Life Beyond Death 4

Previous posts include:

1a. Born at a Time and Place 1; 1b. Born at a Time and Place 2
2a. A Change in Life Direction; 2b A Change in Life Direction 2; 2c A Change in Life Direction 3
3a. The Unknown Years 1; 3b. The Unknown Years 2; 3c. The Unknown Years 3

The previous posts for the current chapter are Life Beyond Death 1; Life Beyond Death 2; and Life Beyond Death 3.

_______________
[Some scholars have also suggested that Paul's thought underwent development between 1 and 2 Corinthians on the question of when resurrection takes place. [2] Whereas in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul clearly thinks of us receiving our resurrection body at the time of Christ's return, 2 Corinthians 5 says that if the "earthly tent we live in is destroyed," if we die, then we have "an eternal house in heaven," our resurrection body. It would be easy to read this statement to indicate that we go to heaven when we die and get a spiritual body immediately at death. We want to please Christ whether here in the body or in heaven when we die (2 Cor. 5:9). And one might argue accordingly that our appearence before the judgment seat of Christ in the next verse (2 Cor. 5:10) is what happens immediately at death.]

Although this is a possible interpretation of Paul, most scholars have not opted for it. It is possible to interpret Philippians and Romans with this slightly different understanding of the timing of resurrection (i.e., that it takes place at death). But it does not seem the most natural reading of, say, Philippians 3:11. These two letters were written either about the same time or a little later than 2 Corinthians. On the other hand, 2 Timothy 2:18 warns of those who say the resurrection has already happened. Could it be a warning against the kind of teaching we are talking about?

***

Looking at these sorts of questions in detail can be a little startling. For example, popular thinking usually stops with "you die and then either go to heaven or hell." Some so equate the idea of the immortality of the soul with bedrock Christian faith that they might even react with anger to hear what resurrection was really about in the Bible. [1] Meanwhile, the notion that we will reunite with our bodies is not attractive to many today, just as it wasn't to some in Paul's own day. The idea of resurrection was foolishness to some Greeks--why would I want this "prison house of the soul" back again. And the idea that the resurrection is an event still on the horizon can disrupt some comfortable sense of dying and then immediately going to our "final resting place."

Scholarly debates over the meaning of various passages can also be confusing, even disturbing. You mean those who know the most about these issues find room in the evidence for disagreement? Did Paul's thought develop in some ways over time? It implies a rethinking of the Bible as a single, static book whose "chapters" all say the same thing. It pushes us to read the Bible more as a library of books than a single one. Now we have to get a sense of the biblical trajectory rather than assume Genesis teaches exactly the same things as Revelation.

For example, on this particular issue, the Old Testament as a whole has little to say about the afterlife at all (e.g., Ps. 30:9; Eccl. 9:4-6). The only passage in the Old Testament that everyone agrees points to a meaningful, personal, conscious life after death is Daniel 12:2-3. The New Testament thus seems to take us further along on a trajectory of revelation than the Old Testament on this issue.

Many of the beliefs we have on issues like the afterlife seem obvious to us in Scripture. But the reason is not always because it really is clear but rather because of a certain common sense we have inherited from the Christian traditions of which we are a part. Some of these traditions are rather recent, like the idiosyncratic beliefs of churches that only came into existence in the last century or so. By contrast, the best "common sense" readings are those that the Christian Tradition (big T) arrived at by hashing out these sorts of ambiguities throughout the ages. Presumably God's Holy Spirit has had something to do with such common Christian faith, such Spiritual common sense.

On the afterlife, Christians have affirmed since the beginning, "I believe in... the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting" (the Apostle's Creed). We have affirmed this resurrection as something that is yet to come (except for Christ, the first fruits of the dead; 1 Cor. 15:20) and that will involve continuity with our human bodies as possible, although transformed into something that cannot decay. Christians throughout the centuries have affirmed that our souls will continue to exist and be conscious in between our deaths and our resurrections.

Christian tradition throughout the centuries has generally looked to a similarly transformed creation, a new earth. Paul is not entirely clear where he thinks we will spend eternity, but he does clearly speak of the redemption of the creation along with the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:19-23). It is perhaps more likely than not that he saw us living out eternity on a new earth with new bodies not made of the old flesh and blood (1 Cor. 15:50). Many Christians think of us spending eternity in heaven, and there are some New Testament passages that can be read this way (e.g., John 14:3; Heb. 12:26-27; 1 Pet. 1:4; 2 Pet. 3:10). But perhaps throughout the centuries, more Christians have believed we would spend eternity on a new earth (e.g., Rev. 21:2). God will clarify all these ambiguities when He ushers in His kingdom.

[1] Although he possibly makes things a little more tidy than they really were, an excellent introduction to this entire topic is N. T. Wright's, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2008).

Chris Bounds: The Topics of Theology

This week Wesley Seminary students have been running their chosen pastoral issue of the semester through the lens of theology. To help, Chris Bounds has recorded a short vidcast overviewing the general topics of theology. You can watch the 27 minute vidcast here.

Explanatory Notes: Jude 14-16

I know I'm getting way ahead of myself in the General Epistles, but we are in 1 Enoch in Intertestamental Literature, so I thought I would go ahead and blog on Jude 14-16.
______
14-15 And the seventh from Adam, Enoch, also prophesied about these, saying, "Behold, the Lord has come with his ten thousand holy ones to effect judgment against all and to convict every soul in relation to all their works of ungodliness which they commit in godlessness and in relation to all the terrible things that ungodly sinners speak against him."

Up to this point Jude's interaction with apocalyptic and Enochic traditions has been very general. But now Jude explicitly quotes the pre-Christian Jewish book 1 Enoch (1.9). 1 Enoch is a library of five distinct units, the first of which is called the "Book of the Watchers" (chaps. 1-36), in which this quote appears. Although the Book of the Watchers probably itself is made up of parts written at different times, something close to its final form probably dates to around 200BC.

We have no evidence to suggest that Jude is quoting some independent tradition that 1 Enoch also quotes. Nothing from any part of 1 Enoch is known in the Old Testament and the Book of the Watchers was apparently composed originally in Aramaic. Even this particular part of the Book of the Watchers was probably added as a kind of introduction as the various materials of these chapters were collected and put together.

The presence of the Enochic books among the Dead Sea Scrolls, along with their similar apocalyptic outlook, may suggest that they were particularly valued by the Essenes, perhaps even that the Essenes considered them Scripture. Jude does not give us enough evidence to know whether he considered 1 Enoch to be Scripture, although he does seem to take the attribution of the quote to Enoch literally. Here is a warning that the way the New Testament authors referenced the Old Testament and other Jewish writings may simply reflect the way people at the time referenced such books and understood authorship, the point being not the attribution but the content of what is referenced.

One wonders whether there might have been some significant intersection between the Essenes and the earliest Christians. John the Baptist seems to bear at least a superficial resemblance to them. The Essenes may also have been the most apocalyptic of the known Jewish groups--and thus more similar to the earliest Christians than either the Pharisees or the Sadducees. The heavy intersection of Jude with possibly Essene literature--including the possible allusion to the Testament of Moses in Jude 9, also makes us wonder. At the same time, Jesus' emphasis on inclusion and reclamation of sinners probably would not have sat well with most Essenes.

Although it is unclear in Jude 9 whether the Lord God or the Lord Jesus Christ is in view, Jude 17, 21, and 25 all clearly refer to Jesus as Lord. We should probably therefore understand the Lord of this verse as the Lord Jesus Christ, who will come in judgment with ten thousands of angels. This fits with what Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 where Jesus descends with the voice of the archangel, probably to commence the judgment of men (1 Cor. 6:2) and angels (6:3).

16 These are grumblers, complainers, going according to their own desires, and their mouth speaks boastful things, showing favoritism for the benefit [to themselves].
The material that Jude shares in common with 2 Peter 2 now continues (2 Pet. 2:18). If we continue with the assumption that 2 Peter is drawing on Jude, it is fascinating that 2 Peter has omitted the references to 1 Enoch. As we saw with the omission of the Testament of Moses material, some have suggested that 2 Peter is already demonstrating a movement toward a New Testament canon--one that does not include the Enochic literature.

The list is, as the earlier lists, more generic than specific. Jude is railing against individuals within the Christian community who do not belong there, and these are thus characteristics that should not apply to Christians. They should not be grumblers and complainers. They should follow God's will rather than satisfying their own desires. They should not boast but trust in God's grace, power, and glory. They should not show favoritism--especially not for their own benefit since Christians are to put others above their own interests.

5 Elements of Conversion (Joel Green on 1 Peter)

I have so many possible things to post today my head is spinning. Here is a quick and dirty one, about all I can justify this morning:

Working through Green's 1 Peter commentary with a class. Here are five elements of conversion he mentions in his treatment of 1:22-2:3 (1 Peter [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 50-51):

1. In antiquity, it might refer both to event and to process and connote either transition from one religion to another or moving deeper into one's own religion.

2. Conversion entails autobiographical reconstruction--reformulation of who you think you are.

3. Conversion is a profoundly social act with immediate and far reaching social consequences.

4. Conversion involves incorporation into a new community with its distinguishing practices.

5. Conversion involves the adoption of a new symbolic universe, the valid one, a new way of looking at the world. Green elsewhere uses language of the conversion of the imagination (the title of a collection by Richard Hays, reminds us of Charles Taylor's social imaginary, taken over by James Smith in Desiring the Kingdom). Green defines the imagination in this context as, "a basic image-schematic capacity for ordering our experience" (26).

Seminary Job Opening (Christian Ministry)

The new Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University invites applications for two full-time faculty positions in Christian Ministry to commence July 1, 2010. The successful candidate will have scholarly competence in an application focused discipline such as Christian proclamation, worship, corporate spiritual formation, pastoral care, church leadership, or Christian mission, and preference will be given to candidates who have significant ministry and teaching experience. Professors will work in a community where core courses are both designed and taught collaboratively and will teach in both online and onsite formats. They must belong to a church in the Wesleyan tradition and be firmly committed to Wesleyan beliefs and values. Evaluation of applications will begin November 15 and will continue until the positions are filled. Rank and salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience. Women and minorities are strongly encouraged to apply. Applicants must apply online on the Graduate Ministries page and have three references sent to Christian Ministries Search, Dean of Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University, 4201 S. Washington St., Marion, IN, 46953 or emailed to the Dean. For further information, email Dr. Ken Schenck at dean@wesley.indwes.edu.

Sunday Explanatory Notes: Hebrews 10:1-18

Missed last Sunday but the ox is still moving...
______________
10:1 For the Law, having a shadow of good things to come—not [having] the image itself of the things—is never able to perfect those who approach with the same sacrifices that they offer continually year by year,
It seems significant that the author of Hebrews does not say that the Law is a shadow of good things to come. Rather, it has, contains shadows of those good things. The phrase "good things to come" reminds us of 9:11, where Christ is said to be a high priest of "good things that have arrived." Perhaps the author is thinking that the Law involves a shadow of Christ's sacrifice.

Again, the shadow is not in a one to one relationship with the reality. All the disparate sacrifices of the Levitical system find their singular reality in Christ's atonement. They were a shadow of Christ, not an exact image of Christ. This language is not used precisely, in the way someone like Philo would use it, but its general sense is clear enough.

10:1-2 give us a good sense of what Hebrews means when it speaks of the perfection of humans. 10:1 says that Levitical sacrifices were not able to perfect the one offering them. 10:2 implies that if they had been perfected, they would have been cleansed. Clearly "perfection" in relation to humans involves the cleansing of sins for the author. Indeed, perhaps the perfection of a person in Hebrews is exactly for such a person's sins to be cleansed.

10:2-3 Since would they not have stopped offering [them] because they no longer had a consciousness of sins, the worshippers once having been cleansed, but in these [sacrifices] is a yearly remembrance of sins.
This is a contrary to fact argument. If Levitical sacrifices truly took away sins, they would be offered once and that would be it. But they have continued to be offered, so they must not be able to take away sins. Instead, the yearly Day of Atonement ritual is an indication that the sacrifices of the Old Testament had no power to cleanse sins.

We also get a good sense of what the word conscience means for the author of Hebrews. It is parallel in these two verses to "remembrance." It thus translates best, particularly in 10:2, with the word consciousness rather than "conscience." It would seem to be that faculty of the mind that is aware of one's wrongdoing or lack thereof.

10:4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
This statement is very interesting given the author's earlier claim in 9:22 that without the shedding of blood there is scarcely any remission of sins. Here we learn that the shedding of blood actually did nothing for the remission of sins. It perhaps hints that we should be very careful in our interpretation of 9:22.

We would argue that the author of Hebrews, in the end, has little real investment in the importance of blood sacrifice at all. The person who reads Hebrews in terms of the all importance of blood sacrifice has in fact missed the overall thrust of the sermon, which is to argue that blood sacrifices are not necessary and in fact never did accomplish their putative function. The author starts with blood sacrifice as a given in order to argue it away.

10:5-7 Therefore, [Jesus] says, coming into the world, "You did not want sacrifice and offering, but a body you prepared for me, whole burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased with."

Then I said, "Behold I have come, in the chapter of the book it has been written concerning me, to do your will, O God."
Surely the author does not mean to say that Jesus literally uttered these precise words when descending from heaven. Indeed, the author assumes the voice of Jesus when he inserts into the quote, "Then I said." Instead, the author found in Psalm 40 an expression of the key purpose for Christ's life on earth--the offering of his body as the final sacrifice.

It is understandable that we hear overtones of the incarnation in this statement, a reference to the pre-existent Christ coming into the world. But since Hebrews is speaking figuratively, as we indicated in the previous paragraph, we cannot at all be certain that the author meant Jesus' entrance into the world literally here either. One's hunch either way is completely dependent on conclusions elsewhere about how early Christians came to affirm Jesus' pre-existence and how widespread that belief was.

The version of Psalm 40 that the author quotes is yet another clear indication that he is operating from the Greek translation of the Psalms rather than the Hebrew. The Hebrew of Psalm 40 reads something like, "my ears you have dug out." The author thus can only make his point from this particular Greek translation. What probably happened was that the Hebrew was miscopied at some point, perhaps because krt (you dig out) was misread as knt (you prepare). Then the Greek translation followed suit.

10:8-9 Above, [after] saying, “Sacrifice and offerings” and “Whole burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not want nor were you pleased with” (which they offer according to the Law), then he has said, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He takes away the first to establish the second,
Verses 8 and 9 provide the author's christological interpretation of Psalm 40. From Psalm 40, Hebrews draws a contrast between the sacrifices of the former days and God's will in preparing a body for Jesus. God takes away the first covenant and its Law, in order to establish a new covenant. We remember chapter 7 and its sense of the previous Law established on the basis of the Levitical priesthood (7:11). There the author indicated that the arrival of a new, Melchizedekian high priest points to a change of Law (7:15-19)

10:10 … in whose will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
The will of God, which removes the Levitical system and its Law, establishes the sacrifice of Christ as the reality toward which all Old Testament sacrifices were pointing. This "offering" of the body of Jesus Christ sanctifies, cleanses the sins of the people of God, of those who partake of Jesus Christ. The power and effectiveness of this sacrifice is "once for all." No sacrifices literally atoned for anything before it, and no other sacrifice is necessary after it. It is the only effective sacrifice of all time and it is all effective.

10:11-12 And every priest has stood [in office] daily ministering and offering the same sacrifices often, which are never able to take away sins. And this one, after he offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat on the right hand of God…
Again, the author contrasts the differing nature of the two types of sacrifice. The early priests sacrifice daily--far beyond even the once a year sacrifice of the high priest on the Day of Atonement--but their sacrifices are never able to take away sins. Those sacrifices were only foreshadowings, sketchy examples and pointers toward what was to come.

Meanwhile, Christ's one time, effectual sacrifice is done, accomplished forever. His seating or "session" at God's right hand signals the accomplishment of the salvific deed, that for which he entered into the world, for which a body was prepared for him. The mention of God's right hand evokes Psalm 110:1 once again, the passage that has repeatedly popped up since 1:3.

What a rich tapestry of early Christian theology is woven here! We have the fundamental data of Christ's death on the cross and his subsequent resurrection. Christ's death must have been understood very early on as an atoning sacrifice, perhaps conceptualized in similar terms to the Maccabean martyrs of 2 Maccabees 7 and 4 Maccabees. The death of this righteous individual would bring the wrath of God toward Israel to an end. However, it would perhaps be decades before it would be understood to have the scope that Hebrews understands.

As we have mentioned before, Hebrews takes the idea that Christ's death was a sacrifice and metaphorically expands it by way of Psalm 110:4 to be Christ as priest offering himself as a sacrifice, a king-priest after the order of Melchizedek. Indeed, Hebrews extends the metaphor even further. He is like the high priest on the Day of Atonement, a once a year offering just as his is once for all time.

What sanctuary might he offer this sacrifice in? Why heaven itself, already understood in Jewish tradition as the "real" temple of which the earthly one was only a copy of sorts. As the highest order of priest in the truest sanctuary of all, Christ comes to offer the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

10:13 … the rest waiting until his enemies might be placed as a footstool for his feet.
Then there was the resurrection, very possibly unanticipated by Jesus' followers. Psalm 110:1 was "ground zero" of early Christian tradition on the resurrection, at least as it has come to us. It was perhaps the primary text through which the earliest Christians came to understand Jesus as Lord, the primary text through which the early Christians came to understand why the messiah rose but had not finished the task of liberating Israel and becoming its earthly king.

Psalm 110:1 gives the reason Christ did not immediately serve as Lord. God has seated him at His right hand "until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet" (Ps. 110:1). Paul understood this enemy to be death. It is not completely clear what enemies Hebrews has in mind, although the chapter later speaks of judgment that will devour God's enemies (Heb. 10:27). It is thus possible that Christ is awaiting the time appointed for the judgment.

10:14 For with one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
This verse aptly summarizes the entire point of the author's argment about Christ as high priest, an argument that was first mentioned in 2:17-18, was initiated in 3:1, but did not gain steam until 4:14. The one, sacrificial death of Jesus has enabled the cleansing of sins, the "perfection" of all those who are going to be purified, be "sanctified." The act is done. All that is left is the appropriation of that death.

10:15-17 And the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us, for afterwards he has said, "This covenant that I will make with them, after those days, says the Lord, giving my laws on their hearts, and on their mind I will inscribe them, and their sins and their laws I will never remember again."
The author now returns to Jeremiah 31, which he quoted extensively in chapter 8. These final verses thus mark an inclusio that binds together the literary unit from 8:1 to 10:18. This shortened recap of the longer quote in chapter 8 perhaps helps us see what was most important to the author there.

The author focuses on the new covenant as a doing away with the symbolic, Levitically based Law and the replacement of it with a law written on the heart. Their sins will be forgiven, for real, in Christ. It is possible to see a connection here between Paul's sense in Romans 2:15 of Gentiles demonstrating the law written on their hearts and Hebrews use of Jeremiah 31. Paul's focus is ethical--the Spirit in the heart enables one to keep the essence of the Law. Hebrews perhaps assumes this but takes it to a soteriological conclusion.

10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer an offering for sins.
Here is the soteriological conclusion. If God has written His law on our hearts and we keep the law by the Spirit within us, then there will not be the kind of continued sinning that requires an offering for sins. That Hebrews is thinking in this way can be argued for from Hebrews 10:26 below, where a warning is given not to "use up" Christ's sacrifice by continued sinning. The context there is more fully apostasy, probably. Nevertheless, when the law is written on one's heart, there should not be the need for forgiveness for further high handed sins.

Friday Paul: Life Beyond Death 3

Previous posts include:

1a. Born at a Time and Place 1; 1b. Born at a Time and Place 2
2a. A Change in Life Direction; 2b A Change in Life Direction 2; 2c A Change in Life Direction 3
3a. The Unknown Years 1; 3b. The Unknown Years 2; 3c. The Unknown Years 3

The previous posts for the current chapter are Life Beyond Death 1 and Life Beyond Death 2.
_______
... So we might picture a scenario where Paul has preached that God has raised Jesus from the dead. Jesus has died on the cross as an atoning sacrifice, an act of faithfulness that has made it possible for anyone to be reconciled to the one true God, whether Jew or Gentile. God has enthroned Jesus at His right hand not only as the Jewish king (anointed one, messiah, Christ) but indeed as Lord over all the world. Very soon, Jesus would return from heaven to take his rightful place as king over the world.

The good news Paul preached was thus that the Thessalonians could escape the coming judgment if they were baptized in the name of Jesus. Baptism would appropriate the cross of Jesus and they would be saved from God's coming wrath (e.g., 1 Thess. 1:9, 10). Then, perhaps, someone who had accepted the good news died. Thinking this scenario through is potentially very eye opening to the difference between how obvious these things are to us and how much the earliest Christians were just figuring out!

So someone is distressed. How sad. Uncle Demetrius was so excited to be part of the kingdom of God when Christ returned. But now he's died and won't be able to see Jesus.

And so Paul fills them in on the nature of resurrection. Don't worry. Uncle Demetrius is not lost. There will be a resurrection at the time of Jesus' return. Indeed, the dead corpses will rise first, even before we who are alive and remain. A couple points of interest here. First, the word for the dead seemed to have exactly this sense--a dead body, a corpse. Paul does not seem to be talking about some immortality of the soul. He is talking about corpses coming back to life.

Second, he includes himself and his audience when he speaks of "we who remain." In his letters he never says outright, "I expect to be alive when Jesus returns." But his earliest letters seem especially to give off this vibe, as do other New Testament letters (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:29; cf. 1 Pet. 4:17). Christians take from this wording a sense that we must always live in expectation that Christ could come back very soon. We are to live in "imminent expectation" of Christ's return.

Paul and the Thessalonians knew some of the details Paul does not mention. For example, Paul says we will be "caught up ... in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thess. 4:17), the verse that stands behind the idea of a "rapture." Paul concludes, "so we will be with the Lord forever." What Paul does not say, though, is where that forever will be. Many scholars believe that we are meeting Christ in the air like you go out to meet a king or important person coming to town. You then go back into town with them. So passages like 1 Corinthians 6:2 indicate that Christians will participate in the judgment of the world. It thus seems quite possible that we are meeting Christ only to come back down for the judgment.

Paul also only speaks of the dead "in Christ" being raised (1 Thess. 4:16). Interestingly, the New Testament never says anywhere that all the dead will rise immediately at the point of Christ's initial return. Indeed, Revelation puts the famous millennial reign of Christ in between a first resurrection of Christian martyrs (Rev. 20:4-5). Paul of course never clearly speaks of a second resurrection where all the rest of the dead, both righteous and wicked, will rise.

This is an interesting observation. As Christians we believe in a general resurrection, when all the dead will rise, some to eternal life and some to an eternal judgment of some sort. But we have not really taken this idea from Paul's writings. Paul never mentions hell, although 2 Timothy 4:1 does mention that Christ will judge the dead, and Philippians 2:10 includes those "under the earth," the dead presumably, among all who will bow before Christ. We get that idea from elsewhere.

Paul never talks about when "every knee should bow... and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil. 2:10-11). Certainly the living will when Christ returns to earth. But of the dead, Paul only says that the dead "in Christ" will rise. Perhaps Christian understanding in relation to a general resurrection was still in progress at this time. Christians only affirm that the words that made it to the Bible be right, not necessarily everything going on in Paul's head as he wrote.

If at this point Paul only knew about the resurrection of those "in Christ," it would explain the Thessalonians' disappointment. It might also explain why some Christians were apparently baptizing for the dead (1 Cor. 15:29). They would be trying to do the equivalent of what a man named Judas Maccabeus does in a well known Jewish story of the time. In 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, Judas pays for sacrifices to be made for certain fallen soldiers so that they can be part of the resurrection. [1] In the same way, some early Christians may have thought that they could make sure their loved ones were included in the resurrection--maybe individuals who had never even heard of Jesus--by being baptized for them.

Another issue that Paul is largely silent on is what happens even to Christians in between their deaths and the resurrection. In 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15, Paul refers to the dead as those who "sleep" (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:13; 1 Cor. 15:18). Accordingly, some have wondered if Paul had no sense of conscious afterlife in his earliest writings. Whether or not this is the case, by the time he writes Philippians, he thinks of death as going to "be with Christ" (Phil. 1:23). Slightly more ambiguous, but similar is 2 Corinthians 5:6, where Paul seems to imply that being away from the body is to be with the Lord. Whatever Paul started out thinking, his clearest statement in Philippians implies that we are with Christ in between our deaths and future resurrection.

Some scholars have also suggested that Paul's thought underwent development between 1 and 2 Corinthians on the question of when resurrection takes place. [2] Whereas in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul clearly thinks of us receiving our resurrection body at the time of Christ's return, 2 Corinthians 5 says that if the "earthly tent we live in is destroyed," if we die, then we have "an eternal house in heaven," our resurrection body. It would be easy to read this statement to indicate that we go to heaven when we die and get a spiritual body immediately at death. We want to please Christ whether here in the body or in heaven when we die (2 Cor. 5:9). And one might argue accordingly that our appearence before the judgment seat of Christ in the next verse (2 Cor. 5:10) is what happens immediately at death.

Although this is a possible interpretation of Paul... [next week]

[1] Interestingly, 2 Maccabees--possibly a Pharisaic document--may not picture a general resurrection, only a resurrection of martyred and unpunished wicked.

[2] F. F. Bruce, for example, that great British evangelical of the twentieth century, accepted such a change, Paul, 309-13.

Explanatory Notes: 1 Peter 1:1

Alas, more than once I intended to do at least a little more in James, but the exam has come and gone and 1 Peter is nigh. So James goes into the queue of unfinished notes to be finished another day. Here is 1 Peter 1:1
__________
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to chosen aliens of the Diaspora in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
The Peter in question is certainly Simon Peter, the disciple. We do of course encounter the same questions of authorship with 1 Peter that we do the other General Epistles. How likely is it that a Galilean fisherman would write this well in Greek? The thought at some points, such as even the designation of Peter as "an apostle of Jesus Christ," seems very much like Paul's letters. Indeed, the mention of Silas in 5:12 is a little surprising, since Silas was Paul's coworker rather than Peter's.

Even more striking is the thinly veiled reference to Rome as "Babylon" in 5:13. We know of other Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem who connected Rome with Babylon. Babylon destroyed Jerusalem, its temple, and took its intelligensia captive. In AD70 Rome destroyed Jerusalem, its temple, and took its intelligensia back to Rome where they were crucified. It is thus no suprise that Revelation and the Sibylline Oracles use Babylon as a code word for Rome.

But according to tradition, Peter died at the hands of Nero, who committed suicide in AD68. If Jews did not call Rome "Babylon" until after the destruction of Jerusalem, then either Peter did not write 1 Peter as we have it or, as some suggest, it might have literally been written from Babylon. It is of course possible that Jews saw the writing on the wall well before Rome actually destroyed Jerusalem. The Jewish War began in AD66, two years before Nero died. If we think of Peter as the literal author, perhaps we should date 1 Peter to the years AD66-68.

The statement that Peter wrote this letter in some way "through Silas" has brought its own debates (5:12). Are we perhaps to think of Silas as the one who delivered this letter to its varied destinations throughout Asia Minor? Or perhaps Silas helped translate or even formulate Peter's basic thoughts in Greek for him. If Silas in some way was a co-writer in a more significant way than usual, that would explain some of the apparent similarities to Paul's thought. Finally, if 1 Peter was pseudonymous--written under the authority of Peter's name after his death to convey his voice to a later context--then one might suggest that perhaps it was Silas himself who composed the letter in toto.

Peter identifies the audience as "chosen aliens of the Diaspora." Since the audience likely consisted primarily of Gentiles (cf. 2:10), the reference to the Diaspora would seem to be slightly figurative, except insofar as the audience does seem spread out over the rather large region of Asia Minor: Pontus at the top on the Black Sea, Galatia up and down the middle, Cappadocia to the east of Galatia and north of Paul's native Cilicia, Asia on the western end, and Bithynia to the northwest. Paul ministered at one point or another in many of these regions, except we have no record of him in Pontus or Bithynia.

The idea that the audience is "chosen" or "elect" is a theme that appears throughout 1 Peter. It is probably important not to read later understandings of election into such statements. In the mystery of God, only a small percentage of the Mediterranean world believed in Jesus as messiah at the time, and it was natural for this minority to recognize themselves as a special group out of everyone in the world. Such references implied that they stood in a special relationship with God. They probably did not imply that God had decided not to save those who did not believe or that those who currently believed were destined to be saved no matter what. It was "phenomenological" language, language that described how things appeared, language that recognized the special status of believers within the broader, unbelieving world without the later sense of a rigid underlying cause and effect on God's part.

The reference to the audience as "aliens," "strangers," "foreigners," has also given rise to a good deal of speculation. For example, some think that the audience were literally exiles for whom Asia Minor was not their native homeland. Such studies are very edifying in their modern application, and they accurately describe the social situation of a certain group within the ancient world.

However, we find this suggestion highly implausible when it comes to the original audience of 1 Peter, not least because Peter speaks of the audience of aliens in the context of abstaining from fleshly desires (2:11). Such language puts such imagery into a spiritual context (cf. Heb. 11:13-16). Although the NIV adds the words "in the world" to this verse (they're not there in Greek), the addition would seem to capture well the most likely sense. The audience are "aliens" in the world because they belong to a different kingdom, a spiritual rather than a fleshly one.

Constructing a Biblical Theology

Not my best, but here's a vidcast on Constructing a Biblical Theology.

Intertestamental Summaries...

Test on Friday... here's a summary of where we've been so far:

• Destruction of Jerusalem, 586BC; Cyrus allows return, 538BC; Temple rebuilt, 516BC
• Persian period--539-332BC
• Elephantine papyri--oldest surviving Jewish documents (not including inscriptions), Aramaic papyri from the 400s, indicate a parallel temple existed there, including sacrifices; destroyed 410BC by Egyptian priests
• 1 Esdras, combination of Ezra material from 2 Chron., Ezra, and Nehemiah; not in Roman Catholic (RC) Bible but in Orthodox; extra story of dinner contest with Zerubbabel
• Tobit, maybe from Persian period, developing sense of angels and demons (with names), popular magic, has the Golden Rule, almsgiving has atoning value, no sense of afterlife or real return from exile, in RC Bible
• Hellenistic period--332-63BC, Ptolemies rule from Egypt till 198, then Seleucids from Syria... Romans took over in 63BC.
• Septuagint, Greek translation of the Law, made in Egypt around 250BC, first Scripture apparently to be translated into another language
• Letter of Aristeas, the story of the translation of the Law, dates to early 100s BC; 72 translators, considers God the same as Zeus, food laws are explained philosophically
• Egyptian Judaism around 200BC a bit "unorthodox": Artapanus has Moses inventing Egyptian animal cults; Ezekiel the Tragedian has Moses sitting on God's throne over Israel
• Competitive historiography in Egypt: Manetho in 200s BC, Egyptian, argues that the Israelites were forced out of Egypt because they were lepers; Demetrius the Chronographer defends Exodus--earliest datable Jew writing in Greek, earliest witness to the Septuagint
• Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) in Hebrew around 200BC, translated into Greek around 132BC in Egypt; in the RC Bible; poor view of women; no afterlife but how a person dies shows how they have truly lived; good works atone for sin; earliest testimony to the three-fold division of the Jewish canon; Matthew seems to draw on it to compare Jesus to divine wisdom, which Sirach compares to the Law; significant parallels between James and Sirach (slow to speak, slow to anger)
• Rapid Hellenization of Jerusalem prior to Maccabean crisis (Jason takes it from Onias III by bribing Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Syrian king; Menelaus then does the same, but he is not even a hereditary priest). Onias III murdered. Onias IV goes to Egypt and builds a temple at Leontopolis.
• Maccabean crisis 167-164BC, thereafter Hasmonians (Maccabeans) rule, first as high priests (Jonathan the first in 152BC), then as kings (Aristobulus the first in 103BC)
• 1 Maccabees; in RC Bible; dates to early 1st century BC; most accurate source of Maccabean era, including the background of Hanukkah; no sense of afterlife; gives background to what "zeal for the Law" was, who the hasidim or "faithful ones" were; sense of waiting for a prophet to come
• 2 Maccabees; in RC Bible; dates to early 1st century BC; very theologized portrayal of the actual crisis, perhaps Pharisaic; very strong physical understanding of resurrection, intestines and all, probably not a general resurrection but resurrection of martyrs and unpunished wicked; Judas Maccabeus offers sacrifices so that certain fallen will be resurrected; many argue earliest instance of ex nihilo creation, although most probably date this development to second century AD in conflict with Gnosticism; idea that righteous deaths can satisfy God's wrath toward Israel, bring it to an end; sense that God punishes Israel differently from Gentiles (with Gentiles He stores up His wrath and then obliterates them, with Israel He punishes them as He goes)
• 4 Maccabees; not in RC Bible; focuses on the 7 righteous brothers story; very philosophical, Stoic; strong sense of substitutionary atonement; immortality of the soul
• Additions to Esther, 5 Greek expansions interspersed throughout, cleans up some theological issues (like the failure to mention God), fills in other details, Jerome put the expansions at the end of the Hebrew Esther
• Additions to Daniel: Susanna, Prayer of Azariah, Bel and the Dragon
• Two versions of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon has two stories--the catching of priest eating food for Bel and Daniel making a dragon explode (then he goes to lion's den again and gets a special visit from Habakkuk)
• Judith; in RC Bible; a bit of a parable, not meant to be taken literally; stereotypical view of women with allowance for significant exceptions
• Baruch; in RC Bible; sense of Israel still in exile
• Letter of Jeremiah; 6th chapter of Baruch in Vulgate and King James
• Pharisees: "separate ones," about 6000 at the time of John Hyrcanus, most popular group, strong belief in resurrection, "those who seek smooth things" according to Essenes at Qumran, strong sense of common identity, followed well developed "traditions of the elders"
• Sadducees: descendants of Zadok, possibly upper class, sometimes displaced priests, perhaps often high priests at time of New Testament, less sectarian, rejected Pharisaic traditions of elders and resurrection, had their own purity traditions
• Essenes: "doers" of the Law; lived communally; some married, most were celibate; Dead Sea community was one such; avoided oath taking; strictest in sabbath observance; rejected legitimacy of Jerusalem temple; multi-year entrance process; well developed angelology; deterministic; immortality of spirits?
• Revolutionaries: more ad hoc than an organized "philosophy"; Zealots and Sicarii probably came into existence around the time of the Jewish War (AD66-73); Judas the Galilean around 6AD; Theudas in AD45-46; the Egyptian
• Psalms of Solomon, late first century BC, chap. 17 a principal text on Jewish expectation of a military messiah who would restore the political fortunes of Israel, evokes images of the Roman take-over in 63BC.
• Josephus, late 1st century Jewish historian, Jewish general in War who surrendered to Romans and in Jewish War claims that God went over to the Jewish side, later Antiquites less worried about putting Romans in a good light. You have to read between the lines.
• Philo, Jewish commentator on the Law who heavily brought Middle Platonic philosophical ideas to bear on his interpretations

Who were the Sadducees?

A Christian children's song has a verse, "I don't want to be a Sadducee, because they're sad you see..." The song points out the key aspect of Sadducees that sticks out to us--they did not believe in any afterlife.

Your typical New Testament survey class usually suggests a few other characteristics: priestly types, didn't believe in angels or spirits, only believed the Law was Scripture, Roman collaborators. Some of these stock characteristics are actually highly debated once you enter scholarly circles. Several of them, for example, are based on single statements in single sources whose interpretation is highly debatable.

For example, the idea that Sadducees didn't believe in angels or spirits comes pretty much from a single statement in Acts 23:8: "The Sadducees do not believe in resurrection, neither of angel nor of spirit. But the Pharisees confess both." Needless to say, it sure sounds like angel and spirit here expand in some way on the word resurrection. Acts thus seems only to be saying that Sadducees did not believe in life after death.

The idea that the Sadducees only followed the Jewish Law and not the rest of the Jewish canon comes largely from a single statement in Josephus book 13: "the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. "

But this passage is not contrasting the Law with, say, the Prophets or the Writings. It is contrasting some alleged following of the Law alone versus following the Law as interpreted by the "traditions of the elders." In reality, of course, we know that there never is some following of the Law alone. This is simply the normal perception of a religious group that they are following the Bible alone while other groups are following human traditions. In reality we all are following interpretive traditions.

The passage above goes on to suggest that the main following of the Sadducees was among the rich, and Josephus' statements that they were not a cohesive group probably indicates that they were not so much idealogicalically bound as socially bound, that is, what defined them as a group was primarily the fact that they were from a certain, somewhat aristocratic, priestly class of family.

The name "Sadducee" is close enough to "Zadok" to suggest a theory, namely, that when the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes took the priesthood away from Onias III in the early 2nd century BC, and then later when the Maccabees took over the priesthood (152BC), the displaced priestly families who were the true "sons of Zadok" continued to exist disempowered, but still wealthy and still in connection with the temple. They would represent a somewhat older strand of thinking, a more "conservative" one in the sense of resisting new ways of thinking like the newly risen apocalyptic stream of thought that arose in the early second century. Their rejection of an afterlife was simply the perpetuation of a point of view that was long standing at the temple, as we find in the Psalms. Sirach also seems to come from this social strand at the turn of the second century and embodies a similar view.

When the Romans took power in 63BC and then in 37BC when Herod the Great took over Jerusalem, the Sadducees were able to reinsert themselves into priestly leadership. We thus take largely at face value Acts 5:17 at face value to indicate a close association between many high priests and the Sadducean sect. They were Roman collaborators only insofar as it is good to be in power and when you can only be in power by maintaining a good relationship with those who grant you power, you walk a fine line.

The relationship between the Sadducees and the Essenes is an interesting one, as in some places the Dead Sea Scrolls take positions more similar to the Sadducees than the Pharisees. My hypothesis, one I haven't published and please remember me when you come into your footnotes, is that the Teacher of Righteousness was one of those displaced priests (here following James VanderVam's suggestion that the TR might have been the anonymous high priest of the years 159-152BC). But the group that would become the Essenes, "Enochic Judaism," I would suggest, was already in existence as an apocalyptic group well prior to this point.

The group we call the Essenes was thus a hybrid mixture of apocalyptic Judaism with a highly charismatic Sadducee. Even here, we are not talking about the Dead Sea group, which itself was a later, ultra-conservative spin off of this group that did not settle at the Dead Sea until some 50 years after the "Covenant of Damascus" was made, the settlement not existing until around 100BC.

And those are Schenck's thoughts on the Sadducees and Essenes, not likely to be developed in publication any time soon.

What Colleges and Seminaries will survive?

I was talking to a seminary student on Friday who chose Wesley Seminary @IWU because of the online option. The competition was another seminary in the region that has no online programs. The President of the seminary has pretty much refused to look into it. I know of other colleges who are only now thinking about online. Some aren't interested in the name of principle.

I strongly support small, quality programs. Hittite studies? Why not--even if you only have 2 students. But you had better have a whole lot of other programs that are making money. You can have any degree of quality with sufficient quantity, but you'll close if your priorities are some idea of quality with or without sufficient quantity. And thus I administer last rites to all those stubborn traditional faculties out there who would rather go down with the ship than take a lower rank among the crew. They're like that guy in Dr. Strangelove who proudly waves his cowboy hat as he rides a nuclear bomb down to the ground, about to start the annhiliation of the earth.

IWU would be struggling financially right there with all the other traditional colleges if it did not have online and extension programs. They say you don't close because of decisions you make today but because of decisions you made 7 years ago. It may already be too late, but my advice to other colleges and seminaries is to get into distance education right now if you're not into it. Otherwise, you may be signing your death warrant before the next decade is over. Don't make me a prophet.

P.S. I strongly disagree with the idea that you cannot learn as much in an online course as in an onsite one. I would strongly contend that the average learning of a well designed class online is greater than the average learning of most onsite classes.

Professors think they cover more content, but they only think this because they are transmitting more--standing up in front of the class enjoying themselves talk, usually. The students, on average, are not receiving more. The professor thinks the two or three students that engage them are representative? Not so. The rest are on Facebook.

A well designed online class, because all the students have to participate, not just only the two or three who will remember even having the professor, will end up with a greater average learning than the vast majority of onsite classes. Babbling doesn't equal learning.

15. The Text of the New Testament

The first of this series was Faith, Evidence, and Biblical Scholarship. Here is the second New Testament post.
______
When we are talking about copies of the New Testament, a manuscript is a handwritten copy, most of which certainly date to the medieval period before the invention of the printing press in the late 1400s. As you would expect, we have fewer truly old manuscripts than we do later ones because of the wear and tear of time. We have none of the original manuscripts of any biblical writing and the vast majority date later than AD1000.

Some find this situation unnerving, but we are in a much better position when it comes to the New Testament than we are other ancient writings like those of Homer or Plato. We have a fragment of John that dates to about 30 years after it was written--almost unheard of. We have a collection of most of Paul's writings (minus the Pastorals) that dates to around AD200 (p46, one of the Chester Beatty papyri)--also quite amazing when it comes to such things.

The best introduction to the science of the textual criticism of the New Testament, the branch of biblical studies that studies manuscripts and tries to identify what the books of the Bible originally said, is Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament. [1] Metzger is also responsible for the very helpful, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. [2] This resource goes through the most significant variations among the thousands of manuscripts we have and explains why the editors of the standard Greek New Testament picked the particular options they did.

Another good introduction is Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland's, The Text of the New Testament. [3] Kurt Aland was instrumental in putting together the standard text of the Greek New Testament as it now stands. There are two primary versions, although both now have the same text. The "Aland" version is typically a red Bible with a "textual apparatus" at the bottom to tell the most significant variations from the text the editors have chosen. [4] The "Nestle" version is typically a blue Bible and has been around longer. [5] It now has the same text as the "Aland" version, but a much more extensive textual apparatus at the bottom.

The "external evidence" we have, the evidence from various manuscripts and writings, falls into about five different types. First are papyri, manuscripts written on scrolls made from papyrus strips. They are typically the oldest manuscripts and are written in all capital Greek letters without any breaks between words or punctuation. The punctuation we now find in our Bibles is thus entirely a matter of the judgment of interpreters. It is thus possible to argue from time to time that a statement should really be a question or that something is a quote from somewhere else rather than an author's claim or that a period should be put somewhere so that a new thought begins.

"Uncial" manuscripts tend to date from about the 300s to the 800s and are on animal hide or "vellum." Rather than scrolls, uncials are in book form (i.e., in codex form), making it possible to have the entire New Testament on them. Two of the most important uncial manuscripts date from the early 300s, Codex Sinaiticus (symbolized by the Hebrew letter א) and Codex Vaticanus (symbolized by B). Although the standard Greek text currently in use does not read exactly like these two, most textual scholars believe these two manuscripts are examples of the best tradition of manuscripts, usually called the Alexandrian tradition.

"Minuscule" manuscripts are written in lower case Greek cursive and are medieval copies, largely dating from a handful in the 900s to around 1500 when copies began to be made with the printing press. We have well over 5000 of these. By the Middle Ages, the text of the New Testament had become relatively standardized, so most of these fall into what scholars often call the Byzantine tradition. When people speak of the Majority Text, they are largely referring to this textual tradition. Most surviving manuscripts are medieval and most read very similarly.

We have two other very important witnesses to the text of the New Testament. One are the early church fathers, the quotations that various significant figures in Christianity made of the biblical text. These fathers are as old as the oldest manuscripts and thus give an important witness to the text of the New Testament, although we have to be careful because all we have of their writings are also copies of copies. We thus have to do textual criticism on manuscripts of them just as on manuscripts of the New Testament itself. It is understandable if some of their copyists may at times have harmonized their quotes with the text of the Bible as these copyists knew it in their own time.

A good example of the significance of quotations in the fathers is the ending of Mark, Mark 16:9-20. The manuscript evidence for this ending being original is not very good. The oldest copies we have of Mark do not have it. Several early Christians do not seem to know about it and two very important Christians from the 300s and 400s say that few manuscripts of Mark they knows have it. But at the same time, two very important witnesses of the late second century, Irenaeus and Tatian, seem to know of the ending. The strongest argument from the "external evidence" of manuscripts, therefore, comes from early church fathers.

A final major witness to the text of the New Testament are translations of it into other languages like Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and so forth. Again, some of these translations, like the Old Latin, can be as old as any Greek manuscript. While one may not always be able to tell the exact wording of the Greek original, they can help a person choose between known Greek options.

The science of textual criticism primarily developed over the last two hundred years. The 1800s in particular saw significant findings of old manuscripts that called into question the originality of the "received Greek text," what had come to be called the textus receptus. The origins of this particular edition of the Greek New Testament, which stands as the basis for the King James or Authorized Version, is quite interesting.

With the invention of the printing press, the humanist, Renaissance, Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus embarked on a race to be the first to put the Greek New Testament in movable type. Using a half dozen or so manuscripts, all of which were medieval, he quickly put together an edition of the Greek New Testament that understandably corresponded mostly to the Byzantine tradition. For his first edition, he did not have any copies of the last part of Revelation, so he actually created a Greek text by translating back from the Latin. The result was some readings that ironically appeared in not a single Greek manuscript!

By the 1551 edition of Stephanus, the Erasmus text had reached somewhat of a standard form. For the first time, chapters were divided into verses. These verse divisions remain the basis for the current numbering in the New Testament. [6] In a few instances, later findings of earlier manuscripts have suggested that a verse of Stephanus' text was not originally there. The result is a "missing verse" like Acts 8:37. But no one has taken this verse out. Rather, the earliest manuscripts suggest instead that the verse had been added in centuries after Acts was written.

In a few instances, the textus receptus has retained some of the peculiarities of Erasmus' venture. For example, the reading in Revelation 22:14 in the King James Version, "they that do his commandments" is a leftover from Erasmus initially translating back from Latin into Greek because he did not have any Greek manuscripts here. There are some Greek manuscripts that read this way, but we wonder if he would have gone with the more likely, "those who wash their robes" if he had initially had any Greek manuscripts of this verse at the time.

Perhaps the most famous Erasmus story has to do with 1 John 5:7. The full verse appears in only eight of the over 5000 known Greek manuscripts. It appears in the main text of no known Greek manuscript prior to Erasmus. If original, this wording of the verse would be the clearest statement of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Accordingly, Erasmus received some pressure to put it in a later edition of his text. He remarked that he would if a Greek manuscript could be shown to have it. His journal later suggested he believed the one he then received had been created for that very purpose. Since the verse has such incredibly weak support and in fact was unknown at the time of the great Trinitarian controversies of the 300s and 400s, it seems incomprehensible that they be original.

In the centuries after Erasmus, there was an increasing sense that his Greek text was not original at various places. J. J. Griesbach (1745-1812), for example, suggested that in general, the shorter of two variations (the lectio brevior) is more likely to be original. It is not always the case, but more often than not. He also recognized the very important principle that the more difficult reading (the lectio difficilior) is more likely to be original. The reason is that copyists were more likely to "fix" problems than to cause them when copying.

Hiding here is probably the most important principle of textual criticism of all, at least when it come to internal evidence, evidence based on the way the text reads rather than on what manuscripts have a certain reading. This is the rule that says the most likely original reading is the one that would best explain how the other variations came about. Because copyists were more inclined to add material to clarify things or to smooth out difficulties, the shorter readings and the more difficult readings most of the time are the more likely readings, and the older manuscripts tend to have these readings.

One of the greatest discoverers of manuscripts was Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-74), the "Indiana Jones" of manuscripts. His biggest discovery was Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete Greek manuscript of the entire Bible known at present. It dates from the early 300s. Tischendorf came across it while staying at St. Catherine's monastery on the Mt. Sinai peninsula, where it was in a bin of material destined to be burned for heat. He strongly suggested it should not be burned and, by way of politics, eventually managed to get the manuscript out of Egypt and to him in Germany.

Some of the most groundbreaking discoveries both of manuscripts and of method were thus in play by the late 1800s. But it was undoubtedly the work of Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-92) that finally established the current trajectory of New Testament textual criticism. In 1881, they published a critical edition of the Greek New Testament that incorporated the consensus of textual scholars as it had developed over time. Their second volume laid out the method currently in use of weighing variations against each other on the basis of both internal and external evidence. In terms of external evidence, they divided existing manuscripts into various traditions, the most important of which were the Alexandrian that they preferred (e.g., Sinaiticus and Vaticanus); a Western textual tradition whose principal representative was Codex Bezae (D) and some Old Latin manuscripts; and the Byzantine tradition that most surviving manuscripts exemplify.

The science of textual criticism has not stood still since the days of Westcott and Hort. It is generally agreed that they relied too heavily on the two manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Nevertheless, older papyri have been discovered since them and these finds generally support the conclusions of Westcott and Hort. Certainly we have also seen a few scholars who have applied their intellect to finding ways to reinterpret the evidence. One such attempt focuses on the "Majority Text" of the Greek New Testament, considering the reading that most manuscripts have as more likely original than the reading favored by "weighing" the manuscripts by age, tradition, and internal features. However, by far the vast majority of textual scholars accept the dictum of Westcott and Hort that "manuscripts must be weighed, not counted" and would thus consider the text used in most modern translations of the Bible to be by far the most likely original wording of the New Testament books.

[1] (Oxford: Oxford University, 1964). The fourth edition has been revised by Bart Ehrman (2005).

[2] (London: United Bible Societies, 1971).

[3] Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987).

[4] Put out by the United Bible Societies, now in its fourth, revised edition (2006).

[5] Put out by the American Bible Society, now in its 27th edition (2004).

[6] The chapter divisions had only been added in the early 1200s by a man named Stephen Langton.

Friday Paul: Life Beyond Death 2

Received my contract for this series as a book in the mail today! Previous posts include:

1a. Born at a Time and Place 1; 1b. Born at a Time and Place 2
2a. A Change in Life Direction; 2b A Change in Life Direction 2; 2c A Change in Life Direction 3
3a. The Unknown Years 1; 3b. The Unknown Years 2; 3c. The Unknown Years 3

They will of course be edited and filtered before publication.

The first post in the current chapter was Life Beyond Death 1. We now continue this chapter in progress...
____________
So it would seem to be either at Athens or, perhaps more likely, at Corinth that Paul penned 1 Thessalonians. We would agree with perhaps the majority of scholars in thinking that 1 Thessalonians was not only the first letter of Paul's that we have, but indeed the very first book of the New Testament to be written. This chapter focuses on 1 Thessalonians, one of whose main topics is the fate of those who die before Christ returns. Then we follow that theme through some of Paul's other letters too.

In the first three chapters of 1 Thessalonians, Paul largely recounts the story of his relationship with the Thessalonians. It is helpful to remember that only part of our conversations are about ideas and "logical" statements. In fact, probably more of our communication functions on a relational and emotional level than on a logical one. Teachers of ancient rhetoric fully took these other dimensions of persuasion into account. [1] Logical argument they called the logos mode of persuasion. Arguments that played on the emotions of the audience played on pathos. A final mode of persuasion build on ethos, persuasion based on trust toward the person doing the persuading.

The first three chapters of 1 Thessalonians are largely about establishing ethos between Paul and the Thessalonians. Paul builds on the common experiences he and the Thessalonians have shared, as well as the good will Timothy's recent visit to them has secured. He reassures them of his good motives and the broader struggle with God against evil that they have joined.

The form of 1 Thessalonians at its core is much like normal letters of the day. [2] The main difference is how long the letter is (longer than most letters) and the fact that Paul expands the typical greeting. Most letters began with a simple greeting, also called a prescript: x to y, greetings. 1 Thessalonians, perhaps because it is Paul's earliest letter, expands the greeting the least of any of Paul's writings, adding a little to the nature of the Thessalonian church and providing the characteristic Pauline "Grace and peace to you" instead of the normal "Greetings." The word for "grace" (charis) was a little like the word for "greetings" (chairein), to which Paul added the characteristic Jewish "peace" (cf. shalom).

Letters then usually had a "thanksgiving" or blessing section of some kind after the greeting. The letter writer might invoke the favor of the gods on the audience. 1 Thessalonians is no different. In 1:2-10, Paul thanks God for the Thessalonians and anticipates one of the key topics he will address later in the letter--Christ's coming back to earth (1:10). All of Paul's letters have something similar right after the greeting, that is, with the exception of Galatians, where Paul perhaps shames the audience by refraining from the usual thanksgiving. 1 Thessalonians also has some very brief closing remarks (5:12-24) and a "postscript" (5:25-28).

Although 1 Thessalonians does address some other issues, the topic that seems to be its most central has to do with the question of what happens to Christians who die before Christ returns (4:13-5:11). Before he gets to the big issue, Paul does urge the Thessalonians to avoid sexual immorality (4:3-8). He urges brotherly love (4:9-10) and for the Thessalonians to work diligently. Some have suggested that the Thessalonians were so focused on Christ coming back soon that they had stopped going about the business of their daily lives. It is a fun suggestion, although in the end we do not really have enough evidence to know for sure.

It can be hard at first to get into the heads of the Thessalonians. How could they not know what happened to Christians who died before Christ came back? Paul was not in Thessalonica long before he had to leave, to be sure. But would their eternal destiny not have come up even in his first meeting with them? These sorts of things are such obvious assumptions to us that it is hard to put ourselves in the shoes of someone for whom these were radically new ideas.

However, it may also be that some of our own assumptions are unexamined. For example, do we understand the difference between the idea of resurrection that Paul presents here and the idea of the immortality of the soul, which Paul does not discuss here. Resurrection here is not something that happens at death. For 1 Thessalonians, the only one who has ever been resurrected up to this point in history is Jesus Christ himself. For 1 Thessalonians, resurrection is an event that will take place as Jesus Christ returns to earth from heaven.

Resurrection for Paul also involves a body. This aspect of resurrection is particularly clear in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul addresses similar issues with the Corinthians. "But someone will ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" (1 Cor. 15:35). Embodiment is so central to the idea of resurrection for Paul that the possibility that some sort of body might not be involved does not even occur to him.

For Paul, this body is not like our current bodies: "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (15:50). Our body that dies is a natural body or perhaps better, an animal body (psychikos; 15:44). Our body that rises is, like Christ's, a "spiritual" body (pneumatikos). It is a body, so it is not just our spirit. It is a body with a glory, perhaps not unlike the glory of heavenly bodies like the stars, at least as they appear to us looking up from the earth (15:40-41). Obviously Paul was using the categories he had at his disposal to try to describe our heavenly bodies.

These bodies, perhaps surprisingly to some of us, will be just like Christ's resurrection body. "[J]ust as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the heavenly man" (1 Cor. 15:49). In Philippians, Paul also says that Christ "will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body" (Phil. 3:21).

But how could these things not have come up while Paul was there? Is it just that Paul thought they needed reminding? On the one hand, his audience does seem overwhelmingly Gentile. It is hard to imagine that a group of Jews would have turned to God "from idols" (1 Thess. 1:9). Accordingly, they might not have known much of anything about the distinctively Jewish notion of resurrection. Most non-Jews did not really have much anticipation of a meaningful afterlife at the time.

In the end, we can probably explain what is going on here if Paul's focus in preaching was on Christ's return to earth in judgment rather than on life after death. We tend to think we will die, even though Christ will return to earth one day. The order was probably reversed exactly in Paul's earliest preaching. Christ is coming back to earth very soon, and--oh, yes--if you die before it happens there is life after death...

[1] The best starting resource here, and one that deserves to be on our list of top fifty books to master Paul's writings, is George Kennedy's classic book, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1984). His book presents the categories of ancient rhetoric as someone like the author of Luke-Acts or Hebrews would have likely studied it. It is less certain that Paul would have formally studied rhetoric, although it is not impossible.

[2] Perhaps the best current book to get into things like what ancient letters looked like and what role secretaries played in writing letters is, E. Randolph Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), another book to add to the fifty some books by which you might master Paul's writings. Another resource is Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's Paul the Letter Writer (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995).

Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize?!

I imagine I was just as surprised as anyone to wake up to this news. I do admire many of Obama's goals, even if it is yet to be seen if any of them work in practice or not. I admire the idea of universal health care, although I'm nervous about putting it into practice. I admire a more diplomatic approach to foreign affairs, although I hope it doesn't compromise our security. I don't like nuclear bombs, but I'm not sure it's a good idea for us to get rid of all ours quite yet. I admire the greater emphasis on a cleaner environment, even if I'm not qualified to comment on the science.

But Obama's not really done anything yet, and it remains to be seen if he will accomplish any of his goals. Afghanistan may very well fall apart. All versions of a health care bill may fail. Israel has rejected any peace settlement in the near future. It seems inevitable that Iran and North Korea are going to be having nuclear bombs for the foreseeable future. We are massively in debt to China and it doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon.

So what do I make of all this? More than anything else, I think it is an affirmation of Obama's trajectory over that of the Bush administration. If there had been no Bush, Obama would not be getting this prize. It is an indication of how drastically the very election of Obama has, whether rightly or wrongly, improved the world's perception of the United States as their friend rather than as something to be scared of.

Not sure that this prize will have much of an impact on anything. Maybe it will. In the short, run, it will certainly cause a spike in those chain emails I get claiming Obama is the antichrist. ;-)

Another Wesley Quote: "Works of Law"

Very busy... thanks for thoughts on yesterday's quote. Here's another quote I found striking from the same sermon, "Means of Grace."

"What is seeking salvation by works? In the writings of St. Paul, it means, either seeking to be saved by observing the ritual works of the Mosaic law; or expecting salvation for the sake of our own works, by the merit of our own righteousness" (Vol. 5, p. 196, italics mine).

I'm not sure exactly what Wesley was thinking here, but this is exactly the way I interpret the phrase "works of Law" in Romans and Galatians--primarily a reference to the Jew-specific parts of the Law but also secondarily a reference to the question of whether any human could deserve God's favor purely on the basis of their right actions.

John Wesley quote--"Means of Grace"

Spiritual formation class this week is reading Wesley's 16th sermon: "The Means of Grace." In keeping with Wesleyan theology, Wesley's signature is a collection of standard sermons rather than a systematic theology--practice and formation oriented rather than theoretical and informational. Long made fun of by snobby modernist intellectuals, we wear it at the beginning of the twenty-first century with pride.

Came across this quote today: "We know that there is no inherent power in the words that are spoken in prayer, in the letter of Scripture read, the sound thereof heard, or the bread and wine received in the Lord's Supper; but that it is God alone who is the Giver of very good gift, the Author of all grace; that the whole power is of Him, whereby, through any of these, there is any blessing conveyed to our souls" (Vol. 5, 188).

Sunday Explanatory Notes: Hebrews 2:9-18

And now, Hebrews continues. For what preceded, see this summative post.
__________
2:9 But we do see one who was made a little lower than the angels--Jesus--who was crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every [mortal].
The author unfolds the solution to the human problem artfully, suspensefully. Humanity was unable to attain God's intended glory. But one who became lower than the angels did for us. By the grace of God, we no longer need be defeated by death.

Jesus thus troubleshoots the human problem. God brings Jesus into the same situation as he brought humanity: "You made him lower than the angels for a little while." But because Jesus has no sin (4:15) he is actually able to be "crowned with glory and honor" in a way humanity was not. Instead, because of sin, humanity suffers death. Now Jesus has suffered death in place of humanity and so humanity might attain to its originally intended glory and not taste (ultimate) death.

2:10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom all things are and through whom all things are, when leading many sons to glory, to perfect the pioneer of their salvation through sufferings.
Very interestingly, while 1:3 speaks of Jesus as the one "through whom all things" came to be, this verse clearly refers to God (in a context that distinguishes Him from Jesus) as the agent of creation. Since 1:3 was in a poetic context and this verse more prose, we suspect this verse gives the author's more literal way of thinking about creation. 1:3 is thus a more exalted, poetic, somewhat figurative reference to Jesus as the one through whom God "recreates" the world or brings creation to its originally intended state. This coheres with all the other places in the New Testament where Jesus is spoken of as the one "through whom" the world comes to exist (e.g., 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; John 1:3).

But the point of the verse is to indicate the fittingness of Jesus' suffering. Jesus suffering to death makes him "perfect" or "complete" in relation to his role as pioneer of salvation. He tastes death for everyone--humanity's more appropriate end point--and now can lead "many sons," including daughters, to the glory originally intended for them in the creation as in Psalm 8. Perfection in Hebrews in relation to Christ has to do with him fully equipped to serve as Christ and high priest, a state he only reaches in death.

Salvation here has to do with escape from the coming judgment and rescue from the death slated for all humanity.

2:11-12 For both the one who makes holy and those are are made holy are from One [Father], for which reason he is not ashamed to call them brothers, saying, "I will proclaim your name to my brothers, in the middle of the assembly I will sing to you,"
Christ can lead many sons to glory and can author their salvation because Christ is human like we are. We are both "from one," presumably meaning from one source or from one Father. We are brothers with Jesus. "Sanctify" or "make holy" here likely has a strong connection to purification in relation to sins.

The three Old Testament quotes that follow are an interesting even if somewhat random collection of words interpreted in the light of Christ. The first is from Psalm 22:22. We have clear evidence from elsewhere in the New Testament that some early Christians read this psalm in the light of Jesus. Indeed, Matthew and Mark both have Jesus quote the first verse from the cross and all the gospels tell the story of Christ's passion in dialog with various verses in this psalm. The quotation of the verse is thus probably meant to evoke images of Jesus' suffering of death for the rest of humanity.

The word "assembly" or "congregation" here in the Greek Old Testament is "church." Perhaps from the very beginning of the Christ movement, this word had the connotation of the end time community, the qahal or assembly of God. In Paul's writings the word ekklesia usually had the sense of a local gathering or assembly but here probably a more universal connotation.

2:13 ... and again, "I have placed my trust on Him," and again, "Behold, I and the children God gave to me."
Hebrews strings together three quotations here just as it did in chapter 1, all of which reiterate a similar point. These two come from a series of verses in Isaiah 8, verses 17 and 18. How the author would have interpreted these verses in the light of the verses immediately surrounding them is difficult to say, but clearly verses from the preceding and following chapter were interpreted messianically by some early Christians. Matthew read Isaiah 7:14 in relation to Jesus' conception by a virgin (Matt. 1:23), and it took 9:1-2 in terms of Jesus' earthly ministry (Matt. 4:15-16). Luke 2:11 also may echo the "Wonderful, Counselor" passage of Isaiah 9:6, although the New Testament perhaps surprisingly makes little of this passage.

Thus although it is somewhat difficult to know exactly how the author of Hebrews understood this passage, it seems reasonable to think that some early Christians understood this part of Isaiah to be filled with resonances of the life of Jesus. Isaiah 8:17 speaks of the prophet waiting for the LORD to deliver His people and 8:18 speaks of Isaiah and his followers being signs of faithfulness to the LORD in a time of faithlessness. It is unclear whether this context played any role at all in Hebrews' use of these words.

In Hebrews, the words imply the faith of Jesus Christ in God, arguably a theme we also find in Paul (e.g., 2 Cor. 4:13; cf. Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16), coupled with his leadership of God's other children to salvation. Presumably, therefore, the two quotes are meant to reiterate that Jesus faithfully executed the human equation so that he could lead many sons to glory as they were originally intended to enjoy.

2:14-15 Therefore, since the children have partaken of blood and flesh, he himself also partook of them similarly, so that he might destroy the one who holds the power of death, the Devil and might change these, who in fear of death were subject to slavery their whole life.
The first verse is often taken in relation to the incarnation, since it speaks of Christ partaking of flesh and blood with intentionality. It is unclear whether the author was thinking this much, however, since the children also partake of flesh and blood and the intentionality could merely be God's rather than Christ's (cf. also, however, Heb. 10:5). The connection between human flesh and the power of the Devil is clear, reflecting somewhat of a dualism we will find even more explicitly in later chapters like chapter 9.

At the same time, we should not overread the dualism. The power of the Devil over flesh here has to do with the power of death. It is possible that there is an allusion to Wisdom 2:24 here, which mentions that death entered the world through the Devil's envy. In the Life of Adam and Eve, it is Satan's jealousy of the status God gave to Adam that leads to his trickery of Adam and the subsequent entrance of death. Although Hebrews does not mention Adam, it is thus possible that a somewhat Pauline understanding of death's origins stands behind the author's comments here.

Death is thus the principal manifestation of the failure of humanity to attain to the glory of God. Instead, humans live in fear of death their entire lives. But Christ has now tasted death for everyone, making it again possible for humanity to attain to their God-intended glory.

2:16 For clearly he is not helping angels but he is helping the seed of Abraham.
This verse begins to close the loop with 2:5, forming a kind of inclusio. It is not to angels that God has subjected the coming world but humanity. Christ did not come to help angels rule and the coming world is not destined for angelic rule. Rather the coming world will be subjected to both the rule of Christ and of humanity.

Some have suggested that this verse counters an angel-Christology. Christ did not assume the form of angels but he partook of flesh and blood. Thus the strong contrast of Christ with the angels is also explained as an attempt to counter the notion that Christ was an angel of some sort. But this line of interpretation does not seem likely, nor is it clear that the audience struggled with too high a view of angels. The vast majority of the imagery in Hebrews 1 and 2 can be explained eschatologically--the angels are associated with guardianship of the creation in the old age, but the new age is one in which Christ and humanity rule.

Although the author refers to the "seed of Abraham," there is no hint that he is only thinking of Jews. The train of thought fairly clearly refers to all humanity without distinction between Jew and Gentile. The author thus would seem to include all those who have partaken of the Christ (cf. 3:14) as seed of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile. This is a very Pauline understanding (e.g., Gal. 3:25). On the whole, the absence of any defense or explanation of this dynamic--indeed, the thoroughgoing assumption of the inclusion of the Gentiles without ever so much as using the word "Jew" or "Gentile"--bespeaks a later rather than an earlier date for the sermon.

2:17 Therefore, he needed to be made like [his] brothers in every way, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in relation to the things of God, so he could atone for the sins of the people.
Verses 2:17-18 capture the argument that has preceded in an apt general statement. Indeed, many interpreters believe that these verses anticipate most of Hebrews' argument yet to come, constituting "key verses" of a sort for the sermon. The point is that Jesus fully assumed the human condition, became lower than the angels for a little while, as them, so that he might become an appropriate high priest.

This is the first point in the sermon where Christ's high priesthood is mentioned. 3:1 will then pick up this new thread and eventually lead to 4:14, where the priestly argument will come out in full force. Prior to Hebrews, Christians clearly believed that Christ's death was a sacrifice for sins. With Hebrews, however, Christ becomes both sacrifice and sacrificer. By showing Christ not only to be the consummate sacrifice, but indeed the ultimate priest in the true sanctuary, Hebrews removes all need for any earthy cultus at all.

2:18 For in that he himself has suffered and been tested, he is able to help those being tested.
The solidarity of Christ with humanity is a major theme of 2:5-18, and it will return in 4:14-16. There the author will remind the audience that Christ was tempted like them yet he did not sin. The rhetorical point would seem to be that they also can endure temptation and not sin. The temptation would seem to be to abandon faith because of hard times. Christ did not abandon faith and sin when he was undergoing suffering. He kept his trust in God (2:13) and thus can show them the way.

So they are learning obedience through the things that they are suffering just like Christ did (5:8). He is a high priest who can help those who undergo such tests not least because he himself also underwent those tests of faithfulness when he partook of flesh and blood.

WESLEY SEMINARY at Indiana Wesleyan University

I'm excited to announce the name and new leader of the new seminary: Wesley Seminary at Indiana Wesleyan University.

We've designed the curriculum, we've hired our first faculty, we've been delighted with our first two cohorts of students. Now we have an official name and official leadership to begin January 1.

Our first full time head will be none other than Wayne Schmidt, who has just finished up thirty years as pastor of Kentwood Community Church in Michigan. He is a church planter, whose church has "great grandchildren." And very exciting to me is his passion for bringing diversity into churches.

We can now officially launch the seminary website, where you can see just a little of what is currently going on.

Last night we had a nice dinner out with just a few of the key players thus far. You can see in the picture from left to write

1) Charles Arn, well known church health expert who has been teaching online, 2) myself, 3) then Wayne Schmidt, 4) then Russ Gunsalus who has been serving as Acting head of the seminary and will continue to do so till January, 5) Bob Whitesel, well known church growth expert who has been teaching onsite and online, and 6) Nate Lamb, the best recruiter a seminary could have in the world!

Thanks to God for His gracious smile thus far on the undertaking. We do not deserve it nor do we take it for granted.

Ramping up Hebrews Explanatory Notes Again!

I've now finished Explanatory Notes on Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians. I had mostly finished Hebrews some time ago, but had never got back to it. Sundays for the next few weeks I hope to finish up explanatory notes on Hebrews.

Here are the previous posts as I prepare to continue the series on Sunday...

Hebrews 1:1-4
Hebrews 1:5-14
Hebrews 2:1-4
Hebrews 2:5-9

Hebrews 2:10-18

Hebrews 3:1-6
Hebrews 3:7-19
Hebrews 4:1-13
Hebrews 4:14-5:10
Hebrews 5:11-6:8
Hebrews 6:9-20
Hebrews 7:1-10
Hebrews 7:11-28
Hebrews 8
Hebrews 9:1-14
Hebrews 9:15-28

...

Hebrews 13:1-8
Hebrews 13:9-16
Hebrews 13:17-25

So basically there's a bit from chapter 2, then chapters 10, 11, and 12 and we're done.