Earlier in the week I started reviewing William Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis.
Chapter 1: The Christian and Culture
Chapter 2: A Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic
1. The second chapter is where he lays out his general "hermeneutic," his philosophy of appropriating the biblical texts. He calls it a "redemptive movement hermeneutic."
I found this chapter fascinating and maybe a little jarring. I've been tip-toeing around sensitive issues for my whole teaching career. He just kind of lays it down. I try to be so careful how I present these things--sometimes I may have danced so gingerly that students haven't even really fully understood what I was getting at.
Meanwhile, he just lays out a sentence like, "From one direction the Bible looks redemptive (and is); from the other direction it appears regressive (and is)" (31). "There is much within Scripture that needs an infusion of greater justice, greater compassion and greater equity in the treatment of human beings" (43). He argues that in some cases our culture reflects a better ethic than the words of the Bible isolated from the spirit they had in their context. For example, "surely there is a more humane and just treatment of women POWs than what is reflected in the biblical text" of the Pentateuch (33).
Now, if you dig into what he is saying, I think we will generally agree. There are some pretty harsh and cold laws in the Pentateuch. An America where women can vote and have equal rights to men is arguably a more Christian world than the world in which the women of the first century lived--and the New Testament does not entirely revolutionize that world.
On the other hand, there is some whiplash in the way he treats those who go further than him in the other direction. For example, he seems fairly harsh to me on what he calls "secular egalitarianism." To be fair, I almost always react to a book like this with the thought, "I'd like to rewrite this book in my own way." :-)
2. In the end, I generally agree with what he is getting at, even if I might put things slightly differently. Here is the main gist:
The words of the Bible are more than what they say. They had a spirit, a direction, in their original contexts. We do not necessarily fulfill what they are saying by taking them in an "isolated" sense. The words of the Bible have an "underlying spirit." You might say they have a "vector"--the Bible is pointing in a particular direction. This direction is redemptive.
This reminded me of something I read in a book by Ken Schenck, "Doing what the ancients did is not doing what they did if the significance of the action is different."
He thinks in terms of two vantage points from which we might look at the Bible. The first is the standpoint of the original meaning in its original context. When the Bible is viewed against the backdrop of the Ancient Near East or Greco-Roman culture, we find that the Bible is progressive. It has a "radically redemptive spirit" (34).
However, at times we look at biblical texts and they seem less redemptive than we would be today. For example, Leviticus 19 has a lesser penalty for the sexual violation of a slave woman than for a free woman. We would not consider that a very Christian position today. Parts of the Old Testament follow the thinking of ancient culture and assume that barrenness is purely the woman's problem. Improvements in our knowledge of reproduction clue us into the fact that this is not the case.
These are places where he boldly suggests that our culture sometimes has a "better ethic" than some parts of the Bible. This is where it gets a little touchy. Take slavery. He would say that the abolition of slavery fits the redemptive movement of Scripture and the "ultimate ethic" or logical conclusion of Scripture better than any position finally taken in Scripture itself. Even in 1 Peter 2, slaves are expected to endure wrongful beatings by their masters.
I have used phrases like "kingdom trajectory" and "trajectory of heaven" [2] for what he calls an ultimate ethic. I have been a little more hesitant to use the phrase "progressive revelation" because it seems a bit more of a land mine. In my booklet on women in ministry, for example, I ask what slave-master and wife-husband relationships will be like in the kingdom of God as an argument against slavery and an argument against the subordination of women to men today if we can enact such things. This is essentially the same move.
In this chapter, he presents charts on slavery and women with Scriptures that demonstrate his point. In these charts, verses on the left demonstrate places where the Bible shows redemptive movement in relation to the culture of its day. Then the column on the right reflects verses in the Bible that have not yet reached the ultimate ethic or what I call the kingdom trajectory. The trick will be to see what criteria he sets up to tell us what the ultimate ethic is.
As in the first chapter, he is working against what he calls a "static" hermeneutic that reads the words of the Bible in isolation from their spirit and underlying redemptive direction. I have spoken of a "flow of revelation" in the Bible, which is less of a concept for him so far. I also in recent years have focused on Jesus as the "last Word," taking a clue here from N. T. Wright.
I then talk of everything after Christ as "unzipping the file" or clarifying the final revelation in Christ. While the central aspects of this unpacking take place in the New Testament, there were still some details to refine in the earliest centuries of the church (e.g., the Trinity).
Webb points out that many advocates of a static hermeneutic actually have already incorporated some of the movement of Scripture into their positions, although they might deny it. The soft patriarchy of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood have already snuck into their work a perspective that is actually softer than some of the biblical texts. No mentally stable person would stone rebellious children today.
3. He also speaks of "canonical movement," particularly between the Old and New Testaments, although he has not yet spelled this out. I also speak of a "flow of revelation" in my work.
This movement of Scripture is one reason why a "find the principle" approach is valuable but inadequate. In fact, I would suggest it is why Steve Lennox's "what does this passage tell me about God" approach is missing one element. This is the fact that the older parts of the Old Testament do not have as precise an understanding of God as the later parts, and the Old Testament does not have as complete an understanding of God as the New Testament.
This has been one of my critiques of Duvall and Hays' Grasping God's Word. We are taught to cross the "principlizing bridge" from each Scripture to today. But this implies that the individual bridges all lead to a final destination today. Rather, we must take the whole counsel of God in all of Scripture into account before the bridge will lead us to an ultimate destination. In other words, crossing the bridge from certain parts of Leviticus does not get us to the final point on the other side of the river. We need the book of Hebrews and other passages in the New Testament for help with that.
A hermeneutical thought tool he mentions is a "ladder of abstraction" (54). The idea here is that if we abstract far enough from the concrete biblical text, we ultimately find a principle to apply to today. This is not entirely wrong, but it is not the whole story because it does not take into account the movement of the text.
5. In the final section of the chapter he provides a theological rationale for his approach. He affirms the authority of Scripture but claims that a static hermeneutic "cannot provide credible answers for the inquisitive seeker, the critical secularist or the troubled Christian" (57). I would have walked a little more gingerly here.
He presents what I call God's "incarnational" approach to revelation. God "takes on the flesh" in terms of the worldviews and paradigms of those to whom "he" is revealing himself. God wants to be understood, so he meets us within our own paradigms and moves us along. "Good teachers set the level of instructional material at the level of their students" (61).
This also relates to what Webb calls the pastoral dimension of God's revelation. "Pastors lead their people in soothing, quiet ways along a path toward where they ought to be" (60). It is when an audience of Scripture is near the edges that the revelation gets stark and sometimes harsh. So Paul at times is harsh in 1 Corinthians but at other times much more gradual.
There is also an evangelistic component. You meet people where they are at to move them toward the kingdom. It's more important to get them in the door first. Then you can refine their understanding later in discipleship. This is not just a technique we use outside of Scripture. I believe Webb is correct to discern that this is the approach God took within Scripture in relation to its original audiences.
It cannot be denied that there is even some accommodation to less than God's ideal in Scripture. Jesus says as much in Matthew 19 when he says that divorce was never God's preference. God gave this allowance in Scripture because of the hardness of Israel's heart. God sometimes compromises, playing a long game with humanity. The nature of revelation suggests that God is relational and practical more than idealistic.
6. I am not entirely clear on the criteria he will use to critique "going too far." He mentions for example, that while abolition is the ultimate ethic in relation to slavery, it would be incorrect to assume that we should get rid of hierarchy altogether (49). I am not entirely clear yet on how he discerns the stopping point.
Another possible critique is that he does not acknowledge the role that early Christianity played in finalizing certain aspects of Christian thinking. Admittedly, he is focused on ethics rather than doctrine. He also aims to establish criteria internal to the Bible. However, it seems to me that his approach is based on reason in this regard.
I have heard nothing yet of the actual core biblical ethic: "Love God and love neighbor." From an inductive standpoint, this is the biblical center point for all kingdom ethics, and it is clear within Scripture. This is the revealed criterion of the kingdom. That is how I would approach these issues.
I'll end today's post by pointing out that I have worked my version of this hermeneutic in a self-published book called, Who Decides What the Bible Means? I initially submitted it to Westminister John Knox and Abingdon but finally decided to publish it on my own. I also employ the hermeneutic in Why Wesleyans Favor Women in Ministry.
[1] In Making Sense of God's Word.
Saturday, May 09, 2020
Wednesday, May 06, 2020
William Webb's Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals
On a very minor note, I'm not too fond of the title. I would have preferred "Slavery, Gender, and Sexuality" or some such. Indeed, his use of a particular word at one point in chapter 1 made me think, "Hmm. This book is nineteen years old."
I'm sure he didn't mean it, but the title ironically implies a male perspective (as well as that of a free heterosexual). It is a book that is going to talk about women (and the others). The title ironically implies a position of dominance in order to talk about egalitarianism.
2. Having said that, the introduction suggests that he is going to express in probably more convincing terms the kinds of positions that I have argued my whole teaching career. When I look at the list of instructions from the Bible on pages 14-15, I see passages to which I have referred throughout my teaching to make similar points.
The question he poses is, "Which of these instructions from Scripture are still in force for us today exactly as they are articulated?" Here are just five of the some forty scriptures he gives:
- "Be fruitful and multiply."
- "Greet one another with a holy kiss."
- "Sell your possessions and give to the poor."
- "Love the LORD with all your heart."
- "Use a little wine because of your stomach."
The book moves in three parts. The first section lays the groundwork--"Toward a Hermeneutic of Cultural Analysis." He will set out culture and present what he calls a "redemptive-movement framework." This is similar to what I have called a trajectory in Scripture and that some call "progressive revelation."
The second section lays out criteria. Webb will set out 18 criteria to determine what components within the biblical text have ongoing application in a straightforward rather than indirect form. Key to this task is to find internal criteria, that is to find the principles for such hermeneutical discernment from within Scripture itself.
The last section both corroborates the ideas with reasoning outside the Bible and he also plays the Devil's advocate against his own perspective.
3. Chapter one is titled, "The Christian and Culture." He starts giving the familiar comparison of culture to the water in which a fish might swim. "What awakens us to culture is contrast" (21). In other words, we best realize that we are in a context by seeing how our context differs from other contexts.
Sometimes, he argues, Christians are to be counter-cultural. At other times, they go along with the culture ("paracultural"). "It is necessary for Christians to challenge their culture where it departs from kingdom values; it is equally necessary for them to identify with their culture on all other matters" (22). The key is to know what kingdom values are, which is not always as easy as you might think.
As an aside, I was reminded of discussions we had in 2007 as we were putting together the initial outcomes for the Wesley Seminary curriculum. Norm Wilson suggested that the phrase "kingdom values" was complicated because of the tendency to confuse them with values that are really Christianity played out in our culture. To put it another way, kingdom values never exist in the abstract. We can only observe them played out in particular times and places--"contextualized."
Here is a key point--kingdom values are always contextualized in Scripture as well. "Within the text of Scripture we find portions that are transcultural (e.g., love for one's neighbor) and portions that are cultural, or more accurately, portions that contain significant cultural components (e.g., slavery texts)" (23).
He does mention something that I think is important here. In one sense, this language is misleading. "In one sense all of Scripture is cultural" (24). Indeed, I do not like the term transcultural. I prefer to use the term, "omnicontextual." Every word of the Bible--and anything else--is cultural in the sense that we cannot escape culture or contextualization.
Nevertheless, he uses terms like "cultural confinement," "cultural relativity," and "culturally bound" to refer to parts of the Bible that would not translate well into other times and places.
4. The chapter ends by setting out the spectra of positions on "the women's issue" and "the homosexual issue." Again, don't really like the way this is phrased.
The spectrum on the role of women
1. Strong patriarchy
- No instance of women in leadership over a man
- Women in lower ministry positions, just not senior leadership, ok in secular society
- Women in any role, mutual submission in marriage
- equal rights rather than submission of some kind, work can take priority over family
1. Marital heterosexuality only
- traditional position
- Homosexuality can only be expressed in a monogamous, covenant (we would now say marital) relationship
- any expression involving consenting adults
Sunday, May 03, 2020
2 Thessalonians Introduction
Author and Audience
1. Our first impression may indeed be a correct impression. 2 Thessalonians begins very similarly to 1 Thessalonians, with the names of Paul, Silas, and Timothy as authors.
Indeed, 2 Thessalonians 2:2 warns about the possibility of fake letters that are not really from Paul, Silas, and Timothy. 3:17 emphasizes that Paul is writing the closing greeting with his own hand. He emphasizes his signature for comparison with any other letter that might claim to be from him.
This is a very strong argument for the literal Pauline authorship of the letter. If it were not the case, would we not have to conclude that 2 Thessalonians was a forgery? There is debate over whether there are letters in the New Testament that were "allonymous"-- written by someone other than the name on them. [1] Some have argued that the recipients might have known that these letters were not directly from the person named in the greeting.
We will return to this question under the heading of genre below. Nevertheless, the impression we get is that Paul, Silas, and Timothy are the co-authors. Similarly, the impression we get is that the Thessalonian church is once again the audience of the letter.
Date and Situation
2. We do not find Silas as an author on any of Paul's other letters. Timothy is mentioned in the greeting of Colossians. The specific names of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, as well as the Thessalonian audience, thus suggest that we might think of this letter in the same general time frame as 1 Thessalonians. The impression we get is that 2 Thessalonians must have also been written from Corinth to Thessalonica around the years AD50-52.
Paul's letters are arranged in the canon by length, so it is at least theoretically possible that 2 Thessalonians was written before 1 Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians is first because it has 5 chapters, while 2 Thessalonians only has 3. Nevertheless, the current order seems to be the correct one. The story of the founding of the church and Timothy's recent return suggests that 1 Thessalonians is Paul's first contact with the church since he left.
1 Thessalonians addresses the matter of Christians who die before the Lord returns. 2 Thessalonians seems to address those who might believe the judgment has already begun. Some have also argued that an immanent expectation of Christ's return might explain the idleness addressed in 2 Thessalonians 3. If you believe the Lord is coming back immediately, why work?
The impression we thus get is that 2 Thessalonians was written to indicate events that would take place before the second coming. The point was to indicate that the Lord had not yet returned. Nor would he would return immediately, for some of the key signs had not yet happened. There is still a near expectation, just not an immediate expectation. Some things still had to happen. There was reason to keep working as usual.
Genre
3. Above you find the impressions we get from a surface level reading of the letter, and these impressions may indeed be the correct ones. However, a close reading of the letter also finds a number of curiosities. They have led some to wonder if more is going on with this letter than we might get from our first impressions.
For one, the content of 2 Thessalonians 2 is unique to Paul's letters. Nowhere else does he speak of a man of lawlessness or a rebellion. The impression we get from 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians is indeed that the Lord could return at any time. Indeed, even the eschatological passages of the Gospels hardly speak of such things. Mark 13:14 does speak of an "abomination of desolation," presumably in the temple, which Luke 21:20 interprets in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem.
At the same time, the form of 2 Thessalonians is very close to that of 1 Thessalonians. The greeting is very similar. Elements of the thanksgiving section are very similar to those of 1 Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians even has a second thanksgiving (2:13) in the same general location as 1 Thessalonians (2:13).
Yet the language of 2 Thessalonians is more formal and the general feel less relational. Some have wondered if someone was following the form of 1 Thessalonians and yet writing for a quite different situation. It could of course have been Paul himself, writing a kind of code letter at a much different point in his ministry. The hand could have been Silas or Timothy, either before or after Paul's death. Then of course some suggest it could be someone else entirely, either an allonymous author or even a forger. [2]
4. The form and style of 2 Thessalonians alone would not be sufficient to push us in a different direction than our first impressions. However, there are other curiosities. For example, by almost all reckonings, 2 Thessalonians is a candidate to be either the second or third letter Paul wrote. It would thus be highly curious for Pauline forgeries already to be in circulation, as 2 Thessalonians 2:2 seems to suggest. Such an occurrence seems much more likely after Paul became known as a letter writer and several of his letters were known. In other words, 2:2 does not fit as nicely into the time frame of Paul's time at Corinth as it would fit a time either later in Paul's ministry or beyond it.
Another example of possible context misfit is the mention of traditions the Thessalonians received from Paul, Silas, and Timothy (3:6). They were only there for less than two months and they had one letter from them, 1 Thessalonians. One verse hardly seems a tradition (5:14). Tradition sounds like a word that implies more time than the default dating of 2 Thessalonians might suggest.
Similarly, we find what at least sounds like code language, "tells" that more is going on here than meets the eye. "You know what is restraining him" (2:6). "Do you not remember that, while still being with you, I used to say these things to you?" (2:5). It sounds like there is an understanding between authors and audience that they do not want to put down in writing. The audience knows what is going on--there is no deception. But someone may read Paul, Silas, and Timothy's letter, so they are intentionally cryptic.
5. These hints might suggest that 2 Thessalonians is something like an "apocalyptic letter." An apocalypse was a genre where someone wrote about their current circumstances through a voice from the past. For example, 4 Ezra is a book written about AD100 in which an author uses the voice of Ezra from the past (400s BC) to address the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. In the genre of the book, Ezra seems to be given a revelation about the future, but it is really someone from much later talking about their present.
What if Paul or Silas or Timothy wished to speak about the events of their time using their own voice from over fifteen years earlier? They take 1 Thessalonians, a letter that explicitly addressed the second coming. They follow its form, not to deceive, but because it fits the form of what they wish to say and because a letter from the past might pass a Roman filter more easily. If Silas were the primary writer and Paul were already gone, it would be all the less threatening.
The intended audience would thus not be the Thessalonians specifically, but all Christians of that moment. the Thessalonians would be a literary representative for all Christians. If Silas were writing soon after Paul's passing, the words, "while still being with you" become even more poignant. Paul could thus be the one "restraining" these events, though now with him removed they might take place.
The most difficult piece of this hypothesis is Paul's signature in 3:17. But perhaps Paul is about to die at the hands of Nero. Perhaps Silas could be writing for him with him giving the signature. Or perhaps the audience knows that what the letter is saying is that Silas is the one who can give the authentic voice of Paul, as opposed to other voices for him that were not authentic. Since 2 Thessalonians is in Scripture, we would assume that 2 Thessalonians gives an authentic voice.
Situation 2
6. We assume the inspiration of 2 Thessalonians, whether our first impression is correct or if something deeper was going on. In either case, it is difficult to know what the events of 2 Thessalonians 2 were addressing. The mention of the temple probably suggests that the events in view were to take place while the temple was still standing, that is, before AD70. We note the similar language again to Mark 13:14 and the "abomination of desolation." No mention is made either of the temple being destroyed or being rebuilt.
As with Mark 13, it is thus likely that we have some blurring between events that took place in the first century and events surrounding the return of Christ. The phrase, "man of lawlessness" could refer either to an external or an internal figure. Among external figures, a Roman emperor or general seems quite possible.
Ample precedents for foreign powers defiling the temple were at hand. In 167BC, it was Syrian representatives of Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. Dan. 11:31). In 63BC it was the Roman general Pompey. In AD38 the Roman emperor Caligula tried to set up a statue of himself in the temple. When a first century Jewish audience heard talk of someone setting themselves as God in the temple, surely the Romans would be the first thing to come to mind.
At the same time, mention of leading those who do not believe astray could suggest a Jewish leader (2:10-12). Could the rebellion against Rome in the Jewish War be seen as an inappropriate falling away? Might a revolutionary leader or a high priest be seen as a "man of lawlnessness"? Or are those who do not believe Gentiles rather than Jews?
The idea that Nero might return after his apparent suicide was known in Jewish circles, and there were some pretenders. A Jewish writing called the Sibylline Oracles refers to this legend. [3] Some have suggested that 2 Thessalonians alludes to this concept. It is sometimes suggested that this concept also stands in the background of Revelation 13:3 and 18:9-11. If we consider Nero as a type of one who is yet to come, the imagery need not be problematic.
For this reason, the balance seems to point more toward an external, Roman figure as the basis for the man of lawlessness imagery. There might be many enamored by such a figure, whether Jewish or Gentile. However, those who believe would not be deceived. For us there is but one king on earth, and it is Jesus.
[1] The more conventional term is pseudonymous, but I. Howard Marshall suggested we use a different term because it might imply a value judgment that the name on the letter is "false." See A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004), 84. An allonymous author would thus be an "other" author writing under the authority of someone else's name.
[2] See n.1.
[3] Cf. Sibylline Oracles 4.119-24; 5.137-41, 361-96.
1. Our first impression may indeed be a correct impression. 2 Thessalonians begins very similarly to 1 Thessalonians, with the names of Paul, Silas, and Timothy as authors.
Indeed, 2 Thessalonians 2:2 warns about the possibility of fake letters that are not really from Paul, Silas, and Timothy. 3:17 emphasizes that Paul is writing the closing greeting with his own hand. He emphasizes his signature for comparison with any other letter that might claim to be from him.
This is a very strong argument for the literal Pauline authorship of the letter. If it were not the case, would we not have to conclude that 2 Thessalonians was a forgery? There is debate over whether there are letters in the New Testament that were "allonymous"-- written by someone other than the name on them. [1] Some have argued that the recipients might have known that these letters were not directly from the person named in the greeting.
We will return to this question under the heading of genre below. Nevertheless, the impression we get is that Paul, Silas, and Timothy are the co-authors. Similarly, the impression we get is that the Thessalonian church is once again the audience of the letter.
Date and Situation
2. We do not find Silas as an author on any of Paul's other letters. Timothy is mentioned in the greeting of Colossians. The specific names of Paul, Silas, and Timothy, as well as the Thessalonian audience, thus suggest that we might think of this letter in the same general time frame as 1 Thessalonians. The impression we get is that 2 Thessalonians must have also been written from Corinth to Thessalonica around the years AD50-52.
Paul's letters are arranged in the canon by length, so it is at least theoretically possible that 2 Thessalonians was written before 1 Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians is first because it has 5 chapters, while 2 Thessalonians only has 3. Nevertheless, the current order seems to be the correct one. The story of the founding of the church and Timothy's recent return suggests that 1 Thessalonians is Paul's first contact with the church since he left.
1 Thessalonians addresses the matter of Christians who die before the Lord returns. 2 Thessalonians seems to address those who might believe the judgment has already begun. Some have also argued that an immanent expectation of Christ's return might explain the idleness addressed in 2 Thessalonians 3. If you believe the Lord is coming back immediately, why work?
The impression we thus get is that 2 Thessalonians was written to indicate events that would take place before the second coming. The point was to indicate that the Lord had not yet returned. Nor would he would return immediately, for some of the key signs had not yet happened. There is still a near expectation, just not an immediate expectation. Some things still had to happen. There was reason to keep working as usual.
Genre
3. Above you find the impressions we get from a surface level reading of the letter, and these impressions may indeed be the correct ones. However, a close reading of the letter also finds a number of curiosities. They have led some to wonder if more is going on with this letter than we might get from our first impressions.
For one, the content of 2 Thessalonians 2 is unique to Paul's letters. Nowhere else does he speak of a man of lawlessness or a rebellion. The impression we get from 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians is indeed that the Lord could return at any time. Indeed, even the eschatological passages of the Gospels hardly speak of such things. Mark 13:14 does speak of an "abomination of desolation," presumably in the temple, which Luke 21:20 interprets in relation to the destruction of Jerusalem.
At the same time, the form of 2 Thessalonians is very close to that of 1 Thessalonians. The greeting is very similar. Elements of the thanksgiving section are very similar to those of 1 Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians even has a second thanksgiving (2:13) in the same general location as 1 Thessalonians (2:13).
Yet the language of 2 Thessalonians is more formal and the general feel less relational. Some have wondered if someone was following the form of 1 Thessalonians and yet writing for a quite different situation. It could of course have been Paul himself, writing a kind of code letter at a much different point in his ministry. The hand could have been Silas or Timothy, either before or after Paul's death. Then of course some suggest it could be someone else entirely, either an allonymous author or even a forger. [2]
4. The form and style of 2 Thessalonians alone would not be sufficient to push us in a different direction than our first impressions. However, there are other curiosities. For example, by almost all reckonings, 2 Thessalonians is a candidate to be either the second or third letter Paul wrote. It would thus be highly curious for Pauline forgeries already to be in circulation, as 2 Thessalonians 2:2 seems to suggest. Such an occurrence seems much more likely after Paul became known as a letter writer and several of his letters were known. In other words, 2:2 does not fit as nicely into the time frame of Paul's time at Corinth as it would fit a time either later in Paul's ministry or beyond it.
Another example of possible context misfit is the mention of traditions the Thessalonians received from Paul, Silas, and Timothy (3:6). They were only there for less than two months and they had one letter from them, 1 Thessalonians. One verse hardly seems a tradition (5:14). Tradition sounds like a word that implies more time than the default dating of 2 Thessalonians might suggest.
Similarly, we find what at least sounds like code language, "tells" that more is going on here than meets the eye. "You know what is restraining him" (2:6). "Do you not remember that, while still being with you, I used to say these things to you?" (2:5). It sounds like there is an understanding between authors and audience that they do not want to put down in writing. The audience knows what is going on--there is no deception. But someone may read Paul, Silas, and Timothy's letter, so they are intentionally cryptic.
What if Paul or Silas or Timothy wished to speak about the events of their time using their own voice from over fifteen years earlier? They take 1 Thessalonians, a letter that explicitly addressed the second coming. They follow its form, not to deceive, but because it fits the form of what they wish to say and because a letter from the past might pass a Roman filter more easily. If Silas were the primary writer and Paul were already gone, it would be all the less threatening.
The intended audience would thus not be the Thessalonians specifically, but all Christians of that moment. the Thessalonians would be a literary representative for all Christians. If Silas were writing soon after Paul's passing, the words, "while still being with you" become even more poignant. Paul could thus be the one "restraining" these events, though now with him removed they might take place.
The most difficult piece of this hypothesis is Paul's signature in 3:17. But perhaps Paul is about to die at the hands of Nero. Perhaps Silas could be writing for him with him giving the signature. Or perhaps the audience knows that what the letter is saying is that Silas is the one who can give the authentic voice of Paul, as opposed to other voices for him that were not authentic. Since 2 Thessalonians is in Scripture, we would assume that 2 Thessalonians gives an authentic voice.
Situation 2
6. We assume the inspiration of 2 Thessalonians, whether our first impression is correct or if something deeper was going on. In either case, it is difficult to know what the events of 2 Thessalonians 2 were addressing. The mention of the temple probably suggests that the events in view were to take place while the temple was still standing, that is, before AD70. We note the similar language again to Mark 13:14 and the "abomination of desolation." No mention is made either of the temple being destroyed or being rebuilt.
As with Mark 13, it is thus likely that we have some blurring between events that took place in the first century and events surrounding the return of Christ. The phrase, "man of lawlessness" could refer either to an external or an internal figure. Among external figures, a Roman emperor or general seems quite possible.
Ample precedents for foreign powers defiling the temple were at hand. In 167BC, it was Syrian representatives of Antiochus Epiphanes (cf. Dan. 11:31). In 63BC it was the Roman general Pompey. In AD38 the Roman emperor Caligula tried to set up a statue of himself in the temple. When a first century Jewish audience heard talk of someone setting themselves as God in the temple, surely the Romans would be the first thing to come to mind.
At the same time, mention of leading those who do not believe astray could suggest a Jewish leader (2:10-12). Could the rebellion against Rome in the Jewish War be seen as an inappropriate falling away? Might a revolutionary leader or a high priest be seen as a "man of lawlnessness"? Or are those who do not believe Gentiles rather than Jews?
The idea that Nero might return after his apparent suicide was known in Jewish circles, and there were some pretenders. A Jewish writing called the Sibylline Oracles refers to this legend. [3] Some have suggested that 2 Thessalonians alludes to this concept. It is sometimes suggested that this concept also stands in the background of Revelation 13:3 and 18:9-11. If we consider Nero as a type of one who is yet to come, the imagery need not be problematic.
For this reason, the balance seems to point more toward an external, Roman figure as the basis for the man of lawlessness imagery. There might be many enamored by such a figure, whether Jewish or Gentile. However, those who believe would not be deceived. For us there is but one king on earth, and it is Jesus.
[1] The more conventional term is pseudonymous, but I. Howard Marshall suggested we use a different term because it might imply a value judgment that the name on the letter is "false." See A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2004), 84. An allonymous author would thus be an "other" author writing under the authority of someone else's name.
[2] See n.1.
[3] Cf. Sibylline Oracles 4.119-24; 5.137-41, 361-96.
Saturday, May 02, 2020
1. Socrates was an idiot.
This summer I am aiming to read some selections from the Great Ideas. To kick off the series, I read what I consider to be the beginning of the trail (at least in the Western tradition): Plato's Apology, which gives us the trial of Socrates. Here is a video version of this week's comments. I also have a Facebook group called "Summer Reading."
1. Socrates was sentenced to death in 399BCE. The charges against him were corrupting the youth and not believing in the Greek gods but coming up with his own. It was a mixed vote, with the citizens voting to put him to death. He willingly drank the hemlock, although he had options to escape.
He has been called the first martyr to philosophy. There are indeed very noteworthy things to consider in this piece, which of course is a "dialog" by Plato, not a transcript of the event. I'll get to the idiocy soon enough.
2. According to Socrates, it all began when a friend of his went to the oracle of Delphi and asked who the wisest person was. The oracle said it was he. So, as the story goes, he began to inquire of supposedly wise people in Athens. But what he found was that they were no wiser than him. Indeed, he at least knew he wasn't wise.
His final conclusion is thus that the oracle must, in a sense, have been correct. "The wisest of you is the one who has realized, like Socrates, that s/he is really worthless when it comes to wisdom" (23b). This is one of the great take-aways from this dialog. Wisdom means knowing not just what you know but how much you don't know.
Of course there are many circumstances where someone does know far more than others. Take the current pandemic we are in. I don't know as much as an epidemiologist. That doesn't necessarily mean that the epidemiologist is right on everything, but let's just say that Facebook and Twitter are filled with people who know almost nothing about pandemics and still are quite convinced they know what should be done.
3. I could be wrong (see what I did there), but I get the impression that Socrates was both right about Athenian leaders being ignorant and that he was a prat. There is a type of person that asks questions just to ask questions. There's really no point other than to show how smart they are. That's really the point.
And they may be. They may be smarter than most people. There are Christian "apologists" (defenders of the faith) whom I suspect are really this sort of prat. It's more about showing off than actually trying to lead anyone to faith. And of course there are atheist prats of this sort. In my opinion, Richard Dawkins is this sort of wise fool who is not nearly as wise on the subject of religion as he might think.
There is a time to be a "gadfly," something Socrates considers himself. There's a time to needle at the heels of power. There's a time for the whistle blower, the prophet, the warrior for truth and justice. There's also the prat who just likes telling people off. This sort of person may imagine that they are like Jesus or a prophet. But the argument came to Jesus. Most of the time he did not go looking for it.
Then there is the person who feeds on the conflict. Argument is sport for them. There is no point. "I assume you have prepared more insults for me?" This type of person, dare I say, is an idiot trying to disguise themselves as a smart person.
4. 399BCE was a bad time for Socrates. Athens had recently lost the Peloponnesian War to the Spartans. One of the people that had hung around Socrates at one point, Alcibiades, had turned traitor to Athens. You could see where people would be bitter about Socrates corrupting the youth, making them enemies of Athens.
And no doubt the politicians and "smart people" of Athens may have needed some push back. The Apology doesn't really give the impression that Socrates always approached this critique in a good way. Maybe he did. Maybe he was the media exposing their fakeness, and so they got rid of him.
For his part. you could see where he might be seen as corrupting the youth. He taught them to ask questions. One of the great quotes from the Apology is that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Now I'm not sure I totally agree with the statement in every circumstance for every person. For some people, "ignorance is bliss."
But I do, personally, prefer self-examination. I want to know my blind spots. I don't want to believe things that are false just because I don't want to be proved wrong.
We all grow up with unexamined assumptions. They are the water of the culture in which we swim. We learn them from our parents and families. We get them from media and movies. We get them from everyone around us. We largely do not even know we have these assumptions--they are unexamined.
So asking questions is a path toward reflectivity. It is a path toward seeing ourselves and our blind spots. We become aware that we are swimming in a certain water we didn't even know was there. Such education is a liberation, a moving out of ignorance. It is a move out of the cave (see Plato's Republic).
Now those who are unreflective will often find this movement dangerous. You begin to see traditions as traditions, not unexamined truths. There is a reason why education is often viewed with suspicion. Of course to be consistent, we must question our education as well.
5. We've mentioned a couple of the memorable quotes from the Apology: wisdom is knowing what you don't know and the unexamined life is not worth living. Socrates modeled what we call the Socratic method--learning by leading a person through a series of questions that leads them to discover the truth on their own. Plato's treatises are called "dialogs" because they follow this dialogical pattern.
The author of Acts arguably wanted his audience to think of Socrates in a couple of places. For one, Paul actually appears at the Areopagus before the Athenians in Acts 17. They accuse him, like Socrates, of inventing new gods. In Acts 4, when Peter and John appear before the ruling council, the Sanhedrin, Peter basically quotes Socrates--"You decide whether I should obey God or humanity." Acts arguably wants us to think of Socrates.
Plato's Apology is not the only ancient witness to Socrates. Xenophon was also there and has his own Apology. It of course is very similar to Plato's account, although with a few minor differences. Some thirty years earlier the playwright Aristophanes portrayed Socrates in a very negative light in the comedy The Clouds. Socrates is portrayed there very much like Anaxagoras, a natural philosopher who did believe that the sun was a stone and the moon a mass of earth. Plato may imply that the reputation Socrates acquired from this play contributed to his death.
6. I am grateful for the tradition of Socrates. I am grateful for the writings of Plato. Of course I think their brand of absolutism can be idiotic, even harmful. The number of issues on which we must never compromise is actually rather small. Those who champion, "no compromise"--on both liberal and conservative sides--sometimes harm society more than they help. They are good voices to have in the room. You really don't want to have one of them as the leader making decisions.
Socrates and Plato were also wrong in seeming to think that if we get our thinking straight, the rest will fall into place. "Right thinking leads to right action." This perspective seems to betray a glaring ignorance of human nature. There is a minority of people who aim to live by reason. It is not the majority of people and dare I say that those who most profess to live by reason often are those unwise about which Socrates warns. See Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.
So we honor Socrates for the good in him and for what he inspired, despite the possibility that he was quite idiotic at times. Platonism was inspired by him. Aristotelianism out of Platonism. The Stoics claimed him. The Cynics claimed him. The Skeptics claimed him. If he had avoided his death, philosophy as we know it might not even exist.
As an almost totally unrelated aside, my grandfather lived in Hemlock, Indiana in 1920.
Next week: Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.
1. Socrates was sentenced to death in 399BCE. The charges against him were corrupting the youth and not believing in the Greek gods but coming up with his own. It was a mixed vote, with the citizens voting to put him to death. He willingly drank the hemlock, although he had options to escape.
He has been called the first martyr to philosophy. There are indeed very noteworthy things to consider in this piece, which of course is a "dialog" by Plato, not a transcript of the event. I'll get to the idiocy soon enough.
2. According to Socrates, it all began when a friend of his went to the oracle of Delphi and asked who the wisest person was. The oracle said it was he. So, as the story goes, he began to inquire of supposedly wise people in Athens. But what he found was that they were no wiser than him. Indeed, he at least knew he wasn't wise.
His final conclusion is thus that the oracle must, in a sense, have been correct. "The wisest of you is the one who has realized, like Socrates, that s/he is really worthless when it comes to wisdom" (23b). This is one of the great take-aways from this dialog. Wisdom means knowing not just what you know but how much you don't know.
Of course there are many circumstances where someone does know far more than others. Take the current pandemic we are in. I don't know as much as an epidemiologist. That doesn't necessarily mean that the epidemiologist is right on everything, but let's just say that Facebook and Twitter are filled with people who know almost nothing about pandemics and still are quite convinced they know what should be done.
3. I could be wrong (see what I did there), but I get the impression that Socrates was both right about Athenian leaders being ignorant and that he was a prat. There is a type of person that asks questions just to ask questions. There's really no point other than to show how smart they are. That's really the point.
And they may be. They may be smarter than most people. There are Christian "apologists" (defenders of the faith) whom I suspect are really this sort of prat. It's more about showing off than actually trying to lead anyone to faith. And of course there are atheist prats of this sort. In my opinion, Richard Dawkins is this sort of wise fool who is not nearly as wise on the subject of religion as he might think.
There is a time to be a "gadfly," something Socrates considers himself. There's a time to needle at the heels of power. There's a time for the whistle blower, the prophet, the warrior for truth and justice. There's also the prat who just likes telling people off. This sort of person may imagine that they are like Jesus or a prophet. But the argument came to Jesus. Most of the time he did not go looking for it.
Then there is the person who feeds on the conflict. Argument is sport for them. There is no point. "I assume you have prepared more insults for me?" This type of person, dare I say, is an idiot trying to disguise themselves as a smart person.
4. 399BCE was a bad time for Socrates. Athens had recently lost the Peloponnesian War to the Spartans. One of the people that had hung around Socrates at one point, Alcibiades, had turned traitor to Athens. You could see where people would be bitter about Socrates corrupting the youth, making them enemies of Athens.
And no doubt the politicians and "smart people" of Athens may have needed some push back. The Apology doesn't really give the impression that Socrates always approached this critique in a good way. Maybe he did. Maybe he was the media exposing their fakeness, and so they got rid of him.
For his part. you could see where he might be seen as corrupting the youth. He taught them to ask questions. One of the great quotes from the Apology is that "the unexamined life is not worth living." Now I'm not sure I totally agree with the statement in every circumstance for every person. For some people, "ignorance is bliss."
But I do, personally, prefer self-examination. I want to know my blind spots. I don't want to believe things that are false just because I don't want to be proved wrong.
We all grow up with unexamined assumptions. They are the water of the culture in which we swim. We learn them from our parents and families. We get them from media and movies. We get them from everyone around us. We largely do not even know we have these assumptions--they are unexamined.
So asking questions is a path toward reflectivity. It is a path toward seeing ourselves and our blind spots. We become aware that we are swimming in a certain water we didn't even know was there. Such education is a liberation, a moving out of ignorance. It is a move out of the cave (see Plato's Republic).
Now those who are unreflective will often find this movement dangerous. You begin to see traditions as traditions, not unexamined truths. There is a reason why education is often viewed with suspicion. Of course to be consistent, we must question our education as well.
5. We've mentioned a couple of the memorable quotes from the Apology: wisdom is knowing what you don't know and the unexamined life is not worth living. Socrates modeled what we call the Socratic method--learning by leading a person through a series of questions that leads them to discover the truth on their own. Plato's treatises are called "dialogs" because they follow this dialogical pattern.
The author of Acts arguably wanted his audience to think of Socrates in a couple of places. For one, Paul actually appears at the Areopagus before the Athenians in Acts 17. They accuse him, like Socrates, of inventing new gods. In Acts 4, when Peter and John appear before the ruling council, the Sanhedrin, Peter basically quotes Socrates--"You decide whether I should obey God or humanity." Acts arguably wants us to think of Socrates.
Plato's Apology is not the only ancient witness to Socrates. Xenophon was also there and has his own Apology. It of course is very similar to Plato's account, although with a few minor differences. Some thirty years earlier the playwright Aristophanes portrayed Socrates in a very negative light in the comedy The Clouds. Socrates is portrayed there very much like Anaxagoras, a natural philosopher who did believe that the sun was a stone and the moon a mass of earth. Plato may imply that the reputation Socrates acquired from this play contributed to his death.
6. I am grateful for the tradition of Socrates. I am grateful for the writings of Plato. Of course I think their brand of absolutism can be idiotic, even harmful. The number of issues on which we must never compromise is actually rather small. Those who champion, "no compromise"--on both liberal and conservative sides--sometimes harm society more than they help. They are good voices to have in the room. You really don't want to have one of them as the leader making decisions.
Socrates and Plato were also wrong in seeming to think that if we get our thinking straight, the rest will fall into place. "Right thinking leads to right action." This perspective seems to betray a glaring ignorance of human nature. There is a minority of people who aim to live by reason. It is not the majority of people and dare I say that those who most profess to live by reason often are those unwise about which Socrates warns. See Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind.
So we honor Socrates for the good in him and for what he inspired, despite the possibility that he was quite idiotic at times. Platonism was inspired by him. Aristotelianism out of Platonism. The Stoics claimed him. The Cynics claimed him. The Skeptics claimed him. If he had avoided his death, philosophy as we know it might not even exist.
As an almost totally unrelated aside, my grandfather lived in Hemlock, Indiana in 1920.
Next week: Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy.
Friday, April 17, 2020
Ready for my Gospels Quiz?
1. Know the key themes of Mark. Be able to recognize a likely quote from Mark if it matches one of the following themes:
- The hiddenness of Jesus’ identity
- The disciples’ lack of understanding
- The connection between Jesus’ death and him being the Messiah
- That it was likely written primarily for Gentiles
- That it was likely written around the time of the destruction of Jerusalem (AD70)
- Know AD70 as that date.
- Jesus is the Son of David, the king
- Jesus is the authoritative teacher/interpreter of the Law, the new Moses
- Jesus fulfills the Old Testament
- Most Jewish Gospel—focused on Israel in his early mission (but also has the Great Commission)
- Most apocalyptic Gospel
- Hardest on the Pharisees—and the unfaithful in the church
- Primarily Jewish Christian audience
- Used Mark as a source (maybe Q), so possibly 70s
- Hardness on Pharisees may be because they were the primary alternative group at the time
- The gospel is for everyone.
- Good news for the marginalized: the poor, widows, orphans, emphasis on the role of women, the lost sheep of Israel.
- Emphasis on prayer and the Holy Spirit
- More for Acts, but Christians aren’t troublemakers
- Probably a primarily Gentile audience—indeed author may be a Gentile
- Used Mark as a source (maybe Q), maybe knew Matthew, so possibly 80s
- Written in honor of a patron, Theophilus, who may have been a Roman official
- Jesus pre-existed his time on earth.
- Emphasis on the signs Jesus did
- Importance of faith in Jesus in order to have eternal life
- Use of “I am” sayings to show who Jesus is (bread of life, light of world, resurrection and life, I AM, way/truth/life, good shepherd…)
- Very different from the Synoptic Gospels, possibly very symbolic
- Maybe Ephesus, engaging both early Gnostics and non-believing followers of John the Baptist
- Source is the Beloved Disciple (uncertain identity), although possibly put in its current form by someone else
- Likely written in the 90s
Friday, April 10, 2020
Is this the flu?
There are some respects in which this current COVID-19 crisis does not seem like the flu to me.
1. I have never heard of them needing to bring refrigerator trucks to New York City hospitals because they have too many body bags to handle in the normal fashion. I have never known them to have to build temporary morgues. I have never known them to have to ship in ventilators.
No one in New York City thinks that this is the flu.
2. The number may end up being similar to the flu each year... after excruciating sequestration. Now the severity hasn't hit everywhere the same. We have yet to see how it will fully pan out in rural areas. It is possible that many people have been asymptomatic or that it has been here for months. My neighbors had an incredibly serious bout of pneumonia in late November/early December.
My question though is why New York City has been hit so hard now. This should have hit the city in this way much earlier, it seems, if the virus was sweeping through the population in December. It's of course possible that the strain in New York City is different from the initial strain. These things mutate and get worse sometimes. That's what happened in 1918-20.
3. I've never seen Facebook light up with people in the hospital and dying from the flu. We have no immunity to this disease. If we let it have free reign, we know a lot of older people will die who would not have. "It's only people who have diabetes." "That black person already had heart disease." "That woman was overweight."
Listen to what you're saying. My mother is in her 90s. Should I adopt the thinking, "She's had a good life. It's ok for her to die"? I have family with diabetes. My father had diabetes. Should I adopt the thinking, "They have diabetes. It's ok for them to die." If you can save lives on a significant scale, social distancing and not gathering together seems reasonable at least for a period.
4. Yes, there is the trade off of the economy. A depression is a bad thing. A balance needs to be found. We will look back and figure out whether we should have focused on big cities and not the countryside.
Utilitarianism asks the question, "What course of action will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number?" So we weigh the potential loss in human life against the potential loss of a depression, not just in human life but in human despair.
What about freedom? It's a good question. Whether you lean Republican or Democrat, you can now see a possible future where Americans no longer vote for their future. I personally don't think this has happened because of some conspiracy to that end. Of course it could give someone an idea.
But it is not our individual freedom that we should fight for. It is our corporate freedom. Our corporate freedom is held in place by the Constitution. Our corporate freedom is held in place by holding our leaders accountable by checks and balances. Our corporate freedom is held in place by free elections.
Freedom has never been absolute. I am not free to kill someone. I am not free to indiscriminately spread an illness I have. My freedom of religion should not be able to kill my child because I won't let them treat him or her. My freedom of the press should not be able to incite mass violence. The majority is not free to vote in sharia law.
The space of a democratic republic is a negotiated space. We try to maximize freedoms in the tension between individuals. Inevitably, this requires mutual limitation.
1. I have never heard of them needing to bring refrigerator trucks to New York City hospitals because they have too many body bags to handle in the normal fashion. I have never known them to have to build temporary morgues. I have never known them to have to ship in ventilators.
No one in New York City thinks that this is the flu.
2. The number may end up being similar to the flu each year... after excruciating sequestration. Now the severity hasn't hit everywhere the same. We have yet to see how it will fully pan out in rural areas. It is possible that many people have been asymptomatic or that it has been here for months. My neighbors had an incredibly serious bout of pneumonia in late November/early December.
My question though is why New York City has been hit so hard now. This should have hit the city in this way much earlier, it seems, if the virus was sweeping through the population in December. It's of course possible that the strain in New York City is different from the initial strain. These things mutate and get worse sometimes. That's what happened in 1918-20.
3. I've never seen Facebook light up with people in the hospital and dying from the flu. We have no immunity to this disease. If we let it have free reign, we know a lot of older people will die who would not have. "It's only people who have diabetes." "That black person already had heart disease." "That woman was overweight."
Listen to what you're saying. My mother is in her 90s. Should I adopt the thinking, "She's had a good life. It's ok for her to die"? I have family with diabetes. My father had diabetes. Should I adopt the thinking, "They have diabetes. It's ok for them to die." If you can save lives on a significant scale, social distancing and not gathering together seems reasonable at least for a period.
4. Yes, there is the trade off of the economy. A depression is a bad thing. A balance needs to be found. We will look back and figure out whether we should have focused on big cities and not the countryside.
Utilitarianism asks the question, "What course of action will bring about the greatest good for the greatest number?" So we weigh the potential loss in human life against the potential loss of a depression, not just in human life but in human despair.
What about freedom? It's a good question. Whether you lean Republican or Democrat, you can now see a possible future where Americans no longer vote for their future. I personally don't think this has happened because of some conspiracy to that end. Of course it could give someone an idea.
But it is not our individual freedom that we should fight for. It is our corporate freedom. Our corporate freedom is held in place by the Constitution. Our corporate freedom is held in place by holding our leaders accountable by checks and balances. Our corporate freedom is held in place by free elections.
Freedom has never been absolute. I am not free to kill someone. I am not free to indiscriminately spread an illness I have. My freedom of religion should not be able to kill my child because I won't let them treat him or her. My freedom of the press should not be able to incite mass violence. The majority is not free to vote in sharia law.
The space of a democratic republic is a negotiated space. We try to maximize freedoms in the tension between individuals. Inevitably, this requires mutual limitation.
Sunday, April 05, 2020
2 Thessalonians 1 (Explanatory Notes)
I have a life goal of following in Wesley's steps and self-publishing Explanatory Notes on the whole Bible. I have a fair amount already on the New Testament and published Galatians some time ago. I've also had notes on 1 Thessalonians done for years.
I have a podcast/video series every week I call, "Through the Bible in Ten Years." My Thessalonians videos are in a playlist there. Thus far I've been through the Gospel of Mark and most of Acts. This week I begin 2 Thessalonians. But I've never done Explanatory Notes on 2 Thessalonians.
So here goes. I'll do the chapters first and the introduction at the end.
_____________________________
Prescript (1:1-2)
1:1 Paul and Silas and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians in God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Grace to you and peace from God, the Father, and [the] Lord Jesus Christ.
The authors of 2 Thessalonians are the same as that of 1 Thessalonians, giving us the immediate impression that this letter was written in the same time frame as the earlier letter. Paul, Silas, and Timothy were together on Paul's second missionary journey. We do not see Silas mentioned on any later letters of Paul other than 1 and 2 Thessalonians. We would then guess that 2 Thessalonians was written from Corinth to Thessalonica around the years AD50-51. [1]
As we mentioned in the introduction, the order of the Thessalonian letters is open for discussion. 1 Thessalonians was put first because it is longer than 2 Thessalonians. It would thus be possible that 2 Thessalonians was written first, and it has been suggested. However, most scholars have concluded that this order is in fact the order in which they were written.
The same comments we made about the greeting of 1 Thessalonians thus apply here. This is the prescript, a standard letter greeting. The greeting of "grace and peace" potentially embodied the unity between Jew and Gentile that stood at the heart of Paul's mission theology.
A quick comparison between the greetings of 2 Thessalonians and 1 Thessalonians show a very strong similarity. In general, this is not surprising. However, the similarity may go beyond what we would expect unless there was some degree of copying going on. We will return to this question.
A singular church is addressed again. The default interpretation would thus suggest that there is one major house church in the city that consisted of perhaps 40-50 people. There may of course have been smaller cell groups within this overall "assembly."
[1] As we said in the introduction, if the implied setting of 2 Thessalonians were to differ noticeably from the Corinthian time frame, we might wonder if something more is going on here than what appears.
Thanksgiving
1:3 We ought to give thanks to God always concerning you, brothers [and sisters], just as is worthy, because your faith is exploding and the love of each one of all you multiplying toward one another, 4 with the result that we ourselves boast in you in the assemblies of God about your endurance and faith among all your persecutions and the tribulations that you are bearing.
Again, a thanksgiving section was common in ancient letters. We should not take the common features of Paul's thanksgiving sections as an argument against his genuine feeling for his churches or his actual prayers for them. He gives thanks for some of the same things mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 1--their faith and love.
As mentioned in the introduction, the similarity to 1 Thessalonians, although with some different words, is something to observe. We speculated in the introduction that perhaps Silas or Timothy had more to do with the writing of 2 Thessalonians than Paul. We speculated that perhaps one of them stuck closely to the content of 1 Thessalonians in keeping with the overall purpose of the letter. Whether this speculation is true or not, we note here the similarities between the two letters.
We get the impression that their faith and love have grown since the writing of 1 Thessalonians. They are on the same path and trajectory. Persecution has not diminished their faith and love, only increased it.
They have become a source of boasting for Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Paul had mentioned boasting in them in 2 Thessalonians 2:19. They bring him honor before Christ, like a parent is proud of one of their children.
We certainly get the feeling that the level of persecution has increased for the church at Thessalonica. No mention is made of what group might be doing so. Since the church was predominantly Gentile, we doubt that their persecution comes from Jews in the city. They probably have little to do with the synagogues of the city.
It seems more likely that they would encounter resistance from the city leadership in general, remembering that the Christian gospel was potentially subversive. It proclaimed a different king than Caesar and the immanent upheaval of the current world order! Paul himself apparently set the city on this trajectory, since it was the city not the Jews who had the power to force him to leave.
The "churches of God" are the "assemblies of God." They are the collection of all the house churches meeting all over the world. There are as yet no church buildings.
5 [It is a] demonstration of the righteous judgment of God so that you might be deemed worthy of the kingdom of God, on behalf of which you also suffer, 6 since it is right for God to repay with oppression those who are oppressing us
Persecution for Christ both confirms the impending judgment on those who do the persecution and confirms the righteousness of those who are persecuted. Note the importance throughout Paul's writings of the worthiness of God's people when Jesus returns. Paul insists that Jesus-followers live in a manner worthy of the gospel (e.g., Phil. 1:27).
There was no contradiction in Paul's mind between faith and works. Works might not be a basis for justification, but once you had received the Spirit, both faith and a worthy life were normative. The works that were impossible without the Spirit were now indicative of the Spirit.
We note that judgment is not contrary to God's character as love. In this case, judgment is the demonstration of God's love toward the persecuted. Loving judgment protects the innocent and restores order to the world by removing the instruments of evil.
7 and relief to you who are being oppressed, along with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from [the] sky with the angels of his power. 8 "with fire of flame, giving judgment to those who do not know God" [2] and to those who are not obedience to the gospel of our Lord Jesus,
While 1 Thessalonians 1 speaks of the arrival, the "parousia" of Jesus, 2 Thessalonians speaks of the revelation of Jesus, the "apocalypse" of Jesus. Revelation of this sort is the unveiling of that which has been hidden. It is the unveiling of the heavenly, spiritual realm, the breaking in of heaven into earth.
1 Thessalonians 4-5 do not focus on the judgment of those on the earth but on the salvation of those in Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 alluded to the judgment of those who are not "snatched up" to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:17). But we indicated in our notes on that chapter that the saved were probably not joining Christ merely to go party forever. 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 suggest that the meeting in the air is in preparation for judgment.
These verses give greater clarity on what happens to the world after those in Christ are removed. King Jesus, his powerful angels, the dead in Christ, and the still alive in Christ will proceed to finalize the arrival of the kingdom of God. The kingdom that had come near and was inaugurated in Jesus's earthly ministry will now be consummated. God's kingdom will come on earth as it is in heaven.
Verse 8 alludes perhaps to two or three Scriptures in the Old Testament. Psalm 79:6 speaks of God pouring out his anger on those who do not know God. Jeremiah 10:25 also speaks of God coming in judgment on those who do not know him. Isaiah 66:15 speaks of the LORD coming back in fire, rebuking the earth with flames of fire.
The Isaiah passage is particularly interesting because it is in the context of the restoration of Jerusalem. Part of this restoration is the destruction of those that oppress it. This allusion may be significant as we move into 2 Thessalonians 2.
9 who will suffer justice, eternal destruction "from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his strength" [3] 10 whenever he should come to be glorified among his holy ones and to be marveled at among all who have faith, because, on that day, our witness was believed among you.
1:9 does not specify the nature of eternal destruction. Indeed, Paul has almost nothing to say about the fate of those who are not in Christ. Eternal destruction could of course refer to eternal punishment, but it could also in theory refer to eternal annihilation. If the allusion to Isaiah 66 continues here, it is noteworthy that Isaiah 66:24 speaks of the worm not dying and the flame not being quenched among the dead bodies of those who rebelled against God. [3]
Paul also seems to allude to Isaiah 2 here. Isaiah 2:19 and 21 both speak of running from the glory of God's majesty. People hide in the crags of rocks and in caves trying to get away from judgment. His holy ones or "saints" are those who have faith. They are holy because they are set apart to God. It all started when they believed (had faith in, trusted in) the witness that Paul brought to King Jesus.
In my opinion, any image of vindictiveness is anthropomorphic. It is uses human anger in justice to picture the finality and definitiveness of judgment. It is the end of all that opposes God. It is the removal of that which harms the righteous because of God's love for them. It is the protection of the innocent. It is the setting of everything right in the world.
[3] This image from Isaiah 66 is also used in Mark 9:48.
11 For which also we pray always concerning you in order that our God might might deem you worthy of election and might fulfill every good pleasure of goodness and work of faith with power, 12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus might be glorified among you and you in him, according to the grace of our God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ.
The Thanksgiving section continues. The theme of worthiness also continues, although there is no hint at all that the Thessalonians have been unworthy. It is simply the case that Paul, Silas, and Timothy believe that a person must be worthy when Christ returns in judgment.
Notice that one must be worthy of election (cf. 2 Peter 1:10). This is not what we would expect Paul to say if election implied worthiness. That is to say, in the system of John Calvin, those who are elect will certainly prove to be worthy, for it is completely a matter of God's choosing. Paul's wording suggests that it is exactly the opposite. Election is conditional upon our faithfulness. This faithfulness is God-empowered, but it requires an act of our will.
The phrase, "work of faith" also appeared in 1 Thessalonians. It once again demonstrates that Paul knows no dichotomy between these two concepts. Our worthiness brings honor and glory to God even though it is empowered by his grace. The power is God's unmerited gift, although it requires our act of faith.
I have a podcast/video series every week I call, "Through the Bible in Ten Years." My Thessalonians videos are in a playlist there. Thus far I've been through the Gospel of Mark and most of Acts. This week I begin 2 Thessalonians. But I've never done Explanatory Notes on 2 Thessalonians.
So here goes. I'll do the chapters first and the introduction at the end.
_____________________________
Prescript (1:1-2)
1:1 Paul and Silas and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians in God, our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. 2. Grace to you and peace from God, the Father, and [the] Lord Jesus Christ.
The authors of 2 Thessalonians are the same as that of 1 Thessalonians, giving us the immediate impression that this letter was written in the same time frame as the earlier letter. Paul, Silas, and Timothy were together on Paul's second missionary journey. We do not see Silas mentioned on any later letters of Paul other than 1 and 2 Thessalonians. We would then guess that 2 Thessalonians was written from Corinth to Thessalonica around the years AD50-51. [1]
As we mentioned in the introduction, the order of the Thessalonian letters is open for discussion. 1 Thessalonians was put first because it is longer than 2 Thessalonians. It would thus be possible that 2 Thessalonians was written first, and it has been suggested. However, most scholars have concluded that this order is in fact the order in which they were written.
The same comments we made about the greeting of 1 Thessalonians thus apply here. This is the prescript, a standard letter greeting. The greeting of "grace and peace" potentially embodied the unity between Jew and Gentile that stood at the heart of Paul's mission theology.
A quick comparison between the greetings of 2 Thessalonians and 1 Thessalonians show a very strong similarity. In general, this is not surprising. However, the similarity may go beyond what we would expect unless there was some degree of copying going on. We will return to this question.
A singular church is addressed again. The default interpretation would thus suggest that there is one major house church in the city that consisted of perhaps 40-50 people. There may of course have been smaller cell groups within this overall "assembly."
[1] As we said in the introduction, if the implied setting of 2 Thessalonians were to differ noticeably from the Corinthian time frame, we might wonder if something more is going on here than what appears.
Thanksgiving
1:3 We ought to give thanks to God always concerning you, brothers [and sisters], just as is worthy, because your faith is exploding and the love of each one of all you multiplying toward one another, 4 with the result that we ourselves boast in you in the assemblies of God about your endurance and faith among all your persecutions and the tribulations that you are bearing.
Again, a thanksgiving section was common in ancient letters. We should not take the common features of Paul's thanksgiving sections as an argument against his genuine feeling for his churches or his actual prayers for them. He gives thanks for some of the same things mentioned in 1 Thessalonians 1--their faith and love.
As mentioned in the introduction, the similarity to 1 Thessalonians, although with some different words, is something to observe. We speculated in the introduction that perhaps Silas or Timothy had more to do with the writing of 2 Thessalonians than Paul. We speculated that perhaps one of them stuck closely to the content of 1 Thessalonians in keeping with the overall purpose of the letter. Whether this speculation is true or not, we note here the similarities between the two letters.
We get the impression that their faith and love have grown since the writing of 1 Thessalonians. They are on the same path and trajectory. Persecution has not diminished their faith and love, only increased it.
They have become a source of boasting for Paul, Silas, and Timothy. Paul had mentioned boasting in them in 2 Thessalonians 2:19. They bring him honor before Christ, like a parent is proud of one of their children.
We certainly get the feeling that the level of persecution has increased for the church at Thessalonica. No mention is made of what group might be doing so. Since the church was predominantly Gentile, we doubt that their persecution comes from Jews in the city. They probably have little to do with the synagogues of the city.
It seems more likely that they would encounter resistance from the city leadership in general, remembering that the Christian gospel was potentially subversive. It proclaimed a different king than Caesar and the immanent upheaval of the current world order! Paul himself apparently set the city on this trajectory, since it was the city not the Jews who had the power to force him to leave.
The "churches of God" are the "assemblies of God." They are the collection of all the house churches meeting all over the world. There are as yet no church buildings.
5 [It is a] demonstration of the righteous judgment of God so that you might be deemed worthy of the kingdom of God, on behalf of which you also suffer, 6 since it is right for God to repay with oppression those who are oppressing us
Persecution for Christ both confirms the impending judgment on those who do the persecution and confirms the righteousness of those who are persecuted. Note the importance throughout Paul's writings of the worthiness of God's people when Jesus returns. Paul insists that Jesus-followers live in a manner worthy of the gospel (e.g., Phil. 1:27).
There was no contradiction in Paul's mind between faith and works. Works might not be a basis for justification, but once you had received the Spirit, both faith and a worthy life were normative. The works that were impossible without the Spirit were now indicative of the Spirit.
We note that judgment is not contrary to God's character as love. In this case, judgment is the demonstration of God's love toward the persecuted. Loving judgment protects the innocent and restores order to the world by removing the instruments of evil.
7 and relief to you who are being oppressed, along with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from [the] sky with the angels of his power. 8 "with fire of flame, giving judgment to those who do not know God" [2] and to those who are not obedience to the gospel of our Lord Jesus,
While 1 Thessalonians 1 speaks of the arrival, the "parousia" of Jesus, 2 Thessalonians speaks of the revelation of Jesus, the "apocalypse" of Jesus. Revelation of this sort is the unveiling of that which has been hidden. It is the unveiling of the heavenly, spiritual realm, the breaking in of heaven into earth.
1 Thessalonians 4-5 do not focus on the judgment of those on the earth but on the salvation of those in Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:9 alluded to the judgment of those who are not "snatched up" to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:17). But we indicated in our notes on that chapter that the saved were probably not joining Christ merely to go party forever. 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 suggest that the meeting in the air is in preparation for judgment.
These verses give greater clarity on what happens to the world after those in Christ are removed. King Jesus, his powerful angels, the dead in Christ, and the still alive in Christ will proceed to finalize the arrival of the kingdom of God. The kingdom that had come near and was inaugurated in Jesus's earthly ministry will now be consummated. God's kingdom will come on earth as it is in heaven.
Verse 8 alludes perhaps to two or three Scriptures in the Old Testament. Psalm 79:6 speaks of God pouring out his anger on those who do not know God. Jeremiah 10:25 also speaks of God coming in judgment on those who do not know him. Isaiah 66:15 speaks of the LORD coming back in fire, rebuking the earth with flames of fire.
The Isaiah passage is particularly interesting because it is in the context of the restoration of Jerusalem. Part of this restoration is the destruction of those that oppress it. This allusion may be significant as we move into 2 Thessalonians 2.
9 who will suffer justice, eternal destruction "from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his strength" [3] 10 whenever he should come to be glorified among his holy ones and to be marveled at among all who have faith, because, on that day, our witness was believed among you.
1:9 does not specify the nature of eternal destruction. Indeed, Paul has almost nothing to say about the fate of those who are not in Christ. Eternal destruction could of course refer to eternal punishment, but it could also in theory refer to eternal annihilation. If the allusion to Isaiah 66 continues here, it is noteworthy that Isaiah 66:24 speaks of the worm not dying and the flame not being quenched among the dead bodies of those who rebelled against God. [3]
Paul also seems to allude to Isaiah 2 here. Isaiah 2:19 and 21 both speak of running from the glory of God's majesty. People hide in the crags of rocks and in caves trying to get away from judgment. His holy ones or "saints" are those who have faith. They are holy because they are set apart to God. It all started when they believed (had faith in, trusted in) the witness that Paul brought to King Jesus.
In my opinion, any image of vindictiveness is anthropomorphic. It is uses human anger in justice to picture the finality and definitiveness of judgment. It is the end of all that opposes God. It is the removal of that which harms the righteous because of God's love for them. It is the protection of the innocent. It is the setting of everything right in the world.
[3] This image from Isaiah 66 is also used in Mark 9:48.
11 For which also we pray always concerning you in order that our God might might deem you worthy of election and might fulfill every good pleasure of goodness and work of faith with power, 12 so that the name of our Lord Jesus might be glorified among you and you in him, according to the grace of our God and [the] Lord Jesus Christ.
The Thanksgiving section continues. The theme of worthiness also continues, although there is no hint at all that the Thessalonians have been unworthy. It is simply the case that Paul, Silas, and Timothy believe that a person must be worthy when Christ returns in judgment.
Notice that one must be worthy of election (cf. 2 Peter 1:10). This is not what we would expect Paul to say if election implied worthiness. That is to say, in the system of John Calvin, those who are elect will certainly prove to be worthy, for it is completely a matter of God's choosing. Paul's wording suggests that it is exactly the opposite. Election is conditional upon our faithfulness. This faithfulness is God-empowered, but it requires an act of our will.
The phrase, "work of faith" also appeared in 1 Thessalonians. It once again demonstrates that Paul knows no dichotomy between these two concepts. Our worthiness brings honor and glory to God even though it is empowered by his grace. The power is God's unmerited gift, although it requires our act of faith.
Sunday, March 29, 2020
Introduction to 1 Thessalonians
I did explanatory notes on 1 Thessalonians about 12 years ago, but I didn't do an introduction. Thought I would write the introduction.
_________
1. First Thessalonians is one of those few books in the Bible whose historical origins are a matter of widespread agreement. The first few chapters of the letter give a clear sense of its origins in a way that fits fairly neatly into the story of Acts. They suggest that the apostle Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians while he was at Corinth somewhere around AD50 or 51.
The author is Paul. Over the years, there has been no real doubt of this likelihood. The audience are the Thessalonians. Acts tells us that Paul founded this church on his second missionary journey. He was not able to stay there long, perhaps less than two months, before he was forced to leave the city. [1]
Thessalonica was a large ancient city, the Roman capital of the region of Macedon. It was located on the Egnatian Way, the primary Roman road that continued on west toward Rome itself. Paul's interest in the city reflects his general mission philosophy to target large urban centers.
From the letter we can infer that the church there was primarily Gentile, non-Jewish in composition. They had "turned from idols to serve the living God" (1 Thess. 1:9). The fact that Paul refers to the church in the singular suggests that it primarily consisted of one house church and that all the believers in the city could likely fit in one large house. The church thus was probably forty people or less in size.
2. Paul's time in Corinth is perhaps the most datable moment in his ministry. The book of Acts mentions an encounter he had there with the proconsul Gallio, and Gallio's time in Corinth can be dated with some accuracy to 51-52AD. Since Gallio may not have finished his full time as proconsul, and since he came near the end of Paul's time there, we can suggest that Paul may have written 1 Thessalonians around the year AD50.
Acts gives us a picture of Paul moving from Thessalonica to Berea to Athens to Corinth. 1 Thessalonians confirms that Paul went to Athens at some point after being in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:3). In 1 Thessalonians 3, Paul indicates that he, Silas, and Timothy had arrived at some point in Athens after they had left Thessalonica. Paul and Silas send Timothy back to the city to check on their progress in faith.
Then Timothy returns to them. Although it is possible Paul and Silas were still in Athens when Timothy returned, 3:3 sounds more like they had moved on. Acts 17 gives us the impression that Paul did not stay long there or at least did not have a substantial ministry in the city. [2] For this reason, it seems likely that Paul was in Corinth when Timothy returned and thus that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians from Corinth.
3. Paul writes 1 Thessalonians in response. Many, perhaps most scholars would consider 1 Thessalonians to be the first of Paul's writings. [3] In this letter we are thus perhaps seeing the beginning of Paul's letter writing as a ministry tool. Paul preferred to minister in person. His letters were a practical substitute for his presence.
There is thus a sense in which Paul's letters are filling in the gaps of the ministries he started when he was present. We are thus only indirectly getting the heart of his preaching. We are more getting the edges, the "clean up" of remaining issues. This is not entirely the case, but it is an important factor to keep in mind.
In the case of the Thessalonians, the primary issues that remained with the Thessalonian church had to do with eschatology--matters regarding the "end times," the "last days." Here we refer to the return of Christ from heaven to judge the world and set up the kingdom of God on earth. Paul's preaching on such things had presumably focused on the return of Christ to set up God's kingdom.
He does not seem to have spent as much time talking about the resurrection. Judging from 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5, the once pagan congregation either had little sense of life after death. At the very least, they did not think those who died would be part of Jesus' coming kingdom on earth.
It is interesting that Paul only discusses the dead "in Christ." In other words, he is not obviously discussing the dead saints of the Old Testament. Indeed, in his writings Paul is almost entirely silent about the fate of any group of the dead except those who have died in Christ.
4. Timothy would seem to be the carrier of the letter. We can imagine that he took it back from Corinth to Thessalonica. We can imagine that he read the letter aloud to the assembly and fielded any questions they might have. We remember that most people in the ancient world were illiterate, so they would not have been able to take home a copy to read at home. They would have likely heard it read enough times in their house church until they had its content firmly in mind.
[1] Philippians 4:16 indicates that he was there long enough to receive support at least twice from the church at Philippi. We balance this comment with the three sabbaths that Acts 17:2 mentions and conclude that Paul was not in Thessalonica long but likely more than two weeks. Somewhere in between one and two months seems likely.
[2] 1 Thessalonians gives us a slightly different impression of events. In Acts, Paul leaves Silas and Timothy at Berea and does not see them again until Corinth (Acts 17:14; 18:5). However, 1 Thessalonians indicates that all three were in Athens, and that it was only Timothy who was separated from Paul. There may be some way to fit these accounts together, but such speculation probably is not helpful, especially since ancient history writing was more flexible than modern historiography. Clearly Paul's account, as the first-hand witness, should be given emphasis.
[3] Galatians is the principle alternative.
_________
1. First Thessalonians is one of those few books in the Bible whose historical origins are a matter of widespread agreement. The first few chapters of the letter give a clear sense of its origins in a way that fits fairly neatly into the story of Acts. They suggest that the apostle Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians while he was at Corinth somewhere around AD50 or 51.
The author is Paul. Over the years, there has been no real doubt of this likelihood. The audience are the Thessalonians. Acts tells us that Paul founded this church on his second missionary journey. He was not able to stay there long, perhaps less than two months, before he was forced to leave the city. [1]
Thessalonica was a large ancient city, the Roman capital of the region of Macedon. It was located on the Egnatian Way, the primary Roman road that continued on west toward Rome itself. Paul's interest in the city reflects his general mission philosophy to target large urban centers.
From the letter we can infer that the church there was primarily Gentile, non-Jewish in composition. They had "turned from idols to serve the living God" (1 Thess. 1:9). The fact that Paul refers to the church in the singular suggests that it primarily consisted of one house church and that all the believers in the city could likely fit in one large house. The church thus was probably forty people or less in size.
2. Paul's time in Corinth is perhaps the most datable moment in his ministry. The book of Acts mentions an encounter he had there with the proconsul Gallio, and Gallio's time in Corinth can be dated with some accuracy to 51-52AD. Since Gallio may not have finished his full time as proconsul, and since he came near the end of Paul's time there, we can suggest that Paul may have written 1 Thessalonians around the year AD50.
Acts gives us a picture of Paul moving from Thessalonica to Berea to Athens to Corinth. 1 Thessalonians confirms that Paul went to Athens at some point after being in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:3). In 1 Thessalonians 3, Paul indicates that he, Silas, and Timothy had arrived at some point in Athens after they had left Thessalonica. Paul and Silas send Timothy back to the city to check on their progress in faith.
Then Timothy returns to them. Although it is possible Paul and Silas were still in Athens when Timothy returned, 3:3 sounds more like they had moved on. Acts 17 gives us the impression that Paul did not stay long there or at least did not have a substantial ministry in the city. [2] For this reason, it seems likely that Paul was in Corinth when Timothy returned and thus that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians from Corinth.
3. Paul writes 1 Thessalonians in response. Many, perhaps most scholars would consider 1 Thessalonians to be the first of Paul's writings. [3] In this letter we are thus perhaps seeing the beginning of Paul's letter writing as a ministry tool. Paul preferred to minister in person. His letters were a practical substitute for his presence.
There is thus a sense in which Paul's letters are filling in the gaps of the ministries he started when he was present. We are thus only indirectly getting the heart of his preaching. We are more getting the edges, the "clean up" of remaining issues. This is not entirely the case, but it is an important factor to keep in mind.
In the case of the Thessalonians, the primary issues that remained with the Thessalonian church had to do with eschatology--matters regarding the "end times," the "last days." Here we refer to the return of Christ from heaven to judge the world and set up the kingdom of God on earth. Paul's preaching on such things had presumably focused on the return of Christ to set up God's kingdom.
He does not seem to have spent as much time talking about the resurrection. Judging from 1 Thessalonians 4 and 5, the once pagan congregation either had little sense of life after death. At the very least, they did not think those who died would be part of Jesus' coming kingdom on earth.
It is interesting that Paul only discusses the dead "in Christ." In other words, he is not obviously discussing the dead saints of the Old Testament. Indeed, in his writings Paul is almost entirely silent about the fate of any group of the dead except those who have died in Christ.
4. Timothy would seem to be the carrier of the letter. We can imagine that he took it back from Corinth to Thessalonica. We can imagine that he read the letter aloud to the assembly and fielded any questions they might have. We remember that most people in the ancient world were illiterate, so they would not have been able to take home a copy to read at home. They would have likely heard it read enough times in their house church until they had its content firmly in mind.
[1] Philippians 4:16 indicates that he was there long enough to receive support at least twice from the church at Philippi. We balance this comment with the three sabbaths that Acts 17:2 mentions and conclude that Paul was not in Thessalonica long but likely more than two weeks. Somewhere in between one and two months seems likely.
[2] 1 Thessalonians gives us a slightly different impression of events. In Acts, Paul leaves Silas and Timothy at Berea and does not see them again until Corinth (Acts 17:14; 18:5). However, 1 Thessalonians indicates that all three were in Athens, and that it was only Timothy who was separated from Paul. There may be some way to fit these accounts together, but such speculation probably is not helpful, especially since ancient history writing was more flexible than modern historiography. Clearly Paul's account, as the first-hand witness, should be given emphasis.
[3] Galatians is the principle alternative.
Sunday, March 22, 2020
Is COVID-19 God's Judgment?
1. Whenever there is a disaster, it is natural for us to ask why, especially when we believe in a God whose has a defining characteristic of love. We find the same question in the Bible in more than one place. In Luke 13, Jesus addresses some Galileans that Pilate had killed and some people who had a tower fall on them in Siloam (Luke 13:1-5). Was it a punishment for their sin? What about the young man who had been born blind? Had his parents sinned or had he sinned to bring it on (John 9:2)?
The Bible does indicate that events can be a consequence of sin. Israel loses a battle with Ai because of Achan's sin (Joshua 7). The northern and southern kingdoms both meet their demise as a consequence of their sin (2 Kings 17, 24:3). And it is not just the Old Testament. Ananias and Sapphira die in Acts 5 as a result of their sin, and need we merely mention the book of Revelation.
2. It is important to have a "whole Bible" theology of such questions. Once we begin to read the Bible in context, we realize that we get different angles on these questions from different books. I have hypothesized often that there is a growing precision on some subjects in the course of the Bible. The afterlife seems to be an example of this dynamic.
Another example is what we might call Deuteronomistic theology. Deuteronomistic theology gives us a basic principle--obedience to God leads to blessing, disobedience leads to disaster. However, Deuteronomy and the historical books that follow it (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) only look at this question from the standpoint of this life. Those who teach a prosperity gospel tend to focus on these parts of the Bible while ignoring others.
However, it is clear that not all suffering is a consequence of sin and disobedience. Jesus denies it in John 9 mentioned above. Indeed, Isaiah 53 and Jesus himself illustrate that a righteous person can be persecuted unjustly. Ecclesiastes is rife with the sense that, from all appearances, it often looks like the wicked sometimes prosper and the "good die young."
Ironically, the most righteous king in 2 Kings, Josiah, dies prematurely in battle. The most evil king of Judah, Manasseh, has a long and prosperous reign and dies peacefully in bed. The situation deeply troubled many at the time. The generation that went into captivity felt like they were being punished for the sins of their parents' generation.
Psalm 44:17 captures this lament well: "All this came upon us although we had not forgotten you. We had not been false to your covenant." There was a saying that circulated around Israel: "Our fathers ate sour grapes, but it is our teeth that hurt" (Jer. 31:29; Ezek. 18:2). God says he is going to change the policy. From now on it will be the person who does the sin who will die, not their children or grandchildren (Ezek 18:4).
2. Here is a good illustration of growing precision within the pages of the Old Testament. "God has no grandchildren"--our eternal fate is a matter of our individual relationship to God, not that of our parents. It goes the other way as well--our eternal judgment is not a matter of our parents either.
There are still consequences to sin in this life, of course. If a mother takes drugs while pregnant, God may not intervene to protect the unborn child from the consequences. The child of an alcoholic parent may still have to deal with the psychological consequences of growing up in that environment.
The book of Job brings out the complexity of the situation. Job suffers even though he has not sinned. He never finds out why in the pages of the book. God comes to him at the end and basically tells him that understanding the situation is above his pay grade. Here is the final answer to the problem of suffering. God is in control. God is good and knows what is happening. We will never fully understand. We must simply have faith that "the judge of all the earth will do what is right" (Gen. 18:25).
Of course we know that Satan has made a wager with God from Job 1-2. Job never finds this out. In my Wesleyan theology, this is a good example of the fact that much of the suffering that happens in the world is a matter of God's permissive will rather than his directive will. That is to say, God does not directly order everything that happens.
God is sovereign. Nothing happens without God's permission. God is in control. God signs off on everything. But God gives some degree of freedom to the creation. God gives some degree of freedom to humanity and to the natural order. God knows what will happen, but he does not dictate everything that will happen.
There is of course a competing view, the idea that "everything happens for a reason." There is the Calvinist view that God specifically directs everything that happens. In my view, this makes God the author of evil. It makes the statement that God is love meaningless.
3. An important observation here is that the understanding of Satan is not present in the earliest parts of the Old Testament. Satan only appears in Job 1-2, 1 Chronicles 21, and Zechariah 3. It is common to think of Job as one of the earliest books of the Old Testament but in my view this is the common confusion of the subject matter of a book with the circumstances of its writing.
This is another example of growing precision in understanding as we move through the Bible. The earliest parts of the Bible simply ascribe all spiritual activity to God. This is not untrue, since God approves of everything that happens.
But it is not as precise as an awareness of Satan. Does God really directly send evil spirits on King Saul (1 Sam. 16:14)? Does God directly command that a person be born blind or deaf (Exod. 4:11)? These are true but imprecise statements. God signs off on everything that happens. But we now know that Satan is often the more direct instigator.
Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1 The first says that God tempted David to sin. The second says that Satan did it. If we have no sense of a developing precision in understanding, these two passages will certainly seem to contradict each other. In the end, James gives us the final word: "Let no one say when tempted that God is tempting me. For God is not tempted with evil nor does he tempt anyone" (Jas. 1:13).
4. All of that is background to the question at hand. Is COVID-19 God's judgment in some way?
We can say with certainty that God has allowed COVID-19 to happen. God is in control. But we cannot say with any certainty whether God is judging certain people. That is above our pay grade. We have an urge to speculate on such questions, but Job tells us we must trust that God is in control and resist matters that are beyond our understanding. We are not competent to fish for Leviathan with a fish hook (Job 41:1)!
We can say that Christians will die. Indeed, some American Christians have been very resistant to believe in the current crisis. What if they had died in higher numbers as a result? Even if that had happened, Job would implore us not to conclude that such an eventuality would have been God's judgment on us in some way.
We can conclude that God has and will likely allow people to experience the consequences of their choices. We do not know the intentions or detailed actions of the Chinese government. But God has allowed China and the world to experience the consequences. I do not know whether the United States has mishandled the lead up to the crisis here. But God may very well let the rest of us experience the consequences.
In all this I remember that death is not so powerful in the face of Christ. Death has no victory over us! In my own journey with the problem of evil and suffering, a key conclusion has been that I give too much credit to death and suffering, as if they are a big deal.
God is a big deal. I am only a big deal because God loves me. My death is only a big deal because I am one of the sparrows God watches over.
So I will take precautions. I will be vigilant. I will heed the advice of experts. I will pray for my leaders. I will pray for others.
But in the end, "The LORD is with me. I will not be afraid what a mortal [or a virus] might do to me."
The Bible does indicate that events can be a consequence of sin. Israel loses a battle with Ai because of Achan's sin (Joshua 7). The northern and southern kingdoms both meet their demise as a consequence of their sin (2 Kings 17, 24:3). And it is not just the Old Testament. Ananias and Sapphira die in Acts 5 as a result of their sin, and need we merely mention the book of Revelation.
2. It is important to have a "whole Bible" theology of such questions. Once we begin to read the Bible in context, we realize that we get different angles on these questions from different books. I have hypothesized often that there is a growing precision on some subjects in the course of the Bible. The afterlife seems to be an example of this dynamic.
Another example is what we might call Deuteronomistic theology. Deuteronomistic theology gives us a basic principle--obedience to God leads to blessing, disobedience leads to disaster. However, Deuteronomy and the historical books that follow it (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) only look at this question from the standpoint of this life. Those who teach a prosperity gospel tend to focus on these parts of the Bible while ignoring others.
However, it is clear that not all suffering is a consequence of sin and disobedience. Jesus denies it in John 9 mentioned above. Indeed, Isaiah 53 and Jesus himself illustrate that a righteous person can be persecuted unjustly. Ecclesiastes is rife with the sense that, from all appearances, it often looks like the wicked sometimes prosper and the "good die young."
Ironically, the most righteous king in 2 Kings, Josiah, dies prematurely in battle. The most evil king of Judah, Manasseh, has a long and prosperous reign and dies peacefully in bed. The situation deeply troubled many at the time. The generation that went into captivity felt like they were being punished for the sins of their parents' generation.
Psalm 44:17 captures this lament well: "All this came upon us although we had not forgotten you. We had not been false to your covenant." There was a saying that circulated around Israel: "Our fathers ate sour grapes, but it is our teeth that hurt" (Jer. 31:29; Ezek. 18:2). God says he is going to change the policy. From now on it will be the person who does the sin who will die, not their children or grandchildren (Ezek 18:4).
2. Here is a good illustration of growing precision within the pages of the Old Testament. "God has no grandchildren"--our eternal fate is a matter of our individual relationship to God, not that of our parents. It goes the other way as well--our eternal judgment is not a matter of our parents either.
There are still consequences to sin in this life, of course. If a mother takes drugs while pregnant, God may not intervene to protect the unborn child from the consequences. The child of an alcoholic parent may still have to deal with the psychological consequences of growing up in that environment.
The book of Job brings out the complexity of the situation. Job suffers even though he has not sinned. He never finds out why in the pages of the book. God comes to him at the end and basically tells him that understanding the situation is above his pay grade. Here is the final answer to the problem of suffering. God is in control. God is good and knows what is happening. We will never fully understand. We must simply have faith that "the judge of all the earth will do what is right" (Gen. 18:25).
Of course we know that Satan has made a wager with God from Job 1-2. Job never finds this out. In my Wesleyan theology, this is a good example of the fact that much of the suffering that happens in the world is a matter of God's permissive will rather than his directive will. That is to say, God does not directly order everything that happens.
God is sovereign. Nothing happens without God's permission. God is in control. God signs off on everything. But God gives some degree of freedom to the creation. God gives some degree of freedom to humanity and to the natural order. God knows what will happen, but he does not dictate everything that will happen.
There is of course a competing view, the idea that "everything happens for a reason." There is the Calvinist view that God specifically directs everything that happens. In my view, this makes God the author of evil. It makes the statement that God is love meaningless.
3. An important observation here is that the understanding of Satan is not present in the earliest parts of the Old Testament. Satan only appears in Job 1-2, 1 Chronicles 21, and Zechariah 3. It is common to think of Job as one of the earliest books of the Old Testament but in my view this is the common confusion of the subject matter of a book with the circumstances of its writing.
This is another example of growing precision in understanding as we move through the Bible. The earliest parts of the Bible simply ascribe all spiritual activity to God. This is not untrue, since God approves of everything that happens.
But it is not as precise as an awareness of Satan. Does God really directly send evil spirits on King Saul (1 Sam. 16:14)? Does God directly command that a person be born blind or deaf (Exod. 4:11)? These are true but imprecise statements. God signs off on everything that happens. But we now know that Satan is often the more direct instigator.
Nowhere is this more clearly seen than in comparing 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1 The first says that God tempted David to sin. The second says that Satan did it. If we have no sense of a developing precision in understanding, these two passages will certainly seem to contradict each other. In the end, James gives us the final word: "Let no one say when tempted that God is tempting me. For God is not tempted with evil nor does he tempt anyone" (Jas. 1:13).
4. All of that is background to the question at hand. Is COVID-19 God's judgment in some way?
We can say with certainty that God has allowed COVID-19 to happen. God is in control. But we cannot say with any certainty whether God is judging certain people. That is above our pay grade. We have an urge to speculate on such questions, but Job tells us we must trust that God is in control and resist matters that are beyond our understanding. We are not competent to fish for Leviathan with a fish hook (Job 41:1)!
We can say that Christians will die. Indeed, some American Christians have been very resistant to believe in the current crisis. What if they had died in higher numbers as a result? Even if that had happened, Job would implore us not to conclude that such an eventuality would have been God's judgment on us in some way.
We can conclude that God has and will likely allow people to experience the consequences of their choices. We do not know the intentions or detailed actions of the Chinese government. But God has allowed China and the world to experience the consequences. I do not know whether the United States has mishandled the lead up to the crisis here. But God may very well let the rest of us experience the consequences.
In all this I remember that death is not so powerful in the face of Christ. Death has no victory over us! In my own journey with the problem of evil and suffering, a key conclusion has been that I give too much credit to death and suffering, as if they are a big deal.
God is a big deal. I am only a big deal because God loves me. My death is only a big deal because I am one of the sparrows God watches over.
So I will take precautions. I will be vigilant. I will heed the advice of experts. I will pray for my leaders. I will pray for others.
But in the end, "The LORD is with me. I will not be afraid what a mortal [or a virus] might do to me."
Sunday, March 01, 2020
What's a heresy?
Someone recently asked what a heresy was. Here is my answer.
______________________
1. First, heresy has to do with the beliefs of our head. In that sense:
______________________
1. First, heresy has to do with the beliefs of our head. In that sense:
- Heresy is not about ethics. The Church in its earliest centuries did not largely fight over ethics but over beliefs. In that sense, it can be wrong do do something but it is not heresy to do something.
- Heresy is not about salvation. God judges us according to our "heart," that is, our faith in him. Our decisions and actions flow from our heart toward God. Out of the heart thus comes forth sin and death. God does not judge us according to our beliefs except insofar as our beliefs are an expression of our hearts. This is the direction with which God is ultimately concerned--heart to action, heart to belief (not belief to action, not action in itself).
- Deviation with regard to the Trinity.
- Deviation with regard to the resurrection.
- Note that such heresies only became heresies after the ecumenical councils that finally brought those debates to conclusion. The author of Ecclesiastes was not a heretic for not understanding the fullness of life after death. Arius was not a heretic until after 381, after his death, when the Nicene Creed was finalized.
- Open theism denies the absolute foreknowledge of God. This a "heresy light" because Christians everywhere have long affirmed the full foreknowledge of God. But the issue is not addressed in the creeds.
- The inspiration of Scripture is the common belief of Christendom, but it has never been affirmed in an ecumenical creed nor has its precise nature ever been spelled out by the Church at large.
- The belief that homosexual practice is acceptable in a monogamous relationship falls outside the consensus of Christianity throughout the ages. While the practice is a question of orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, the belief stands outside the consensus of the Church.
- One's position on the nature of predestination, individual will, or eternal security
- One's position on particular atonement theories or a teaching like eternal security.
- One's position on the inerrancy of Scripture
Saturday, February 22, 2020
Discerning God's Will for Action
Here is the outline of a presentation I gave February 20 to a leadership development group of pastors in Western New York.
______________
Discernment: To Go or Stay
1. Two Personalities/Biases I've seen:
Lord, grant me the peace to wait on you when I cannot or should not act…
Lord, grant me the courage to act when it is time, even if I am uncertain of the direction…
Lord, grant me the wisdom to know the difference!
______________
Discernment: To Go or Stay
1. Two Personalities/Biases I've seen:
- Wait, don't act until the Lord tells you what to do.
- Move forward and the Lord will stop you if you go in the wrong direction.
- "Wait on the Lord. Be strong and let your heart take courage. Wait, I say, on the Lord." Ps 27:14
- "You will hear a voice behind you when you turn to the right or the left" (Isa 30:21)
- I had an impression of a change coming. It was both a push and a pull.
- Outside factors included an empty nest, a sense that I was not as aligned with the direction of my situation as I used to be.
- Inside was a sense that I either needed to return to teaching or move into more advanced leadership.
- Doors opened.
- There were a striking number of benefits to walking through the door.
- I had an unusual peace about it.
- Sometimes we have to wait because there is nothing we can do but pray. (Of course we should always be praying. We should always sit with a choice in silence before the Lord.)
- Sometimes God wants us to wait on him when we could act but it is not his will.
- Sometimes God makes it clear what we are to do and when we are to do it.
- Sometimes we need to step out in faith without knowing for sure where we are going.
- Scripture - "Impressions from above are always in harmony with the teachings of the Word."
- conscience - Does the impression cohere with our core Christian values (love God, love neighbor)? (I have modified Knapp here)
- providence - "If a leading is of God, the way will always open for it."
- reason - God's leading usually makes sense.
- Your situation can get rough (a push).
- Your situation can change in a way that requires choices.
- A door can open and a new possibility present itself (a pull).
- There's a time to stick it out. There is a time to shake the dust off your feet.
- There can also be a time when you are ready to continue, but your influence is spent. You may want to stay but it would benefit the situation for someone else to take over.
- There's a time to step out in faith. There's a time to wait for a door to open.
- A "holy discontent" (but beware a personality always looking for greener grass)
- A person can have a sense of release or a sense of ongoing burden.
- God often gives us choices, gives us a say in what to choose. There isn't always just one will of God.
- God interacts with our choices. He sometimes "changes his mind about judgment" (Jonah). He gives Hezekiah an extra 15 years. Sometimes he turns toward the negative (Saul, destruction of Jerusalem).
- An impression - peace? discontent? excitement? a possible word from the Lord?
- What does Scripture and my conscience say?
- What doors are open and closed?
- What are the pros and cons (reason)? Does it make sense?
- What do others say, whose wisdom I recognize? Don't ignore the prophets you don't like!
- Listen to the voice behind you.
Lord, grant me the peace to wait on you when I cannot or should not act…
Lord, grant me the courage to act when it is time, even if I am uncertain of the direction…
Lord, grant me the wisdom to know the difference!
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Through the Bible - The Book of Acts
Last year (2019) in March, I began a series on YouTube and Patreon called "Through the Bible in Ten Years." From March to the end of July, I did both video and podcast "Explanatory Notes" on the Gospel of Mark.
Beginning then on August 4, I began doing Explanatory Notes on the Book of Acts. Here are the links to the videos and podcasts in this series.
2.1 Introduction to Acts
2.2 Acts 1
2.3 Acts 2
2.4 Acts 3
2.5 Acts 4
2.6 Acts 5
2.7 Acts 6
2.8 Acts 7
2.9 Acts 8
2.10 Acts 9
2.11 Acts 10
2.12 Acts 11
2.13 Acts 12
2.14 Acts 13
2.15 Acts 14
2.16 Acts 15
7.2 Sidetrip to Galatians 1
7.3 Sidetrip to Galatians 2
2.17 Acts 16
2.18 Acts 17
Beginning then on August 4, I began doing Explanatory Notes on the Book of Acts. Here are the links to the videos and podcasts in this series.
2.1 Introduction to Acts
2.2 Acts 1
2.3 Acts 2
2.4 Acts 3
2.5 Acts 4
2.6 Acts 5
2.7 Acts 6
2.8 Acts 7
2.9 Acts 8
2.10 Acts 9
2.11 Acts 10
2.12 Acts 11
2.13 Acts 12
2.14 Acts 13
2.15 Acts 14
2.16 Acts 15
7.2 Sidetrip to Galatians 1
7.3 Sidetrip to Galatians 2
2.17 Acts 16
2.18 Acts 17
Sunday, February 02, 2020
Finis - and the rest
previous post
______________
1. I have now blogged through the first thirty years of my life in great detail. My memories are now eternal. I feel like I now need to divert the extra space of my attention to other things that have been crying out to me. I also have already blogged extensively about my remaining years.
As I was getting ready to depart Indiana Wesleyan last year, I blogged through my time there. That series started with the year 1996-97, when I was looking for a teaching position. There are more things to be remembered of a personal nature and I may return to fill those in at some point.
So here are the key personal points of the years 1996-2009:
______________
1. I have now blogged through the first thirty years of my life in great detail. My memories are now eternal. I feel like I now need to divert the extra space of my attention to other things that have been crying out to me. I also have already blogged extensively about my remaining years.
As I was getting ready to depart Indiana Wesleyan last year, I blogged through my time there. That series started with the year 1996-97, when I was looking for a teaching position. There are more things to be remembered of a personal nature and I may return to fill those in at some point.
So here are the key personal points of the years 1996-2009:
- Hired in 1997 by IWU to teach philosophy for a year
- Continued on in 1998, first to teach philosophy but then as professor of New Testament
- Married in 1998 to Angie with daughters Stefanie and Stacy - trips that year to England, Scotland, and Greece (for honeymoon)
- Son Thomas born in 1999.
- Daughter Sophie born in 2000.
- Family trip to England, Scotland, and Paris in summer 2001, before 9-11
- Angie's mom died in 2003. We had just returned from a cruise to celebrate five years of marriage.
- Fulbright sabbatical to Tübingen in 2004. We lived in Bühl. Fulbright trip to Berlin. Methodistische Gemeinde (Iraq War)
- Angie's father lived with us in Bühl the first half of the trip (bakery; Sportheim; gymnasium, stupid light). My parents came over. We went to Munich and visited Dachau again. My parents and I drove north to Nuremberg. Went through Oberammergau, drove to Neuschwanstein. They went to see the Grunewald altarpiece in Isenheim while I watched Tom.
- Family trip to Milan as the basecamp (Last Supper by da Vinci), with trips to Venice and down to Florence (fantastic carbonara). Angie's dad went home. We spent a week in Mougins, France (pesky train porter)
- Trips by Wilbur to Israel and Greece
- Books published, papers presented
- Stefanie graduated from high school in 2010, went to Indiana University. Her quinceñera was in 2006.
- Stacy graduated in 2011, also went to IU. Her quinceñera was in 2008.
- Another Fulbright in 2011 to Munich, with Knut Backhaus as host. Fulbright orientation was in Göttingen, after which we went on up to Berlin.
- We took trips to Rome, Pisa, Venice, and Florence again (as basecamp). We went to Vienna and on to Budapest, as well as Prague in the Czech Republic. Angie wanted to visit a Medieval Crime Museum in Rothenburg ob der Tauber as our departure approached.
- Stefanie, her friend Spencer, and Stacy came over for Christmas. We visited Tübingen and Bühl again, having supper with the Bisingers.
- My father died within a couple months of our return in 2012. This probably marks the end of the first half of my life.
- Books and papers presented
- Taught for the undergraduate School of Theology and Ministry 2015-2016. A year of self-discovery.
- From 2016-2019 I became first the Interim and then the full Dean of the School of Theology and Ministry. These were definitely years of learning as I felt like my intuitions would have taken IWU in different directions than it was going.
- Tom graduated from high school in 2018, got a full tuition ROTC scholarship for three years to Purdue.
- Sophie graduated from high school in 2019, went to Pepperdine University.
- In 2019 I felt like a change was approaching, either to go back to teaching or to move into a more significant leadership position. Houghton College stepped into that space.
- Since August 15, 2019 I have been Vice President of Planning and Innovation at Houghton. Exciting times!
Durham - Final Year 14
previous post
______________
93. My last year in Durham focused of course on my dissertation. I wrote the last chapter on the heavenly tabernacle, the aspect of Hebrews I found most intriguing. It involved some minute exegetical work on Hebrews 8-10. I had a big stack of books from the library next to my computer for footnotes.
I seem to remember Rachel Leonard saying that footnotes were pointless. She was doing psychology, so the footnotes did nothing but credit sources. However, in biblical studies the footnotes can be some of the most interesting side notes. In them we spar with our opponents and make interesting tangents. Of course many of them are mere catalogs.
I called some footnote work "footnote chasing." The footnotes helped me know who all the significant players were and what the significant positions were. A footnote in one book led to another book with its own footnotes, which led to other books.
Some scholars seem always to know what books have just come out. I'm not sure how they do it. Bill Patrick was that way. Dave Smith is that way. I know others like that, Brian Small, Scott Mackie. I always felt like I was behind on this one. I would use the library at Notre Dame or the book hall at the Society of Biblical Literature to try to catch up.
94. I did two appendices. One over-viewed the story world of Hebrews as a whole, the other tried to infer aspects of Hebrews' background from the work I had done.
I was struck by how short the first appendix was. It reflects an insight I have gained over the years. In the last few years, Indiana Wesleyan added a theology course to its general education requirements. However, I'm not sure if it really does what its framers thought it would. Much of theology does not directly impact Christian life. It may not make a person love God or their neighbor more.
Arguably, orthopraxy ("right practice") is of far more immediate and eternal importance than orthodoxy ("right belief"). [1] And the two aren't always closely connected. This is what I discovered with the story world of Hebrews. The same underlying story not only could have been discoursed in multiple ways. The same story could be argued from in many ways. The story itself potentially gives rise to many different realities. [2]
For this reason, a course on ethics--which was in harmony and dialog with theology and Scripture--would be much more powerful for students than one focused on theological ideas. And it would be very controversial. There are Christians who believe the right things who would view the current political situation in diametrically opposing ways. We return again to the Platonic fallacy. Right belief does not clearly lead to right action. Rather, humans tend to retrofit their ideas to fit their sense of action. Ideas are often "epiphenomena" of our social worlds. [3]
When I edited the dissertation into a monograph, I felt the need to add another chapter on the rhetorical strategy of Hebrews. Without a sense of the rhetorical situation arguing from the story, the story lies pretty facile and polyvalent. The substance of meaning comes as the story is discoursed.
The appendix on the background of Hebrews was indulgent. Narrative criticism brackets questions of historical background. But of course I was not exactly practicing narrative criticism. I was only using some of its tools. Still, I had tried to be exegetically disciplined in the study, not speculating on the key questions of background. Part of the introduction suggested that a disciplined approach that did not fill in gaps might result in an interpretation that would eventually help with background.
95. I discovered Craig Koester's The Dwelling of God in my final year. It had come out some seven years earlier. For a little bit, I was afraid he had already carved out the positions I was taking in my dissertation. It is of course death to find that you are not in fact doing something original. My narrative approach would have made it ok anyway. As I read through the work I found enough light between the two of us anyway.
I largely see the tabernacle in Hebrews as a metaphorical way of referring to the highest heaven where God dwells. I do not think Hebrews actually envisages an actual structure in heaven. I argue that Hebrews never pictures there being an outer room to the heavenly sanctuary. At best, one might consider the lower skies the outer room of a cosmological sanctuary but Hebrews never explicitly says this either.
96. Dunn's commentary on Colossians and Philemon came out in the spring of 1996. I can't remember if we spent a whole semester on Colossians, but I do remember us discussing Colossians 2 extensively. Dunn took the position that "worship of angels" in 2:18 did not refer to worshipping angels but to worshipping with angels. James McGrath and B. J. Oropeza were also there my final year.
In the spring, I think the research seminar looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls. Florentino Garcia's The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated came out early 1996. The whole Dead Sea corpus had only really come out around 1991. They had been hoarded since the 1940s by scholars who had divided the spoils and hoped to publish everything they could on their little fragment. But in 1991, the Biblical Archaeology Society published two volumes of photographs of the scrolls, mysteriously obtained by Robert Eisenman. The game was over.
I got into an argument with someone visiting John's over the Dead Sea Scrolls. She was convinced that the Roman Catholic Church had been hiding them because they proved that Jesus wasn't the messiah. It was completely ludicrous. But she wasn't having it. I think it was the first time I ever really lost my cool in a discussion.
91. I applied to teach at a college in southern England. I actually skipped coming home in the summer to interview. I missed a major family gathering honoring my parents in the lead up to their fiftieth wedding anniversary.
It was a bad decision. In those days, I sometimes felt like I made the wrong decisions when faced with two alternatives. I didn't get the job. It was a catholic college that ended up closing a couple years later anyway. Then over Christmas I skipped out on an interview that I might otherwise have got. It was in Manchester, seems like it was the Nazarene Theological College.
So I went to one I should have skipped and skipped one I should have gone to. My daughter Sophie reminds me that if I had stayed in England, she would never have been born. So there's the paradox of life. Good things can come out of bad choices. That doesn't make the choices good. But God can redeem anything.
92. The summer before my final year, Principal David Day had the idea of a dictionary of theological figures of sorts. I was to write four entrees: Nietzsche, Feuerbach, and two others I don't remember. So after returning from Germany, I spent the end of the summer reading through a good deal of Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, Ecce Homo, and others. As far as I know, the dictionary was never published.
93. I remember three major trips my last year. I've already mentioned the trip to Ireland with David Fox and Rachel Leonard in early 1996. Neil Evans graciously drove around Scotland with me. We went all the way to the tip of Scotland at John O'Groats. We briefly touched on St. Andrews and Aberdeen. We hit Inverness and came down the west side to Fort William, passing Loch Ness on the way.
I also met up with my old friend Todd Thompson at Sheffield. He was trying to do the same thing in philosophy that I did with New Testament. We headed south to Stonehenge and down as far as Cheddar. I had hoped to get to Cornwall, but it was just too far.
I remember thinking about the soul sometime that year. For the next few years, it seems like a lot of people were discussing the contrast between Christian resurrection belief and the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul. They are not the same. Resurrection is about the transformation and/or re-creation of our bodies for the kingdom of God. Immortality of the soul is not the primary mode of afterlife belief in the New Testament, although it is not incompatible with New Testament belief.
My question was this. If resurrection does not involve a soul, then how is it different from cloning a person and giving the clone the memories and personality of the original person. Where is the continuity of personhood? A computer might have all my memories and personality, but would that make it me? The convenience of belief in the soul provides continuity of personhood.
There's plenty of discontinuity even in our own lives. "Each man in his time plays many roles." There is some continuity of the person who grew up in Wilton Manors, but a lot has certainly changed. Am I the same person in the morning who went to sleep. "Sleep is a kind of dying." [4]
94. I had my dissertation done by the beginning of summer, 1996. I had missed the deadline for submission to graduate in August, so my parents and I flew back for the December graduation. We had lunch with Dunn thereafter in a restaurant this side of the Silver Street Bridge.
Before I left in the summer, Frances Young was my external examiner and Loren Stuckenbruck my internal. They passed me with only a few grammatical pointers. She did have some questions about my hermeneutics. I don't think she and Jimmy were exactly on the same page hermeneutically.
I don't remember on exactly what, but she did push quite hard on some issue. I thought I was going to have to do major revisions. I finally conceded and said something like, "I will have to look into that." Then she eased off and said, "I want you to know that we are pretty positive about your dissertation." So that was nice. It's not a "viva" unless you sweat a little, I guess.
I had hoped to have a teaching job lined up for the next year. I figured that, if I could get an interview, I would be able to move them in my direction. But I didn't even get an interview in the US. Seems like I applied to several. I remember the University of Louisiana being one of them. I wondered if I would have more contacts in the US if I had studied at a US school.
I often thought to myself in those days, "Everyone's happy to take your money but then it all dries up when you want a job." I was looking for a teaching job at a research institution. It was not to be.
[1] Ortho-volition is of the most eternal importance. With regard to the primary of choices over beliefs per se, Kierkegaard put it well: "What I really need is to become clear in my own mind what I must do, not what I must know… except in so far as a knowing must precede every action." It is amazingly possible to believe all the right theological ideas in general and yet do atrocious things.
[2] The underlying Christian story behind the New Testament is largely the same. What makes the theologies and ethics of the New Testament authors distinct is how they argue from that story. Indeed, this was one of the key insights of Richard Hays' work on Galatians--Paul and his opponents were largely arguing over the interpretation of the same story.
At some point the historical story lies in some relation to the theological story. The relationship could be close or tangential. For Bultmann, the historical Jesus was tangential to the theological story beneath the New Testament. For me, of course, it is much more closely related.
[3] An "epiphenomenon" is something that is a by-product of something, rather than part of its substance. Might we say that the beauty of a rainbow is not part of the substance of rainbow creation but we enjoy it all the same.
[4] At some point I had the fun thought of how eternal security could work. All God would need to do is resurrect a person at a point before he or she fell away.
______________
93. My last year in Durham focused of course on my dissertation. I wrote the last chapter on the heavenly tabernacle, the aspect of Hebrews I found most intriguing. It involved some minute exegetical work on Hebrews 8-10. I had a big stack of books from the library next to my computer for footnotes.
I seem to remember Rachel Leonard saying that footnotes were pointless. She was doing psychology, so the footnotes did nothing but credit sources. However, in biblical studies the footnotes can be some of the most interesting side notes. In them we spar with our opponents and make interesting tangents. Of course many of them are mere catalogs.
I called some footnote work "footnote chasing." The footnotes helped me know who all the significant players were and what the significant positions were. A footnote in one book led to another book with its own footnotes, which led to other books.
Some scholars seem always to know what books have just come out. I'm not sure how they do it. Bill Patrick was that way. Dave Smith is that way. I know others like that, Brian Small, Scott Mackie. I always felt like I was behind on this one. I would use the library at Notre Dame or the book hall at the Society of Biblical Literature to try to catch up.
94. I did two appendices. One over-viewed the story world of Hebrews as a whole, the other tried to infer aspects of Hebrews' background from the work I had done.
I was struck by how short the first appendix was. It reflects an insight I have gained over the years. In the last few years, Indiana Wesleyan added a theology course to its general education requirements. However, I'm not sure if it really does what its framers thought it would. Much of theology does not directly impact Christian life. It may not make a person love God or their neighbor more.
Arguably, orthopraxy ("right practice") is of far more immediate and eternal importance than orthodoxy ("right belief"). [1] And the two aren't always closely connected. This is what I discovered with the story world of Hebrews. The same underlying story not only could have been discoursed in multiple ways. The same story could be argued from in many ways. The story itself potentially gives rise to many different realities. [2]
For this reason, a course on ethics--which was in harmony and dialog with theology and Scripture--would be much more powerful for students than one focused on theological ideas. And it would be very controversial. There are Christians who believe the right things who would view the current political situation in diametrically opposing ways. We return again to the Platonic fallacy. Right belief does not clearly lead to right action. Rather, humans tend to retrofit their ideas to fit their sense of action. Ideas are often "epiphenomena" of our social worlds. [3]
When I edited the dissertation into a monograph, I felt the need to add another chapter on the rhetorical strategy of Hebrews. Without a sense of the rhetorical situation arguing from the story, the story lies pretty facile and polyvalent. The substance of meaning comes as the story is discoursed.
The appendix on the background of Hebrews was indulgent. Narrative criticism brackets questions of historical background. But of course I was not exactly practicing narrative criticism. I was only using some of its tools. Still, I had tried to be exegetically disciplined in the study, not speculating on the key questions of background. Part of the introduction suggested that a disciplined approach that did not fill in gaps might result in an interpretation that would eventually help with background.
95. I discovered Craig Koester's The Dwelling of God in my final year. It had come out some seven years earlier. For a little bit, I was afraid he had already carved out the positions I was taking in my dissertation. It is of course death to find that you are not in fact doing something original. My narrative approach would have made it ok anyway. As I read through the work I found enough light between the two of us anyway.
I largely see the tabernacle in Hebrews as a metaphorical way of referring to the highest heaven where God dwells. I do not think Hebrews actually envisages an actual structure in heaven. I argue that Hebrews never pictures there being an outer room to the heavenly sanctuary. At best, one might consider the lower skies the outer room of a cosmological sanctuary but Hebrews never explicitly says this either.
96. Dunn's commentary on Colossians and Philemon came out in the spring of 1996. I can't remember if we spent a whole semester on Colossians, but I do remember us discussing Colossians 2 extensively. Dunn took the position that "worship of angels" in 2:18 did not refer to worshipping angels but to worshipping with angels. James McGrath and B. J. Oropeza were also there my final year.
In the spring, I think the research seminar looked at the Dead Sea Scrolls. Florentino Garcia's The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated came out early 1996. The whole Dead Sea corpus had only really come out around 1991. They had been hoarded since the 1940s by scholars who had divided the spoils and hoped to publish everything they could on their little fragment. But in 1991, the Biblical Archaeology Society published two volumes of photographs of the scrolls, mysteriously obtained by Robert Eisenman. The game was over.
I got into an argument with someone visiting John's over the Dead Sea Scrolls. She was convinced that the Roman Catholic Church had been hiding them because they proved that Jesus wasn't the messiah. It was completely ludicrous. But she wasn't having it. I think it was the first time I ever really lost my cool in a discussion.
91. I applied to teach at a college in southern England. I actually skipped coming home in the summer to interview. I missed a major family gathering honoring my parents in the lead up to their fiftieth wedding anniversary.
It was a bad decision. In those days, I sometimes felt like I made the wrong decisions when faced with two alternatives. I didn't get the job. It was a catholic college that ended up closing a couple years later anyway. Then over Christmas I skipped out on an interview that I might otherwise have got. It was in Manchester, seems like it was the Nazarene Theological College.
So I went to one I should have skipped and skipped one I should have gone to. My daughter Sophie reminds me that if I had stayed in England, she would never have been born. So there's the paradox of life. Good things can come out of bad choices. That doesn't make the choices good. But God can redeem anything.
92. The summer before my final year, Principal David Day had the idea of a dictionary of theological figures of sorts. I was to write four entrees: Nietzsche, Feuerbach, and two others I don't remember. So after returning from Germany, I spent the end of the summer reading through a good deal of Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, Ecce Homo, and others. As far as I know, the dictionary was never published.
93. I remember three major trips my last year. I've already mentioned the trip to Ireland with David Fox and Rachel Leonard in early 1996. Neil Evans graciously drove around Scotland with me. We went all the way to the tip of Scotland at John O'Groats. We briefly touched on St. Andrews and Aberdeen. We hit Inverness and came down the west side to Fort William, passing Loch Ness on the way.
I also met up with my old friend Todd Thompson at Sheffield. He was trying to do the same thing in philosophy that I did with New Testament. We headed south to Stonehenge and down as far as Cheddar. I had hoped to get to Cornwall, but it was just too far.
I remember thinking about the soul sometime that year. For the next few years, it seems like a lot of people were discussing the contrast between Christian resurrection belief and the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul. They are not the same. Resurrection is about the transformation and/or re-creation of our bodies for the kingdom of God. Immortality of the soul is not the primary mode of afterlife belief in the New Testament, although it is not incompatible with New Testament belief.
My question was this. If resurrection does not involve a soul, then how is it different from cloning a person and giving the clone the memories and personality of the original person. Where is the continuity of personhood? A computer might have all my memories and personality, but would that make it me? The convenience of belief in the soul provides continuity of personhood.
There's plenty of discontinuity even in our own lives. "Each man in his time plays many roles." There is some continuity of the person who grew up in Wilton Manors, but a lot has certainly changed. Am I the same person in the morning who went to sleep. "Sleep is a kind of dying." [4]
94. I had my dissertation done by the beginning of summer, 1996. I had missed the deadline for submission to graduate in August, so my parents and I flew back for the December graduation. We had lunch with Dunn thereafter in a restaurant this side of the Silver Street Bridge.
Before I left in the summer, Frances Young was my external examiner and Loren Stuckenbruck my internal. They passed me with only a few grammatical pointers. She did have some questions about my hermeneutics. I don't think she and Jimmy were exactly on the same page hermeneutically.
I don't remember on exactly what, but she did push quite hard on some issue. I thought I was going to have to do major revisions. I finally conceded and said something like, "I will have to look into that." Then she eased off and said, "I want you to know that we are pretty positive about your dissertation." So that was nice. It's not a "viva" unless you sweat a little, I guess.
I had hoped to have a teaching job lined up for the next year. I figured that, if I could get an interview, I would be able to move them in my direction. But I didn't even get an interview in the US. Seems like I applied to several. I remember the University of Louisiana being one of them. I wondered if I would have more contacts in the US if I had studied at a US school.
I often thought to myself in those days, "Everyone's happy to take your money but then it all dries up when you want a job." I was looking for a teaching job at a research institution. It was not to be.
[1] Ortho-volition is of the most eternal importance. With regard to the primary of choices over beliefs per se, Kierkegaard put it well: "What I really need is to become clear in my own mind what I must do, not what I must know… except in so far as a knowing must precede every action." It is amazingly possible to believe all the right theological ideas in general and yet do atrocious things.
[2] The underlying Christian story behind the New Testament is largely the same. What makes the theologies and ethics of the New Testament authors distinct is how they argue from that story. Indeed, this was one of the key insights of Richard Hays' work on Galatians--Paul and his opponents were largely arguing over the interpretation of the same story.
At some point the historical story lies in some relation to the theological story. The relationship could be close or tangential. For Bultmann, the historical Jesus was tangential to the theological story beneath the New Testament. For me, of course, it is much more closely related.
[3] An "epiphenomenon" is something that is a by-product of something, rather than part of its substance. Might we say that the beauty of a rainbow is not part of the substance of rainbow creation but we enjoy it all the same.
[4] At some point I had the fun thought of how eternal security could work. All God would need to do is resurrect a person at a point before he or she fell away.
Saturday, February 01, 2020
Tübingen - Trips 13
previous post
__________________
89. I was able to do a few trips while I was in Germany to finish out the days on my Eurail pass. I drove with someone, I think Reinhard, to the Bodensee for a day (Lake Constance). On the way we passed by the castle Hohenzollern.
Over the years, I have had a hard time getting my head around the way Germany has been structured politically. My main stumbling block was in fact thinking of this region as being "Germany" in the first place. Germany really was not an entity until 1871 when the Hohenzollern family became monarchs, and even then it wasn't exactly the same region as today. Before then, this region was a collection of little territories, little kingdoms of a sort. They were all German, but they weren't Germany.
You see castles all over Germany. These were all domains of various sizes, fiefdoms, all under the Holy Roman Empire, mostly the Hapsburgs in what we would call Austria today. Napoleon's conquest ended the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. These were more independent than the states we have today in the US. So there is a lot of local flavor, especially in those areas like Bavaria that were once their own kingdom.
I'm pretty sure I took a train out to Vienna. Quite a Ken thing to do. Vienna is way on the east side of Austria. I didn't spend the night. I basically rode all day on a train so I could spend just a few hours at the palace in Vienna. Even then, I found the Baroque colors of gaudy yellow and puke green unpleasant. I didn't even get off at Salzburg. It did look pretty from the train.
90. I went to the Black Forest with someone at one time to Bebenhausen, a cloister that had not been bombed in World War II. The region in general in which Tübingen is located is called Swabia. It's actually in the state of Baden-Württemberg.
The Swabians, like the Bavarians to the east, had their own dialect of a sort. Alex Jensen (from Hamburg in the north) used to joke about not being able to understand the Swabians. They might say, "I muss schaffe gange" instead of "Ich muss gehen zum arbeiten."
I had a radio of some sort in the Kellar of the Michelhaus. I learned more fifties and sixties American music there than I had ever learned in the States. "Neckar Altradio" (Neckar is the river that runs across Tübingen).
I'm sure I visited Stuttgart on one or two occasions. There wasn't really much for me to do there other than eat. Nevertheless, it was the passing through point in and out of Tübingen.
91. Another very typical Ken trip was a one day turn around to Berlin. I only had one day to spare on my Eurail pass, so I left on the earliest train to Berlin of the day, around 4am. I arrived in Berlin around 11am. I walked from one end of Berlin to the other in about three hours. Then I ate and hopped on another train back to Tübingen, arriving about 10pm.
I took the subway all the way to the Fernsehturm on the east side and walked all the way back. The Fernsehturm at Alexanderplatz is the television tower in east Berlin that you see in the first Jason Bourne movie. At that time, we were only six years out from the fall of the Berlin wall. Let me say again that the stark difference between bleak east Berlin and vibrant west Berlin was obvious.
I walked to the Bundesreich, which at that time was still not yet in use. Then there was the Brandenberger Tur which stood at the cusp of "no man's land." I had to go a little bit to the north to find a little chunk of the Berlin wall, since most of it had been demolished. On to the Victory Column in the middle of the Tiergarten. Yes, there were nude sunbathers there. [1]
Soon I was back at the Gedächtniskirche, the "church of remembrance." They left the bombed old church standing next to a not so attractive new cube church to remember WW2. This is not a remembrance like Civil War statues in the south seem to be. Civil War statues in the south seem to function as "we were right and shouldn't have lost" memorials. The Gedächtniskirche is a reminder of what happens when you let fascism and hate take over. It's a reminder never to let things like the Holocaust happen again.
Germany only had republican democracy for about fifteen years from 1918-1933, the Weimar Republic. Only after WW2 did representational democracy take hold. At the moment, Germany is one of the most successful democracies in the world. You can never take such things for granted of course. The temptation to protect your perceived herd at the expense of all others is always lying at the door. This herd mentality always threatens to overthrow an egalitarian society.
92. So my two months in Germany in 1995 came to an end. It was Tübingen to Stuttgart to Karlsruhe to Paris with a mess of luggage. A lovely overnight in Paris at the Hôtel Régyn. Eurostar at Gare du Nord to Waterloo Station London, sitting next to the older Russian woman I mentioned earlier. Kings Cross to Durham.
[1] Nude bathing was certainly something different to see in Germany. There was nothing really sensual to the nude sunbathers in Berlin as far as I could tell. Let's just say there weren't any models sunbathing in the park.
__________________
89. I was able to do a few trips while I was in Germany to finish out the days on my Eurail pass. I drove with someone, I think Reinhard, to the Bodensee for a day (Lake Constance). On the way we passed by the castle Hohenzollern.
Over the years, I have had a hard time getting my head around the way Germany has been structured politically. My main stumbling block was in fact thinking of this region as being "Germany" in the first place. Germany really was not an entity until 1871 when the Hohenzollern family became monarchs, and even then it wasn't exactly the same region as today. Before then, this region was a collection of little territories, little kingdoms of a sort. They were all German, but they weren't Germany.
You see castles all over Germany. These were all domains of various sizes, fiefdoms, all under the Holy Roman Empire, mostly the Hapsburgs in what we would call Austria today. Napoleon's conquest ended the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. These were more independent than the states we have today in the US. So there is a lot of local flavor, especially in those areas like Bavaria that were once their own kingdom.
I'm pretty sure I took a train out to Vienna. Quite a Ken thing to do. Vienna is way on the east side of Austria. I didn't spend the night. I basically rode all day on a train so I could spend just a few hours at the palace in Vienna. Even then, I found the Baroque colors of gaudy yellow and puke green unpleasant. I didn't even get off at Salzburg. It did look pretty from the train.
90. I went to the Black Forest with someone at one time to Bebenhausen, a cloister that had not been bombed in World War II. The region in general in which Tübingen is located is called Swabia. It's actually in the state of Baden-Württemberg.
The Swabians, like the Bavarians to the east, had their own dialect of a sort. Alex Jensen (from Hamburg in the north) used to joke about not being able to understand the Swabians. They might say, "I muss schaffe gange" instead of "Ich muss gehen zum arbeiten."
I had a radio of some sort in the Kellar of the Michelhaus. I learned more fifties and sixties American music there than I had ever learned in the States. "Neckar Altradio" (Neckar is the river that runs across Tübingen).
I'm sure I visited Stuttgart on one or two occasions. There wasn't really much for me to do there other than eat. Nevertheless, it was the passing through point in and out of Tübingen.
91. Another very typical Ken trip was a one day turn around to Berlin. I only had one day to spare on my Eurail pass, so I left on the earliest train to Berlin of the day, around 4am. I arrived in Berlin around 11am. I walked from one end of Berlin to the other in about three hours. Then I ate and hopped on another train back to Tübingen, arriving about 10pm.
I took the subway all the way to the Fernsehturm on the east side and walked all the way back. The Fernsehturm at Alexanderplatz is the television tower in east Berlin that you see in the first Jason Bourne movie. At that time, we were only six years out from the fall of the Berlin wall. Let me say again that the stark difference between bleak east Berlin and vibrant west Berlin was obvious.
I walked to the Bundesreich, which at that time was still not yet in use. Then there was the Brandenberger Tur which stood at the cusp of "no man's land." I had to go a little bit to the north to find a little chunk of the Berlin wall, since most of it had been demolished. On to the Victory Column in the middle of the Tiergarten. Yes, there were nude sunbathers there. [1]
Soon I was back at the Gedächtniskirche, the "church of remembrance." They left the bombed old church standing next to a not so attractive new cube church to remember WW2. This is not a remembrance like Civil War statues in the south seem to be. Civil War statues in the south seem to function as "we were right and shouldn't have lost" memorials. The Gedächtniskirche is a reminder of what happens when you let fascism and hate take over. It's a reminder never to let things like the Holocaust happen again.
Germany only had republican democracy for about fifteen years from 1918-1933, the Weimar Republic. Only after WW2 did representational democracy take hold. At the moment, Germany is one of the most successful democracies in the world. You can never take such things for granted of course. The temptation to protect your perceived herd at the expense of all others is always lying at the door. This herd mentality always threatens to overthrow an egalitarian society.
92. So my two months in Germany in 1995 came to an end. It was Tübingen to Stuttgart to Karlsruhe to Paris with a mess of luggage. A lovely overnight in Paris at the Hôtel Régyn. Eurostar at Gare du Nord to Waterloo Station London, sitting next to the older Russian woman I mentioned earlier. Kings Cross to Durham.
[1] Nude bathing was certainly something different to see in Germany. There was nothing really sensual to the nude sunbathers in Berlin as far as I could tell. Let's just say there weren't any models sunbathing in the park.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
