The revised edition of Grant Osborne's The Hermeneutical Spiral is a 624 page monster, but it would seem to be the gold standard in graduate level interpretation textbooks. Beginning with minute attention to grammar, he leads us through to biblical theology to systematic theology and finally to delivering the sermon. In addition, two appendices deal with some of the hermeneutical issues raised by postmodernism and other late twentieth century hermeneutical discussions.
Despite my usual critique of the "modernist evangelical" paradigm at some points, Osborne has proved to be someone who recognizes the complexity of the hermeneutical situation and is appropriately nuanced. He has won my respect with his careful thought. I have very seriously asked myself whether this should be the textbook for the now board approved and, Lord willing, approaching IWU MDiv degree. For the record, we'll probably stick with W. Randolph Tate's Biblical Interpretation with some significant videocast and paper samples of the exegetical process.
Part I
Under Part I, "General Hermeneutics," Osborne leads us through the familiar territory of context, grammar, semantics, syntax, and historical-cultural background. He covers all the appropriate topics, although I think his headings could be streamlined.
For example, why have a chapter on context and then have another chapter on historical and cultural backgrounds--which is context? Osborne also reveals his "propositional" inclinations when he calls the literary context the "logical" context. Herein lies one of my critiques of his book--it reflects the modernist evangelical paradigm by leaning a little too much toward the Bible as propositional. I should temper this critique because he recognizes the extent of narrative in the biblical text, so he only leans a little excessively in this direction, not a lot.
In the chapter on grammar is, by Osborne's own admission, the most tedious to the student in the sense that he reviews aspects of Hebrew and Greek grammar. If a person doesn't know anything about these, the chapter might as well be in Greek or Hebrew. He does begin with matters of establishing the text, which though a student will not be proficient after a few pages, is a topic to be covered in such a class.
In Semantics he deals with the meanings of words, including semantic fallacies. In syntax he deals with the relationships between words. I probably would rearrange some of this material. For example, I think I would have covered figures of speech in the chapter on semantics rather than syntax. Also, he has an excursus on rhetorical criticism in Syntax. I would have had an entire chapter on discourse (as Hays and Duvall do) and put some of the stuff from his chapter on Context there. Rhetorical criticism applies to the level of discourse.
There were some significant take-aways for me from these chapters, however. I have already said several times in classes this semester the idea that we should not see more meaning in a word than is necessary for its particular context--a good way to think of how not to commit the overload fallacy. A blind spot for me was the apparent consensus that the Masoretic text remains a more reliable textual tradition than the Dead Sea Scrolls. I had assumed otherwise. This is, however, also a double check item for me. Another one of my critiques of Osborne is that after he has done a great job of presenting the mechanics of inductive Bible study, his theological presuppositions then steer specific interpretations. It is not clear to me, however, that this contradicts his professed method, for pre-understanding is a good thing for him, and hermeneutics for him has both inductive and deductive elements.
Another take away actually relates well to my take away from Derrida--meaning is found much more in the "difference" between words than in the words themselves. Call it semotaxis if you will. Meaning is not finding a word for a word but finding the meaning space in the interplay of words.
Part 2
The second part of the book proceeds through the various biblical genres. Here, as I just mentioned, Osborne's theological presuppositions begin to show. As some examples, he assumes without argument that Israel's law code was early and, unlike the pagan law codes of the day, were not idealized representations but actual demands (187). At the end of this part of the book, in his chapter on the use of the OT in the NT, Osborne assumes that the Jewish pattern of historiograph sought accuracy of content, as opposed to Thucydides' practice of inventing speeches (336). As far as I can tell, statements like these simply reflect modernist evangelical values and have no clear basis either in the biblical text or in ancient contexts.
In my opinion, some of Osborne's analysis in the genre section is flat, two dimensional. By that I mean that it lacks a certain depth in its apprehension of the socio-cultural dimension. And of course Osborne critiqued sociological approaches to historical background in chapter 5. His critique is probably fair to some degree.
However, I believe Mary Douglas' work on purity and holiness greatly enriches our understanding of clean and unclean. And I think that it was the dirt or uncleanness of the community, rather than sin in the way we might understand it, that was transferred to the ram on the Day of Atonement.
Here I might mention another critique of the book, Osborne often incorporates summaries of other scholars' work in the middle of his own discussion. This might seem a strength and maybe it is, although I would relegate the type of material he does here to the endnotes. The lists of claims of other scholars sometimes seem like foreign bodies in his text and make the reader work to ask whether Osborne actually agrees with the points of the other scholar or is simply presenting them. Osborne is a master scholar, yes! But his lists of other scholars' perspective come off to me like a high school book report--except of course that the material being covered is graduate level :-)
Osborne's theological presuppositions come out in the chapter on Law (an addition from the first edition) when he makes a strong claim that the Law has not been abolished in Christ but completed (199). This is a very important point for Osborne's theology of the Scriptures. My critique would be that the actual way in which the NT appropriates the OT is just plain messy. This is a nice sentiment, "completed in Christ," but it is unclear to me, for example, how this might fit with Osborne's sense of progressive revelation (something, I might add, he has toned down in the revised edition from the first, actually removing a section in the introduction with that heading!). Also, some of the OT just seems to be plain cultural rather than part of some tidy covenantal scheme.
The chapter on narrative is one of Osborne's best. By the end of the chapter we have not only been introduced to source, form, redaction, and narrative criticism, but he has led us to a deep consideration of whether narrative criticism intrinsically "fictionalizes" the biblical text. He correctly pinpoints the weakness of early narrative criticism for most Bible readers--because the real author and circumstances of the text's origins were bracketed from consideration, some strange meanings tended to emerge from a consideration of the text alone, particularly when an editor had left seams in the text. It did not take narrative criticism long to return to a consideration of such factors.
I did not find the chapter on poetry as helpful. Apparently OT poetry scholars have conducted a rather anal debate over whether we can truly speak of synonymous parallelism since every second line is going to be different in some way. Pointless. Osborne rightly concludes that the idea of synonymous parallelism is valid. I didn't find his organization of psalm types as helpful as it could be. Any outline in which "royal psalms" is a subheading rather than a main heading is less than optimal for use.
The chapters on Wisdom and Prophecy were fine. The chapter on Apocalyptic I thought was better, a very readable introduction to what can be a difficult genre to present. His evangelical presuppositions come out when he considers the history of the apocalyptic genre. Assuming that Daniel can't be pseudonymous, he must conclude that the apocalyptic movement started and then restarted again in the second century BC (290).
The chapters on Parable and Epistle are also fine, although Osborne again at times ends up listing the categories of other scholars in succession at times. He rightly dismisses the "one point" lunacy of Jülicher and those who argued Jesus didn't tell any parables with more than one point. I would suggest that he expand his epistle chapter next revision to include some of the recent work on secretaries, particularly that by Richards. He also does not give as much attention to the topic of pseudonymity as he might. I smiled widely when I read this comment, "I for one remain unconvinced regarding the late origin of works like Daniel, the Pastorals, James, or 1 Peter" (319). I smiled because of the book that's missing--2 Peter! Does the Grant Osborne of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School think that 2 Peter is pseudonymous??!!
By far my greatest criticisms of the book have to do with chapter 14, the "Old Testament in the New Testament," a new chapter in the revised edition. The NT authors simply didn't share modernist evangelicals concerns that OT passages be read in context. This datum has within itself the seeds of the paradigm's deconstruction. If your authoritative texts don't sanction your method of appropriating their authority, then your authoritative texts are not authoritative for you on the most fundamental level.
As we begin this chapter, Osborne begins with some highly questionable assumptions about the development of the OT and NT canons. For example, it is extremely doubtful that the OT canon was closed by 100BC. See the recently published The Biblical Canon. By far the "wow" sentence of this chatper was in reference to the apocryphal books: "the uncertainty of the early fathers about the extent of the canon is due more to their ignorance of Jewish views on the issue than to the actual state of the canon then" (324). What? Are you suggesting that the early fathers ideally would have realized that they were following an inaccurate canon in relation to the true canon--the one non-Christian Jews were using???
Perhaps it's not fair for me to treat the statement this way. Osborne's a smart guy. He probably would say, "No, I mean they probably were ignorant of the canon that Jesus and the apostles used as Jews since the Jewish canon was set by then." Really? The Greek speaking church was that out of touch with the earliest Christians? Time for Protestants to own up, it is far more correct to say that Luther took the Apocrypha out of the canon than to say that the Catholic Church added it in.
Osborne has the expected strong distinction between typology and allegory, the former of which supposedly pays attention to context and the latter of which tends more to ignore it. "It seems to me that typology [rather than allegory, pesher, etc...] is sufficient to explain the use of the Old Testament in the New" (329). Osborne admits he's in the minority (330). Frances Young put it well: the distinction between typology and allegory was “born of modern historical consciousness” and would have been confusing to the church “fathers,” Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1997), 152-53.
Part 3
In the final section of the book, Osborne moves toward the appropriation of the meanings that we have discovered through the tedious process of interpretative method. I might at this point mention something he said way back in the introduction when he was speaking of the clarity or perspicuity of Scripture. Osborne amazingly argues that what is clear is the result of interpretation, not the process (27). In other words, the method necessary to arrive at the meaning is arduous, but the result will be a clear interpretation. The hermeneutical principles "are not restricted to any 'elite' but are available to all who have the interest and energy to learn them."
It seems to me quite possible that this conception of perspicuity will not stand. For one thing, the interpretive result is clearly not clear, going by the diversity of interpretations among scholars. Secondly, this is a difficult book for most students. Few will ascend these heights. The method may be available for all to learn, but if this is the path to God's Word, only an elite few will be able to climb it.
Chapter 15 is on biblical theology and I was pretty happy with it. For Osborne, the aim of biblical theology is to trace themes through the diverse sections of the Bible. Systematic theology (chap. 16) then systematizes the themes and homiletical theology (chap. 17) puts them in a contemporary, contextualized form for proclamation. We might also mention historical theology as the study of the unfolding of understanding of systematic theology in history.
Where I would differ on biblical theology with Osborne is of course his optimism with regard to unity. I suspect that we must do a good deal more theological gluing and sifting to arrive at a biblical theology than he thinks will be necessary. In my opinion, biblical theology is indeed the crucial step in the process, but it is a step that is already at one significant remove from the biblical texts themselves. The paradigmatic prioritization and arrangement of biblical materials into a theology already requires an authoritative vantage point ultimately outside the text from which to process the text.
Here let me mention Osborne's occasional discussions of the "rule of faith," the "analogy of faith," and the "analogy of Scripture" (e.g., 361). For Osborne, the "rule of faith" represents the centrality of ecclesial tradition in determining doctrine and he associates it with the Roman Catholic Church (28). My use of the phrase is similar, but important to distinguish here. For me, the "rule of faith" is the consensus of the church, which sets certain boundaries for biblical appropriation. It cannot, for me, set boundaries for biblical interpretation, for the text meant what it meant originally.
But as the consensus of the church has degrees and is in some sense susceptible to change, the boundaries are not equally fixed on every issue. Further, the rule of faith has more to do with how we cannot appropriate the text than with how we appropriate the text.
Luther of course rejected the rule of faith in deference to the analogy of faith (28). In the analogy of faith, Scripture interprets Scripture rather than the Roman Catholic Church interpreting Scripture, assuming the ultimate perspicuity of the overall text on fundamental issues. Although Osborne does not spell out his critique of the analogy of faith, I will read between the lines because I think I agree with him here.
The problem with Luther's analogy of faith is that it still treats biblical texts in a non-contextual way. In other words, it is not a deep or contextual understanding of one text that is used to interpret another, but a rather superficial or pre-modern use of biblical texts. Osborne aptly quotes Gerhard Ebeling, "the analogia fidei actually undercuts a true biblical theology, since in the end 'the faith' of the interpreter's preunderstanding takes precedence over Scripture itself" (361). According to Osborne, Calvin revised Luther's analogy of faith to an "analogy of Scripture" (28-29).
I have attempted to process what Osborne (and Calvin) might mean by the phrase "analogy of Scripture" and here is my analysis from within my own perspective. First, Osborne means a genuine reading of Scripture in context. In other words, we are finding unity between diverse texts rather than interpreting one text on the basis of another. Secondly, if there are instances where a text does not seem to have any analogous texts (like baptism for the dead), we just walk away. Osborne quotes Milton Terry writing in 1890 (28): "No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages."
In chapter 16, we now consider systematic theology, the "proper goal of biblical study and teaching" (374). In this chapter Osborne considers the role not only of Scripture but also of tradition, community, experience, and philosophy in the process of systematizing biblical truth. Osborne is to be commended in his acknowledgement that all these other factors are inevitably involved in forming a systematic theology, unlike Grudem, who believes that "theology should be explicitly based on the teachings of Scripture." Osborne thinks this is a commendable but ultimately impossible thing to do. The Bible simply is not systematic (404).
My main critique from this point out in the book is that I believe Osborne does not acknowledge the degree to which his non-biblical preunderstandings affect his interpretation and integration of the biblical texts. This denial of skew in interpretation and of tradition in his integration allows him to claim that his application is largely the outgrowth of the biblical text. But in reality, the most central processing paradigm derives as much from the traditions to which he belongs, both that of orthodox Christianity and that of the modern evangelical movement.
One of the more interesting discussions in this chapter is his treatment of metaphor. He rightly recognizes that metaphors cannot simply be reduced to literal statements. Osborne then goes on to discuss theological models like Calvinism and Arminianism as somewhat metaphorical in the sense that they are "creative approximations intended to depict a particular theory or belief graphically" (391). He urges a certain tentativity about such models and to distinguish between cardinal doctrines and nonessential ones.
The final two chapters deal with homiletics. Chapter 17 treats the principles of contextualization. Perhaps we can sense a great deal of nervousness in this chapter. Osborne is very concerned that our attempt to put truth in new contextual form does not undermine the priority of the Scriptural text. Accordingly, we interestingly find some of the strongest statements on the authority of Scripture in this chapter:
"A plenary-verbal, inerrantist approach to contextualization accepts the supracultural nature of all biblical truth and thereby the unchanging nature of these scriptural principles" (411).
"contextualization must occur at the level of form rather than of content" (414).
He objects to Charles Kraft's sense of the Bible as a "divinely inspired casebook" rather than a theological textbook (415). He is afraid that there will be "too little left of the text when Kraft finishes, too little that is supracultural" (416). My critique here is of a kind with that I have mentioned several times already, the appropriation of the Bible is messy. It does not reduce to simple theological schemes such as those Osborne advances. Kraft is more correct than Osborne. Osborne suggests that "The issue is not whether a passage is normative but whether the normative principle is found at the surface level (that is, supracultural) or at the principle level underlying the passage (with the surface situation or command applying mainly to the ancient setting)" (421). The level of complexity required to work this approach exhausts me just to think of it--it would require me to skew the interpretation at numerous points and, moreover, ignores an honest look at the way the NT itself interprets Scripture.
Occam's Razor suggests that maybe in fact the Earth goes around the sun, and that Osborne's paradigm is fundamentally flawed because it is too propositionally oriented. Not that others have not gone to the other extremes too with their relational and narrative approaches, but Osborne is also off center. Don't peg me on an extreme either--that's too easy and inaccurate. I actually would categorize myself as a modest foundationalist and critical realist along with Osborne. I agree with Osborne, for example, that sometimes specific commands in Scripture can be supracultural.
A couple items of note appear in the final main chapter on the sermon. First, I smile to see that, unsurprisingly, Osborne keeps the Holy Spirit on a short leash: "the Word [sic on the capital--Bible, not Christ] provides the objective authority, the witness of the Spirit provides the subjective authority (that understood by us) of the divine revelation" (436). Again, the NT's use of the OT authorizes the Spirit to blow through the text wherever He wants, without any constraint on the basis of the "objective" original meaning of the text.
More helpfully, Osborne suggests that we as preachers should have a devotional relationship with the text before we preach it. Unsurprisingly, the sermon must flow from the theological principles of the text as we have arrived at them through the hermeneutical process of the book. Osborne ends with some helpful tips on how to prepare the sermon in form.
And so the book proper has ended. But there are two appendices on theoretical hermeneutics, the first of which deals with the problem of meaning and the second with Osborne's solution.
In the first appendix, Osborne presents the recent devolution of meaning among hermeneuticians, from the older author centered approach of Schleiermacher and Dilthey to Gadamer, structuralism, poststructuralism, reader-response criticism, and deconstruction. Osborne is fair in his treatment of these movements. He acknowledges, for example, that "The metaphorical nature of language is for the most part correct" (486). One the most fun statements in the book for me was his recognition that "a great deal of what the deconstructionist argues actually occurs in some modern preaching and Bible study groups."
Basically, Osborne is dealing with the challenge of what Ricoeur calls the autonomy of the text (which of course Osborne does not ultimately agree with). Once a text is severed from its author, there is no control to fix the meaning of the text and it becomes susceptible to the whims of its readers. Wolfgang Iser, for example, has pointed to the inevitable gaps that texts leave behind for a reader to fill in. Stanley Fish has pointed out the role that interpretive communities play in the meaning of a text. For the latter, an author's intent is not what a text is ultimately about but the way reading communities appropriate it.
Osborne discusses individuals like Ricoeur who mediate a middle position not quite as extreme as Fish or Derrida (Mr. Deconstruction). Ricoeur speaks of a world of the text that we can allow to control our processing of it. In other words, some readings of texts clearly pay more attention to the overall text in question than others. Canon-critical approaches create an even larger world of the text from which to view the meaning of individual passages. In my opinion, this canonical approach is an important part of the puzzle in relation to the rule of faith, for it was the consensus of the church that set the canon and thus the consensus of the church that sets boundaries and canons for approaching the entire text as the reading community that is the church.
Of course this is not the trajectory Osborne is on. He is rather more interested in Kevin Vanhoozer's "ethics of meaning" and Anthony Thiselton's appropriation of speech-act theory. For Vanhoozer, there is a moral demand of a reader that we seek what the author of a text wished to convey. For Thiselton, following J. L. Austin, a text has not simply a locutionary or statement meaning. Texts also have an illocutionary dimension which presupposes an author's intent as to what kind of text it is (a promise, an assertion, a command, etc.). A good reader reads texts accordingly.
I affirm the appropriateness of trying to determine authorial intent in Scripture, especially if we follow Joel Green's claim that we are a part of the people of the same God that these biblical peoples were. However, the NT example does not allow us to see authorial intent or original meaning as the be all and end all of biblical interpretation.
I'll confess that I was disappointed with Osborne's solution appendix. He rightfully dismisses pychos like A. J. Ayer and Anthony Flew, but he should have focused more clearly and intently on what he calls "action theory," which is basically what I said above about the illocutionary dimension of speech acts. He then discusses the sociology of knowledge of Apel and Habermas and then paradigm change as taught by Kuhn and modified by Barbour. The thrust of all this is to make us aware of our own preunderstanding as we approach biblical texts.
Osborne sees preunderstanding as a positive and necessary feature of the hermeneutical spiral (which involves circling between reader and text as we get closer and closer to the meaning). Of course some preunderstandings he does not believe should be negotiable. We ultimately are not looking for certainty, either verifiability or falsifiability, but for probability, given such criteria as coherence (hypothesis fits better than others), adequacy (harmony of data inside and outside the text), consistency (viable pattern of data), durability (theory has staying power, recognized by others), cross-fertilization (accepted by more than one school of thought).
He ends with a "field approach" to hermeneutics after passing through a section on "propositional truth and the logic of narrativity." He is certainly right that the plot and structure of biblical narrative do indeed function at the levels of assertion as well as command and promise" (513). He acknowledges that "not all speech acts in Scripture take propositional form. I have no problem with what he says here, except for the baggage in the background.
His field approach attempts to integrate all the polarities in such debates. It is nice and my main critique is only that it does not sufficiently recognize the role of the Spirit and the Church in the process. It is in this section that Osborne mentions Vanhoozer's distinction between infallibility and inerrancy, that I have already blogged on. Another interesting definition is that "the literal sense of an utterance or text is the sum total of those illocutionary acts performed by the author intentionally and with self-awareness" (520).
And thus, near exhaustion, we end the reading of the book. We may not agree with Osborne at every point, but certainly The Hermeneutical Spiral must be considered the classic evangelical hermeneutical text. He deserves deep respect and admiration for it!
Friday, October 19, 2007
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Typical Skew on Sin in James
In my General Epistles class this semester, we worked through Nystrom's commentary in the NIV Application series. My impression of Nystrom from the commentary is that I would like this guy. He seems full of faith and exactly the type of person Zondervan wanted to write for this series. An added bonus to me are the references to classical literature sprinkled throughout. I don't know if Nystrom had some training in classics or if one of his principal sources did, but I like it.
I do have one bone to pick with him, however, and that is his use of the idea of a yetzer hara, an evil impulse, as the lens through which to look at double-mindedness in James. We all have an evil impulse, so the story goes, as is attested in the rabbinic literature. Thus we have a war within us between our good side and our evil side.
I'm going to leave almost completely out of discussion (in other words, other than this paragraph ;-) the fact that it is always thin ground to use later rabbinic discussions to interpret a person like Paul or James, who wrote some 150 years before the rabbinic material was written down. I know it puts a horrible damper on things, but half the stuff pastors use from the pulpit comes from older sources like Jeremias who were not scrupulous with their use of later sources--often much later!
But what is really significant is that this concept is clearly the wrong lens through which to read James. The double minded person in James is not "everyman" but is a person in big trouble. This person should not think they will receive anything from the Lord. The double minded person is someone whose loyalties are divided between God and the world, and this divided loyalty must either stop or face judgment.
So once again, the Zeitgeist of the church right now, unable to see that the Bible does not expect believers to be defeated by sin, the world, or the Devil, let alone to be double-minded.
I do have one bone to pick with him, however, and that is his use of the idea of a yetzer hara, an evil impulse, as the lens through which to look at double-mindedness in James. We all have an evil impulse, so the story goes, as is attested in the rabbinic literature. Thus we have a war within us between our good side and our evil side.
I'm going to leave almost completely out of discussion (in other words, other than this paragraph ;-) the fact that it is always thin ground to use later rabbinic discussions to interpret a person like Paul or James, who wrote some 150 years before the rabbinic material was written down. I know it puts a horrible damper on things, but half the stuff pastors use from the pulpit comes from older sources like Jeremias who were not scrupulous with their use of later sources--often much later!
But what is really significant is that this concept is clearly the wrong lens through which to read James. The double minded person in James is not "everyman" but is a person in big trouble. This person should not think they will receive anything from the Lord. The double minded person is someone whose loyalties are divided between God and the world, and this divided loyalty must either stop or face judgment.
So once again, the Zeitgeist of the church right now, unable to see that the Bible does not expect believers to be defeated by sin, the world, or the Devil, let alone to be double-minded.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Vanhoozer on Infallibility and Inerrancy
My hermeneutics class has finished reading Grant Osborne's Hermeneutical Spiral and I plan to post my review of it Friday. In the final chapter, we came across Vanhoozer's definition of infallibility and inerrancy, which I thought was very nicely nuanced (and fairly easy to connect to my own understanding). Basically, Vanhoozer would say that the infallibility of the Bible means that God's word invariably accomplishes its purposes. In turn, inerrancy then means that when its purpose is assertion, the proposition of the speech-act is true.
This is very interesting and much more sophisticated than most people who use this language. For example, it recognizes that a good deal of the Bible is not "propositional" in nature. Genesis is a series of narratives, for example. Exodus, Numbers, Joshua through Kings, these are narratives rather than propositions. Sure, one might try to distill them into propositions, but it is a matter for serious debate whether this was their true purpose--at least when we look at the types of propositions that the "propositionalists" want to get from them.
So in what way is Psalm 137 infallible? This is the psalm that ends by applauding anyone who might bash the babies of the Babylonians against a rock. Clearly the purpose of this psalm is not to make propositional assertions. Indeed, this psalm is an expression of great grief. It does not really inform us about God or give us some deep theological truth. To me this psalm tells me that it is okay to cry out to God, okay to vent.
By Vanhoozer's definition, the term infallible applies to Psalm 137, but the term "inerrant" has no meaning because Psalm 137 does not make an assertion.
The word "inerrant" would thus apply only to statements like "God is love" or "If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another..." It would not apply, on the other hand, to "Love your neighbor as yourself," for this is not an assertion but a command. The command is certainly God's command and fully accomplishes God's purposes.
Very interesting!
This is very interesting and much more sophisticated than most people who use this language. For example, it recognizes that a good deal of the Bible is not "propositional" in nature. Genesis is a series of narratives, for example. Exodus, Numbers, Joshua through Kings, these are narratives rather than propositions. Sure, one might try to distill them into propositions, but it is a matter for serious debate whether this was their true purpose--at least when we look at the types of propositions that the "propositionalists" want to get from them.
So in what way is Psalm 137 infallible? This is the psalm that ends by applauding anyone who might bash the babies of the Babylonians against a rock. Clearly the purpose of this psalm is not to make propositional assertions. Indeed, this psalm is an expression of great grief. It does not really inform us about God or give us some deep theological truth. To me this psalm tells me that it is okay to cry out to God, okay to vent.
By Vanhoozer's definition, the term infallible applies to Psalm 137, but the term "inerrant" has no meaning because Psalm 137 does not make an assertion.
The word "inerrant" would thus apply only to statements like "God is love" or "If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another..." It would not apply, on the other hand, to "Love your neighbor as yourself," for this is not an assertion but a command. The command is certainly God's command and fully accomplishes God's purposes.
Very interesting!
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
1 Peter 1:10-12, IBS, and Inspiration
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours made careful search and inquiry, inquiring about the person or time that the Spirit of Christ within them indicated when it testified in advance to the sufferings destined for Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look! (NRSV)
This is yet another biblical passage that, at least initially, seems to pose quite a problem for inductive Bible study. 1 Peter seems to say that prophetic texts about the Christ were understood by the biblical authors not to be about their own times but about the time when Christ would come.
The difficulty here is of course the fact that inductive Bible study leads us to conclude that most of the texts that NT authors read in relation to Christ had a first meaning that related to the time of the prophet. As is often said (even in Osborne's Hermeneutical Spiral), the prophetic genre was far more about forth-telling than fore-telling. There was a lively debate in the 1900's over whether it made sense to speak of a "fuller sense" to such texts (double sense, progressive fulfillment, analogous fulfillment, etc...), a "near" and a "far" interpretation.
Yet 1 Peter 1 seems to take a posture similar to Paul when he finds it difficult to believe that God really cares about cattle (he was a city boy, after all: 1 Cor. 9:9-10). 1 Peter seems to picture the prophets as recognizing that they were not talking about their own time but about the time of the Christ.
The problem is solved by applying the "incarnational truth" principle even here. It is easy for us to apply it when it comes to hair coverings or holy kisses, that is, to recognize that the Bible gives us incarnated truth in the categories of its original audience. Yet the principle applies to ideas as well, as when Paul speaks of everything under the earth bowing to Christ or being taken up into the third sky.
Another factor to take into the equation is the fact that pre-modern exegesis blurs the "characters" of the biblical text with the historical individuals of the biblical text. In that sense, 1 Peter is as much thinking of the "implied prophet" in the text as about what the "historical prophet" was thinking.
The affirmation that 1 Peter is making is the surety of salvation that the audience has despite their current sufferings, and it bolsters this affirmation by recourse to the collection of prophetic texts from Scripture that must have been part of early Christian proclamation. The incarnational aspect is the fact that the early Christians did not follow "inductive Bible study" methods but the methods of interpretation common to their day. These methods paid varying degrees of attention to the original context of the passages in which they heard God's voice speaking to them about Christ.
So I find no fault or error in 1 Peter. But what we do have is yet another serious undermining of the sole legitimacy of contextual exegesis, the idea that "it cannot mean something now that it did not mean then." The NT itself deconstructs this hermeneutic.
This is yet another biblical passage that, at least initially, seems to pose quite a problem for inductive Bible study. 1 Peter seems to say that prophetic texts about the Christ were understood by the biblical authors not to be about their own times but about the time when Christ would come.
The difficulty here is of course the fact that inductive Bible study leads us to conclude that most of the texts that NT authors read in relation to Christ had a first meaning that related to the time of the prophet. As is often said (even in Osborne's Hermeneutical Spiral), the prophetic genre was far more about forth-telling than fore-telling. There was a lively debate in the 1900's over whether it made sense to speak of a "fuller sense" to such texts (double sense, progressive fulfillment, analogous fulfillment, etc...), a "near" and a "far" interpretation.
Yet 1 Peter 1 seems to take a posture similar to Paul when he finds it difficult to believe that God really cares about cattle (he was a city boy, after all: 1 Cor. 9:9-10). 1 Peter seems to picture the prophets as recognizing that they were not talking about their own time but about the time of the Christ.
The problem is solved by applying the "incarnational truth" principle even here. It is easy for us to apply it when it comes to hair coverings or holy kisses, that is, to recognize that the Bible gives us incarnated truth in the categories of its original audience. Yet the principle applies to ideas as well, as when Paul speaks of everything under the earth bowing to Christ or being taken up into the third sky.
Another factor to take into the equation is the fact that pre-modern exegesis blurs the "characters" of the biblical text with the historical individuals of the biblical text. In that sense, 1 Peter is as much thinking of the "implied prophet" in the text as about what the "historical prophet" was thinking.
The affirmation that 1 Peter is making is the surety of salvation that the audience has despite their current sufferings, and it bolsters this affirmation by recourse to the collection of prophetic texts from Scripture that must have been part of early Christian proclamation. The incarnational aspect is the fact that the early Christians did not follow "inductive Bible study" methods but the methods of interpretation common to their day. These methods paid varying degrees of attention to the original context of the passages in which they heard God's voice speaking to them about Christ.
So I find no fault or error in 1 Peter. But what we do have is yet another serious undermining of the sole legitimacy of contextual exegesis, the idea that "it cannot mean something now that it did not mean then." The NT itself deconstructs this hermeneutic.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Monday Thoughts: Deconsecrating Sacred Space
If you look at the post immediately below this one, you'll see the liturgy I used in the deconsecration service of the chapel of College Wesleyan Church (we are moving buildings).
I have excerpted some of the liturgy below. What do you think of the theology and/or hermeneutics?
1. The Opening Sentence
Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there I will gather you, and from there I will bring you back.
2. The Content of the Opening Litany
Throughout the Bible, the history of Israel, and throughout Christian history, God has set aside “sacred spaces” where heaven and earth meet. Such spaces are like the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. God sets apart ordinary materials for holy purposes, and they become special mediations of God’s presence and action in us. The Bible is no less of a sacrament, a “place” where ordinary words are set apart for holy purposes, and God’s revelation is mediated. The Chapel of College Wesleyan Church has served such a sacral purpose for us.
When the common materials of this building were consecrated to God, God began to use them to mediate His presence and action here. First, this place became symbolic of heaven and God’s presence. We did not treat this space as we would treat ordinary space but as we would treat the very presence of God.
But sacred spaces are not merely symbolic, for God graciously transforms symbolism into reality. Not by our action or conceptualization, but through His gracious action the common becomes the holy and ordinary space becomes God’s real presence.
Today we return this space to the common and return this place to the earth. God will still be present here, for He is always everywhere present. God might still meet us and act in this space, for God can meet us and act anywhere. But today His glory departs from this room and from this church with us, until He deigns to sanctify new holy ground for us.
The Collect for the Day
All present God, who has sanctified this ground as holy ground, has met us here in the body and blood of your Son, has sent your Spirit forth time and time again and created us anew: Go with us from this place today until we find another resting place where we may remove our shoes in the presence of Your holiness, through Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
What do you think?
I have excerpted some of the liturgy below. What do you think of the theology and/or hermeneutics?
1. The Opening Sentence
Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there I will gather you, and from there I will bring you back.
2. The Content of the Opening Litany
Throughout the Bible, the history of Israel, and throughout Christian history, God has set aside “sacred spaces” where heaven and earth meet. Such spaces are like the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. God sets apart ordinary materials for holy purposes, and they become special mediations of God’s presence and action in us. The Bible is no less of a sacrament, a “place” where ordinary words are set apart for holy purposes, and God’s revelation is mediated. The Chapel of College Wesleyan Church has served such a sacral purpose for us.
When the common materials of this building were consecrated to God, God began to use them to mediate His presence and action here. First, this place became symbolic of heaven and God’s presence. We did not treat this space as we would treat ordinary space but as we would treat the very presence of God.
But sacred spaces are not merely symbolic, for God graciously transforms symbolism into reality. Not by our action or conceptualization, but through His gracious action the common becomes the holy and ordinary space becomes God’s real presence.
Today we return this space to the common and return this place to the earth. God will still be present here, for He is always everywhere present. God might still meet us and act in this space, for God can meet us and act anywhere. But today His glory departs from this room and from this church with us, until He deigns to sanctify new holy ground for us.
The Collect for the Day
All present God, who has sanctified this ground as holy ground, has met us here in the body and blood of your Son, has sent your Spirit forth time and time again and created us anew: Go with us from this place today until we find another resting place where we may remove our shoes in the presence of Your holiness, through Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
What do you think?
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Service of Deconsecration: College Wesleyan Church
Today is our last day in the old building at College Wesleyan Church on Selby Street. We'll have services of deconsecration in each of the venues and in the main sanctuary and then will not meet in our new building until three weeks from today. In the meantime we'll be meeting in the college's Performing Arts Center.
As I looked to put together a liturgy for our "Liturgical Venue," I was surprised to find that there is no Service of Deconsecration in either the Book of Common Prayer or the United Methodist Book of Worship. Google similarly yielded little on the web except that churches had these sorts of services.
So I have put together the following, except for the final litany of thanksgiving, which is the same for the main sanctuary in a slightly edited form for our venue:
___________________________
A Service of De-consecration
College Wesleyan Church
The Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost
October 14, 2007
A Service of Word and Table
Opening Sentence (sitting)
Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there I will gather you, and from there I will bring you back.
Opening Litany (standing)
Officiant: Throughout the Bible, the history of Israel, and throughout Christian history, God has set aside “sacred spaces” where heaven and earth meet. Such spaces are like the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. God sets apart ordinary materials for holy purposes, and they become special mediations of God’s presence and action in us. The Bible is no less of a sacrament, a “place” where ordinary words are set apart for holy purposes, and God’s revelation is mediated.
People: The Chapel of College Wesleyan Church has served such a sacral purpose for us.
Officiant: When the common materials of this building were consecrated to God, God began to use them to mediate His presence and action here. First, this place became symbolic of heaven and God’s presence.
People: We did not treat this space as we would treat ordinary space but as we would treat the very presence of God.
Officiant: But sacred spaces are not merely symbolic, for God graciously transforms symbolism into reality. Not by our action or conceptualization, but through His gracious action the common becomes the holy and ordinary space becomes God’s real presence.
People: Today we return this space to the common and return this place to the earth.
Officiant: God will still be present here, for He is always everywhere present. God might still meet us and act in this space, for God can meet us and act anywhere.
People: But today His glory departs from this room and from this church with us, until He deigns to sanctify new holy ground for us.
The Peace (standing)
Officiant: The peace of the Lord be with you.
People: And with your spirit.
(Take a moment to greet one another)
Confession
Introduction to Confession (sitting)
Officiant: We have come together in the presence of Almighty God, our heavenly Father, to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his holy Word, and to ask, for ourselves and on behalf of others, those things that are necessary for our life and our salvation. And so that we may prepare ourselves in heart and mind to worship him, let us kneel in silence as we are able, and with penitent and obedient hearts confess any sins, that we may obtain forgiveness by his infinite goodness and mercy.
Silence
Confession (kneeling, as able)
All: Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from your ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against your holy laws. We have left undone those things that we ought to have done, and we have done those things that we ought not to have done.
O Lord, have mercy on us. Spare those who confess their faults. Restore those who are penitent, according to your promises declared to humanity in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, to the glory of your holy Name. Amen.
Affirmation of Forgiveness
Officiant: The Almighty and merciful Lord grant you forgiveness and remission of all your sins, grant you true repentance, amendment of life, and grant you the grace and consolation of his Holy Spirit.
All: Amen
Scripture and Creed
Invitatory (standing)
Officiant: O Lord, open our lips
People: And our mouth will show forth your praise.
All (sung): Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Psalter (sitting): Psalm 139:7-12, 23-24
Reader: Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?
People: If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
Reader: If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea,
People: Even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast.
Reader: If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night,”
People: Even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to you.
Reader: Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
People: See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
Lessons
Old Testament Lesson (sitting): Exodus 33:12-17
Moses said to the Lord, “See, you have said to me, ‘Bring up this people’; but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ Now if I have found favor in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”
He said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”
And he said to him, “If your presence will not go, do not carry us up from here. For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people, unless you go with us? In this way, we shall be distinct, I and your people, from every people on the face of the earth.”
The Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing that you have asked; for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name” (NRSV).
Reader: This is the Word of the Lord.
All: Thanks be to God.
Epistle Lesson (sitting): Hebrews 11:8-10, 13-16
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them (NRSV).
Reader: This is the Word of the Lord.
All: Thanks be to God.
Canticle: Spirit of God, Descend Upon My Heart
Spirit of God, descend upon my heart;
Wean it from earth; through all its pulses move;
Stoop to my weakness, mighty as Thou art;
And make me love Thee as I ought to love.
Teach me to feel that Thou art always nigh;
Teach me the struggles of the soul to bear.
To check the rising doubt, the rebel sigh,
Teach me the patience of unanswered prayer.
Teach me to love Thee as Thine angels love,
One holy passion filling all my frame;
The kindling of the heaven descended Dove,
My heart an altar, and Thy love the flame.
Gospel Lesson (standing): John 14:1-3, 16:4-16
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them. “I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
"A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me.”
Reader: This is the Word of the Lord
All: Thanks be to God.
All (spoken): Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
The Nicene Creed (standing)
All: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary and was made man. He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into heaven, where He sits at the right hand of the Father. He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Prayers
Officiant: The Lord be with you.
People: And also with you.
Officiant: Let us pray.
Lord’s Prayer (kneeling, as able)
Litany (kneeling, as able)
Officiant: O Lord, show your mercy upon us,
People: And grant us your salvation.
Officiant: O Lord, save our nation.
People: And mercifully hear us when we call upon you.
Officiant: Give peace in our time, O Lord.
People: Because there is none other that fights for us, but only you, O God.
Officiant: Endue your ministers with righteousness
People: And make your people joyful.
Officiant: O God, make clean our hearts within us.
People: And take not your Holy Spirit from us.
Collect of the Day (kneeling, as able)
All present God, who has sanctified this ground as holy ground, has met us here in the body and blood of your Son, has sent your Spirit forth time and time again and created us anew: Go with us from this place today until we find another resting place where we may remove our shoes in the presence of Your holiness, through Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Intercession for the World, the Nation and City, the Church and Us
You may come forward and kneel if you feel led.
Collect for Peace
O God, who are the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom stands our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom, defend us your humble servants in all assaults of our enemies, that we, surely trusting in your defense, may not fear the power of any adversaries, through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Collect for Grace
O Lord, our heavenly Father, Almighty and everlasting God, who have safely brought us to the beginning of this day, defend us in the same with your mighty power, and grant that this day we fall into no sin, neither run into any kind of danger, but that all our doings may be ordered by your governance, to do always what is righteous in your sight, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
A Prayer of St. Chrysostom
Almighty God, who have given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications to you and do promise that when two or three are gathered together in your name you will grant their requests, fulfill now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of your servants, as may be most expedient for them, granting us in this world knowledge of your truth, and in the world to come, life everlasting.
Amen.
A Service of Word
(We listen to God’s word on video feed.)
A Service of Table
(Pastor DeNeff will lead us in remembrance of the night when Jesus broke the bread and shared the cup.)
Celebrant: Prayer (sitting)
Therefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of your dear Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, we your humble servants do celebrate and make here before your divine Majesty, this memorial your Son commanded us to make. Make them be for us the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Prayer of Approach (sitting)
Celebrant: Let us pray.
All: We do not presume to come to this your table, merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table. But you are the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat this sacrament of your Son Jesus Christ, that we may walk in newness of life, may grow into his likeness, and may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
The Eucharist
Prayer of Thanks
All: Almighty and ever-living God, we most heartily thank you for feeding us with the spiritual food of the body and blood of your Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. And here we offer and present to you, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice to you. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory be to you, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.
Litany of Thanksgiving
Leader: Blessed be your name, O God, whose word has long gone out in and from this place!
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have met us in the bread and wine and empowered us for the days until you come again.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have sent out many from within these walls into the world. Your Spirit has blessed countless disciples.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have begun new ministries here, and new leaders have been empowered and equipped for ministry.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have listened to the needs and concerns of your people. You have shown us your will and made us one as the body and family of Christ.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have given birth to new families through marriage. You have made parents and grandparents. You have helped us in life and death.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: And now we, Your people, called to fulfill Your purpose, go forward to a new sacred place, to continue Your work, in the power of Your presence.
Congregation: Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!
The Stripping of the Altar
Recessional (in silence)
First the cross, then the candles, then the people, then the chalice and plate, then the cloth, and lastly, the crucifix
As I looked to put together a liturgy for our "Liturgical Venue," I was surprised to find that there is no Service of Deconsecration in either the Book of Common Prayer or the United Methodist Book of Worship. Google similarly yielded little on the web except that churches had these sorts of services.
So I have put together the following, except for the final litany of thanksgiving, which is the same for the main sanctuary in a slightly edited form for our venue:
___________________________
A Service of De-consecration
College Wesleyan Church
The Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost
October 14, 2007
A Service of Word and Table
Opening Sentence (sitting)
Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge. Even if you are exiled to the ends of the world, from there I will gather you, and from there I will bring you back.
Opening Litany (standing)
Officiant: Throughout the Bible, the history of Israel, and throughout Christian history, God has set aside “sacred spaces” where heaven and earth meet. Such spaces are like the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. God sets apart ordinary materials for holy purposes, and they become special mediations of God’s presence and action in us. The Bible is no less of a sacrament, a “place” where ordinary words are set apart for holy purposes, and God’s revelation is mediated.
People: The Chapel of College Wesleyan Church has served such a sacral purpose for us.
Officiant: When the common materials of this building were consecrated to God, God began to use them to mediate His presence and action here. First, this place became symbolic of heaven and God’s presence.
People: We did not treat this space as we would treat ordinary space but as we would treat the very presence of God.
Officiant: But sacred spaces are not merely symbolic, for God graciously transforms symbolism into reality. Not by our action or conceptualization, but through His gracious action the common becomes the holy and ordinary space becomes God’s real presence.
People: Today we return this space to the common and return this place to the earth.
Officiant: God will still be present here, for He is always everywhere present. God might still meet us and act in this space, for God can meet us and act anywhere.
People: But today His glory departs from this room and from this church with us, until He deigns to sanctify new holy ground for us.
The Peace (standing)
Officiant: The peace of the Lord be with you.
People: And with your spirit.
(Take a moment to greet one another)
Confession
Introduction to Confession (sitting)
Officiant: We have come together in the presence of Almighty God, our heavenly Father, to render thanks for the great benefits that we have received at his hands, to set forth his most worthy praise, to hear his holy Word, and to ask, for ourselves and on behalf of others, those things that are necessary for our life and our salvation. And so that we may prepare ourselves in heart and mind to worship him, let us kneel in silence as we are able, and with penitent and obedient hearts confess any sins, that we may obtain forgiveness by his infinite goodness and mercy.
Silence
Confession (kneeling, as able)
All: Almighty and most merciful Father, we have erred and strayed from your ways like lost sheep. We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against your holy laws. We have left undone those things that we ought to have done, and we have done those things that we ought not to have done.
O Lord, have mercy on us. Spare those who confess their faults. Restore those who are penitent, according to your promises declared to humanity in Christ Jesus our Lord. And grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake, that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life, to the glory of your holy Name. Amen.
Affirmation of Forgiveness
Officiant: The Almighty and merciful Lord grant you forgiveness and remission of all your sins, grant you true repentance, amendment of life, and grant you the grace and consolation of his Holy Spirit.
All: Amen
Scripture and Creed
Invitatory (standing)
Officiant: O Lord, open our lips
People: And our mouth will show forth your praise.
All (sung): Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
Psalter (sitting): Psalm 139:7-12, 23-24
Reader: Where can I go from your Spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?
People: If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
Reader: If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea,
People: Even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast.
Reader: If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night,”
People: Even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day, for darkness is as light to you.
Reader: Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my thoughts.
People: See if there is any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
Lessons
Old Testament Lesson (sitting): Exodus 33:12-17
Moses said to the Lord, “See, you have said to me, ‘Bring up this people’; but you have not let me know whom you will send with me. Yet you have said, ‘I know you by name, and you have also found favor in my sight.’ Now if I have found favor in your sight, show me your ways, so that I may know you and find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”
He said, “My presence will go with you, and I will give you rest.”
And he said to him, “If your presence will not go, do not carry us up from here. For how shall it be known that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people, unless you go with us? In this way, we shall be distinct, I and your people, from every people on the face of the earth.”
The Lord said to Moses, “I will do the very thing that you have asked; for you have found favor in my sight, and I know you by name” (NRSV).
Reader: This is the Word of the Lord.
All: Thanks be to God.
Epistle Lesson (sitting): Hebrews 11:8-10, 13-16
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed for a time in the land he had been promised, as in a foreign land, living in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he looked forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth, for people who speak in this way make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of the land that they had left behind, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them (NRSV).
Reader: This is the Word of the Lord.
All: Thanks be to God.
Canticle: Spirit of God, Descend Upon My Heart
Spirit of God, descend upon my heart;
Wean it from earth; through all its pulses move;
Stoop to my weakness, mighty as Thou art;
And make me love Thee as I ought to love.
Teach me to feel that Thou art always nigh;
Teach me the struggles of the soul to bear.
To check the rising doubt, the rebel sigh,
Teach me the patience of unanswered prayer.
Teach me to love Thee as Thine angels love,
One holy passion filling all my frame;
The kindling of the heaven descended Dove,
My heart an altar, and Thy love the flame.
Gospel Lesson (standing): John 14:1-3, 16:4-16
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. But I have said these things to you so that when their hour comes you may remember that I told you about them. “I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me; yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment: about sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will see me no longer; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been condemned. “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
"A little while, and you will no longer see me, and again a little while, and you will see me.”
Reader: This is the Word of the Lord
All: Thanks be to God.
All (spoken): Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost; as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
The Nicene Creed (standing)
All: We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary and was made man. He was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried. The third day he rose again according to the Scriptures and ascended into heaven, where He sits at the right hand of the Father. He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Prayers
Officiant: The Lord be with you.
People: And also with you.
Officiant: Let us pray.
Lord’s Prayer (kneeling, as able)
Litany (kneeling, as able)
Officiant: O Lord, show your mercy upon us,
People: And grant us your salvation.
Officiant: O Lord, save our nation.
People: And mercifully hear us when we call upon you.
Officiant: Give peace in our time, O Lord.
People: Because there is none other that fights for us, but only you, O God.
Officiant: Endue your ministers with righteousness
People: And make your people joyful.
Officiant: O God, make clean our hearts within us.
People: And take not your Holy Spirit from us.
Collect of the Day (kneeling, as able)
All present God, who has sanctified this ground as holy ground, has met us here in the body and blood of your Son, has sent your Spirit forth time and time again and created us anew: Go with us from this place today until we find another resting place where we may remove our shoes in the presence of Your holiness, through Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Intercession for the World, the Nation and City, the Church and Us
You may come forward and kneel if you feel led.
Collect for Peace
O God, who are the author of peace and lover of concord, in knowledge of whom stands our eternal life, whose service is perfect freedom, defend us your humble servants in all assaults of our enemies, that we, surely trusting in your defense, may not fear the power of any adversaries, through the might of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
Collect for Grace
O Lord, our heavenly Father, Almighty and everlasting God, who have safely brought us to the beginning of this day, defend us in the same with your mighty power, and grant that this day we fall into no sin, neither run into any kind of danger, but that all our doings may be ordered by your governance, to do always what is righteous in your sight, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.
A Prayer of St. Chrysostom
Almighty God, who have given us grace at this time with one accord to make our common supplications to you and do promise that when two or three are gathered together in your name you will grant their requests, fulfill now, O Lord, the desires and petitions of your servants, as may be most expedient for them, granting us in this world knowledge of your truth, and in the world to come, life everlasting.
Amen.
A Service of Word
(We listen to God’s word on video feed.)
A Service of Table
(Pastor DeNeff will lead us in remembrance of the night when Jesus broke the bread and shared the cup.)
Celebrant: Prayer (sitting)
Therefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of your dear Son, our Savior Jesus Christ, we your humble servants do celebrate and make here before your divine Majesty, this memorial your Son commanded us to make. Make them be for us the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Prayer of Approach (sitting)
Celebrant: Let us pray.
All: We do not presume to come to this your table, merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in your manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under your table. But you are the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat this sacrament of your Son Jesus Christ, that we may walk in newness of life, may grow into his likeness, and may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.
The Eucharist
Prayer of Thanks
All: Almighty and ever-living God, we most heartily thank you for feeding us with the spiritual food of the body and blood of your Son, our Savior Jesus Christ. And here we offer and present to you, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice to you. Through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory be to you, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.
Litany of Thanksgiving
Leader: Blessed be your name, O God, whose word has long gone out in and from this place!
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have met us in the bread and wine and empowered us for the days until you come again.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have sent out many from within these walls into the world. Your Spirit has blessed countless disciples.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have begun new ministries here, and new leaders have been empowered and equipped for ministry.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have listened to the needs and concerns of your people. You have shown us your will and made us one as the body and family of Christ.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: You have given birth to new families through marriage. You have made parents and grandparents. You have helped us in life and death.
Congregation: Thanks be to God.
Leader: And now we, Your people, called to fulfill Your purpose, go forward to a new sacred place, to continue Your work, in the power of Your presence.
Congregation: Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!
The Stripping of the Altar
Recessional (in silence)
First the cross, then the candles, then the people, then the chalice and plate, then the cloth, and lastly, the crucifix
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Integrating Scripture: Case Study in Matthew 25
After a person has interpreted a particular biblical text, the next step is to integrate it with the rest of Scripture, to find a Scriptural center, as it were. I've been working on a sample "advanced Bible study" for my classes at IWU. I've already created a sample "introduction" to Matthew of a couple pages (I'm aiming at Sunday School literature lengths) and a sample of the "interpretation" of Matthew 25:31-46 (Sheep and Goats).
Here is my sample integration section for the Bible study lesson:__________
We find the idea that God’s people should help those in need both explicitly and implicitly in both the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in the Old Testament, the prophetic idea of justice repeatedly centers on the failure of Israel to care for the downtrodden in its midst. In Isaiah 1 the LORD expresses His disinterest in the multitude of sacrifices brought to Him (1:11). What He wants is for Israel to “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (1:17). Micah 6 similarly expresses the LORD’s apathy toward sacrifices—even the sacrifice of one’s firstborn child will not get His attention. What the LORD wants is for Israel to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (6:8).
The book of Deuteronomy roots such an attitude toward the disempowered and the stranger in part in the memory that the Israelites were also once slaves in Egypt. “You will not deprive a stranger in the land or an orphan of justice. You will not take a widow’s garment as a pledge. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there” (Deut. 24:17-18). As virtuous ancients, both Abraham (Gen. 18) and Lot (Gen. 19) take strangers into their homes and protect them from potential violence at the hands of others. By contrast, the Benjamites (Judg. 20), not to mention the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), experience severe penalty because of the way they treat strangers in their land.
The theology of Joshua and Ezra do stand in some tension with the bulk of Old Testament Scriptures in relation to the stranger in the land. For Joshua, all non-Israelites must be obliterated: women, children, and even animals (e.g., Judg. 6:21). From the point of view of the book, it is disgraceful that the Gibeonites trick Israel into making peace with them (Judg. 9). Similarly, Ezra enjoins Israel to divorce foreign wives and put away the children from such unions (Ezra 10). Yet even as we integrate the Old Testament teaching on the stranger—before we ever get to the New Testament—these passages at best relate to key transitions in Israel’s history. In terms of the Old Testament as a whole, they do not reflect the normal mode of Israel’s operation. They certainly cannot survive the universal scope of the gospel in the New Testament, where in terms of potential salvation there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28).
When we get to the New Testament, we find a unanimous verdict with regard to what a believer’s attitude should be toward those who are disempowered such as the poor, widows, and orphans. In this regard, certainly James stands in closest relation to Matthew and may in fact allude to the same Jesus material. James 2:14-17 ponders a person who would simply tell a naked or hungry “brother or sister” to “Go in peace; keep warm and be filled”—without actually doing anything about it. Such a person has as much faith as the demons have and, by implication, has as much reason to shudder as the demons do. James here seems to have believers in particular in mind. 1 John also emphasizes the need to “love” the Christian brother in a material way (2:10; 3:14-15): “Whoever has the materials of the world and sees his brother in need but turns off his compassion from him, how does the love of God remain in him?” (3:17).
Luke-Acts presents concern for individuals like the poor, the disempowered, and women as a major theme for both Jesus and the early believers. While Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus’ visit to Nazareth further on in his ministry, Luke presents a visit at the very beginning where Jesus gives a sort of “inaugural address” for his earthly ministry. He draws on Isaiah 61 to declare that “The Spirit of the Lord is on me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to preach release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to send off those who have been oppressed in release, to preach the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19). With this statement at the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry, Luke has edited the rest of the gospel to bring this theme out with greater prominence than even Matthew and Mark do.
So Luke has a few parables on the topic of the rich, the poor, and women, that are not in the other gospels: The Rich Fool, The Rich Man and Lazarus, The Persistent Widow. We should probably see Luke’s noticeable attention to women in this same vein, since they were certainly among the disempowered of the ancient world. When John the Baptist sends some of his followers to Jesus to inquire if he was the Messiah, Jesus recaps the topics of Isaiah 61 again: the blind see, the lame walk, good news is proclaimed to the poor (Luke 7:18-23). And while Matthew’s version of the Beatitudes says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3), Luke bluntly has “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20).
The book of Acts continues this theme in its portrayal of the early church. The Jerusalem believers hold their possessions in common and sell their possessions to help those who are in need (2:44-45). Peter and John, as well as Paul, continue the healing ministry of Jesus through the power of the Spirit (e.g., 3:1-10; 14:8-10). In Acts 6 we learn that the Jerusalem church has systems in place to take care of widows in its midst. When a problem in this distribution arises, the church moves to address the situation (6:3).
Even the apostle Paul, who arguably had more significant resources to draw on than most people in his day, pays attention to the poor. When he visits Peter and James for the second time, they encourage him to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10). Paul claims strongly that he was already inclined to do so. Indeed, Acts includes a story where he and Barnabas take famine relief down to Jerusalem from Antioch (Acts 11:27-30). Paul himself went to great pains to raise an offering for “poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom. 16:26). This offering seems to have created a good deal of pain for Paul in his relations with the Corinthian church (2 Cor. chaps. 8-9; 12:17-18). But Paul articulates the general idea to them: “At this present time your abundance will supply what they are lacking so that their abundance might supply what you are lacking" (2 Cor. 8:14). Each in the church has something to share with the other parts, and we are obligated to do so.
The only potential wrinkle in this New Testament consensus comes in 1 Timothy, whose tone and teaching with regard to widows stands in significant tension with things Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7. 1 Timothy 5 draws a distinction between “true widows” and younger widows whom the church begins to support, only for them to remarry, apparently breaking a vow to remain unmarried for the rest of their lives (5:11-12). Yet even here, 1 Timothy does not negate the importance of their material needs being met. He simply shifts the responsibility to the families of younger widows until they remarry (5:8, 16). The fundamental need to care for “true widows” remains (5:3).
The unanimous concern of the New Testament for the impoverished within the Christian community does not surprise us when we remember that the love commandment stands as the central ethic of the New Testament. Jesus himself in Matthew 22:37-40 indicates that all the Law and the Prophets—in other words, the entire Old Testament—hangs on the commands to love God and one’s neighbor. Jesus commanded love of one’s neighbor. Yet he also commanded love of one’s enemy (e.g., Matt. 5:43-48). These two categories effectively cover all humanity, which is made in the image of God (cf. Jas. 3:9).
Paul also reduces the law to “one word: You will love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:8-10; cf. Gal. 5:14). James 2:8 refers to this command as the “kingdom law according to Scripture.” Although there is debate, James probably included the commands he then mentions—adultery, murder—as subheadings of this “law of freedom” (Jas. 2:12). 1 John similarly defines God as love (4:7-8) and indicates that the person who does not love by implication is someone who remains in death (3:14) and is not destined for eternal life (3:15). 1 John explicitly understands such love in terms of material assistance to brothers in need (3:17).
The command of believers to help Christian brothers and sisters in need is pervasive throughout both the Old and New Testament. Indeed, it is so pervasive that it is difficult to find any passages that might qualify or temper this injunction. While most of the biblical texts aim at helping either those within Israel or those within the community of faith, those texts that impinge on the topic of outsiders almost without exception point to the same course of action. We are not surprised at this fact, for love of one’s enemy would demand that we treat those outside our community with the same manifestations of love that we show toward those within our fellowship. In the case of Matthew 25 and the story of the sheep and goats, this need to show mercy to the needy in general is particularly clear.
Before we end our integration of Matthew 25:31-46 with the rest of Scripture, we should mention the matter of justification by faith versus works. The Gospel of Matthew often presents difficulties to those who have a certain understanding of Paul’s theology, particularly the idea of justification by faith. Certainly Matthew, like James, is far more concerned with human deeds than with faith--particularly faith as some belief that does not manifest itself in life (cf. Jas. 2:14-26). Yet it is important to realize that works play a role in justification for Paul as well—final justification. Believers may initially be justified before God strictly on the basis of faith, but Paul also has expectations of human works thereafter. On the Day of Judgment, “God will give to each person according to what they have done” (Rom. 2:6), and each will receive appropriately “for the things they have done in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 4:10). The conflict thus does not lie with Matthew’s theology so much as with a prevalent misunderstanding of Paul’s.
Here is my sample integration section for the Bible study lesson:__________
We find the idea that God’s people should help those in need both explicitly and implicitly in both the Old Testament and the rest of the New Testament. For example, in the Old Testament, the prophetic idea of justice repeatedly centers on the failure of Israel to care for the downtrodden in its midst. In Isaiah 1 the LORD expresses His disinterest in the multitude of sacrifices brought to Him (1:11). What He wants is for Israel to “learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow” (1:17). Micah 6 similarly expresses the LORD’s apathy toward sacrifices—even the sacrifice of one’s firstborn child will not get His attention. What the LORD wants is for Israel to “do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (6:8).
The book of Deuteronomy roots such an attitude toward the disempowered and the stranger in part in the memory that the Israelites were also once slaves in Egypt. “You will not deprive a stranger in the land or an orphan of justice. You will not take a widow’s garment as a pledge. Remember that you were a slave in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there” (Deut. 24:17-18). As virtuous ancients, both Abraham (Gen. 18) and Lot (Gen. 19) take strangers into their homes and protect them from potential violence at the hands of others. By contrast, the Benjamites (Judg. 20), not to mention the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), experience severe penalty because of the way they treat strangers in their land.
The theology of Joshua and Ezra do stand in some tension with the bulk of Old Testament Scriptures in relation to the stranger in the land. For Joshua, all non-Israelites must be obliterated: women, children, and even animals (e.g., Judg. 6:21). From the point of view of the book, it is disgraceful that the Gibeonites trick Israel into making peace with them (Judg. 9). Similarly, Ezra enjoins Israel to divorce foreign wives and put away the children from such unions (Ezra 10). Yet even as we integrate the Old Testament teaching on the stranger—before we ever get to the New Testament—these passages at best relate to key transitions in Israel’s history. In terms of the Old Testament as a whole, they do not reflect the normal mode of Israel’s operation. They certainly cannot survive the universal scope of the gospel in the New Testament, where in terms of potential salvation there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28).
When we get to the New Testament, we find a unanimous verdict with regard to what a believer’s attitude should be toward those who are disempowered such as the poor, widows, and orphans. In this regard, certainly James stands in closest relation to Matthew and may in fact allude to the same Jesus material. James 2:14-17 ponders a person who would simply tell a naked or hungry “brother or sister” to “Go in peace; keep warm and be filled”—without actually doing anything about it. Such a person has as much faith as the demons have and, by implication, has as much reason to shudder as the demons do. James here seems to have believers in particular in mind. 1 John also emphasizes the need to “love” the Christian brother in a material way (2:10; 3:14-15): “Whoever has the materials of the world and sees his brother in need but turns off his compassion from him, how does the love of God remain in him?” (3:17).
Luke-Acts presents concern for individuals like the poor, the disempowered, and women as a major theme for both Jesus and the early believers. While Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus’ visit to Nazareth further on in his ministry, Luke presents a visit at the very beginning where Jesus gives a sort of “inaugural address” for his earthly ministry. He draws on Isaiah 61 to declare that “The Spirit of the Lord is on me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to preach release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to send off those who have been oppressed in release, to preach the year of the Lord’s favor” (Luke 4:18-19). With this statement at the inauguration of Jesus’ ministry, Luke has edited the rest of the gospel to bring this theme out with greater prominence than even Matthew and Mark do.
So Luke has a few parables on the topic of the rich, the poor, and women, that are not in the other gospels: The Rich Fool, The Rich Man and Lazarus, The Persistent Widow. We should probably see Luke’s noticeable attention to women in this same vein, since they were certainly among the disempowered of the ancient world. When John the Baptist sends some of his followers to Jesus to inquire if he was the Messiah, Jesus recaps the topics of Isaiah 61 again: the blind see, the lame walk, good news is proclaimed to the poor (Luke 7:18-23). And while Matthew’s version of the Beatitudes says, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3), Luke bluntly has “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20).
The book of Acts continues this theme in its portrayal of the early church. The Jerusalem believers hold their possessions in common and sell their possessions to help those who are in need (2:44-45). Peter and John, as well as Paul, continue the healing ministry of Jesus through the power of the Spirit (e.g., 3:1-10; 14:8-10). In Acts 6 we learn that the Jerusalem church has systems in place to take care of widows in its midst. When a problem in this distribution arises, the church moves to address the situation (6:3).
Even the apostle Paul, who arguably had more significant resources to draw on than most people in his day, pays attention to the poor. When he visits Peter and James for the second time, they encourage him to remember the poor (Gal. 2:10). Paul claims strongly that he was already inclined to do so. Indeed, Acts includes a story where he and Barnabas take famine relief down to Jerusalem from Antioch (Acts 11:27-30). Paul himself went to great pains to raise an offering for “poor among the saints in Jerusalem” (Rom. 16:26). This offering seems to have created a good deal of pain for Paul in his relations with the Corinthian church (2 Cor. chaps. 8-9; 12:17-18). But Paul articulates the general idea to them: “At this present time your abundance will supply what they are lacking so that their abundance might supply what you are lacking" (2 Cor. 8:14). Each in the church has something to share with the other parts, and we are obligated to do so.
The only potential wrinkle in this New Testament consensus comes in 1 Timothy, whose tone and teaching with regard to widows stands in significant tension with things Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7. 1 Timothy 5 draws a distinction between “true widows” and younger widows whom the church begins to support, only for them to remarry, apparently breaking a vow to remain unmarried for the rest of their lives (5:11-12). Yet even here, 1 Timothy does not negate the importance of their material needs being met. He simply shifts the responsibility to the families of younger widows until they remarry (5:8, 16). The fundamental need to care for “true widows” remains (5:3).
The unanimous concern of the New Testament for the impoverished within the Christian community does not surprise us when we remember that the love commandment stands as the central ethic of the New Testament. Jesus himself in Matthew 22:37-40 indicates that all the Law and the Prophets—in other words, the entire Old Testament—hangs on the commands to love God and one’s neighbor. Jesus commanded love of one’s neighbor. Yet he also commanded love of one’s enemy (e.g., Matt. 5:43-48). These two categories effectively cover all humanity, which is made in the image of God (cf. Jas. 3:9).
Paul also reduces the law to “one word: You will love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:8-10; cf. Gal. 5:14). James 2:8 refers to this command as the “kingdom law according to Scripture.” Although there is debate, James probably included the commands he then mentions—adultery, murder—as subheadings of this “law of freedom” (Jas. 2:12). 1 John similarly defines God as love (4:7-8) and indicates that the person who does not love by implication is someone who remains in death (3:14) and is not destined for eternal life (3:15). 1 John explicitly understands such love in terms of material assistance to brothers in need (3:17).
The command of believers to help Christian brothers and sisters in need is pervasive throughout both the Old and New Testament. Indeed, it is so pervasive that it is difficult to find any passages that might qualify or temper this injunction. While most of the biblical texts aim at helping either those within Israel or those within the community of faith, those texts that impinge on the topic of outsiders almost without exception point to the same course of action. We are not surprised at this fact, for love of one’s enemy would demand that we treat those outside our community with the same manifestations of love that we show toward those within our fellowship. In the case of Matthew 25 and the story of the sheep and goats, this need to show mercy to the needy in general is particularly clear.
Before we end our integration of Matthew 25:31-46 with the rest of Scripture, we should mention the matter of justification by faith versus works. The Gospel of Matthew often presents difficulties to those who have a certain understanding of Paul’s theology, particularly the idea of justification by faith. Certainly Matthew, like James, is far more concerned with human deeds than with faith--particularly faith as some belief that does not manifest itself in life (cf. Jas. 2:14-26). Yet it is important to realize that works play a role in justification for Paul as well—final justification. Believers may initially be justified before God strictly on the basis of faith, but Paul also has expectations of human works thereafter. On the Day of Judgment, “God will give to each person according to what they have done” (Rom. 2:6), and each will receive appropriately “for the things they have done in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 4:10). The conflict thus does not lie with Matthew’s theology so much as with a prevalent misunderstanding of Paul’s.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Friday Review: Jewish Christianity Reconsidered 2
I was able to read a couple more "chapters" this week. Let me stick to items of particular interest and/or relevance to my research.
Chapter 2: "The Jerusalem Church," by Craig Hill of Wesley Theological Seminary in DC
Chapter 2: "The Jerusalem Church," by Craig Hill of Wesley Theological Seminary in DC
- "Early Christ believers in the Jerusalem church continued to regard themselves as Jews" (41, 56)--absolutely, not in doubt
- "Paul did not possess authority in the early church equal to that of either Peter or James" (43)--certainly
- "Nowhere in Paul's correspondence is there evidence of a disagreement with the Jerusalem church over christology" (44)--this is significant and often unnoticed
- Jerusalem believers might justly be called "Jewish Christians" if 1) they retained common and important elements of Judaism while 2) venerating Jesus in a way unparalleled elsewhere in Judaism.
- Hill singles out three "common and important elements of Judaism," namely 1) Israel, 2) the Law, and 3) the Temple. His argument is that the Jerusalem Christians still valued each as they did "BC."
- With regard to Israel, I agree with Hill that both Paul and Acts look to the eventual restoration of Israel as a nation.
- With regard to the Law, Hill rightly suggests that the Jerusalem church believed that, while Gentiles were only obligated to live up to the standard of "aliens" in the land, the Jerusalem believers continued to observe the Jewish law in its particulars. In my opinion, Paul only modified his law observance but probably did not abandon it entirely in its particulars.
- Although he does not flesh it out as much as I would like, I agree with Hill that the temple probably continued to function as normal in the lives of the Jerusalem believers. What I would add is my hypothesis that, regardless of how they understood Christ's death, they probably did not think it in any way negated the temple cultus.
- Hill clearly makes his bed with Larry Hurtado on the issue of Christ-devotion being early and unique in terms of Judaism. He believes both baptism and the Lord's Supper tradition originated in Jerusalem. Fair enough. On Christ-devotion, the question for me is whether it defied Jewish norms or was merely completely unique.
Chapter 3: "Paul and Christ-believing Jews Whom He Opposes," by Jerry Sumney of Lexington Theological Seminary
- 2 Corinthians--Given Paul's counterarguments in 11-12, his opponents are Jewish persons in the Corinthian church but, according to Sumney, have a kind of "prosperity gospel" approach. If Paul were truly an apostle, God would prosper him and he would take support from them. Instead he suffered and did not take support.
- I'm not sure about Sumney's delineation of the opponents (and I may have skewed it a little), but the most interesting point to me here is Sumney's claim that a Jewish background was part of the credential mix--being Jewish was thought by the Corinthians to put you higher on the spiritual food chain!
- Galatians--The issue is whether Gentile believers should be circumcised. Sumney says that Paul's opponents are claiming that Paul himself teaches that believers need to be circumcised (5:11).
- Very interesting is Sumney's claim that the disagreement is not over the "work of Christ" and that Paul's argument for how the Galatian Gentile Christ-believers are to appropriate that saving work was not the only gospel that might bring someone into contact with that saving work. The issue was in the interfacing of Jewish and Gentile Christians, table fellowship in particular.
- Bottom line: Sumney doesn't see the controversy at Galatia so much over theology as over the association of Jewish and Gentile Christians and who can eat together. While I'll need to think more about the above, he I think is right when he suggests that Paul was redrawing the boundary lines of the people of God with "in Christ" being the primary boundary and Israel second. For James and others, Israel remains an intact boundary for Jews, with the "in Christ" playing out differently for the Gentiles.
- By the end of the chapter, Sumney has abandoned the term "Jewish Christianity," and I agree. The term is a poor one to refer to Jerusalem Christians since Paul and even some of his opponents at Corinth are Jewish Christians. "There is no single way--or even only two ways--of being a Christ-believer and Jewish in the first century" (78).
I had wanted to get through more of this book this week--there are interesting chapters on everything from James to the Ebionites. But I have to move on...
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
1, 2, 4 Maccabees and the New Testament
My intertestamental literature class approaches its first exam of the semester. I thought I would use the chance to collect my thoughts on how 1, 2, and 4 Maccabees potentially shed light on the meaning of the New Testament. 1 and 2 Maccabees are of course part of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox OT. 4 Maccabees is not a part of anyone's OT but is a kind of appendix to the Greek Old Testament. [Apocrypha quotes are from the NRSV translation]
1 Maccabees
1 Maccabees
- 1 Maccabees is our primary historical source for the Maccabean period from the Syrian king Antiochus IV and the events of Daniel 11 (167BC) to John Hyrcanus (ca. 104BC). It is clearly pro-Maccabean, but still seems a reasonably accurate historical source. Compare 1 Macc. 1:54 with Dan. 11:31 and Mark 13:14.
- It gives us a snapshot of what the NT understands by "zeal for the law" (e.g., Acts 21:20; Romans 10:2). So 1 Macc. 2:50: "my children, show zeal for the law, and give your lives for the covenant of our ancestors."
- One aspect of 1 Maccabees that was seriously misused by a previous generation is its sense that prophecy had ceased in Israel (9:27; 4:46). An older stream of thought used this comment to argue for why apocalyptic began, arguing that since there was no prophecy, people wrote through the voices of the past. I don't think anyone accepts this any more.
- The zealous Hasidim of 2:42 have long been suggested to be the forerunners of the Pharisees. This is seriously questioned by many today.
- No way to say for sure, but it has often been suggested that this book was written by a Pharisee. That's because it has a strong sense of physical resurrection, intestines and all.
- Surely the most relevant element to 2 Maccabees is its strong sense of resurrection for those who die a martyr's death (cf. chap. 7 and 14:37-46).
- Hebrews 11:35 probably alludes to the mother and 7 brothers of chap. 7: "Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to be released, that they might rise to a better life."
- 2 Maccabees does not necessarily have a sense of a general resurrection. In some sense it is the way the brothers die that secures their resurrection. So Paul only speaks of the resurrection of the dead in Christ, and perhaps echoes old ways of thinking when he connects the "fellowship" of Christ's sufferings with the possibility "if somehow I might attain to the resurrection for the dead" (Phil. 3:11; cf. 2 Cor. 4:10-11).
- Resurrection in 2 Maccabees is strongly physical, intestines and all (e.g., 2 Macc. 14:46). Presumably those who were raised would live out the life snatched from them and die again. Paul does not have such a view of the resurrection. Resurrection is corporeal (embodied) to be sure (1 Cor. 15:35). But it is a spiritual body that is not composed of flesh and blood (1 Cor. 15:50).
It is possible, of course, that some of the gospel writers or even Jesus had a more fleshly idea about our resurrection bodies (cf. Luke 24:40). What does Jesus mean when he says it is better to enter into the kingdom with one eye rather than to be thrown into Gehenna with two? - The biggest thorn in Luther's side was the sacrifice for the dead Judas makes in 2 Macc. 12:38-45. This sacrifice makes it possible for these sin-laden dead soldiers to rise from the dead in the resurrection. This passage gets my vote as the best explanation for the rationale behind baptism for the dead that Paul mentions in 1 Cor. 15:29.
- Connected to resurrection is the curious comment in 2 Macc. 7:28: "Look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed." Leaving Gen. 1:1-2 out of the discussion, this is the first candidate for the idea of ex nihilo creation in Jewish literature. I personally don't think that's what 7:28 is saying. It is rather affirming God's ability to reconstitute the bodies of the martyrs.
- Although it is debated, 2 Macc. 7:38 may imply that the death of a righteous individual can satisfy God's wrath toward his people, resulting in their restoration: "I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our ancestors, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation ... and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty that has justly fallen on our whole nation."
It makes a lot of sense that the disciples and early believers in the resurrection may have conceptualized Jesus' death in similar terms. They may have believed that Jesus' death would bring God's wrath toward Israel to an end and bring about the restoration of the nation. Certainly Acts 1:6 and Romans 11:26 seems to look for such an eventual restoration of Israel in the light of Christ's death. See 4 Maccabees below. - 2 Maccabees 6:12-17 has the curious sense that God punishes the sins of Israel differently from the sins of the other nations. With Israel, he disciplines them as they go along (cf. Heb. 12). But with the Gentiles, he stores up his wrath until he absolutely obliterates them. Possible NT parallels include 1 Peter, where the judgment of the house of God is underway (1 Pet. 4:17). But watch out for what things will look like when the judgment gets to the rest of the world! Romans 3:25 also mentions the need for justice in relation to sins God has passed over. Some have argued, I think wrongly, that Paul only has in mind the sins of the Gentiles here.
- Strong emphasis on a noble death that leaves an example of zeal for the law for those who follow.
- N. T. Wright's sense that Israel has never really returned from exile (e.g., 2:7, 18).
- A philosophical version of 2 Maccabees 6:12-7:42
- Very Stoic in tone--(devout) reason over emotions, self-control
- controlling the passions of the flesh (7:18) reminds us of Paul in Romans 7:5 where Paul speaks of the person "in the flesh" as subject to the "passions of sins" in their "members." For Paul, the Spirit liberates us from the slavery of sin. For 4 Maccabees, it is a matter of reason giving a person control of such passions.
- 4 Maccabees goes beyond 2 Maccabees to see the deaths of the martyrs as having atoning value, even substitutionary value:
"Be merciful to your people, and let our punishment suffice for them. Make my blood their purification, and take my life in exchange for theirs" (Eleazar, 6:28-29)
"The tyrant was punished, and the homeland purified--they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an atoning sacrifice [ιλαστήριον], divine Providence preserved Israel that previously had been mistreated" (17:21-22) - Compare these quotes to a couple verses in the NT:
"The Son of Man has not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).
"Whom God offered as an atoning sacrifice [ιλαστήριον], through faithfulness, by means of his blood, to demonstrate his righteousness." - It doesn't seem far fetched to suggest that the earliest post-resurrection followers of Jesus might have conceptualized Jesus' death in this way. Of course it is then interesting to wonder if 1) they saw this as a death for the sins of Israel, leading to its political restoration and 2) we should note that the concept of "atonement" in such a case is neither universal nor comprehensive for all time. In other words, such martyr-effected atonement would not necessarily imply an end to the temple or of the need for its ongoing sacrifices. We have the benefit of Hebrews; they did not.
- Interestingly, 4 Maccabees no longer looks at the afterlife in terms of resurrection but in terms of the immortality of the soul: "Although the ligaments joining his bones were already severed, the courageous youth, worthy of Abraham, did not groan, but as though transformed by fire into immortality, he nobly endured the rackings" (9:22).
- Death thus brings perfection (7:15), a statement that reminds me of Romans 6:7!
- Because the interrogation seems to take place at Antioch, because Antioch early on had a cult venerating the seven brothers, it is often suggested that 4 Maccabees was written at Antioch. Also, since the territory of Antioch is joined to Cilicia (4:2--compare 2 Macc. 3:5), it is often suggested that this treatise was written AD20-72, during which time the Roman provinces were joined. Given that Antioch was the center of the Hellenistic mission of the early church, it is not ridiculous to suggest that some early Christians like Paul might have known of it.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Monday Thoughts: Worthless Servants
Using the Methodist Lectionary yesterday, I read Luke 17:5-10 from the NRSV for College Wesleyan's "Liturgical Service":
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
The Lord replied, “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.
“Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’”
This is both a puzzling and startling passage for me. It is puzzling in seeing the connection between the second paragraph and the disciple's question. The first answer makes sense. The disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith and Jesus tells them what the power of increased faith (as trust in God) can do.
But how does the second paragraph, almost a parable, increase the disciples' faith. Of course no doubt many sermons could be preached and probably have been. The gap this juxtaposition is exactly the stuff of spectacular sermons where the Spirit works through the wisdom of the speaker to create some "aha" moment of truth.
For instance, might Jesus be addressing the wrong motives in asking for more faith and Jesus basically tells them they are slaves who need to obey rather than be seeking the glory you get when you can work the miraculous? Or maybe the nuance of faith Jesus addresses here is faithfulness, in which case the sense of servanthood would make sense. Jesus would be telling them how to be good and faithful servants.
I don't find either of these really satisfying. There probably are some really good explanations out there. I wonder if this is simply the problem we occasionally encounter of free floating Jesus' sayings that have been incorporated into the gospel as somewhat random places.
But what really startled me this morning was not the sequence of the narrative, but the teaching of 17:7-10. Can't you just imagine Christian slave owners in the 1700's and 1800's using this passage?! See, I can hear them, Jesus assumes the absolute mastery of a master over slave.
This is not my disposition. I feel guilty if others are serving me. What Jesus assumes, "Duh, everyone would do this," is not at all what I would do. If someone had been working all day for me in the field and I had been inside enjoying myself, I would have wanted them to "take a load off" and be rewarded.
I don't think this attitude will stand anymore between humans. I don't think we can be Christ-like in our day and have such an attitude toward our neighbor. However, we do have a master to which this passage seems a wake-up call--God.
In comparison to God, we remain "worthless servants" even today. In the household of God, He does remain the center of attention, the One who deserves to be served no matter how hard we have been working for Him. He is the reality of which we are only the image. We have no value apart from Him.
If we truly understand this concept, then we will "keep faith" with God on a whole new level.
The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”
The Lord replied, “If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.
“Who among you would say to your slave who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, ‘Come here at once and take your place at the table’? Would you not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, put on your apron and serve me while I eat and drink; later you may eat and drink’? Do you thank the slave for doing what was commanded? So you also, when you have done all that you were ordered to do, say, ‘We are worthless slaves; we have done only what we ought to have done!’”
This is both a puzzling and startling passage for me. It is puzzling in seeing the connection between the second paragraph and the disciple's question. The first answer makes sense. The disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith and Jesus tells them what the power of increased faith (as trust in God) can do.
But how does the second paragraph, almost a parable, increase the disciples' faith. Of course no doubt many sermons could be preached and probably have been. The gap this juxtaposition is exactly the stuff of spectacular sermons where the Spirit works through the wisdom of the speaker to create some "aha" moment of truth.
For instance, might Jesus be addressing the wrong motives in asking for more faith and Jesus basically tells them they are slaves who need to obey rather than be seeking the glory you get when you can work the miraculous? Or maybe the nuance of faith Jesus addresses here is faithfulness, in which case the sense of servanthood would make sense. Jesus would be telling them how to be good and faithful servants.
I don't find either of these really satisfying. There probably are some really good explanations out there. I wonder if this is simply the problem we occasionally encounter of free floating Jesus' sayings that have been incorporated into the gospel as somewhat random places.
But what really startled me this morning was not the sequence of the narrative, but the teaching of 17:7-10. Can't you just imagine Christian slave owners in the 1700's and 1800's using this passage?! See, I can hear them, Jesus assumes the absolute mastery of a master over slave.
This is not my disposition. I feel guilty if others are serving me. What Jesus assumes, "Duh, everyone would do this," is not at all what I would do. If someone had been working all day for me in the field and I had been inside enjoying myself, I would have wanted them to "take a load off" and be rewarded.
I don't think this attitude will stand anymore between humans. I don't think we can be Christ-like in our day and have such an attitude toward our neighbor. However, we do have a master to which this passage seems a wake-up call--God.
In comparison to God, we remain "worthless servants" even today. In the household of God, He does remain the center of attention, the One who deserves to be served no matter how hard we have been working for Him. He is the reality of which we are only the image. We have no value apart from Him.
If we truly understand this concept, then we will "keep faith" with God on a whole new level.
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Lectionary Thoughts: Philippians 3:14-21
Today's epistle reading in the BCP is Philippians 3:14-21.
I pursue [with my eye] on the goal for the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus.
The division of the reading is a bit strange, starting here in the middle of a train of thought. Paul has been talking about the fact that he is not yet assured of the resurrection. He has not yet attained to it. So he lives his life in pursuit of the resurrection.
Therefore, as many as are mature, think this way. And if you think something different, God will also reveal this to you. But [let us be sure to live] to the level we have [already] attained.
Although this entire passage is often taken to be about progressive sanctification or growth in grace, it is really only this part of the passage that actually is. Although Paul earlier had used the word "to perfect" in relation to the resurrection, he now shifts to another meaning of the word group, "mature."
Become imitators of me, brothers [and sisters] and watch those who walk similarly, since you have us as an example [to follow].
Stendahl noted long ago that passages like this one work against the idea that Paul felt like a miserable sinner. Rather he felt free to tell others to look at him as an example to follow. Do we? We should be confident enough in our commitment to God that we don't mind others following our lead, even if in our day we probably wouldn't suggest it to others.
For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ (with regard to whom we have often spoken to you and even now I speak with tears). Their end is destruction. Their god is their stomach. Their glory is in their shame. They think on earthly things.
These are puzzling verses as it is difficult to know to whom exactly Paul refers. Since Paul started off the chapter speaking of "the dogs," it is at least possible that he refers to Jewish opponents to the gospel. The reference to the stomach might then refer to food laws.
It is also possible that he refers to the Romans and those who have currently put him in prison. Since Paul is in prison as he writes, surely he refers to some of those involved in bringing him to his current state. This could once again be either the Romans or a certain type of Jewish opponent.
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform the body of our humiliation to a form like the body of his glory, according to the working of He who is also able to subject everything to him.
The mention of citizenship may push us more toward a Roman sense to those who are the enemies of the cross of Christ, since the idea of citizenship really applies more to the Roman world than to, say, Jerusalem. We also remember that Philippi was a Roman colony and thus that its citizens enjoyed Roman citizenship as well. The word savior itself was a word applied to Roman emperors like Augustus and was more of a Greco-Roman word.
The passage ends with what is surprising to many believers today, namely, that our resurrection bodies will be like Christ's resurrection body. And the political powers of this age, the ones that alienate us now, will be subject at Christ's coming to his rule.
Collect of the Day: Almighty and everlasting God, who are always more ready to hear than we to pray, and to give more than either desire or deserve: Pour on us the abundance of your mercy, forgiving us those things whereof our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ your Son our Lord; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
I pursue [with my eye] on the goal for the prize of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus.
The division of the reading is a bit strange, starting here in the middle of a train of thought. Paul has been talking about the fact that he is not yet assured of the resurrection. He has not yet attained to it. So he lives his life in pursuit of the resurrection.
Therefore, as many as are mature, think this way. And if you think something different, God will also reveal this to you. But [let us be sure to live] to the level we have [already] attained.
Although this entire passage is often taken to be about progressive sanctification or growth in grace, it is really only this part of the passage that actually is. Although Paul earlier had used the word "to perfect" in relation to the resurrection, he now shifts to another meaning of the word group, "mature."
Become imitators of me, brothers [and sisters] and watch those who walk similarly, since you have us as an example [to follow].
Stendahl noted long ago that passages like this one work against the idea that Paul felt like a miserable sinner. Rather he felt free to tell others to look at him as an example to follow. Do we? We should be confident enough in our commitment to God that we don't mind others following our lead, even if in our day we probably wouldn't suggest it to others.
For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ (with regard to whom we have often spoken to you and even now I speak with tears). Their end is destruction. Their god is their stomach. Their glory is in their shame. They think on earthly things.
These are puzzling verses as it is difficult to know to whom exactly Paul refers. Since Paul started off the chapter speaking of "the dogs," it is at least possible that he refers to Jewish opponents to the gospel. The reference to the stomach might then refer to food laws.
It is also possible that he refers to the Romans and those who have currently put him in prison. Since Paul is in prison as he writes, surely he refers to some of those involved in bringing him to his current state. This could once again be either the Romans or a certain type of Jewish opponent.
For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform the body of our humiliation to a form like the body of his glory, according to the working of He who is also able to subject everything to him.
The mention of citizenship may push us more toward a Roman sense to those who are the enemies of the cross of Christ, since the idea of citizenship really applies more to the Roman world than to, say, Jerusalem. We also remember that Philippi was a Roman colony and thus that its citizens enjoyed Roman citizenship as well. The word savior itself was a word applied to Roman emperors like Augustus and was more of a Greco-Roman word.
The passage ends with what is surprising to many believers today, namely, that our resurrection bodies will be like Christ's resurrection body. And the political powers of this age, the ones that alienate us now, will be subject at Christ's coming to his rule.
Collect of the Day: Almighty and everlasting God, who are always more ready to hear than we to pray, and to give more than either desire or deserve: Pour on us the abundance of your mercy, forgiving us those things whereof our conscience is afraid, and giving us those good things which we are not worthy to ask, but through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ your Son our Lord; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Friday Review: Jewish Christianity Reconsidered
I'm writing a paper for SBL, the official title of which is "Hebrews and the Parting of the Ways." Don't worry, I'm not going to blog the paper. But I am doing some reading this month in relation to writing it, so my Friday Book Reviews this month will likely feature material from some of the resources I'm reading.
The chair of the SBL group, "Jewish Christianity," is also the editor of a book called Jewish Christianity Reconsidered--Matt Jackson-McCabe. This week I read his chapter entitled "What's in a Name? The Problem of 'Jewish Christianity.'" In this chapter he overviews the question of what exactly scholars mean by the term, "Jewish Christianity." Here is a review of the players:
Johannes Munck (1959-60)
Although later than most of the figures below, Munck uses "Jewish Christianity" in reference to to the Jerusalem community associated with James, Peter, and John (13). McCabe pin points one difficulty with this approach when he says, "there is presently no single text that a general consensus of scholars would attribute to the early Jerusalem community" (12).
F. C. Baur (1878) and the Tübingen School
For Baur, Jewish Christianity referred to those early followers of Jesus in Jerusalem like Peter, John, and James who did not recognize the universal scope of Jesus' message but limited it to the Jews. So they followed "simply a new and stronger form of the old Messianic expectations" (16, McCabe quoting Baur). So for Baur, Paul was the real beginning of Christianity, and following Hegel's dialectic, the synthesis of Jewish Christianity with Pauline Christianity was "catholic Christianity."
Adolf von Harnack (1896)
For Harnack, Jewish Christianity was not really Christianity at all but those Jews who never recognized the universal scope of Christianity but retained a "national" focus on Israel (18). Unlike Baur, Harnack believed that Peter eventually came to agree with Paul and at that point "ceased to be a Jewish Christian" (19, McCabe quoting Harnack). Harnack did not believe that there are any surviving texts from the category of "Jewish Christian." I'm not sure what he would do with the Gospel of the Ebionites.
Albrecht Ritschl (1857)
In contrast to Baur and Harnack, Ritschl's approach was much more nuanced and, in my opinion, was more helpful. Take the following terms:
Jüdische Christenthum--"Jewish Christianity"--any text or group at the intersection of Christian faith and Jewish practice--a very general term that covers most of early Christianity, including Paul
Judenchristenthum--"Judaeo-Christianity"--Christians who believed that the Mosaic law was the essence of Christianity, thus a law observant form of early Christianity more "conservative" than Paul
judaistisch--"Judaic"--anything influenced in a general way by Judaism in the Second Temple Period--like apocalyptic material in the gospels
alttestamentlich--"Old Testament-ish"--things influenced not by Second Temple Judaism but by the Old Testament in the Protestant sense, thus in distinction from judaistisch.
In my opinion, Ritschl's description of what he called Judenchristenthum stands closest to what most contemporary scholars mean when they refer to Jewish Christianity. "Jewish Christianity" thus refers to Christian Jews who observed the Jewish Law more carefully than Paul, as typified by Peter, James, and Jerusalem Christianity (I regret that I'm at home and don't have Dunn's Unity and Diversity in the New Testament handy to give you his definition with the usual caveats).
As McCabe puts it, "the use of the term 'Jewish Christianity' to denote groups or texts that combine veneration of Jesus with practice of Jewish law remains very common" (22).
Hans Joachim Schoeps (1949)
Schoeps used Christology as a dividing line between "Great Church" Jewish Christians and "extremist" Pharisaic Jewish Christians who would become the Ebionites of the second century, for whom Jesus was only a prophet and messiah (23-24).
For me Christology is the primary issue when considering the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity as distinct religions. Larry Hurtado, for example, sees the worship of Jesus in a manner that is heterodox for Judaism very early. As such, he would seem to date the parting of the ways very early also. I generally think that it is probably not until the Gospel of John that we are beginning to see a form of Christianity that is coming very close to crossing this line. In any case, I am arguing that Hebrews doesn't cross that line yet.
Jean Daniélou (1964)
From the standpoint of Christian faith, Daniélou's use of the term "Jewish Christianity" is just fine. For him it is "a category of Christian groups and texts marked simply by a recognizably Jewish discourse" (24, McCabe's description). In other words, it is basically "phase one" of Christianity that ends mid-second century. The Hellenistic is the second phase and the Latin phase is of course the lead up to Nicaea.
Daniélou's use of the term is very loose. It does not, for example, help us to distinguish between "Judaizers," James and Peter, Paul, and antinomians in the early church.
Gabrielle Boccaccini (1991), Anthony Saldarini (1994), Daniel Boyarin (1999)
A number of recent scholars, including myself (forthcoming book on Hebrews), have returned to an old phrase in the light of recent discussions of the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity: "Christian Judaism."
This phrase had been used a century ago by people like Harnack and Fenton J. A. Hort (1894) in reference to the Judaizing "Christians" with whom Paul sparred--in other words, individuals who were not "truly" Christians. I do not, however, use the phrase in this way. Nor do I use it in the manner of Boccaccini and Boyarin. For Boccaccini, Christianity has never stopped being a form of Judaism.
For Boyarin, "Christian Judaism" refers to Christianity up until the fourth century (i.e., Nicaea). I'm not sure I could go with Boyarin here, as the rhetoric of Ignatius and Justin Martyr in the second century seems so anti-Jewish that I can scarcely use the phrase of them. But I hear what Boyarin is saying, and I will likely be reviewing some material from his book, Border Lines (2004), later this month.
McCabe of course does not define "Jewish Christianity" by the end of the chapter, for that is what the book is all about. Next Friday I plan to mention the most interesting points of the rest of the book.
But I will give you my position on this issue in relation to Hebrews:
The chair of the SBL group, "Jewish Christianity," is also the editor of a book called Jewish Christianity Reconsidered--Matt Jackson-McCabe. This week I read his chapter entitled "What's in a Name? The Problem of 'Jewish Christianity.'" In this chapter he overviews the question of what exactly scholars mean by the term, "Jewish Christianity." Here is a review of the players:
Johannes Munck (1959-60)
Although later than most of the figures below, Munck uses "Jewish Christianity" in reference to to the Jerusalem community associated with James, Peter, and John (13). McCabe pin points one difficulty with this approach when he says, "there is presently no single text that a general consensus of scholars would attribute to the early Jerusalem community" (12).
F. C. Baur (1878) and the Tübingen School
For Baur, Jewish Christianity referred to those early followers of Jesus in Jerusalem like Peter, John, and James who did not recognize the universal scope of Jesus' message but limited it to the Jews. So they followed "simply a new and stronger form of the old Messianic expectations" (16, McCabe quoting Baur). So for Baur, Paul was the real beginning of Christianity, and following Hegel's dialectic, the synthesis of Jewish Christianity with Pauline Christianity was "catholic Christianity."
Adolf von Harnack (1896)
For Harnack, Jewish Christianity was not really Christianity at all but those Jews who never recognized the universal scope of Christianity but retained a "national" focus on Israel (18). Unlike Baur, Harnack believed that Peter eventually came to agree with Paul and at that point "ceased to be a Jewish Christian" (19, McCabe quoting Harnack). Harnack did not believe that there are any surviving texts from the category of "Jewish Christian." I'm not sure what he would do with the Gospel of the Ebionites.
Albrecht Ritschl (1857)
In contrast to Baur and Harnack, Ritschl's approach was much more nuanced and, in my opinion, was more helpful. Take the following terms:
Jüdische Christenthum--"Jewish Christianity"--any text or group at the intersection of Christian faith and Jewish practice--a very general term that covers most of early Christianity, including Paul
Judenchristenthum--"Judaeo-Christianity"--Christians who believed that the Mosaic law was the essence of Christianity, thus a law observant form of early Christianity more "conservative" than Paul
judaistisch--"Judaic"--anything influenced in a general way by Judaism in the Second Temple Period--like apocalyptic material in the gospels
alttestamentlich--"Old Testament-ish"--things influenced not by Second Temple Judaism but by the Old Testament in the Protestant sense, thus in distinction from judaistisch.
In my opinion, Ritschl's description of what he called Judenchristenthum stands closest to what most contemporary scholars mean when they refer to Jewish Christianity. "Jewish Christianity" thus refers to Christian Jews who observed the Jewish Law more carefully than Paul, as typified by Peter, James, and Jerusalem Christianity (I regret that I'm at home and don't have Dunn's Unity and Diversity in the New Testament handy to give you his definition with the usual caveats).
As McCabe puts it, "the use of the term 'Jewish Christianity' to denote groups or texts that combine veneration of Jesus with practice of Jewish law remains very common" (22).
Hans Joachim Schoeps (1949)
Schoeps used Christology as a dividing line between "Great Church" Jewish Christians and "extremist" Pharisaic Jewish Christians who would become the Ebionites of the second century, for whom Jesus was only a prophet and messiah (23-24).
For me Christology is the primary issue when considering the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity as distinct religions. Larry Hurtado, for example, sees the worship of Jesus in a manner that is heterodox for Judaism very early. As such, he would seem to date the parting of the ways very early also. I generally think that it is probably not until the Gospel of John that we are beginning to see a form of Christianity that is coming very close to crossing this line. In any case, I am arguing that Hebrews doesn't cross that line yet.
Jean Daniélou (1964)
From the standpoint of Christian faith, Daniélou's use of the term "Jewish Christianity" is just fine. For him it is "a category of Christian groups and texts marked simply by a recognizably Jewish discourse" (24, McCabe's description). In other words, it is basically "phase one" of Christianity that ends mid-second century. The Hellenistic is the second phase and the Latin phase is of course the lead up to Nicaea.
Daniélou's use of the term is very loose. It does not, for example, help us to distinguish between "Judaizers," James and Peter, Paul, and antinomians in the early church.
Gabrielle Boccaccini (1991), Anthony Saldarini (1994), Daniel Boyarin (1999)
A number of recent scholars, including myself (forthcoming book on Hebrews), have returned to an old phrase in the light of recent discussions of the "parting of the ways" between Judaism and Christianity: "Christian Judaism."
This phrase had been used a century ago by people like Harnack and Fenton J. A. Hort (1894) in reference to the Judaizing "Christians" with whom Paul sparred--in other words, individuals who were not "truly" Christians. I do not, however, use the phrase in this way. Nor do I use it in the manner of Boccaccini and Boyarin. For Boccaccini, Christianity has never stopped being a form of Judaism.
For Boyarin, "Christian Judaism" refers to Christianity up until the fourth century (i.e., Nicaea). I'm not sure I could go with Boyarin here, as the rhetoric of Ignatius and Justin Martyr in the second century seems so anti-Jewish that I can scarcely use the phrase of them. But I hear what Boyarin is saying, and I will likely be reviewing some material from his book, Border Lines (2004), later this month.
McCabe of course does not define "Jewish Christianity" by the end of the chapter, for that is what the book is all about. Next Friday I plan to mention the most interesting points of the rest of the book.
But I will give you my position on this issue in relation to Hebrews:
- I refer to the form of Christianity of all the NT books, with the possible exception of John and Revelation, as "Christian Judaism."
- There are two primary factors in this distinction for me. The first is of course Jewish ethnicity. The leaders of this "Jesus movement" were Jews. I have somewhat awkwardly referred to Gentile converts to this movement as Gentile "Jews." In any case, I find it less problematic to call them "Gentile Christians" since such a description is less likely to import the false assumptions that the phrase "Jewish Christians" usually does--namely, that they belonged to a new religion.
By this definition, like Daniélou, I don't make distinctions between Judaizers, James, Paul, and others in the early church (although I do distinguish Jew from Gentile). It's not that I don't feel free to make such distinctions. I simply do not use the phrase "Jewish Christianity" or "Christian Judaism" to do so. - The more important criterion is the matter of Christology. To me, monotheism is the ultimate dividing line between Jewish faith and "other." I don't think any of the NT books, with the possible exception of John and Revelation, violate orthodox Jewish monotheism. In my opinion, however, Nicaea does. The reason why I "hear" Boyarin is the fact that, in some respects, Arius does not yet seem to "violate" Jewish monotheism. But to call him a "Christian Jew" seems ridiculous to me.
McCabe's chapter provides an excellent conceptual framework for sifting through 150 years of scholarly literature. The summary I've given above would not have been possible apart from his very helpful sorting.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Summarizing the Book of James
The teaching of James is notoriously difficult to organize or systematize--even to outline the book is difficult. This led Martin Dibelius to consider the book a somewhat random collection of diverse teaching, "paraenesis."
I resist this idea, and I don't think it's just because I went to Asbury :-) For example, I don't think that the Book of Proverbs has a clear structure but that it often is somewhat loosely connected wisdom material. But I think James has a number of interlocking themes that run throughout the book. My goal in this post is to try to show some of these relationships, to map them in relation to each other.
Divided Loyalties
I think the best place to begin describing the thought of James is with the concept of "double mindedness" (e.g., 1:6-8):
"Let him [or her] ask in faith, doubting nothing. For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed. Do not let that person think that he [or she] will receive something from the Lord--a man with two souls, unstable in all his ways."
We shouldn't think of this as honest doubt. This is a person whose loyalties are divided between God and the world. In other words, maybe we should read James 4:1-10 first before we reach our final understanding of 1:6-8:
4:4--"Adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is to be an enemy of God? Therefore, whoever wants to be a friend of the world constitutes an enemy of God."
4:8--"Purify your hearts, two souled ones."
Who are these "two souled ones," these "double minded"? They are those whose "battles" and "warings" come from "your passions waring in your members" (4:2). "You ask and you do not receive because you ask wrongly, so that you might spend [the answers] on your pleasures" (4:3).
Clearly James does not view this situation as a hopeless situation. Indeed, the double minded person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord, except perhaps to lose their "life" in death (5:20). We would thus be wrong to connect this language with 3:2--"we all stumble much."
But we should connect these comments with 1:13--
"let no one being tempted say, 'I am tempted by God' ... Each person is tempted when he [or she] is dragged off and enticed by his [or her] own desire. Then when desire has conceived it bears sin..."
We should not think of this as inevitable in James' thought. This is still the person whose passions, whose desires indicate a divided loyalty between God and the world.
Double-mindedness underlies James' teaching on all the other major themes in the epistle. So the double-minded person praises God and curses others from the same mouth (3:9). The double-minded person takes his or her wisdom from below rather than above (3:15). The double-minded person is tempted to rely on the rich for his or her patronage rather than from God above, the giver of every good and perfect gift (1:17). This person's "faith" is little different from that of the demons--it does not issue in action (2:19).
The Rich
A significant amount of Jesus material seems to underlie James. One such teaching, although James does not mention it, is Jesus' saying that "You cannot serve God and wealth." James has very strong words to say against the rich.
1:9-11--"Let the humble brother boast in his exaltation. But the rich person in his humilitation, for like a flower of grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with heat and dries out the grass and its flower falls off and the beauty of its face perishes."
As with the introductory comment on double-mindedness, we best understand what this opening comment on the rich is about by turning to later comments in the epistle:
2:6-7--"But you have dishonored the poor. Are not the rich the ones exploiting you and dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the good name which was invoked over you?"
These comments remind me 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 2:24. It of course seems unlikely that James would have known of 1 Corinthians unless the epistle is pseudonymous. Was it really widespread that the rich dragged Christians into court? Or perhaps this is more a statement of James' experiences in Jerusalem than of widespread practices in the Diaspora?
In any case, we see in this comment the connection between double-mindedness and the trials of which James speaks in 1:2. The trials that James primarily seems to have in mind are trials brought on by the wealthy and the double-mindedness he primarily has in mind is the temptation to rely on them, the earthly rather than on our true Patron, God:
1:16-17--"Do not err, my beloved brothers, every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights, in whom there is no variableness or shadow of turning."
The double-minded person is not true to the "word of truth" that God has implanted within them (e.g., 1:18, 21). This seems to be Stoic imagery of the logos seeds in each one of us (probably an indication that at the very least, James has had some significant help in drafting this Greek epistle).
The rest of James of course has nothing good to say about the rich. 2:1-13 is about showing favoritism to the rich over the poor. The double-minded person does not have their priorities right. They should rather be following the kingdom law of loving their neighbor (2:8), showing mercy (1:13), helping poor, widows, and orphans (1:27), not judging (11-12), quarreling and warring (4:1), or grumbling against each other (5:9).
Rich merchants do not rely on God. They do not have an attitude that says, "If the Lord wills, I will do such and such." Rather they make their own plans and think their life is in their own power (4:13-16). Here we think of some Jesus material like Luke 12:13-21. Hopefully, James does not have Paul in mind, who was a merchant who went and spent a year in such and such a city!
Rich landowners abuse those who work for them, failing to pay them their wages (5:1-6). Here James surely alludes to situations in Palestine in particular. I suspect that the leaders of Jerusalem are most in his mind, and the killing of the "righteous one" is either an allusion to Jesus or, if pseudonymous, perhaps even an allusion to the murder of James himself by the high priest (which of course would also imply that deception was not involved).
There is hope for the double-minded person who errs by relying on the earthly, the animal, the devilish (cf. 3:15). Brothers can bring back the sinner who wanders from the truth in these ways, save them from death, and cover their sins (5:19-20). 5:13-18 point out that prayer and the fellowship of the synagogue are means for restoration from sin and sickness that comes from sin.
Trials
From 2:6-7 above we can infer that the primary source of trial in James' mind is oppression by the rich. Although James 1:3 is valid no matter what the source of external hardship or persecution, the epistle of James seems to have oppression by the rich particularly in view.
1:3-4--"Consider it all joy, my brothers, whenever you fall into various testings, since you know that the proving of your faith produces endurance."
This opening theme peeks out at 2:6-7, as we mentioned, and then returns near the close of the letter just as it appeared at the beginning. 5:10-11 returns to the topic of suffering and uses Job as an example (some suggest the Testament of Job might have influenced James' picture of Job, since in Job itself Job does grumble a bit about his suffering).
Wisdom from Above
The person in trial can seek wisdom, true wisdom, to endure:
1:5--"If someone of you lacks wisdom, let him/her ask from God who gives to all genuinely and does not reproach [for asking] and it will be given to him."
The context of the double-minded person is invoked in the next verse of the person who doesn't really what true wisdom or God's patronage but tries to be friends with the world and its patronage as well (cf. 4:4). The double-minded person envies and has worldly ambition (3:14). That is earthly wisdom, not true wisdom.
3:15-18--"This is not the wisdom coming down from above but is earthly, animal, demonic. For where there is jealousy and discord, there is disorder and every wicked deed. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, genuine. And the fruit of righteousness sows in peace to those who make peace."
This verse reminds us of the beatitude about peacemakers, as well as of 1:20, which has already warned that anger does not produce the righteousness of God. So wisdom here is about a certain kind of behavior more than a particular kind of understanding. Wisdom from above is about loving one's brother and not about worldly ambition or favoritism to the wealthy.
Words and Deeds
Finally, all of the themes we have mentioned above connect to perhaps the best known feature of James--its emphasis on deeds that live out a person's words. The double-minded theme again lies in the background here. The double-minded person says that they are serving God but in fact his or her true loyalty actually lies with the world. They are hearers of the word implanted in them but not doers (1:22).
Their wisdom is like the wisdom of the demons (cf. 3:15), who believe in one God, but are still scared of the judgment that is to come for them (2:19). The double-minded person may say praises to God with his or her tongue, but the "cursing" of their brothers and sisters shows that they are not fully loyal to God (3:10).
2:14-26 thus has the famous teaching of James on the importance of our deeds matching our words. It is not enough to "say" the right content of faith but faith that counts is faith that leads to action. Luther's sparring with James over justification by faith has unfortunately made it difficult for us to hear these verses in the context of James itself. It does seem likely that Paul stands somehow in the background of these words (are we really do suppose that James and Paul both came to use Genesis 15:6 to make opposite points by coincidence?).
But James' point is not primarily to spar against Paul or, more accurately, a perverted version of Paul. James' point is that it is a person who is double-minded and friends with the world for whom deeds of concrete love do not follow from faith. The person for whom this is not true is not justified in God's "court." This is a soul headed for death (5:20).
James' teaching on the tongue in 3:1-12 takes us one step further. If 2:14-26 is about our deeds matching our words, James 3 takes us the rest of the way in critique of our words themselves. We can suspect that the double-minded person's words are not even so right as they might think.
So all these themes--trials from the rich, the need for heavenly wisdom to face them properly, the need for a faith that leads to concrete, loving action toward brothers and sisters in need rather than envy and selfish ambition--all these themes relate to the danger of double-mindedness and divided loyalties, friendship with the world and living out of our passions and desires rather than from the word implanted within us. Far from a random collection of unrelated wisdom sayings, the book of James presents us with layers of interrelated themes.
I resist this idea, and I don't think it's just because I went to Asbury :-) For example, I don't think that the Book of Proverbs has a clear structure but that it often is somewhat loosely connected wisdom material. But I think James has a number of interlocking themes that run throughout the book. My goal in this post is to try to show some of these relationships, to map them in relation to each other.
Divided Loyalties
I think the best place to begin describing the thought of James is with the concept of "double mindedness" (e.g., 1:6-8):
"Let him [or her] ask in faith, doubting nothing. For the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven by the wind and tossed. Do not let that person think that he [or she] will receive something from the Lord--a man with two souls, unstable in all his ways."
We shouldn't think of this as honest doubt. This is a person whose loyalties are divided between God and the world. In other words, maybe we should read James 4:1-10 first before we reach our final understanding of 1:6-8:
4:4--"Adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is to be an enemy of God? Therefore, whoever wants to be a friend of the world constitutes an enemy of God."
4:8--"Purify your hearts, two souled ones."
Who are these "two souled ones," these "double minded"? They are those whose "battles" and "warings" come from "your passions waring in your members" (4:2). "You ask and you do not receive because you ask wrongly, so that you might spend [the answers] on your pleasures" (4:3).
Clearly James does not view this situation as a hopeless situation. Indeed, the double minded person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord, except perhaps to lose their "life" in death (5:20). We would thus be wrong to connect this language with 3:2--"we all stumble much."
But we should connect these comments with 1:13--
"let no one being tempted say, 'I am tempted by God' ... Each person is tempted when he [or she] is dragged off and enticed by his [or her] own desire. Then when desire has conceived it bears sin..."
We should not think of this as inevitable in James' thought. This is still the person whose passions, whose desires indicate a divided loyalty between God and the world.
Double-mindedness underlies James' teaching on all the other major themes in the epistle. So the double-minded person praises God and curses others from the same mouth (3:9). The double-minded person takes his or her wisdom from below rather than above (3:15). The double-minded person is tempted to rely on the rich for his or her patronage rather than from God above, the giver of every good and perfect gift (1:17). This person's "faith" is little different from that of the demons--it does not issue in action (2:19).
The Rich
A significant amount of Jesus material seems to underlie James. One such teaching, although James does not mention it, is Jesus' saying that "You cannot serve God and wealth." James has very strong words to say against the rich.
1:9-11--"Let the humble brother boast in his exaltation. But the rich person in his humilitation, for like a flower of grass he will pass away. For the sun rises with heat and dries out the grass and its flower falls off and the beauty of its face perishes."
As with the introductory comment on double-mindedness, we best understand what this opening comment on the rich is about by turning to later comments in the epistle:
2:6-7--"But you have dishonored the poor. Are not the rich the ones exploiting you and dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the good name which was invoked over you?"
These comments remind me 1 Corinthians 6 and Romans 2:24. It of course seems unlikely that James would have known of 1 Corinthians unless the epistle is pseudonymous. Was it really widespread that the rich dragged Christians into court? Or perhaps this is more a statement of James' experiences in Jerusalem than of widespread practices in the Diaspora?
In any case, we see in this comment the connection between double-mindedness and the trials of which James speaks in 1:2. The trials that James primarily seems to have in mind are trials brought on by the wealthy and the double-mindedness he primarily has in mind is the temptation to rely on them, the earthly rather than on our true Patron, God:
1:16-17--"Do not err, my beloved brothers, every good giving and every perfect gift is from above, descending from the Father of lights, in whom there is no variableness or shadow of turning."
The double-minded person is not true to the "word of truth" that God has implanted within them (e.g., 1:18, 21). This seems to be Stoic imagery of the logos seeds in each one of us (probably an indication that at the very least, James has had some significant help in drafting this Greek epistle).
The rest of James of course has nothing good to say about the rich. 2:1-13 is about showing favoritism to the rich over the poor. The double-minded person does not have their priorities right. They should rather be following the kingdom law of loving their neighbor (2:8), showing mercy (1:13), helping poor, widows, and orphans (1:27), not judging (11-12), quarreling and warring (4:1), or grumbling against each other (5:9).
Rich merchants do not rely on God. They do not have an attitude that says, "If the Lord wills, I will do such and such." Rather they make their own plans and think their life is in their own power (4:13-16). Here we think of some Jesus material like Luke 12:13-21. Hopefully, James does not have Paul in mind, who was a merchant who went and spent a year in such and such a city!
Rich landowners abuse those who work for them, failing to pay them their wages (5:1-6). Here James surely alludes to situations in Palestine in particular. I suspect that the leaders of Jerusalem are most in his mind, and the killing of the "righteous one" is either an allusion to Jesus or, if pseudonymous, perhaps even an allusion to the murder of James himself by the high priest (which of course would also imply that deception was not involved).
There is hope for the double-minded person who errs by relying on the earthly, the animal, the devilish (cf. 3:15). Brothers can bring back the sinner who wanders from the truth in these ways, save them from death, and cover their sins (5:19-20). 5:13-18 point out that prayer and the fellowship of the synagogue are means for restoration from sin and sickness that comes from sin.
Trials
From 2:6-7 above we can infer that the primary source of trial in James' mind is oppression by the rich. Although James 1:3 is valid no matter what the source of external hardship or persecution, the epistle of James seems to have oppression by the rich particularly in view.
1:3-4--"Consider it all joy, my brothers, whenever you fall into various testings, since you know that the proving of your faith produces endurance."
This opening theme peeks out at 2:6-7, as we mentioned, and then returns near the close of the letter just as it appeared at the beginning. 5:10-11 returns to the topic of suffering and uses Job as an example (some suggest the Testament of Job might have influenced James' picture of Job, since in Job itself Job does grumble a bit about his suffering).
Wisdom from Above
The person in trial can seek wisdom, true wisdom, to endure:
1:5--"If someone of you lacks wisdom, let him/her ask from God who gives to all genuinely and does not reproach [for asking] and it will be given to him."
The context of the double-minded person is invoked in the next verse of the person who doesn't really what true wisdom or God's patronage but tries to be friends with the world and its patronage as well (cf. 4:4). The double-minded person envies and has worldly ambition (3:14). That is earthly wisdom, not true wisdom.
3:15-18--"This is not the wisdom coming down from above but is earthly, animal, demonic. For where there is jealousy and discord, there is disorder and every wicked deed. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial, genuine. And the fruit of righteousness sows in peace to those who make peace."
This verse reminds us of the beatitude about peacemakers, as well as of 1:20, which has already warned that anger does not produce the righteousness of God. So wisdom here is about a certain kind of behavior more than a particular kind of understanding. Wisdom from above is about loving one's brother and not about worldly ambition or favoritism to the wealthy.
Words and Deeds
Finally, all of the themes we have mentioned above connect to perhaps the best known feature of James--its emphasis on deeds that live out a person's words. The double-minded theme again lies in the background here. The double-minded person says that they are serving God but in fact his or her true loyalty actually lies with the world. They are hearers of the word implanted in them but not doers (1:22).
Their wisdom is like the wisdom of the demons (cf. 3:15), who believe in one God, but are still scared of the judgment that is to come for them (2:19). The double-minded person may say praises to God with his or her tongue, but the "cursing" of their brothers and sisters shows that they are not fully loyal to God (3:10).
2:14-26 thus has the famous teaching of James on the importance of our deeds matching our words. It is not enough to "say" the right content of faith but faith that counts is faith that leads to action. Luther's sparring with James over justification by faith has unfortunately made it difficult for us to hear these verses in the context of James itself. It does seem likely that Paul stands somehow in the background of these words (are we really do suppose that James and Paul both came to use Genesis 15:6 to make opposite points by coincidence?).
But James' point is not primarily to spar against Paul or, more accurately, a perverted version of Paul. James' point is that it is a person who is double-minded and friends with the world for whom deeds of concrete love do not follow from faith. The person for whom this is not true is not justified in God's "court." This is a soul headed for death (5:20).
James' teaching on the tongue in 3:1-12 takes us one step further. If 2:14-26 is about our deeds matching our words, James 3 takes us the rest of the way in critique of our words themselves. We can suspect that the double-minded person's words are not even so right as they might think.
So all these themes--trials from the rich, the need for heavenly wisdom to face them properly, the need for a faith that leads to concrete, loving action toward brothers and sisters in need rather than envy and selfish ambition--all these themes relate to the danger of double-mindedness and divided loyalties, friendship with the world and living out of our passions and desires rather than from the word implanted within us. Far from a random collection of unrelated wisdom sayings, the book of James presents us with layers of interrelated themes.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Monday Thoughts: Did James Use Sirach?
There are a few striking parallels between the book of James and passages in the book of Sirach.
1. For example, take James 1:13: "Let no one say when they are tempted, 'God is tempting me.' God cannot be tempted by evil and he does not tempt anyone himself."
Now look at Sirach 15:11-12: "Do not say, 'It was the Lord's doing that I fell away,' for he does not do what he hates. Do not say, 'It was he who led me astray,' for he has no need of the sinful" (NRSV).
2. Here's another set of parallels:
James 1:19: "Let each person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."
And Sirach 5:11: "Be quick to hear, but deliberate in answering."
3. Next: James 3:10: "From the same mouth comes out blessing and cursing. It is not right, my brothers, for these things to be so."
And Sirach 5:13-14: "Honor and dishonor come from speaking... Do not be called double-tongued..."
4. James 1:2-15 in general covers many of the same topics as Sirach 2:1-18 and 15:11-20, topics like trials, double-paths, humbling ourselves before the Lord, the Lord's mercy, and God doesn't cause us to do evil.
These parallels are not so close as to prove dependence, but it certainly would not be far fetched to suppose that James' wording has been influenced by Sirach at these points.
Of course Matthew 11:28-39 also seems to echo images of Wisdom in Sirach 6 and 51:
Matthew 11:28: Come to me, all you that are weary and carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.
Sirach 6:26-28: “Come to her [wisdom] with all your soul…for at last you will find the rest she gives.
Matthew 11:29: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me…”
Sirach 6:30, 33: “Her yoke is a golden ornament… If you love to listen you will gain knowledge…”
Sirach 51:23: “Put your neck under her yoke... See with your own eyes that I have labored but little and found for myself much serenity.”
In my opinion, only Protestant biases would lead us not to conclude that Matthew is drawing images from Sirach at these points. He does not quote Sirach, but he draws on it.
None of this proves that Matthew and James considered Sirach to be Scripture. And frankly, I have no desire to consider Sirach Scripture, given its horrific attitude toward women (e.g., 42:14) and its faulty view of God's justice in relation to suffering (e.g., 11:26-28). But I believe it was a significant book for many early Christians, at least "deuterocanonical," if not considered Scripture.
If you want to take a gander (it's a long book): here it is.
1. For example, take James 1:13: "Let no one say when they are tempted, 'God is tempting me.' God cannot be tempted by evil and he does not tempt anyone himself."
Now look at Sirach 15:11-12: "Do not say, 'It was the Lord's doing that I fell away,' for he does not do what he hates. Do not say, 'It was he who led me astray,' for he has no need of the sinful" (NRSV).
2. Here's another set of parallels:
James 1:19: "Let each person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger."
And Sirach 5:11: "Be quick to hear, but deliberate in answering."
3. Next: James 3:10: "From the same mouth comes out blessing and cursing. It is not right, my brothers, for these things to be so."
And Sirach 5:13-14: "Honor and dishonor come from speaking... Do not be called double-tongued..."
4. James 1:2-15 in general covers many of the same topics as Sirach 2:1-18 and 15:11-20, topics like trials, double-paths, humbling ourselves before the Lord, the Lord's mercy, and God doesn't cause us to do evil.
These parallels are not so close as to prove dependence, but it certainly would not be far fetched to suppose that James' wording has been influenced by Sirach at these points.
Of course Matthew 11:28-39 also seems to echo images of Wisdom in Sirach 6 and 51:
Matthew 11:28: Come to me, all you that are weary and carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.
Sirach 6:26-28: “Come to her [wisdom] with all your soul…for at last you will find the rest she gives.
Matthew 11:29: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me…”
Sirach 6:30, 33: “Her yoke is a golden ornament… If you love to listen you will gain knowledge…”
Sirach 51:23: “Put your neck under her yoke... See with your own eyes that I have labored but little and found for myself much serenity.”
In my opinion, only Protestant biases would lead us not to conclude that Matthew is drawing images from Sirach at these points. He does not quote Sirach, but he draws on it.
None of this proves that Matthew and James considered Sirach to be Scripture. And frankly, I have no desire to consider Sirach Scripture, given its horrific attitude toward women (e.g., 42:14) and its faulty view of God's justice in relation to suffering (e.g., 11:26-28). But I believe it was a significant book for many early Christians, at least "deuterocanonical," if not considered Scripture.
If you want to take a gander (it's a long book): here it is.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Lectionary Thoughts: Philippians 2:1-13
The BCP epistle reading for today is Philippians 2:1-13:
Therefore, if you find any encouragement in Christ, if you find any motivation by love, if you have any fellowship because of the Spirit, if you have compassion and good will toward me, make my joy complete because you have the same perspective and the same love. Be one in your spirit and attitude. Consider the welfare of others above your own, rather than operating with selfishness or arrogance. Operate with humility instead. Each person should consider the interests of others above their own interests.
Here is the attitude you should have--the attitude Jesus had.
Although he had the authority of God,
He did not exploit equality with God.
But he emptied himself,
And took on the status of a servant.
He became like ordinary mortals,
And when he had the shape of a man,
He humbled himself
And obeyed even until they killed him--on a cross no less.
Therefore, God exalted him even more,
And conferred on him the highest Name of all.
One day, at the Name this Jesus now has,
Every knee will bow... (those of heavenly beings, earthly beings, and the dead)
... and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
(which will bring glory to God the Father).
So, my beloved ones, just as you have always obeyed in the past--not only when I have been there but even more now that I am away--with fear and trembling, work together to make sure you all are saved in the end. For God is the one who is working among you to accomplish his will and what pleases him.
This is truly one of the greatest passages in Scripture! And while the "hymn" itself is a treasure mine of Christology, Paul's point is that Christians are to live together in the church with the same sacrificial mentality that Jesus showed when he was willing to lower himself to the status of a slave and to die on a cross.
Believers are to have this same attitude of love toward one another as well and are to work together to make sure that no one among us is lost in the end.
Collect of the Day:
O God, you declare your almighty power chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant to us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running to obtain your promises, may be made partakers of your heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Therefore, if you find any encouragement in Christ, if you find any motivation by love, if you have any fellowship because of the Spirit, if you have compassion and good will toward me, make my joy complete because you have the same perspective and the same love. Be one in your spirit and attitude. Consider the welfare of others above your own, rather than operating with selfishness or arrogance. Operate with humility instead. Each person should consider the interests of others above their own interests.
Here is the attitude you should have--the attitude Jesus had.
Although he had the authority of God,
He did not exploit equality with God.
But he emptied himself,
And took on the status of a servant.
He became like ordinary mortals,
And when he had the shape of a man,
He humbled himself
And obeyed even until they killed him--on a cross no less.
Therefore, God exalted him even more,
And conferred on him the highest Name of all.
One day, at the Name this Jesus now has,
Every knee will bow... (those of heavenly beings, earthly beings, and the dead)
... and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
(which will bring glory to God the Father).
So, my beloved ones, just as you have always obeyed in the past--not only when I have been there but even more now that I am away--with fear and trembling, work together to make sure you all are saved in the end. For God is the one who is working among you to accomplish his will and what pleases him.
This is truly one of the greatest passages in Scripture! And while the "hymn" itself is a treasure mine of Christology, Paul's point is that Christians are to live together in the church with the same sacrificial mentality that Jesus showed when he was willing to lower himself to the status of a slave and to die on a cross.
Believers are to have this same attitude of love toward one another as well and are to work together to make sure that no one among us is lost in the end.
Collect of the Day:
O God, you declare your almighty power chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant to us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running to obtain your promises, may be made partakers of your heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
