with the vast data of the biblical text. Yes, certainly there is no "inductive" method to be found that does not proceed from certain assumptions as well--all thinking does.

However, the assumptions from which theological hermeneutics often proceeds are quite large and debatable from an evidentiary perspective (this of course fits the postmodern Zeitgeist and fits with the theological work of James Smith and Nicholas Wolterstorff).

2. It does not aim at the most likely interpretation given the evidence but on the interpretation that best fits with its presuppositions.
In other words, theological hermeneutics does not operate in the same way that ordinary truth pursuit does. It does not gather evidence and generate hypotheses to explain that evidence, hypotheses that are then evaluated on their simplicity, clarity, and ability to account for as much data as possible.

Its logical process is more akin to prejudice, bias, and any -centrism whose primary operating principle derives from unexamined and unprovable assumptions rather than from the most probable reading of the data.

I have given concrete examples of this logic before. From an inductive standpoint, one would not infer that Moses wrote the Pentateuch in its current form. Genesis never mentions him. He is always discussed in the third person rather than the first person throughout the Pentateuch, including the narration of his death. No one following an inductive method would infer that Moses was its author.

However, the traditional and often hotly affirmed Mosaic authorship functions on the basis of theological assumptions derived from a certain reading of the New Testament.

3. Theological hermeneutics is a species of reader response criticism.
The final implication of what we have observed above is that theological hermeneutics is in fact a species of reader response criticism. In the case of Vanhoozer, this is ironic, since he himself puts great impetus on the meaning of Scripture in its original speech-act. He rejects drastically the validity of reader response approaches.

I do not, nor do I think does Joel Green. However, I would strongly affirm that inductive study remains valid and a significant element in the theological process. Most of all, I contend that theological hermeneutics should not be confused with inductive Bible study. Further, while theological hermeneutics may be a more appropriate Christian reading of the biblical texts, we should be clear that it is not the reading likely to tell you what Paul or any biblical author was actually trying to say.

Vanhoozer's method is confused when it tries to equate the meaning of the original speech act of any portion of Scripture with some divine speech act in the whole of Scripture. The first is the stuff of inductive Bible study and the original meaning. The second is valid but it is a reader response approach to the biblical text. Vanhoozer confuses the two.

Richard Bauckham on Monotheism

I'm writing a little piece on Jewish monotheism and so am trying to organize in my mind a host of materials on the subject. Today I thought I would try to get some of my thoughts on Richard Bauckham's work on the subject down on screen.

Bauckham's work on this topic is great because he has left us with a great paper trail that can function as a kind of archaeological dig in which to trace the development of his ideas. If anyone is looking for a topic for a masters thesis in biblical studies, as soon as his summative work on this subject comes out (we've been waiting for 10 years), the circle will be complete. Perhaps it's not in exactly the form he'd planned initially, but alas, we're glad to get it finally.

Here is the paper trail as best I can tell:

"The Worship of Jesus in Apocalyptic Christianity," New Testament Studies 27 (1980-81).

"Jesus, Worship of," Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 3 article (1993).

God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament (Didsbury Lectures, given in 1996, published by Paternoster in 1998, by Eerdmans in 1999). This is the best single resource available at present.

"The Worship of Jesus in Philippians 2:9-11," in Where Christology Began: Essays on Philippians 2 (1998).

"The Throne of God and the Worship of God," in The Jewish Roots of Christological Monotheism: Papers from the St. Andrews Conference on the Historical Origins of the Worship of Jesus (given as a paper in 1998, published by Brill in 1999)

"Monotheism and Christology in the Gospel of John," in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, Eerdmans, 2002.

"Monotheism and Christology in Hebrews 1," in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (2004)

"Paul's Christology of Divine Identity"

"The Divinity of Jesus," The Epistle to the Hebrews and Christian Theology, forthcoming from Eerdmans, 2008.

Jesus and the God of Israel, forthcoming book that I think will sum up these different articles and papers in one place.

Here's a very brief summary of the first chapter of God Crucified.

1. There are two main approaches to the question of monotheism and Judaism at the time of Christ:

• The first sees monotheism as an essential characteristic of Judaism of the time.
• The second sees Judaism as blurry at the time, with various angels, exalted patriarchs and such as sharing in God's divinity to varying degrees.

Bauckham comes out squarely in the camp of the first, as the remaining points of the chapter will make clear. I think that Bauckham is largely correct on this score.

2. Bauckham argues that Jews made a strict distinction between God and the creation, with God's unique identity consisting in two aspects:

• God as sole creator. Bauckham argues strongly that Jewish texts did not allow for any other angel or exalted being to take part in the creation.
• God as sole ruler. Bauckham argues strongly that only God could rule and sit on His throne. Angels and exalted figures did not rule for God. God ruled and they served.

I have more questions about Bauckham's construct here and want to read the texts he mentions more carefully. Certainly Yahweh is creator over and against the gods of the other nations. Is there really care on the part of Jewish authors to make sure angels aren't thought to have a role in creation?

I'm also unclear about the hard exclusion of angels from participating in God's rule. Would not the royal traditions of the OT imply that the messiah would participate in God's rule?

3. Bauckham's attempt to move beyond the distinction between "functional" and "ontic" Christologies. A functional Christology would consider language of Christ's divinity as a matter of him functioning in ways that divinity functions. An ontic Christology would argue that Christ's divinity is a matter of him having a divine nature.

Clearly Christianity came to view Christ's divinity as a matter of his nature. It is less clear, however, that the New Testament was already thinking in such categories. Bauckham suggests a new way of thinking about Christ's divinity that thinks of Christ as becoming part of God's unique identity, understood more in terms of what God does rather than what God is.

I have generally found the way Bauckham describes this concept as ambiguous, but that's because Bauckham is half theologian :) (I have the same reaction to Barth). Surprise, surprise, Bauckham had been reading Hans Frei's The Identity of Jesus Christ.

4. Bauckham divides Jewish intermediary figures into two categories:

• angels and exalted patriarchs--these Bauckham excludes from divine roles in creation or rule
• personifications of divine attributes--figures like God's wisdom and word are part of God's identity, and so can participate in God's creation and rule, but they are part of God's identity.

5. The inclusion of Christ within God's identity is

• pre-NT and already has the highest Christology of the NT, since Christ participates in the essential, unique aspects of God's divinity
• unprecedented within Judaism, although anticipated by figures like wisdom and word

6. Update:
Since God Crucified, Bauckham has spoken of three dimensions of Jewish monotheism (slight shift from the "creation" and "rule" aspects that imply "sole worship" or monolatry):

• creational monotheism--God as sole creator
• eschatological monotheism--God will be the final ruler of all
• cultic monotheism--God alone is worthy of worship

7. Pre-evaluation
I wonder if some of these distinctions Bauckham makes are somewhat artificially imposed on Jewish literature. It is quite possible that he is thinking more deeply than I have as yet caught on to.

A particular question I have relates to Bauckham's ideas on Jesus inheriting the divine name YHWH. In the Philippian hymn and in Hebrews 1, Jesus receives these divine names at the point of his exaltation to God's right hand, incorporation into God's eschatological monotheism. Bauckham sees no way then that Jesus cannot then also be included within God's creational monotheism, as in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

I am sure that this means something coherent in Bauckham's mind, and I will continue to pursue it. My Dunnian realism, however, leaves me wondering what it could mean in the real world for the real Jesus and ex-Pharisee Paul rather than the esoteric halls of post-liberal theology.

Tuesday Hebrews: 9:1-14

9:1 Therefore, on the one hand, the first [covenant] had requirements of worship and a sanctuary of this world.
Hebrews 9:1-10 is the "on the one hand" part of a contrast. The "on the other hand" part begins at 9:11. The first part relates to the "cultic" or sacrificial elements of the first covenant, while the second presents the "sacrificial system" of the new covenant.

The author refers to the sanctuary of the first covenant as a "worldly sanctuary," a "sanctuary of this world." This curious way of describing the earthly tabernacle of Moses in the wilderness probably relates to the author's contrast between the true heaven and the created realm.

9:2 For a tent was constructed—the first one—in which [was located] the lampstand and the table and the presentation of breads, which is called, “Holies.
The author now describes the wilderness tent of Moses in even more curious language. In the description of the earthly structure in 9:1-5, he refers to the first room of the tent as the "first tent" and the second room as the "second tent." The reason will become clear when we get to 9:8-9, where the author interprets this two part structure allegorically as two ages.

9:3-4 And after the second veil a tent that was called, “Holies of Holies"—that had the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant, overlaid with gold on all sides, in which [was located] the golden jar that had the manna and the staff of Aaron that budded and the tablets of the covenant,
This description of the Most Holy Place, the inner sanctum of the wilderness tabernacle, brings further curiosities, such as the reference to a second veil. But the most interesting part of the description is the placement of the altar of incense within the Holy of Holies, rather than in the outer room the Holy Place, as in the Pentateuch. We do have evidence of other Jewish writers placing this altar in the Most Holy Place, so perhaps we should not read special meaning into the author's placement.

9:5 … and above it the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat, about which things now is not [the time] to speak in detail.
It is unclear to us exactly what the author means by his final disclaimer. He could mean that many of these items have not been around for some time and so it is difficult to speak of them. This was probably true at the time of Christ. However, our sense is that the author does not wish at this time to explore the allegorical significance of these items, as Philo does in his Allegorical Commentaries. But the author might do so in a different context.

9:6 Now when these things were constructed, the priests entered into the first tent throughout the year to complete their service…
In 9:6-10, the author shifts from describing the structure and contents of the early sanctuary to describe the priestly operations within it, including their allegorical significance. With the wilderness tabernacle constructed, priests entered regularly into the first room of the two part sanctuary.

9:7 … but into the second [tent] the high priest alone entered once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and the sins of the people committed in ignorance,
By contrast, only once a year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, did the high priest alone enter into the inner sanctum of the sanctuary, the Most Holy Place. The author, using his curious language, refers to this second room as the second "tent."

The author has mentioned more than once that the earthly high priests, unlike Christ, had to offer blood for themselves as well as for the people. Since Christ was without sin, he of course did not have to offer sacrifices for his own "weaknesses."

In its context in Numbers, "sins committed in ignorance" refered to the fact that atonement was strictly provided for unintentional sins rather than for "sins with a high hand," sins committed intentionally and with full knowledge of what one was doing. In the context of Hebrews, however, the author does not likely refer to sins committed unintentionally. Rather, he refers to sins before one came to a "knowledge of the truth" (e.g., 10:26) and become enlightened (e.g., 6:2).

The knowledge of the truth is the knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God. It likely implies the whole truth about Christ, including his second coming. By using language of "sins committed in ignorance," the author hints that Christ's atonement was not intended for sins committed after one comes to the truth (cf. 10:26).

9:8-9 … the Holy Spirit making this clear: the way of the Holies has not yet appeared while the first tent still has standing, which is a parable for this present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered that are not able to perfect the worshipper in conscience…
The author now begins to draw his allegorical conclusion based on the structure and workings of the wilderness tabernacle. The earthly sanctuary had two parts. The priests entered the first throughout the year, but only the high priest had access to the Holy of Holies once a year.

So in the current age, never ending sacrifices are offered, just as priests offer sacrifices continually in the "first tent," the outer room of the wilderness sanctuary. This indicates that as long as the first tent has status, the first covenant, the way into God's presence is not yet available. The person that offers the sacrifice cannot have their sins taken away.

The author is pointing to an interpretation of the two part sanctuary as an allegory for the two covenants. The first covenant involved continuous cultic activity. The second is a one time, once and for all sacrifice. When the first covenant is taken away, when the first tent is taken away, then only the second tent will stand, the new covenant with the one time sacrifice of Christ. And perhaps, once the created realm, the outer tent is removed, only the unshakeable heaven will remain.

9:10 … only on the basis of foods and drinks and various washings, requirements of flesh imposed until the time of reformation.
The Levitical system did not truly cleanse sins. The person was left with a consciousness of still having them. One's conscience was thus not "perfected." The cleansing of the first covenant was "superficial" and only extended to the washing of one's flesh. It awaited the time of "reformation" when sins would truly be taken away.

9:11 But Christ, on the other hand, who arose as a high priest of good things that have come into existence,
This statement is parallel to 10:1, which thinks of the Law as a shadow of good things to come. But in Christ the good things have already come to be, namely true atonement.

9:11-12 ...through the greater and more perfect tent, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation nor through the blood of bulls and goats, but through his own blood, he entered into the Holies once and for all having found an eternal service.
The author here structures his thought chiastically. The two middle lines follow a similar pattern, as do the first and last.

a. through the greater and more perfect tent,
b. not made with hands, that is, not of this creation
b'. nor through the blood of bulls and goats
a'. but through his own blood…

The greater and more perfect tent, in our opinion, is heaven itself. The author does not have some literal structure in heaven in view. Christ passed through the skies in his ascension, and the author can think of this passage as the passage through the heavenly sanctuary.

The train of thought "through the greater and more tent ... he entered into the Holies" seems contradictory at first. Are these not the same thing? Two possibilities suggest themselves.

The first is that we should take the first statement to say that "by way of the greater and more perfect tent ... he entered." But it is also possible that the tension arises from the fact that the heavenly tent is, after all, a metaphor for heaven itself. We should not be surprised if tensions arise in the course of argument. After all, these two comments are somewhat removed from each other.

9:13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and sprinkling the ashes of a red heifer sanctified those who had become unclean toward the cleansing of the flesh,
In keeping with the shadowy nature of the Law, chapter 9 amalgamates several diverse types of Old Testament sacrifice. Here he mentions the red heifer cleansing of skin diseases. In a moment he will mention scarlet wool and hyssop for similar cleansings. All of these diverse cultic rites find their singular reality in the single sacrifice of Christ. The sacrifices of the old covenant did not take away sin but only provided a bodily cleansing.

9:14 ... [then] how much more will the blood of Christ—who through an eternal spirit offered himself blameless to God—cleanse our conscience from dead works to worship the living God.
By contrast, the sacrifice of Christ cleanses a person's consciousness of sins, here described as "dead works" or, perhaps, "works that result in death." By contrast, Christ's priesthood enables us to worship the living God. Christ's sacrifice was a "living" work rather than a dead one.

The author's focus on Jesus' blood is perhaps misleading. Indeed, despite the fact that the author says that "without blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (9:22), he makes these comments in order to do away with the physical. No doubt he would agree with Paul that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50).

So it is significant to notice that when it comes down to Christ's entrance into heaven, the author does not say that Christ brought his blood into heaven. Indeed, such a view is impossible from the author's understanding of the world. Rather, it is ultimately "through an eternal spirit" that he offers himself to God. This is yet another allusion to Christ's "indestructible life" that was the key characteristic of his high priesthood (7:16).

Monday Thoughts: Historical Jesus in Brief

When I am done with the Synoptic Gospels in New Testament Survey, I stop and take stock of the essence of Jesus mission and message. Here is the outline I present at this point of my New Testament Survey courses. Of course what I write below goes in a somewhat different direction from anything I say in class, approaching the question from a more "historical" perspective.

1. Jesus preached the coming of the kingdom of God.
Mark features the coming of the kingdom of God as Jesus' central message. This is an apocalyptic message with political overtones. In its Jewish context it would have implied the restoration of Israel as a nation and likely the arrival of a messianic king.

This doesn't surprise us as John the Baptist placed himself at the location of Joshua's entrance into Canaan. Motifs of the return of Israel from captivity seem close at hand. Indeed, the themes of gospel, rule of God, and return from captivity all come together in Isaiah 52:7.

2. Jesus cast out demons as part of that arrival.
The Synoptics all make it clear that part of Jesus' activity in the Galilee included casting out demons. We should relate this important part of what Jesus did to the coming of the kingdom of God. The coming of the kingdom for Jesus was not just political but it was spiritual. The demons he cast out were a demonstration that the kingdom of God was arriving (cf. Luke 11:20). Jesus was the "Normandy invasion" of the kingdom, kicking Satan "out of Dodge" in preparation for the coming rule of the LORD.

When we think of the Jewish groups to which such an emphasis has greatest affinities, the Essenes come to mind, although other aspects of Jesus' ministry diverged drastically from them. It is nevertheless possibly significant that some aspects of John the Baptist also seem similar to them.

3. Jesus targeted the lost sheep of Israel in Galilee.
The narrow scope of Jesus' activity is striking. He seems to have spent little time ministering outside of Galilee. Indeed, he seems to have spent most of his time around the villages north of the Sea of Galilee: Capernaum, Bethsaida, Chorazin.

He interacted minimally with "the righteous" but focused rather on the outcasts of Israel. The amount of space given to the Pharisees in the Gospels seems disproportionately large in comparison to how much time Jesus actually spent interacting with them--they do not seem to have had much of a permanent presence outside of Jerusalem.

We can see this ministry as an extension of John the Baptist's call to repentance in preparation for the coming of the kingdom. Jesus was calling all of Israel to be part of the restored people of God.

The gospel of Luke perhaps gives us a somewhat abstracted perspective on this mission. Its focus on Jesus ministry to the poor, widows, orphans, the oppressed, the maimed, the physically "defective" was no doubt in context a ministry to these members in Israel. Things like purity laws and other parts of the Law paled in importance next to the importance that all Israel be a part of the renewed people of God. We wonder how the Galilean milieu fostered less focus on minute particulars of the Mosaic law.

Jesus' healing ministry was likely part of the restoration of God's people to wholeness.

4. Jesus preached love of neighbor and enemy.
We wonder if this focus of Jesus' teaching is also somewhat abstracted from our current perspective. Love of neighbor in context surely related first to the love of all who are within Israel, whoever they might be.

But it also makes sense that Jesus saw Israel as the light to the nations as well, that he expected the Gentiles also to flow to the God of Israel. Perhaps we should hear in Jesus' admonition to love one's enemies an admonition in context to hope that the nations outside of Israel would also flock to Israel's God.

5. Jesus saw himself, including his death, as instrumental in the coming of the kingdom.
Of the things we have said thus far, this point is the most debated. The Gospel of Mark clearly distances Jesus from conventional understandings of a military messiah. On the other hand, Jesus appoints twelve disciples to symbolize the restoration of Israel. Yet he is not one of the twelve. Could this mean that he is the king over the 12 tribes?

The synoptics also indicate that Jesus refered to himself as the "Son of Man." It is an ambiguous phrase about which some Jewish speculation existed at the time of Christ. It could indicate that Jesus saw himself as the king who would rule over nations as in Daniel 7 and 1 Enoch. Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem could also indicate a self-understanding of himself as the king.

The last supper tradition, found earliest in 1 Corinthians 11, points toward an understanding on the part of Jesus that he was about to die for Israel. The Corinthians know of Peter and Jerusalem, so it is highly unlikely that Paul is making this tradition up. It is a strong indication that Jesus did in fact anticipate his death and did see it as instrumental in the restoration of Israel.
__________
I realize that most of my readers will find most of this post as obvious and, indeed, as vast understatement. I have written it "following the rules" of historical research, which of course does not take us nearly as far as reading the gospels through the eyes of faith.

Sunday Hebrews: Explanatory Notes on Hebrews 8

I thought that I might do collective preaching notes for Hebrews 7:1-10:18. I may change my mind but at first thought the basic point of this section seems mostly to apply the same way.
________________
8:1 Now the chief thing in the things being said is that we have such a high priest, who sat on the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heavens…
The author now helpfully tells us what the main take away from his discussion of Melchizedek is. We have a high priest. The order of Melchizedek is not some abstract interest of the author. His argument leads to one basic point--the audience has a high priest who has definitively taken care of their atonement once and for all.

The mention of God's right hand returns us to Psalm 110:1 and the fact that Christ sits at God's right hand with his mission accomplished. We have seen the messianic implications of this verse in Hebrews 1. The author has associated Christ's exaltation and his high priesthood as well but has not shown exactly what the connection is.

8:2 … a minister of the Holies and of the true tent, which the Lord pitched, not a human.
Here is the connection. The universe is the true sanctuary of God, the sanctuary that He made rather than one that Moses or human hands made. When Christ ascended to heaven, he entered into the true tent. And when he sat at God's right hand, he had entered into the true Most Holy Place.

This is the author's great high priestly metaphor. Christ's ascension through the heavens and seating at God's right hand in the highest heaven is seen as Christ's entrance into the true sanctuary as a priest after the highest order. As the author has shown the superiority of Christ's priesthood, in 8:1-10:18 the author will show the superiority of his sacrifice and the sanctuary in which he offers it.

8:3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore, it is necessary [for him] to have something that he might offer…
We have seen this basic function of a high priest back in 5:1. The author now will consider what kind of a sacrifice it is that Christ has offered in contrast to the sacrifices of Levitical priests.

8:4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest, since there are [already] those who offer the gifts according to the Law,
Christ was not a priest in the normal sense of that word. He did not have a sanctuary in which he offered sacrifices to a god, nor by the standards of the Law could he be considered a priest. The author has already argued in chapter 7 that the author was from the tribe of Judah, whose descendants have never served a Jewish altar according to the Law.

But the author will now develop more fully another dimension of this priestly contrast. Levitical priests not only function temporarily until they die. They function on earth. The superiority of Christ's priesthood lies in part due to the fact that he is a heavenly high priest.

8:5 … who serve the heavenlies by example and shadow,
This verse is repeatedly mistranslated. In particular, the word example is often translated "copy" because of the quasi-Platonic feel of Hebrews' language in this central section. However, we cannot find a single instance in all extant Greek literature where this particular word is used of a Platonic copy. We can find a few obscure instances where it means something like "likeness," but its primary use was in reference to an example.

Indeed, it is used in that way in 4:11, where the author uses the "example" of the wilderness generation in Scripture to urge the audience in the right direction. Parallels in Jewish writers like Philo show that this word could be used--along with the word "shadow"--to describe types in Scripture of deeper truths.

In this case, the earthly Levitical priests provide a shadowy example of the deeper reality found in Christ. Their priesthood was not an exact type of Christ's priesthood. It was rather a somewhat shadowy pointer toward his priesthood and sacrifice.

... just as Moses received revelation as he was about to complete the tent, for it says, "Look, you will make all things after the type that was shown you in the mountain."
Moses was following a heavenly "type" when he built the wilderness sanctuary. Although it says here that he made "all things" after the pattern, the later parts of this section will show that the correspondance between shadow and reality was not one-for-one. The "all things" does not mean that every part of the earthly tabernacle corresponded to some part of the heavenly one. Rather, the entirety of what Moses made pointed toward the reality of Christ's atonement.

8:6 And now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, in as much as he has become mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted as law on the basis of better promises.
This verse corresponds in some ways to 7:11, which says that the people of Israel were placed under law through the Levitical priesthood. But Christ has "enacted as law" a better covenant. This priestly ministry is a more excellent ministry than theirs. He offers the promise of real atonement in contrast to their service that could not actually take away sins.

Moses mediated the first covenant (cf. Gal. 3:19). This "new" covenant, by contrast, has been mediated through Christ.

8:7 For if the first covenant were blameless, he would not have sought out a second place.
Despite the way this verse sounds, we should not think that the new covenant was God's back-up plan in case the first covenant failed. The author's later comments make it clear that God had planned to atone for sins through Christ from the very beginning.

Nevertheless, the author uses an argument here that he has used before. If God's relationship with the people of Israel had truly ushered in rest, Psalm 95 would not have spoken of another day to enter into God's rest. If the Levitical priesthood had taken away sins, Psalm 110:4 would not have spoken of another priesthood. And so here, if the first covenant had been effective, God would not have spoken in Jeremiah 31 of a new one.

8:8 For finding blame with them, he says, "Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete with the house of Israel and on the house of Judah, a new covenant,
We are reminded here of the way the author began Hebrews--"in these last days, God has spoken to us through a Son" (1:2). These are the days of fulfillment of this prophecy. God is now making a new covenant with Israel and Judah. Although the author uses this ethnic specific language, we should assume that he includes Gentile confessors of faith within the seed of Abraham as well.

8:9 ... not like the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took their hand to lead them from the land of Egypt, because they themselves did not remain in my covenant, and I neglected them, says the Lord.
Hebrews 8:8-12 is the longest Old Testament citation in the New Testament. Whenever we are looking at such quotations, especially when they are lengthy as in Hebrews, we should remember that these are not strictly the words of the author. We cannot read each line of such a citation with the assumption that it minutely reflects the author's interests and concerns.

So in this case, we should not think from this part of the quote that the introduction of the new covenant was due to the failure of Israel. Christ was always the plan for true atonement.

8:10-11 Because this [is] the covenant, that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, giving my laws in their mind. And I will write them on their hearts, and I will be God to them, and they will be my people. And never will each teach his neighbor and each his brother saying, “Know the Lord,” because everyone will know me from their small to great,
Although this new covenant passage is not quoted extensively elsewhere in the New Testament, we fill in some of the gaps in Paul's understanding of the new covenant from Hebrews. From Paul--2 Corinthians 3 in particular--we see a connection in Paul's thought between the Holy Spirit and the new covenant. From Hebrews, we see what the new covenant accomplishes--the writing of God's laws on the hearts and minds of His people.

Taken together, we see clearly the background for what Paul is thinking in Romans 2. Here Paul speaks of Gentiles who, because they have the Spirit, demonstrate the Law written on their hearts (e.g., Rom. 2:15). The new covenant is a covenant in which, through the Holy Spirit, God writes His laws on human hearts.

8:12 … because I will be merciful on their wrongdoings and their sins I will never remember again."
The other part of the new covenant we see from this quote--and the one of greatest interest to Hebrews--is the actual forgiveness of sins that the new covenant makes possible. The Levitical system was not effective in this regard. But finally in the new covenant, Christ's priesthood makes this possible.

8:13 When he says “New,” he has made the first [covenant] old. And that which is getting old and obsolete is near [its] disappearance.
The author will make it clear in 10:14 that Christ has done with one sacrifice what all of the Levitical sacrifices taken together were not able to do. And once this sacrifice was made, the old covenant was definitively over with respect to the offering of sacrifices.

Of course the created realm still remains the way it was before. In that sense, the old covenant is not completely gone, although its days are numbered. Its end has begun, but it is only near disappearance, as long as the shakeable remains.

Friday Intertestament: Tobit

I'm beginning to grasp what lies ahead this summer, yet another list of impossible goals and overcommitments. Nevertheless, I limp on. My deadline for the philosophy textbook is June 1 (wishful thinking). Two other book proposals are on hold with publishers waiting further sample chapters (ouch). May term sappeth my prime writing time (they're taking a mid-term as we speak). Oh, and there's a significant administrative duty I'm tasked with this summer as well.

There, that's my venting. The question I'm asking myself is thus how blogging might help me accomplish at least some of these tasks.

I plan for the explanatory notes to continue 1) with Hebrews so I don't feel like a failure after last semester and 2) with Galatians so that I don't have to spend as much time with the book in my Fall Romans and Galatians class. it may not come quite as quickly as I'd hope, but I'll still try for Sunday/Tuesday/Thursday. Also, since Tom Schreiner and Mark Siefrid of Southern Baptist Seminary are both writing commentaries on Galatians, some Arminian/semi-new perspective voice needs to be easily available online. Why not mine? :-)

Philosophy stuff may pop up here and there. On Fridays, however, I think I'm going to work on one of my proposals by roaming through intertestamental and Greco-Roman literature identifying key background texts. Today I've decided to take some notes on Tobit.

My method will be 1) to identify key areas of background from my own notes on these books, 2) to see what texts from these books Barrett included in his background book, 3) to check the indices of books like Justification and Variegated Nomism, E P Sander's Paul and Palestinian Judaism, Dunn's Paul and the New Perspective, etc. for cited passages.
___________
Before I begin Tobit, I want to dismiss 1 Esdras and the expansions of Esther and Daniel as contributing little or nothing unique to our background knowledge of the New Testament. Susanna does give us some sense of the place of women in 2nd century BC society. Bel and the Dragon is a classic piece of anti-idolatry literature. But I don't think there are any key passages that are a "must read" to understand the NT.

Tobit contributes to a couple areas of background knowledge. The first is in the areas of demonology and angelology. The OT has little in the way of demons, although it is filled with the mention of other gods. Similarly, it is late in the OT (Daniel) that we begin to hear of angel names. Tobit has both of these.

A second area of interest in Tobit is in Jewish piety, some of the basic street values of Jewish culture at the time of Christ. In particular, Tobit highlights the importance of almsgiving, loyalty to family, and the importance of burying the dead.

It's hard to date Tobit, but I think many would date it to the late Greek period of Jewish history, let's say 250-175. Here is my shot at key passages in Tobit for NT background:

The first passage that stands out to me is Tobit 4:1-19. This is a speech from Tobit to his son Tobias. It presents the basics of Jewish piety, particularly as they relate to a wealthy individual. There is a form of the Golden Rule here, concern for ethnic purity, mention of concern for the poor, for proper burial, and a basic statement of deuteronomistic theology.

A second passage that stands out to me is Tobit 6:16-18. These are instructions from the angel Raphael to Tobias concerning how to cause the demon Asmodeus to flee the bridal chamber of Sarah. A number of features of this passage give NT background information. First there is the preference for endogamous marriage, of marriage to someone in your extended family, to keep property and such within the broader family. Second there is the quasi-magical nature of the solution to the demon problem (it involves fish liver and heart).

A final passage is the prophecy of Tobit in 14:4b-7. This passage seems to play into N. T. Wright's well known thesis that the Jews of Christ's day did not feel that they had ever truly returned from exile. This passage predicts that the post-exilic temple will not be as glorious as Solomon's temple until the "times of fulfillment." It then looks to a time when all the nations will be converted and will worship the God of truth.

Hebrews 7:11-28: Explanatory Notes

I'm a week behind schedule...
______________
7:11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood—for on the basis of it the people have been placed under law—what need would still arise to speak of a different priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Aaron?
The concept of perfection is clearly important for Hebrews. Thus far we have heard of the perfection of Christ as his becoming complete as a cause of eternal salvation. We have also heard the author admonish the audience to bring on "perfection" understood as maturity. In this central argument of the sermon (7:1-10:18), the perfection of individuals as the cleansing of their sins will recur.

The Levitical priesthood, the author argues, was unable to bring about this perfection, this actual cleansing of sins. If the Levitical priesthood had been sufficient, why would Psalm 110:4 speak of a different priesthood relating to the Messiah? The author infers from this fact that the Levitical priesthood must have been incomplete, imperfect.

In this chapter, Hebrews thinks of the Law somewhat differently from the way Paul does. When Paul speaks of the Mosaic Law, issues like circumcision and food laws are rarely far from view. Further, Paul does not speak of the replacement (or abolition of the Law; Ephesians 2:15 is a departure from Paul's standard rhetoric). In both of these respects, Hebrews differs from Paul. Most important for understanding Hebrews 7 is the fact that Hebrews' argument here virtually equates the Law with the Levitical system.

7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity a change of law also takes place.
Key for Hebrews is an essential connection between the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic Law. Since the Law was put into effect on the basis of the Levitical priesthood, a change of priesthood implies a change of law. You cannot remove or replace one without doing the same to the other. Since Hebrews is arguing for a change of priesthood, a change of law is implied as well.

7:13-14 For about the one whom these things are said, he has partaken of a different tribe from which no one has gripped the altar. For it is clear that our Lord has arisen from Judah, about which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
The author of Hebrews wishes to argue that the death of Christ is not simply one sacrifice among the many sacrifices of time. He wishes to argue that Christ's sacrifice is the only sacrifice to work of all time. He is placing Christ against the entirety of the Levitical system, something the rest of the New Testament does not clearly do.

Part of this strategy is to show that Christ is not simply the only effective sacrifice, but also that he is the priest to end all priests. The difficulty with this position is of course that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah--a prerequisite for him to be the messianic king. How then can he be a priest? He is not a Levite or a descendant of Aaron.

The author's answer of course is that Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, a priesthood superior to any priesthood Moses enacted as part of the Law. God's enactment of the priesthood of Christ thus implies a change of the Law--a change from the Mosaic Law with its Levitical priesthood.

7:15-17 And it is even more obviously clear [that a change of law is necessary] if a different priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has not come into existence according to the law of the fleshly commandment but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed that "You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."
Here is the punchline we have anticipated. Because God has brought about a priest after the order of Melchizedek, a king-priest, God has thus changed the law. We should not read the phrase "fleshly commandment" in Pauline terms, as if the commandment itself is sinful. Fleshly here, as we will see in chapter 9 tells us that these commandments only cleaned the flesh. They were not able to cleanse the "conscience" because they had actually taken away sins.

The "power of an indestructible life" reminds us of the key characteristic of a Melchizedekian priest for the author of Hebrews--such a priest never dies but "always lives" and "remains a priest forever" because he has no "end of days." Christ's never ending life is thus key to the ultimacy of his priesthood.

7:18-19 For on the one hand, a rejection of the preceding commandment comes because of its weakness and uselessness—for the Law made nothing perfect—on the other hand, comes the entrance of a better hope through which we might draw near to God.
The author here, more radically than Paul, breaks with the Law, although it is clearly the sacrificial system of the Law that he has in mind. The Law was unable to perfect those who offered sacrifices--it did not actually take away sins. The introduction of a Melchizedekian priest thus implies that the Levitical commandments are no longer in force. They were unable to do what they were thought to do and thus were weak and useless.

At the same time, the introduction of a new priesthood is the entrance of a better hope. This is not a hope that is ineffective, like the Levitical sacrifices. It is a priesthood that can actually bring one effectively to God, into His Holy of Holies (cf. 4:14-16). It can actually take away sins.

7:20-21 And to the degree that it was not without oathtaking. For the others have become priests without oathtaking. But he [became a priest] with oathtaking through the One who said to him, "The Lord swore and will not change His mind, 'You are a priest forever.'"
As at the end of chapter 6, the author returns to the surety of his claims because of the oath God has taken, in this case the oath of Psalm 110:4. God never made an oath with the Mosaic Law or with the "old" covenant to guarantee its permanency. He is thus not dishonest or violating any promise he made when he replaces the Levitical cultus with a new priesthood. God cannot lie, and so the certainty clearly lies with Christ rather than with the Levitical priests.

If we are right to locate Hebrews in the period not long after Jerusalem's destruction, these words were surely meant to encourage the audience. If they were discouraged that God would allow the temple to be destroyed, especially if they were Gentile converts so discouraged, the author bolsters their confidence by assuring them that God never intended the temple system to be permanent. They have no cause for worry, for the reality toward which that system has always pointed is Christ.

7:22 According to such a great oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.
The author now introduces language of covenant for the first time. He will develop the idea of the new covenant more extensively in the next chapter. The old covenant in this context is the covenant God made with Israel through Moses on the basis of the Levitical system. The new covenant, by contrast, is a covenant God is making through Jesus on the basis of his priesthood.

7:23-24 And the majority of those who become priests are prevented from staying priests because of death. But he, because he remains forever, has a permanent priesthood.
Again, the key characteristic of a Melchizedekian priest is the fact that such a priest remains a priest forever. Here is a clear indication that the "historical" Melchizedek himself was not such a priest. Christ on the other hand has a permanent priesthood. God has brought him up from the dead and he remains forever at God's right hand. Aaronic and Levitical priests cannot offer this sort of priesthood to the people, since they eventually die and another must take their place.

7:25 Therefore he is also able to save completely those who approach God through him, since he always lives to intercede on their behalf.
We suggested in our comments on 4:14-16 that Christ's intercession seems primarily in relation to atonement. The Holy Spirit seems more the primary intercessor for more diverse issues of need, as Romans 8:26 seems to indicate. Christ as priest, however, sits at God's right hand with a definitive atonement for sins in hand.

The rest of Hebrews would suggest that this atonement is not unending in terms of covering any and all sins that a believer might commit for the rest of his or her life. The "sacrifice for sins" can be used up (cf. 10:26). Matters of Christ always interceding--or later sanctifying--are not iterative for Hebrews, as something Christ repeatedly does for the same individual as that individual sins anew. Rather they stand as a one time, yet permanent cleansing.

7:26-27 For he was such a great and fitting high priest—holy, pure, unblemished, set apart from sinners and having become higher than the heavens—who does not have necessity daily—like [other] high priests—first to offer for his own sins and then those of the people. For he did this by offering himself once and for all.
The author now for the first time in this chapter refers to Christ not just as priest but as high priest. Psalm 110:4 of course does not refer to Christ as a high priest but only as a priest. But as he approaches the argument of chapters 8-10, he begins to shift toward a different Old Testament background, namely, that of the Day of Atonement. Christ is thus not only a priest after the order of Melchizedek but in fact a high priest after the order of Melchizedek (so 5:10).

With slight irony, the author now describes Jesus' high priesthood in categories drawn from the requirements of Leviticus in relation to both priests and sacrifices. He is pure and unblemished as both a priest and sacrifice. But unlike the Levitical priests, he is completely without blemish. He was without sin. He does not need to offer sacrifices for himself.

His sacrifice not only does not have to apply to himself daily. His offering is a once and for all sacrifice. It is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

The mention of his priesthood as "higher than the heavens" alludes to the theme of Christ entering into the heavenly sanctuary and into the heavenly Holy of Holies. 4:14-15 has spoken of Christ as priest passing through the heavens. The picture is that of Christ moving through layers of sky on his way to the highest heaven.

This verse speaks of Christ as a priest having gone higher than the skies, higher than the heavens. It is of course possible, as some have suggested, that the picture here relates the lower skies to the outer part of the heavenly sanctuary. In any case, Christ's passage through the created heavens to the indestructible highest heaven implies that he is now "higher than the skies."

7:28 For the Law appoints humans as high priests who have weakness, but the word of oathtaking that is after the Law appoints a Son who has been perfected forever.
This general statement closes the author's presentation of Christ as a priest in the order of Melchizedek. The Mosaic Law with its Levitical priesthood involves high priests with weakness, which refers to sin in the author's use of the word (cf. 5:2).

Christ does not have this problem. The priest that God has appointed by oath was without sin and has been perfected by his suffering of death. This change of priesthood entails a change of law, a change that is forever.

Monday Thoughts: Parable of Good Samaritan

It seems that every time I go through the Parable of the Good Samaritan, it seems more and more revolutionary to me. Most people use it today to rail against "religious" people, a cultural reading that fits with some current trends. But I think there's more bite here than an excuse not to go to church.

1. I think most people know that Samaritans were not thought well of by Jews. What they may not know is that they had good reason to consider them less than "kosher" on the basis of the Old Testament:

a. They had a different Bible--the Samaritan Pentateuch.
b. They did not agree with the Jewish books of Samuel-Kings or with the Jerusalem temple.
c. They were syncretistic in their religion, including some polytheistic elements.
d. At times they had opposed the Jews politically.

2. The set up for the parable is "Who is my neighbor?" "Who do I have to love as myself?" The parable does not necessarily approve of the Samaritan in the light of the things above, although it clearly approves of the way he acts in this situation.

The take away seems to be that we must love everyone, including the person we least may want to love. This does not necessarily mean that we approve of their actions or their beliefs. But we must love them. Picture the person you least want to love. That is perhaps the person this parable bids you to love.

3. One of the blind spots of the "anti-religious" interpretation of this parable is that Pharisees are not mentioned. There is a reason why the "bad guys" in this parable are a Levite and priest. It is because these individuals were bound by the Jewish law--that is, by the Old Testament. They avoid the mugged person not because they are hypocrites but precisely because they are doing what they think the Bible requires of them.

In short, the priest and Levites are absolutists, fundamentalists, in their keeping of the Jewish law. They make no exceptions. Jesus, in effect, is saying that the life of others trumps the purity codes of the Bible.

The problem with the priest and Levite is not that they are religious but that they do not have the right priorities in their religion.

Hebrews 7:1-10: Explanatory Notes

7:1 For this "Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God," who "met Abraham returning from the battle of the kings" and "blessed him," to whom also "Abraham" divided "a tenth of all"...
The author's purpose in this chapter is to unfold for the audience what a "priest after the order of Melchizedek" is. The early Christians understood Psalm 110:1 to be about the Messiah and, thus, about Christ: "The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" So it was only fitting that the author of Hebrews would also apply verse four to Christ as Messiah as well: "The LORD has sworn and will not repent, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.'"

But what is such a priest? To answer this question the author turns to the only other Old Testament Scripture that mentions Melchizedek: Genesis 14. In this chapter the author looks for (allegorical) clues from Genesis 14 to show what such a priest is.

7:2 ... first being interpreted "king of righteousness" and then also "king of Salem," which is "king of peace"...
The author begins by taking the names of the Genesis text allegorically. The name Melchizedek, has the words "king" and "righteous" in it, so the author concludes that a priest after the order of Melchizedek is a "king of righteousness." The translation "my king is righteous" might be more precise. In any case we have no reason to think that the author of Hebrews actually knew Hebrew or Aramaic.

"Salem" is of course the word shalom, "peace." Thus the author concludes that a priest after the order of Melchizedek is a king of peace. The idea that the Messiah is righteous is not a major theme of Hebrews, but we do find it in the author's use of Psalm 45 in Hebrews 1:9--"You loved righteousness and hated lawlessness." Similarly, peace surfaces a couple times in Hebrews as a theme (Heb. 12:14; 13:20).

7:3 ... without father, without mother, without genealogy, neither having beginning of days or end of life, but having been likened to the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.
This verse more than any other has given rise throughout Christian history to the idea that Melchizedek was actually a Christophany, a cameo appearance of Christ in the Old Testament. If this description fit Melchizedek, then why didn't he die for sins? He sounds far from human!

In fact, we do find references to Melchizedek in Jewish literature that seem to see him as some sort of exalted angelic figure (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls). A number of recent interpreters have thus argued that Hebrews sees Melchizedek as such a heavenly figure.

However, the key to understanding this description is the word "likened." The author is still interpreting Genesis 14 allegorically. In that text, we do not hear of Melchizedek's parents (and of course we do know Jesus' mother and heavenly Father). More specifically, Genesis says nothing about Melchizedek's priestly genealogy. He is clearly not a priest like the descendants of Aaron, that are required to come from a certain blood line.

Genesis similarly does not record when Melchizedek began or ended his office as priest. It does not tell of his death. For allegorical purposes, we might thus say that a priest after the order of Melchizedek neither starts as a priest at a particular time nor ends with death, like other priests do.

The interpretive technique the author is using here is called "non in thora non in mundo"--if it is not mentioned in the text, then we can interpret the text as if it does not exist. Since the Genesis text does not mention any of these aspects of Melchizedek's identity, then we can allegorically consider them not to exist.

We can thus say that a priest after the order of Melchizedek does not have a priestly genealogy or fixed days of priestly office. Most importantly, such a priest remains a priest forever. Allegorically speaking, Genesis 14 "likens" such a priest to the Son of God.

Once again, it is important to recognize that the author is not strictly talking here about the "historical" figure of Melchizedek. He is rather using allegorical interpretation to determine what the order of Melchizedek is like. The ironic conclusion is thus that the "historical" Melchizedek himself was not actually such a priest!

7:4-6 Now consider how great this man was, to whom Abraham the patriarch even gave a tenth from his spoils. And those who receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi have a commandment to receive tithes from from the people, that is, their brothers, according to the Law, even though they went out from the loins of Abraham.

But the one who does not share their genealogy took tithes from Abraham and blessed the one who has the promises.
The author is about to argue that the order of Melchizedek is superior to the Levitical order of priesthood. His argument is nothing sort of ingenious (even inspired). He is about to compare two "scenes" from the biblical story.

The first is when Melchizedek meets Abraham returning from battle. Abraham gives tithes to Melchizedek, and Melchizedek blesses Abraham. The second is a day in the life of Israel. An Israelite gives tithes to a Levitical priest. He hints at the connection between these two scenes in one of his side comments--Abraham is Levi's great grandfather. He will contrast the two priesthoods by equating Levi with Abraham in the scene with Melchizedek.

The mention that Melchizedek "does not share their genealogy," that is, that of the Levitical priests, confirms our understanding of 7:3. To say that Melchizedek is "without father, without mother, without genealogy" is to say that he is without a Levitical geneaology. He is not a hereditary priest.

7:7 Now without any dispute, the lesser is blessed by the greater.
That is to say Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, for Melchizedek blesses Abraham and not the other way around.

7:8 And here, on the one hand, men who die receive tithes. But there it is witnessed that he lives.
The author is comparing texts, parts of the biblical story. One biblical text "witnesses" one thing about the Levitical priests. The other text witnesses something different about Melchizedek. Levitical priests cannot continue in office because they eventually die. But Psalm 110:4 says that a priest after the order of Melchizedek is a priest forever. As we will see throughout the rest of Hebrews 7, the key characteristic of a priest after the order of Melchizedek is an indestructible life.

7:9-10 And, so to speak, even Levi--the one who receives tithes--has given tithes through Abraham. For he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
The argument is now complete. Melchizedek is greater than Abraham both because Abraham gave his tithes to him and because Melchizedek was the one who blessed Abraham. Since Levi was, in a sense, within Abraham, this implies that Melchizedek is also greater than Levi. Thus by implication, a priest after the order of Melchizedek is a greater priest than a priest after the order of Levi.

This argument may seem a little peculiar from a modern standpoint. It is an argument that swims in ancient Jewish methods of exegesis. Such methods are not oriented around reading passages in context--except when such context contributes to the author's argument. Nevertheless, they were perfectly appropriate types of argument for an educated interpreter of Scripture to make in the first century.