... continued from here.
___________
Another important aspect of Jesus' miracles is their purpose. Sure, Jesus' miracles reflected the power of God and God's approval of his mission. They showed his authority and power. But Jesus arguably did not primarily perform miracles to show off. Jesus performed miracles to help people.
In fact, Mark implies that many of Jesus' miracles happened after people brought those in need to Jesus. In other words, Jesus healed many in response to others who came to him with needs. A man with leprosy comes to Jesus (Mark 1:40). Some men dig open a roof to bring a paralyzed man to Jesus (Mark 2:4).
In one familiar story, Jesus is in a crowd and a woman manages to touch him and is healed of a bleeding problem (Mark 5:27-29). This story highlights another important element in Jesus' healing ministry. Healing usually was closely connected to the faith of the person healed. In this instance, Jesus doesn't even know who has just been healed. He just knows that someone has touched him (Mark 5:30).
Similarly, Jesus is not able to do many miracles in his home village of Nazareth because the people there do not have faith (Mark 6:5). This incident again highlights the fact that Jesus played by the human rules and healed in the way someone might heal today through the Spirit's power. In such instances, Jesus was more the catalyst for healing, the mediator in a transaction between the faith of the individual healed and the power of God to heal.
It seems hard today for Christians to find a balance on topics like healing. We as humans seem prone to extremes on every side. So there are some Christians and traditions that tend to deny the miraculous altogether. Even if Jesus did them, that was something just for their day. Others go to the other extreme and say that if you had enough faith, you would always be healed.
It is both dangerous and wrongheaded to think that you will always be healed if you have enough faith. God does not always heal. God did not remove Paul's thorn in the flesh (2 Cor. 12:7-10), perhaps eye problems of some sort. Paul leaves Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20). The idea that healing is only a matter of faith has almost certainly kept individuals from seeking medical attention that might have otherwise saved their lives. It in effect tells God how he can heal and how he cannot.
It seems to me that we should stay somewhere in the middle. Miracles happen, however you want to define them. Perhaps God sometimes heals us through medicine. Perhaps God sometimes intervenes directly in our physical situations. We can be thankful either way, and we can be hopeful either way. Faith does make a difference. It is not closed minded to believe that miracles can happen, quite the opposite.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wine Making in Ancient Israel
Jim Davila of St. Andrews, Scotland, noticed this article in the Jerusalem Post today on wine and wine making in ancient Israel: http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/FoodAndWine/Article.aspx?id=255308
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Psalm 3 Translation
Psalm 1
Psalm 2
Now Psalm 3
______________
[A psalm attributed to David when he fled from the face of Absalom his son]
1 LORD, how are my troubles multiplying,
the multitudes of those rising against me!
2 Multitudes are saying of my person,
"There will be no help for him with God."
Music
3 But you, YHWH, [are] a shield for me,
my glory, and one who lifts up my head.
4 [With] my voice to YHWH I called,
and he answered me from the hill of his holiness.
Music
5 I myself lay down and slept.
I awoke because YHWH helped me.
6 I will not fear the multitudes of people
who surround and set themselves against me.
7 Arise, YHWH,
save me, O God,
for you strike all my enemies on the cheek,
the teeth of the wicked you shatter.
8 To YHWH is the salvation,
over your people, your blessing.
Music
_________
Not much to say about this psalm. The title was certainly not original, since David would not attribute a psalm to David. It is rather a context against which later readers read the psalm. We can read it that way, but we might also fruitfully read the psalm on its own terms.
No one knows what Selah meant, other than the fact that it was probably some sort of musical or reading instruction. I originally rendered it as "Pause," but have decided instead simply to put "Music."
Psalm 2
Now Psalm 3
______________
[A psalm attributed to David when he fled from the face of Absalom his son]
1 LORD, how are my troubles multiplying,
the multitudes of those rising against me!
2 Multitudes are saying of my person,
"There will be no help for him with God."
Music
3 But you, YHWH, [are] a shield for me,
my glory, and one who lifts up my head.
4 [With] my voice to YHWH I called,
and he answered me from the hill of his holiness.
Music
5 I myself lay down and slept.
I awoke because YHWH helped me.
6 I will not fear the multitudes of people
who surround and set themselves against me.
7 Arise, YHWH,
save me, O God,
for you strike all my enemies on the cheek,
the teeth of the wicked you shatter.
8 To YHWH is the salvation,
over your people, your blessing.
Music
_________
Not much to say about this psalm. The title was certainly not original, since David would not attribute a psalm to David. It is rather a context against which later readers read the psalm. We can read it that way, but we might also fruitfully read the psalm on its own terms.
No one knows what Selah meant, other than the fact that it was probably some sort of musical or reading instruction. I originally rendered it as "Pause," but have decided instead simply to put "Music."
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Biblical Relationships and Ancient Culture
Here's a 26 minute vidcast I created for our online Congregational Relationships class at Wesley.
http://www.screencast.com/t/mk8ObXZX1F
http://www.screencast.com/t/mk8ObXZX1F
Jesus' Humanity 4
continued again...
___________
... Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus. The wrong view of sin is the one that views sin in terms of absolute perfection against an absolute standard, as if God is a legalistic accountant of some kind.
Did Jesus ever accidentally "wrong" someone by forgetting to meet them at sunrise to fish on the Sea of Galilee? Did he make them wait? Obviously we don't know. But if he did, this is probably not what Hebrews had in mind when it said Jesus was without sin (Heb. 4:15). Paul does at some points at least seem to invoke an absolute standard in order to do away with it (e.g., Gal. 3:10), but this is not the primary standard of sin in Scripture--or within Judaism at the time.
The normal sense of sin was that of intentionally wronging God or another, intentional wrongdoing. This is surely the sense of sin that is primary in Scripture, and it is arguably this sense of sin that Paul had in mind when he said that Jesus "had no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). Arguably Jesus was a model for us in this sense of sin--that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can also follow Jesus' example. As 1 John 3:9 puts it: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them." This is not an expectation of absolute perfection. It is about being able to follow through with a heart that intends to do the right thing.
Can we do miracles today? The perspective of Scripture and Christian history gives a "yes" answer. From a Christian perspective, we live in the same part of history that Jesus inaugurated. Jesus may not appear to people in the same way today as he did the apostles. In that sense we can question whether there are any apostles today of the sort we find in the New Testament. But the Spirit has arguably continued to work miracles throughout history, and Christians believe we have that same Spirit today.
A person can both over- and under-emphasize such things. A person can miss opportunities because of a lack of faith, and a person can get preoccupied with "signs and wonders." Jesus flatly refused to do signs on demands. "No sign will be given," he flatly says at one point (Mark 8:12). Similarly, those who refuse obvious medical treatment arguably reject an offer of healing God has brought through a knowledge of his own creation.
The key is to recognize that Jesus' humanity was not only a true humanity, but a perfect indication of what humanity can be and was supposed to be. We should not read the story of Jesus as something beyond the reach of the rest of us through the power of the Spirit. And we should not idealize him in a way that takes him beyond the realm of true humanity...
___________
... Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus. The wrong view of sin is the one that views sin in terms of absolute perfection against an absolute standard, as if God is a legalistic accountant of some kind.
Did Jesus ever accidentally "wrong" someone by forgetting to meet them at sunrise to fish on the Sea of Galilee? Did he make them wait? Obviously we don't know. But if he did, this is probably not what Hebrews had in mind when it said Jesus was without sin (Heb. 4:15). Paul does at some points at least seem to invoke an absolute standard in order to do away with it (e.g., Gal. 3:10), but this is not the primary standard of sin in Scripture--or within Judaism at the time.
The normal sense of sin was that of intentionally wronging God or another, intentional wrongdoing. This is surely the sense of sin that is primary in Scripture, and it is arguably this sense of sin that Paul had in mind when he said that Jesus "had no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). Arguably Jesus was a model for us in this sense of sin--that by the power of the Holy Spirit we can also follow Jesus' example. As 1 John 3:9 puts it: "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them." This is not an expectation of absolute perfection. It is about being able to follow through with a heart that intends to do the right thing.
Can we do miracles today? The perspective of Scripture and Christian history gives a "yes" answer. From a Christian perspective, we live in the same part of history that Jesus inaugurated. Jesus may not appear to people in the same way today as he did the apostles. In that sense we can question whether there are any apostles today of the sort we find in the New Testament. But the Spirit has arguably continued to work miracles throughout history, and Christians believe we have that same Spirit today.
A person can both over- and under-emphasize such things. A person can miss opportunities because of a lack of faith, and a person can get preoccupied with "signs and wonders." Jesus flatly refused to do signs on demands. "No sign will be given," he flatly says at one point (Mark 8:12). Similarly, those who refuse obvious medical treatment arguably reject an offer of healing God has brought through a knowledge of his own creation.
The key is to recognize that Jesus' humanity was not only a true humanity, but a perfect indication of what humanity can be and was supposed to be. We should not read the story of Jesus as something beyond the reach of the rest of us through the power of the Spirit. And we should not idealize him in a way that takes him beyond the realm of true humanity...
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Miracles Today? 3
... continued from yesterday.
______________
There were others both in the Jewish and Roman world who were thought to perform miracles. This is a significant thing to know if we are to see Jesus as they saw Jesus. No one would have assumed that Jesus was God or a god simply because he performed miracles. Judaism had its own stories of individuals past and present who could do wonders. Not only were there the prophets of the past in the Bible, but such people popped up from time to time in Israel as well.
One such individual was Honi "the circle drawer," who lived some time before the Romans took over Israel in 63BC. [1] He was famous for drawing a circle during a time of drought and standing in it to pray for rain. Although he was going to stay in it until God answered prayer, it rained almost immediately. Hanina ben Dosa was also known for his ability to work miracles, and he came from Galilee in the period perhaps just after Jesus. Like Jesus, he is known for healing from a distance and having authority over evil spirits causing sickness.
And it is significant that more than one New Testament book frames Jesus' miracles in terms of the power of the Holy Spirit working through him. Jesus was "a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him"(Acts 2:22). Something arguably happens to Jesus both after the Spirit descends on him at the river Jordan and after his temptation in the desert--he returns to Galilee "in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:14). Even after he dies on the cross, both Acts and Paul word the event of Jesus' resurrection in terms of God's power: "God raised him from the dead" (e.g., Acts 2:24).
There is probably a subtle message for us here, namely, that Jesus did not merely show us God's power while he was on earth. Jesus arguably modeled what any believer can be or do by the power of the Holy Spirit, from his power to do miracles to his power not to sin. We are forced to go a little beyond what the biblical text says to take a position on such questions, but we can make some reasonable suggestions nonetheless.
So Christians believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. We do not believe he was half man and half God. And from a historical perspective, Christians clearly understood his humanness long before they worked out the details of his divinity. Up until the year 400, many Christians still believed that Jesus was the first creation God made rather than him being fully God.
So it is no stretch to suggest that, while we believe Jesus was fully God from eternity past, he played it by the human rules while he was on earth. In other words, he lived in such a way as to show us what humanity could be. It should not be odd to suggest that, through the Spirit, we can do miracles today like the ones Jesus did then. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples in John 14:12 that they will do even greater miracles than he did. He himself will empower them.
Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus...
[1] I first learned about Honi from a book on Jesus written from a Jewish perspective, Geza Vermes' Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1983), 69-72. See also his material on Hanina ben Dosa, pp. 72-78.
______________
There were others both in the Jewish and Roman world who were thought to perform miracles. This is a significant thing to know if we are to see Jesus as they saw Jesus. No one would have assumed that Jesus was God or a god simply because he performed miracles. Judaism had its own stories of individuals past and present who could do wonders. Not only were there the prophets of the past in the Bible, but such people popped up from time to time in Israel as well.
One such individual was Honi "the circle drawer," who lived some time before the Romans took over Israel in 63BC. [1] He was famous for drawing a circle during a time of drought and standing in it to pray for rain. Although he was going to stay in it until God answered prayer, it rained almost immediately. Hanina ben Dosa was also known for his ability to work miracles, and he came from Galilee in the period perhaps just after Jesus. Like Jesus, he is known for healing from a distance and having authority over evil spirits causing sickness.
And it is significant that more than one New Testament book frames Jesus' miracles in terms of the power of the Holy Spirit working through him. Jesus was "a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him"(Acts 2:22). Something arguably happens to Jesus both after the Spirit descends on him at the river Jordan and after his temptation in the desert--he returns to Galilee "in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:14). Even after he dies on the cross, both Acts and Paul word the event of Jesus' resurrection in terms of God's power: "God raised him from the dead" (e.g., Acts 2:24).
There is probably a subtle message for us here, namely, that Jesus did not merely show us God's power while he was on earth. Jesus arguably modeled what any believer can be or do by the power of the Holy Spirit, from his power to do miracles to his power not to sin. We are forced to go a little beyond what the biblical text says to take a position on such questions, but we can make some reasonable suggestions nonetheless.
So Christians believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully God. We do not believe he was half man and half God. And from a historical perspective, Christians clearly understood his humanness long before they worked out the details of his divinity. Up until the year 400, many Christians still believed that Jesus was the first creation God made rather than him being fully God.
So it is no stretch to suggest that, while we believe Jesus was fully God from eternity past, he played it by the human rules while he was on earth. In other words, he lived in such a way as to show us what humanity could be. It should not be odd to suggest that, through the Spirit, we can do miracles today like the ones Jesus did then. In fact, Jesus tells his disciples in John 14:12 that they will do even greater miracles than he did. He himself will empower them.
Similarly, we should not think that Jesus was able to live without sin because he was God, while we cannot because we are mortal. Hiding behind this view is partly a wrong view of sin and partly a wrong view of Jesus...
[1] I first learned about Honi from a book on Jesus written from a Jewish perspective, Geza Vermes' Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels, 2nd ed. (London: SCM, 1983), 69-72. See also his material on Hanina ben Dosa, pp. 72-78.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Jim Luttrull on Justice, Recidivism
Heard Jim Luttrell, Grant County Prosecutor, talk today at IWU about the question of what the primary element should be in determining the punishment for a crime. It was a wonderful dip into the complexity of such issues. In ethics we cover the four key factors in making moral determinations: 1) the act itself, 2) the consequences of the act, 3) motive, and 4) character. All of them surfaced at some point in his presentation.
But the main issue he was addressing is the question of justice oriented punishment versus punishment based on likely recidivism, likely repeat offense. There is a significant trend in many judicial circles to see the reform of the criminal as the primary factor in sentencing. Jim clearly senses this is a mistake, although I don't think his presentation aimed to be a straightforward argument.
But I strongly resonate with his sense that the starting point for sentencing should be justice. I also agree with him that "mitigating circumstances" should focus on motive and intent in conjunction with criminal acts, not on likely recidivism. But these are clearly very complex issues that involve multiple variables, all of which have their place.
Luttrell would agree.
But the main issue he was addressing is the question of justice oriented punishment versus punishment based on likely recidivism, likely repeat offense. There is a significant trend in many judicial circles to see the reform of the criminal as the primary factor in sentencing. Jim clearly senses this is a mistake, although I don't think his presentation aimed to be a straightforward argument.
But I strongly resonate with his sense that the starting point for sentencing should be justice. I also agree with him that "mitigating circumstances" should focus on motive and intent in conjunction with criminal acts, not on likely recidivism. But these are clearly very complex issues that involve multiple variables, all of which have their place.
Luttrell would agree.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
What is a Miracle 2
continued from yesterday
_______
... Most of Jesus' miracles had to do with people. In itself, this is a key insight. Sure, he walked on water (Mark 6:47-50; Matt. 14:25-33; John 6:16-21). He calmed storms (Mark 4:35-40; Matt. 8:23-27; Luke 8:22-25). He multiplied bread and fish (Mark 6:30-44; Matt. 14:13-21; John 6:1-13). Such events tell us that Jesus had power over what we think of as "nature."
And perhaps it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is a fairly recent one. It has only been since the rise of science in the 1600's that Western culture came to draw a sharp distinction between events that follow the "laws of nature" and events we might call miracles or the supernatural. Even just 500 years ago, Martin Luther--the one who started Protestantism--still thought of storms as God expressing his anger rather than the result of high and low pressure systems meeting, the exchange of electricity from one polarity to another, and so forth.
We have come to define a miracle as a divine intervention into the natural sequence of events that would have happened in the normal flow of causes and effects following the rules of science. In Jesus' day, they thought spiritual forces were constantly causing things. They did not think in terms of nature following rules like a machine. When the sailors on Jonah's boat encountered the storm, they figured someone on board had ticked off his god.
Today we would give thanks to God not only for the inexplicable but for what seems explicable as well. Sometimes doctors do surgery and it works. Sometimes we take medicine and it works. Sometimes we undergo chemotherapy, and it works. In such situations, is usually impossible for us to know where the hands of science and any direct intervention of God begin and end, but we are thankful nonetheless. God created the science.
Some Christians have a sense that God directs the minutest details of how such things turn out. I personally think that we must keep God distinct in our minds from his creation. Otherwise, we will have to explain how a God who says he is love causes so many bad things to happen. It is much easier to think that God allows many bad things to happen but that he has given his creation rules and largely allowed it to continue on its own path of cause and effect. God sees, God knows, God allows. Sometimes God intervenes. But he is not directly responsible for all the pain, evil, and suffering that happen in the world.
So our sense that Jesus could do things that do not follow the laws of nature is a fairly modern way of looking at them. For them, he was able to do the kinds of wonders that God, angels, demons, and Satan did. Jesus' enemies claimed that he took some of his powers from Satan (e.g., Mark 3:22). Others clearly thought he received his powers from God (e.g., John 3:2).
There were others both in the Jewish and Roman world who were thought to perform miracles...
_______
... Most of Jesus' miracles had to do with people. In itself, this is a key insight. Sure, he walked on water (Mark 6:47-50; Matt. 14:25-33; John 6:16-21). He calmed storms (Mark 4:35-40; Matt. 8:23-27; Luke 8:22-25). He multiplied bread and fish (Mark 6:30-44; Matt. 14:13-21; John 6:1-13). Such events tell us that Jesus had power over what we think of as "nature."
And perhaps it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that the distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is a fairly recent one. It has only been since the rise of science in the 1600's that Western culture came to draw a sharp distinction between events that follow the "laws of nature" and events we might call miracles or the supernatural. Even just 500 years ago, Martin Luther--the one who started Protestantism--still thought of storms as God expressing his anger rather than the result of high and low pressure systems meeting, the exchange of electricity from one polarity to another, and so forth.
We have come to define a miracle as a divine intervention into the natural sequence of events that would have happened in the normal flow of causes and effects following the rules of science. In Jesus' day, they thought spiritual forces were constantly causing things. They did not think in terms of nature following rules like a machine. When the sailors on Jonah's boat encountered the storm, they figured someone on board had ticked off his god.
Today we would give thanks to God not only for the inexplicable but for what seems explicable as well. Sometimes doctors do surgery and it works. Sometimes we take medicine and it works. Sometimes we undergo chemotherapy, and it works. In such situations, is usually impossible for us to know where the hands of science and any direct intervention of God begin and end, but we are thankful nonetheless. God created the science.
Some Christians have a sense that God directs the minutest details of how such things turn out. I personally think that we must keep God distinct in our minds from his creation. Otherwise, we will have to explain how a God who says he is love causes so many bad things to happen. It is much easier to think that God allows many bad things to happen but that he has given his creation rules and largely allowed it to continue on its own path of cause and effect. God sees, God knows, God allows. Sometimes God intervenes. But he is not directly responsible for all the pain, evil, and suffering that happen in the world.
So our sense that Jesus could do things that do not follow the laws of nature is a fairly modern way of looking at them. For them, he was able to do the kinds of wonders that God, angels, demons, and Satan did. Jesus' enemies claimed that he took some of his powers from Satan (e.g., Mark 3:22). Others clearly thought he received his powers from God (e.g., John 3:2).
There were others both in the Jewish and Roman world who were thought to perform miracles...
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Jesus and Miracles 1
Returning to writing on Jesus. I'm thinking this might be chapter 3.
___________
Herod Antipas, son of the notorious Herod the Great, threw John the Baptist into prison, no doubt recognizing the political danger his movement represented. From the location John baptized to the very notion of what a messiah is, John's preaching shouted revolution. It said, God is about to conquer the land and place his king in control. Repent of your sins and wash yourselves, because judgment is coming on those who are not ready for a restored and purified kingdom.
If we forget Luke 1 for a minute, we would read Luke 7 and Matthew 11 easily enough. John the Baptist is in prison and hears about what Jesus is doing. He sends some of his followers to Jesus to ask if Jesus is the coming messiah or if they should continue to look for someone else. The complication comes if John already knows Jesus, either because he is his relative or because of the Spirit at Jesus' baptism. [1]
What is more important is Jesus' response to John's followers. What are the signs that Jesus is the messiah, the coming king? He is healing the blind and the lame. Lepers are cleansed. The deaf hear. The dead are raised, and he is preaching good news to the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22).
Miracles were clearly a key element of Jesus' brief ministry in Galilee. This memory is so strong in all the traces Jesus has left on history that even historians who don't believe in miracles generally accept that Jesus at least seemed to perform them--a lot of them. Mark 1:32-34 summarizes Jesus' activities like this: "That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was."
Jesus apparently did most of his miracles in the far north, north of the Sea of Galilee. Matthew 11 tells us that "Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.'"(Matt. 11:20-21). These are very interesting comments, since none of the gospels really tell us about any of these miracles. It's also interesting that miracles don't necessarily convince others, even though you would think they would.
[map]
Most of Jesus' miracles had to do with people...
[1] Thus the speculation of some that John was helping his own followers discover who Jesus was and of others that Jesus wasn't doing the things John expected the messiah to do.
___________
Herod Antipas, son of the notorious Herod the Great, threw John the Baptist into prison, no doubt recognizing the political danger his movement represented. From the location John baptized to the very notion of what a messiah is, John's preaching shouted revolution. It said, God is about to conquer the land and place his king in control. Repent of your sins and wash yourselves, because judgment is coming on those who are not ready for a restored and purified kingdom.
If we forget Luke 1 for a minute, we would read Luke 7 and Matthew 11 easily enough. John the Baptist is in prison and hears about what Jesus is doing. He sends some of his followers to Jesus to ask if Jesus is the coming messiah or if they should continue to look for someone else. The complication comes if John already knows Jesus, either because he is his relative or because of the Spirit at Jesus' baptism. [1]
What is more important is Jesus' response to John's followers. What are the signs that Jesus is the messiah, the coming king? He is healing the blind and the lame. Lepers are cleansed. The deaf hear. The dead are raised, and he is preaching good news to the poor (Matt. 11:5; Luke 7:22).
Miracles were clearly a key element of Jesus' brief ministry in Galilee. This memory is so strong in all the traces Jesus has left on history that even historians who don't believe in miracles generally accept that Jesus at least seemed to perform them--a lot of them. Mark 1:32-34 summarizes Jesus' activities like this: "That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was."
Jesus apparently did most of his miracles in the far north, north of the Sea of Galilee. Matthew 11 tells us that "Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.'Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.'"(Matt. 11:20-21). These are very interesting comments, since none of the gospels really tell us about any of these miracles. It's also interesting that miracles don't necessarily convince others, even though you would think they would.
[map]
Most of Jesus' miracles had to do with people...
[1] Thus the speculation of some that John was helping his own followers discover who Jesus was and of others that Jesus wasn't doing the things John expected the messiah to do.
Friday, January 20, 2012
Science Friday: Maxwell
I have been reading from a biography of James Clerk Maxwell. He was by most accounts the most important scientist of the 1800's, whose work with electricity and magnetism more than anyone else opened the door for the radio, television, cell phones, etc. The book I'm reading is The Man Who Changed Everything.
Unfortunately, today I have little to say but that I am giving notice that I'm reading the book. I'm up to about the point where he goes to college. He's about 16 and has had a paper presented for him (he wasn't considered old enough to read it himself) on making ellipse shapes in new ways by tying the strings around the foci differently.
The author, Basil Mahon's style gnaws at me a little because it reminds me of a certain style that is too flattering. In ancient biography, for example, there was a sense that if a person became great, there must have been great signs of this destiny in childhood. Mahon just feels like he's grasping at greatness in childhood sometimes, maybe even glossing over weaknesses.
We all know Maxwell turned out to be brilliant and a nice guy. That doesn't mean he had to be perfect or great as a child. He sounds like a fairly normal, upper class Scottish kid of the time to me.
Unfortunately, today I have little to say but that I am giving notice that I'm reading the book. I'm up to about the point where he goes to college. He's about 16 and has had a paper presented for him (he wasn't considered old enough to read it himself) on making ellipse shapes in new ways by tying the strings around the foci differently.
The author, Basil Mahon's style gnaws at me a little because it reminds me of a certain style that is too flattering. In ancient biography, for example, there was a sense that if a person became great, there must have been great signs of this destiny in childhood. Mahon just feels like he's grasping at greatness in childhood sometimes, maybe even glossing over weaknesses.
We all know Maxwell turned out to be brilliant and a nice guy. That doesn't mean he had to be perfect or great as a child. He sounds like a fairly normal, upper class Scottish kid of the time to me.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Oldest fragment of Romans?
John Byron over at The Biblical World has drawn our attention to a CNN clip with Steve Green of Hobby Lobby presenting some of the manuscripts of his collection including a fragment of Romans that Scott Carroll dates to the mid-second century. That would be about 50 years earlier than the Chester Beatty papyrus p46 (ca. AD200) and would thus be the oldest fragment of Romans to date (about the size of the oldest NT manuscript of all, p52 of John, which dates to about AD125).
IWU's Jerry Pattengale is heavily involved in the administration of the Green Collection as well, and Green is the principal donor for Wesley Seminary's upcoming new building.
IWU's Jerry Pattengale is heavily involved in the administration of the Green Collection as well, and Green is the principal donor for Wesley Seminary's upcoming new building.
Faith in Jesus/Faith of Jesus
Dave Larsen asked me on Twitter where I stood on the "faith in Jesus"/"faith of Jesus" debate but realized 140 characters might not do it. Frankly, there's no silver bullet so several books wouldn't do it. Here's the skinny on my thoughts.
1. First, most probably don't even know what we're talking about. In a number of key places in Paul, the literal expression Paul uses is "faith of Jesus Christ," even though most translations thus far have translated it "faith in Jesus Christ." Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16, 20 are a couple for starters.
2. I believe that in most of Paul's discussion in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3, as well as verses like Rom. 3:28, Paul has human faith in view. These are not places where he uses the expression "faith of Jesus" but speaks of faith in general as the mechanism of justification. However, such faith is primarily directed toward God, not Jesus (e.g., Rom. 4:17).
I disagree with Wright that faith is a "badge" of membership in God's people for Paul. I wrestled with this for a good long while. What is Wright saying? He's so smart and deep. As has happened with many such things I have struggled with, I finally decided the problem was not that I was stupid but that Wright (in this case) is just wrong. He's a Reformed Anglican and Paul isn't. Faith is a mechanism of justification for Paul, despite later debates about monergism, synergism, etc.
I might add, however, that I agree with Wright on many other things.
3. Romans 5:19 and Luke Timothy Johnson gnawed at me for a good long while. The language is almost exactly parallel to Romans 3:22. Obedience of one man is similar to what the faith of Jesus would mean. Many will be made righteous is pretty much the same as to be justified (same exact word). Strangely, 2 Corinthians 4:13 pushed me over the edge and I have an article in CBQ about it. The train of thought makes most sense if Paul there speaks of our faith imitating the faith of Jesus.
4. So my hunch is that the "faithfulness of Jesus" was a tradition of the earliest church coming out of Jerusalem. Paul seems to use the phrase, "through the faith of Jesus Christ" in a formulaic way, as if he is presenting tradition. And my sense of the development of early Christian soteriology, the topic I started writing on during my sabbatical, sees this phrase as corresponding directly to the earliest understandings of Jesus' death--the death of a righteous person that satisfies God's wrath toward Israel and thus catalyzes Israel's redemption from enslavement. As Philippians 2 puts it, "obedience to the death," the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" that is an atoning sacrifice. On that half I agree with Hays.
5. But I agree with Dunn that Paul quickly moves to our faith... in God though more than in Christ. Paul does have a place for faith in Christ in his theology (e.g., Rom. 9:33) but it is subsidiary to faith in God. I've argued that he may exploit the ambiguity of the phrase "faith of Christ" to move from what traditionally referred to Jesus' faithfulness to his emphasis on the necessity of our faith.
As I put it in the article, Paul moves "from Hays to Dunn," "from faith to faith." This is a very complex argument and unprovable, but it makes sense of all the data in an elegant way, in my opinion.
1. First, most probably don't even know what we're talking about. In a number of key places in Paul, the literal expression Paul uses is "faith of Jesus Christ," even though most translations thus far have translated it "faith in Jesus Christ." Rom. 3:22; Gal. 2:16, 20 are a couple for starters.
2. I believe that in most of Paul's discussion in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3, as well as verses like Rom. 3:28, Paul has human faith in view. These are not places where he uses the expression "faith of Jesus" but speaks of faith in general as the mechanism of justification. However, such faith is primarily directed toward God, not Jesus (e.g., Rom. 4:17).
I disagree with Wright that faith is a "badge" of membership in God's people for Paul. I wrestled with this for a good long while. What is Wright saying? He's so smart and deep. As has happened with many such things I have struggled with, I finally decided the problem was not that I was stupid but that Wright (in this case) is just wrong. He's a Reformed Anglican and Paul isn't. Faith is a mechanism of justification for Paul, despite later debates about monergism, synergism, etc.
I might add, however, that I agree with Wright on many other things.
3. Romans 5:19 and Luke Timothy Johnson gnawed at me for a good long while. The language is almost exactly parallel to Romans 3:22. Obedience of one man is similar to what the faith of Jesus would mean. Many will be made righteous is pretty much the same as to be justified (same exact word). Strangely, 2 Corinthians 4:13 pushed me over the edge and I have an article in CBQ about it. The train of thought makes most sense if Paul there speaks of our faith imitating the faith of Jesus.
4. So my hunch is that the "faithfulness of Jesus" was a tradition of the earliest church coming out of Jerusalem. Paul seems to use the phrase, "through the faith of Jesus Christ" in a formulaic way, as if he is presenting tradition. And my sense of the development of early Christian soteriology, the topic I started writing on during my sabbatical, sees this phrase as corresponding directly to the earliest understandings of Jesus' death--the death of a righteous person that satisfies God's wrath toward Israel and thus catalyzes Israel's redemption from enslavement. As Philippians 2 puts it, "obedience to the death," the "faithfulness of Jesus Christ" that is an atoning sacrifice. On that half I agree with Hays.
5. But I agree with Dunn that Paul quickly moves to our faith... in God though more than in Christ. Paul does have a place for faith in Christ in his theology (e.g., Rom. 9:33) but it is subsidiary to faith in God. I've argued that he may exploit the ambiguity of the phrase "faith of Christ" to move from what traditionally referred to Jesus' faithfulness to his emphasis on the necessity of our faith.
As I put it in the article, Paul moves "from Hays to Dunn," "from faith to faith." This is a very complex argument and unprovable, but it makes sense of all the data in an elegant way, in my opinion.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Psalm 2 translation
My translation of Psalm 2 is now finished (see Psalm 1):
1 Why are nations in an uproar
and peoples contemplating pointlessness?
2 Kings of the land seat themselves
and princes are conferring together
against YHWH and against his anointed.
3 "Let us break apart their bonds
and let us throw from us their ropes."
4 The one who sits in the skies will laugh,
the master will make fun of them.
5 Then he will speak to them with his nose [i.e., in his anger]
and with his burning he will make them terrified.
6 "But I myself have anointed my king upon Zion, hill of my holiness.
7 Let me pronounce a decree,"
says YHWH to me.
"My Son [are] you.
I today have given birth to you.
8 Ask from me, and let me give the nations as your inheritance,
and as your possession, the ends of the earth.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron,
like a vessel of a potter, you will shatter them."
10 But now, kings, be wise;
receive correction, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve YHWH with fear
and shake with trembling
12 Kiss the Son so he will not huff his nose [i.e., be angry]
and you perish from the way,
For his fury burns quickly.
Blessed are all who flee to him.
__________
This of course was originally a psalm in honor of the king of Judah and thus must date to the period of the monarchy (pre-586BC). Some think it is an enthronement psalm, a psalm sung when a king of Judah was anointed as king. Thus "I today have given birth to you."
The NT of course then applies the verse with a secondary meaning to Christ's enthronement to God's right hand when he is exalted after the resurrection. The NT of course does not show interest in the whole psalm but only in the part it relates to Jesus (2:7-8). We cannot prove or disprove whether they also related the "breaking with a rod" parts to Jesus' second coming, although it is possible.
1 Why are nations in an uproar
and peoples contemplating pointlessness?
2 Kings of the land seat themselves
and princes are conferring together
against YHWH and against his anointed.
3 "Let us break apart their bonds
and let us throw from us their ropes."
4 The one who sits in the skies will laugh,
the master will make fun of them.
5 Then he will speak to them with his nose [i.e., in his anger]
and with his burning he will make them terrified.
6 "But I myself have anointed my king upon Zion, hill of my holiness.
7 Let me pronounce a decree,"
says YHWH to me.
"My Son [are] you.
I today have given birth to you.
8 Ask from me, and let me give the nations as your inheritance,
and as your possession, the ends of the earth.
9 You will break them with a rod of iron,
like a vessel of a potter, you will shatter them."
10 But now, kings, be wise;
receive correction, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve YHWH with fear
and shake with trembling
12 Kiss the Son so he will not huff his nose [i.e., be angry]
and you perish from the way,
For his fury burns quickly.
Blessed are all who flee to him.
__________
This of course was originally a psalm in honor of the king of Judah and thus must date to the period of the monarchy (pre-586BC). Some think it is an enthronement psalm, a psalm sung when a king of Judah was anointed as king. Thus "I today have given birth to you."
The NT of course then applies the verse with a secondary meaning to Christ's enthronement to God's right hand when he is exalted after the resurrection. The NT of course does not show interest in the whole psalm but only in the part it relates to Jesus (2:7-8). We cannot prove or disprove whether they also related the "breaking with a rod" parts to Jesus' second coming, although it is possible.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Why we need theology...
I'm writing a piece for some Sunday School literature titled, "Why we need theology?" Here's what I'm thinking.
1. Theology gives us a starting point.
A college freshmen once came to me, completely enamored with the excitement of the new thoughts filling his head. He was seeing new ways to look at issues that had never occurred to him. In his enthusiasm, he exclaimed that he wanted to start all over from scratch in what he believed. He was going to throw everything out the window and make no assumptions about anything.
I suggested that this was not only a bad idea. It was impossible. Understanding the world is a circle that starts with certain assumptions and then goes to pondering things in dialog with the world. We find out some of our assumptions are inconsistent. We find some of them may not match up. We revise them. Then we do it all over again.
Christians have always believed that at least some key truths are a matter of revelation rather than discovery. We may vary in what the precise formula is. Some have thought truth is so much a matter of God revealing himself to us in the Bible that we could never discover half the truth if we tried to go find it in the world itself. Others have thought we can discover most Christian truth just by good thinking on the evidence out there in the world.
Whatever the precise formula, Christian theology gives the believer a place to begin when it comes to the question of what is right and what is true. Some elements of theology are more negotiable than others, but it would be foolish to try to start from scratch when God has been helping humanity find its way from the very beginning. Christians believe that he especially started helping us find our way through ancient Israel and then definitively helped us find our way through Christ and the church that followed. Human understanding is never infallible, but it would be foolish to try to start our quest for truth from scratch. For Christians, Christian theology is by far the best place to start.
2. Theology helps us know what is important.
We have a lot of things we believe and a lot of ways we do things in the world. For example, I personally believe that the front of my house looked better with the pine trees my wife cut down than it does without them. I also believe that it is wrong to murder innocent people you happen to meet on the sidewalk. These two beliefs are not of the same importance at all. The second belief is quite important. The first is rather insignificant.
We have to prioritize our beliefs and practices in this way because they inevitably come into conflict with each other. Despite some popular rhetoric, right and wrong cannot simply be a matter of absolutes because situations arise in which we have to choose between our principles, when we have to make exceptions. "Should I obey God or human authority in this situation?" Both are Christian values, but when they come into conflict, we have to obey God and disobey human authority.
Christian theology is what helps me set these priorities. Which is more important, what I think or how I live? Which Christian beliefs are the absolute core and which ones are a matter of personal conviction? When should I make an exception to a rule or practice and when must I stand firm to the death? We all would answer these questions with our actions in certain situations. We all would have a "theology" when the moment of decision came. The question is whether it would be a good theology.
3. Theology helps us appropriate the Bible.
This is an extremely important point because so many think that they simply read the Bible and do what it says. It is exactly this misunderstanding that stands behind the tens of thousands of different Christian groups who think they are all just believing and doing what the Bible says. It is, in short, a self-deception that is innocent enough in most cases but that can lead to catastrophe in others.
For example, it is not really troublesome that Seventh Day Adventists do not eat pork. Now of course it might be rather annoying to someone who absolutely loves pork, but no great harm is done in general. Underlying this practice is a Seventh Day Adventist theology that does not read the Old Testament prohibitions on pork in the light of New Testament comments on God declaring all foods clean. This is a theological decision between comments in the Bible that say different things. Leviticus says not to eat pork. Mark 7:19 and other passages seem to abolish the Old Testament food laws. Our theology is what helps us arbitrate between such passages.
Most Christians find the issue of pork rather straightforward, but there are countless other issues where we do not agree. Can women be senior pastors? One segment of the church says no and points to certain passages. Another segment says yes and points to other passages. Another segment says it is not just about passages but about the difference between our time and the time God was addressing at the time of the Bible.
On many issues, we disagree on what individual passages meant as well as on how to map individual passages to each other. The Bible ultimately cannot make some of these decisions for us. James does not tell us how to fit its comments with Paul. Paul may have told the Thessalonians all about the man of lawlessness when he was there (2 Thess. 2:5), but he did not write it down and the rest of Bible does not fill in the blank.
The Bible gives us the starting material for our beliefs and practices, but whether we admit it to ourselves or not, it is far more our theology that organizes the biblical material and appropriates it in our lives. Individuals who do not realize this fact are prone to float adrift on whatever tide happens to catch them. This is how cults form and gain followers. If we are not conscious of the theology at work in our use of the Bible, then we are inevitably driven and tossed about by whatever wind catches our sail. We think we are following the Bible when we are just as likely riding the wave of some subculture.
4. Theology clarifies the boundaries of Christian faith and action.
Whether we are fully conscious of the ambiguities of the biblical text, our theology is always with us, setting the boundaries of our thinking and action, steering us in the right (or wrong) direction. The early Christians spoke of something they called the "rule of faith," the most fundamental Christian principles drawn from the Bible boiled down as guidelines. It is a basic theology and we all function with one.
The most important of these sorts of guidelines are the core beliefs and practices that the Holy Spirit has unfolded and clarified in the church these last two thousand years, the "faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). They are in the creeds of historic Christianity and generally held in common by Christians across denominations and traditions, Catholic or Protestant. "I believe in God the Father Almighty..." The core Christian ethic is the "law of love," the absolute principle of loving your neighbor as yourself.
Beyond these basics our theology also determines to a high degree which passages of Scripture we will find "clear" and which ones we will find "unclear." We read a verse about bashing Babylonian babies and immediately sense that this is not something I should do (Ps. 137:9). Of course there are countless other issues in life today that the Bible does not directly address. Who should I vote for in the next election? What should I think about stem cell research or a contraceptive that stops a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterine wall?
On many such issues we act or think inconsistently with our theology, which either means that our theology is wrong or our thoughts and actions on that particular theology is wrong. Our lives are full of such contradictions and they are often harmless, but they can also be very dangerous. I may say I love my neighbor and yet act or vote in ways that contradicts what I say my theology is. In this particular case my theology is absolute, and I am bound to make my life conform to it. When good theology is doing what it is supposed to do, it will help me live a life that is truly pleasing to God.
5. Truth is beautiful in itself.
Theology has a bad reputation among some. To some, theology is mostly irrelevant nonsense, "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" Hopefully, what we have said so far makes it clear that theology at its best is not only relevant, it is essential. We can debate the stereotype some theologians have of being fascinated by aspects of theology that are not as obviously relevant, but we cannot do away with theology. It is there whether we realize it or not.
At the same time, truth is beautiful for its own sake. The most significant truths may be the ones that have the most impact and relevance, but truth for its own sake is beautiful because it is a reflection of God's mind. We do not all have to love truth for its own sake, but it is perfectly legitimate for those who love it.
The relevance of such truths may not always seem immediately relevant, but they often become relevant over time. Ongoing reflection about truth can form patterns of thinking that help us mature. We may eventually find ourselves with the right intuitions because we have meditated on truth over time. Truth gets into our bones even when it is not fully in our conscious minds. This is some of the best theology we can have.
1. Theology gives us a starting point.
A college freshmen once came to me, completely enamored with the excitement of the new thoughts filling his head. He was seeing new ways to look at issues that had never occurred to him. In his enthusiasm, he exclaimed that he wanted to start all over from scratch in what he believed. He was going to throw everything out the window and make no assumptions about anything.
I suggested that this was not only a bad idea. It was impossible. Understanding the world is a circle that starts with certain assumptions and then goes to pondering things in dialog with the world. We find out some of our assumptions are inconsistent. We find some of them may not match up. We revise them. Then we do it all over again.
Christians have always believed that at least some key truths are a matter of revelation rather than discovery. We may vary in what the precise formula is. Some have thought truth is so much a matter of God revealing himself to us in the Bible that we could never discover half the truth if we tried to go find it in the world itself. Others have thought we can discover most Christian truth just by good thinking on the evidence out there in the world.
Whatever the precise formula, Christian theology gives the believer a place to begin when it comes to the question of what is right and what is true. Some elements of theology are more negotiable than others, but it would be foolish to try to start from scratch when God has been helping humanity find its way from the very beginning. Christians believe that he especially started helping us find our way through ancient Israel and then definitively helped us find our way through Christ and the church that followed. Human understanding is never infallible, but it would be foolish to try to start our quest for truth from scratch. For Christians, Christian theology is by far the best place to start.
2. Theology helps us know what is important.
We have a lot of things we believe and a lot of ways we do things in the world. For example, I personally believe that the front of my house looked better with the pine trees my wife cut down than it does without them. I also believe that it is wrong to murder innocent people you happen to meet on the sidewalk. These two beliefs are not of the same importance at all. The second belief is quite important. The first is rather insignificant.
We have to prioritize our beliefs and practices in this way because they inevitably come into conflict with each other. Despite some popular rhetoric, right and wrong cannot simply be a matter of absolutes because situations arise in which we have to choose between our principles, when we have to make exceptions. "Should I obey God or human authority in this situation?" Both are Christian values, but when they come into conflict, we have to obey God and disobey human authority.
Christian theology is what helps me set these priorities. Which is more important, what I think or how I live? Which Christian beliefs are the absolute core and which ones are a matter of personal conviction? When should I make an exception to a rule or practice and when must I stand firm to the death? We all would answer these questions with our actions in certain situations. We all would have a "theology" when the moment of decision came. The question is whether it would be a good theology.
3. Theology helps us appropriate the Bible.
This is an extremely important point because so many think that they simply read the Bible and do what it says. It is exactly this misunderstanding that stands behind the tens of thousands of different Christian groups who think they are all just believing and doing what the Bible says. It is, in short, a self-deception that is innocent enough in most cases but that can lead to catastrophe in others.
For example, it is not really troublesome that Seventh Day Adventists do not eat pork. Now of course it might be rather annoying to someone who absolutely loves pork, but no great harm is done in general. Underlying this practice is a Seventh Day Adventist theology that does not read the Old Testament prohibitions on pork in the light of New Testament comments on God declaring all foods clean. This is a theological decision between comments in the Bible that say different things. Leviticus says not to eat pork. Mark 7:19 and other passages seem to abolish the Old Testament food laws. Our theology is what helps us arbitrate between such passages.
Most Christians find the issue of pork rather straightforward, but there are countless other issues where we do not agree. Can women be senior pastors? One segment of the church says no and points to certain passages. Another segment says yes and points to other passages. Another segment says it is not just about passages but about the difference between our time and the time God was addressing at the time of the Bible.
On many issues, we disagree on what individual passages meant as well as on how to map individual passages to each other. The Bible ultimately cannot make some of these decisions for us. James does not tell us how to fit its comments with Paul. Paul may have told the Thessalonians all about the man of lawlessness when he was there (2 Thess. 2:5), but he did not write it down and the rest of Bible does not fill in the blank.
The Bible gives us the starting material for our beliefs and practices, but whether we admit it to ourselves or not, it is far more our theology that organizes the biblical material and appropriates it in our lives. Individuals who do not realize this fact are prone to float adrift on whatever tide happens to catch them. This is how cults form and gain followers. If we are not conscious of the theology at work in our use of the Bible, then we are inevitably driven and tossed about by whatever wind catches our sail. We think we are following the Bible when we are just as likely riding the wave of some subculture.
4. Theology clarifies the boundaries of Christian faith and action.
Whether we are fully conscious of the ambiguities of the biblical text, our theology is always with us, setting the boundaries of our thinking and action, steering us in the right (or wrong) direction. The early Christians spoke of something they called the "rule of faith," the most fundamental Christian principles drawn from the Bible boiled down as guidelines. It is a basic theology and we all function with one.
The most important of these sorts of guidelines are the core beliefs and practices that the Holy Spirit has unfolded and clarified in the church these last two thousand years, the "faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). They are in the creeds of historic Christianity and generally held in common by Christians across denominations and traditions, Catholic or Protestant. "I believe in God the Father Almighty..." The core Christian ethic is the "law of love," the absolute principle of loving your neighbor as yourself.
Beyond these basics our theology also determines to a high degree which passages of Scripture we will find "clear" and which ones we will find "unclear." We read a verse about bashing Babylonian babies and immediately sense that this is not something I should do (Ps. 137:9). Of course there are countless other issues in life today that the Bible does not directly address. Who should I vote for in the next election? What should I think about stem cell research or a contraceptive that stops a fertilized egg from implanting itself in the uterine wall?
On many such issues we act or think inconsistently with our theology, which either means that our theology is wrong or our thoughts and actions on that particular theology is wrong. Our lives are full of such contradictions and they are often harmless, but they can also be very dangerous. I may say I love my neighbor and yet act or vote in ways that contradicts what I say my theology is. In this particular case my theology is absolute, and I am bound to make my life conform to it. When good theology is doing what it is supposed to do, it will help me live a life that is truly pleasing to God.
5. Truth is beautiful in itself.
Theology has a bad reputation among some. To some, theology is mostly irrelevant nonsense, "How many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" Hopefully, what we have said so far makes it clear that theology at its best is not only relevant, it is essential. We can debate the stereotype some theologians have of being fascinated by aspects of theology that are not as obviously relevant, but we cannot do away with theology. It is there whether we realize it or not.
At the same time, truth is beautiful for its own sake. The most significant truths may be the ones that have the most impact and relevance, but truth for its own sake is beautiful because it is a reflection of God's mind. We do not all have to love truth for its own sake, but it is perfectly legitimate for those who love it.
The relevance of such truths may not always seem immediately relevant, but they often become relevant over time. Ongoing reflection about truth can form patterns of thinking that help us mature. We may eventually find ourselves with the right intuitions because we have meditated on truth over time. Truth gets into our bones even when it is not fully in our conscious minds. This is some of the best theology we can have.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Confessions on MLK Day
OK, I'm not going to confess. I started to confess the way I used to feel about MLK day, growing up as a standard issue American fundamentalist. It sounded so bad that I couldn't do it. Suffice it to say, for those in the image of my former self, there will be only snide remarks and grumbling around many a "Christian" dinner table and house.
I believe that there is a disconnect between the way many of these individuals would treat any individual African-American and the way they "feel" about a day like today culturally and politically.
I offer just two thoughts.
1. Today is not just about one individual, MLK. It's about years and years of injustice to African Americans. Can anyone seriously deny it? Does anyone really want to argue that slavery was just? Does anyone really want to argue that making blacks drink from a different water fountain or sit in the back of the bus was right?
We grumbled during the civil rights era. Those protesters weren't law abiding citizens, after all. And we were wrong, plain and simple. I remain convinced after making the comment many times that a lot of our quest to elect people who will put "good judges" on the Supreme Court is not really about what we say it is (abortion) but residual resentment for being forced to integrate in the 60's by judges.
It's worth a day to remember the sins of the past, isn't it? I certainly think so. It's not that we shouldn't move on with even handed lives today. It's not that it would be healthy to feel like anyone owes anyone anything (that doesn't help us move forward). It's about remembering so that no one repeats or perpetuates the past. It's about continuing to address the inequalities that still exist in all sorts of areas and defying them as we move forward.
2. I believe Jesus would fully participate in today. There are all sorts of issues that many of us grumble about that we collect under the heading "political correctness." Despite the fact that "we all know" political correctness is bad, I frankly have a hard time seeing much wrong with its level headed version. That's basically being sensitive to those who are disadvantaged or tend to be excluded in our culture. Just because some might overdo it doesn't negate the general principle.
And the general principle has Jesus written all over it. Jesus was not an "anti-liberal" conservative prophet. Wow, who can really understand Jesus at all and think of him that way?! Jesus was about including those who weren't included and about not letting rules trump people.
There was one very significant Easter morning in college when I read through Galatians and realized Ken the fundamentalist was not on the Paul side of things... and he wasn't on the Jesus side of things either. It would be funny if it weren't so serious that so many of us Christians are so completely convinced of so many intuitions that are quite different from Jesus' own values.
Jesus would work for equal status and opportunity for everyone. Those who overdo it are thus closer to Jesus than those who resist because... frankly I can't think of a good "because" even to suggest. Some misguided sense of justice?
If you are tempted to make fun of today, ask yourself if Jesus would do it. Then go somewhere and talk to him about it.
I believe that there is a disconnect between the way many of these individuals would treat any individual African-American and the way they "feel" about a day like today culturally and politically.
I offer just two thoughts.
1. Today is not just about one individual, MLK. It's about years and years of injustice to African Americans. Can anyone seriously deny it? Does anyone really want to argue that slavery was just? Does anyone really want to argue that making blacks drink from a different water fountain or sit in the back of the bus was right?
We grumbled during the civil rights era. Those protesters weren't law abiding citizens, after all. And we were wrong, plain and simple. I remain convinced after making the comment many times that a lot of our quest to elect people who will put "good judges" on the Supreme Court is not really about what we say it is (abortion) but residual resentment for being forced to integrate in the 60's by judges.
It's worth a day to remember the sins of the past, isn't it? I certainly think so. It's not that we shouldn't move on with even handed lives today. It's not that it would be healthy to feel like anyone owes anyone anything (that doesn't help us move forward). It's about remembering so that no one repeats or perpetuates the past. It's about continuing to address the inequalities that still exist in all sorts of areas and defying them as we move forward.
2. I believe Jesus would fully participate in today. There are all sorts of issues that many of us grumble about that we collect under the heading "political correctness." Despite the fact that "we all know" political correctness is bad, I frankly have a hard time seeing much wrong with its level headed version. That's basically being sensitive to those who are disadvantaged or tend to be excluded in our culture. Just because some might overdo it doesn't negate the general principle.
And the general principle has Jesus written all over it. Jesus was not an "anti-liberal" conservative prophet. Wow, who can really understand Jesus at all and think of him that way?! Jesus was about including those who weren't included and about not letting rules trump people.
There was one very significant Easter morning in college when I read through Galatians and realized Ken the fundamentalist was not on the Paul side of things... and he wasn't on the Jesus side of things either. It would be funny if it weren't so serious that so many of us Christians are so completely convinced of so many intuitions that are quite different from Jesus' own values.
Jesus would work for equal status and opportunity for everyone. Those who overdo it are thus closer to Jesus than those who resist because... frankly I can't think of a good "because" even to suggest. Some misguided sense of justice?
If you are tempted to make fun of today, ask yourself if Jesus would do it. Then go somewhere and talk to him about it.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Science/Culture Friday: Munich in Fall 2011
NPR has a show every Friday called science Friday. I thought I might start something similar, but a little broader than just science. For example, I've started reading a book called, The German Genius: Europe's Third Renaissance, the Second Scientific Revolution, and the Twentieth Century. But today I thought I would give some final reflections on the city of Munich as I experienced it in the Fall of 2011.
Any number of words and adjectives might immediately come to mind: Bavarian, artistic, historical, beer, catholic, cultured, scientific, expensive, bursting with people and foreigners, uncrowded for a big city. But the peril of such words and phrases is always close at hand. A place has a past--things happened there, people wandered through there--but it is not inevitable that the past determine the future, at least not as far as conceptions are concerned.
And designations like this are often at best majority reports. At worst they are individual impressions or the perceptions of those with the power to communicate their points of view. There were Germans here who despised Hitler in the 40's, Germans who went to Dachau. University students who were beheaded. They just weren't the ones calling the shots at the time... literally.
So Munich is in Bavaria, and Bavaria is typically conservative. But Munich is full of foreigners like myself as well. Sometimes I have wondered how many actual Bavarians have handed me those precious baguettes, Schokocroissants, and Kirchtaschen. It's not unfriendly for a big city. I've experienced both friendly and unfriendly. I've both had someone switch into Bavarian dialect to give me a hard time, and I've had a hard time getting away from an enthusiastic Elvis fan on a tram.
I loved the Pinakotheken, the art museums. Munich is full of art from the Greeks to Cy Twombly, but I met a very educated German fellow here who has never visited them. The buildings are marvelous; the churches are everywhere, and they are all magnificent. I am glad for the penchant the Bavarians of the past had to build them. They are beautiful... and unused, and no doubt a less than helpful use of money the many centuries during which Bavaria was in horrible debt.
Munich is a great place to live if you have a good job, like big cities, and have the leisure to enjoy soccer ("football"), art, opera, history, ballet, theater, and like to reflect on culture and the meaning of life. It's a good place to put a scientific research company. It's a nice place to visit if you like Oktoberfest and Fasching. It has great public transportation, great suburbs, and plenty of reasonably priced restaurants to fill your stomach with every form of pig intestine imaginable.
It is a place like no other place I've visited on earth.
Any number of words and adjectives might immediately come to mind: Bavarian, artistic, historical, beer, catholic, cultured, scientific, expensive, bursting with people and foreigners, uncrowded for a big city. But the peril of such words and phrases is always close at hand. A place has a past--things happened there, people wandered through there--but it is not inevitable that the past determine the future, at least not as far as conceptions are concerned.
And designations like this are often at best majority reports. At worst they are individual impressions or the perceptions of those with the power to communicate their points of view. There were Germans here who despised Hitler in the 40's, Germans who went to Dachau. University students who were beheaded. They just weren't the ones calling the shots at the time... literally.
So Munich is in Bavaria, and Bavaria is typically conservative. But Munich is full of foreigners like myself as well. Sometimes I have wondered how many actual Bavarians have handed me those precious baguettes, Schokocroissants, and Kirchtaschen. It's not unfriendly for a big city. I've experienced both friendly and unfriendly. I've both had someone switch into Bavarian dialect to give me a hard time, and I've had a hard time getting away from an enthusiastic Elvis fan on a tram.
I loved the Pinakotheken, the art museums. Munich is full of art from the Greeks to Cy Twombly, but I met a very educated German fellow here who has never visited them. The buildings are marvelous; the churches are everywhere, and they are all magnificent. I am glad for the penchant the Bavarians of the past had to build them. They are beautiful... and unused, and no doubt a less than helpful use of money the many centuries during which Bavaria was in horrible debt.
Munich is a great place to live if you have a good job, like big cities, and have the leisure to enjoy soccer ("football"), art, opera, history, ballet, theater, and like to reflect on culture and the meaning of life. It's a good place to put a scientific research company. It's a nice place to visit if you like Oktoberfest and Fasching. It has great public transportation, great suburbs, and plenty of reasonably priced restaurants to fill your stomach with every form of pig intestine imaginable.
It is a place like no other place I've visited on earth.
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Hell in the Bible (10)
continued from yesterday
_________
It is well above my--or your--pay grade to determine what God does with hell. What we might do is clarify a little what the Bible seems to say and what it doesn't likely say about it. First, as far as the Bible is concerned, hell is a distinctly New Testament idea. The vast majority of the Old Testament is either silent about the afterlife or explicitly denies any meaningful existence after death.
Job 7:9-10 captures the Old Testament understanding well: "one who goes down to the grave does not return. He will never come to his house again; his place will know him no more." I used to think that Job's wife was horrible when she was urging Job to curse God and die. To me, she was wishing him to go into hell forever. But she actually was urging him to put himself out of his misery. In her way of thinking, after he cursed God, God would kill him and then he would no longer be in pain.
"Sheol" in the Old Testament is thus not a place of eternal torment. It is merely the place where all the dead go when they die. It is a place of generally mindless, shadowy existence. Psalm 6 prays, "save me because of your unfailing love. Among the dead no one proclaims your name. Who praises you from the grave?"(Ps. 6:4-5). Ecclesiastes of course puts it in its starkest terms, "The dead know nothing... never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun" (Eccl. 9:5-6).
Death in the Old Testament can thus be a punishment for sins in life, but it was not understood at that time as a gateway to eternal punishment. When Achan and his family are stoned in Joshua, that is the end of the matter as far as Joshua is concerned. The Israelites did not think they were sending Achan's family to hell. Their death took care of the sin.
The only real exception is Daniel 12:2-3, the only passage in the Old Testament that everyone agrees clearly teaches resurrection. [1] In Daniel, some (not all) are resurrected for reward and some (not all) are resurrected for "everlasting contempt." Daniel does not tell us what everlasting contempt is. I hold many individuals from the past in everlasting contempt as a category of shame.
As with so many key Christian concepts, the crucial background to the New Testament came in the two to three hundred years immediately preceding Christ. It is during this time that an understanding of hell developed in Jewish apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls). And it is this literature rather than the Old Testament that is the primary background for the kind of imagery of Gehenna that we find in the New Testament.
We have already seen some of the imagery of hell in the gospels. The gospels clearly teach that there will be a judgment of the wicked dead at the judgment. However, given some of the questions people are asking about hell right now, it might be useful to revisit them with the question of "how long" they say hell will last. And here we only find the one statement in Matthew 25:46 about eternal punishment.
What is eternal punishment? We probably rightly take it to mean a punishment that goes on in real time forever. Others might try to interpret it differently. For example, annihilation is a final punishment that continues forever. It is a kind of eternal punishment. I doubt that is what Matthew 25 means, but I can see someone trying to interpret the statement in that way.
The other passages are more ambiguous when it comes to duration. The other references to Gehenna in Matthew and Luke talk about being thrown into hell but don't mention how long the torment lasts. Mark 9:43 and 45 speak of the fire of Gehenna never being quenched. Does this mean that the torment of an individual never ends? It probably does.
The word "Hades," on the other hand, is the Greek equivalent of Sheol and refers to the place of the dead in general without specific reference to reward or punishment. The fact that Capernaum will be brought down to Hades could only mean that it will be destroyed in the judgment (Matt. 11:23). However, despite the generality of the word, the overall context of Matthew probably implies everlasting punishment.
Paul never mentions hell in any of his writings. Revelation of course speaks of the lake of fire, into which the beast and those who worshiped him are thrown alive (19:20). Similarly, all the dead rise and are judged, with the wicked thrown into the lake of fire, along with death itself. It is specifically stated that Satan and the beasts of Revelation are then tormented day and night forever (Rev. 20:10). The best assumption is that this is also true of the other wicked, although Revelation does not explicitly say so.
Therefore, after looking at the Bible on hell, we find at least two instances where the punishment seems to be never-ending (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10). Over the centuries, this understanding of hell has crystallized and solidified in Christian teaching. Indeed, the place hell holds in our thinking may come as much from medieval Christianity as from the role it plays in the Bible itself. In the end, you and I cannot decide what hell is, so our best bet is to avoid it at all costs and to share the good news of Christ to as many others as possible in hope that they will avoid it as well.
[1] Other passages are debated, of course, like Isaiah 26 and Ezekiel 37.
_________
It is well above my--or your--pay grade to determine what God does with hell. What we might do is clarify a little what the Bible seems to say and what it doesn't likely say about it. First, as far as the Bible is concerned, hell is a distinctly New Testament idea. The vast majority of the Old Testament is either silent about the afterlife or explicitly denies any meaningful existence after death.
Job 7:9-10 captures the Old Testament understanding well: "one who goes down to the grave does not return. He will never come to his house again; his place will know him no more." I used to think that Job's wife was horrible when she was urging Job to curse God and die. To me, she was wishing him to go into hell forever. But she actually was urging him to put himself out of his misery. In her way of thinking, after he cursed God, God would kill him and then he would no longer be in pain.
"Sheol" in the Old Testament is thus not a place of eternal torment. It is merely the place where all the dead go when they die. It is a place of generally mindless, shadowy existence. Psalm 6 prays, "save me because of your unfailing love. Among the dead no one proclaims your name. Who praises you from the grave?"(Ps. 6:4-5). Ecclesiastes of course puts it in its starkest terms, "The dead know nothing... never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun" (Eccl. 9:5-6).
Death in the Old Testament can thus be a punishment for sins in life, but it was not understood at that time as a gateway to eternal punishment. When Achan and his family are stoned in Joshua, that is the end of the matter as far as Joshua is concerned. The Israelites did not think they were sending Achan's family to hell. Their death took care of the sin.
The only real exception is Daniel 12:2-3, the only passage in the Old Testament that everyone agrees clearly teaches resurrection. [1] In Daniel, some (not all) are resurrected for reward and some (not all) are resurrected for "everlasting contempt." Daniel does not tell us what everlasting contempt is. I hold many individuals from the past in everlasting contempt as a category of shame.
As with so many key Christian concepts, the crucial background to the New Testament came in the two to three hundred years immediately preceding Christ. It is during this time that an understanding of hell developed in Jewish apocalyptic literature (1 Enoch, the Dead Sea Scrolls). And it is this literature rather than the Old Testament that is the primary background for the kind of imagery of Gehenna that we find in the New Testament.
We have already seen some of the imagery of hell in the gospels. The gospels clearly teach that there will be a judgment of the wicked dead at the judgment. However, given some of the questions people are asking about hell right now, it might be useful to revisit them with the question of "how long" they say hell will last. And here we only find the one statement in Matthew 25:46 about eternal punishment.
What is eternal punishment? We probably rightly take it to mean a punishment that goes on in real time forever. Others might try to interpret it differently. For example, annihilation is a final punishment that continues forever. It is a kind of eternal punishment. I doubt that is what Matthew 25 means, but I can see someone trying to interpret the statement in that way.
The other passages are more ambiguous when it comes to duration. The other references to Gehenna in Matthew and Luke talk about being thrown into hell but don't mention how long the torment lasts. Mark 9:43 and 45 speak of the fire of Gehenna never being quenched. Does this mean that the torment of an individual never ends? It probably does.
The word "Hades," on the other hand, is the Greek equivalent of Sheol and refers to the place of the dead in general without specific reference to reward or punishment. The fact that Capernaum will be brought down to Hades could only mean that it will be destroyed in the judgment (Matt. 11:23). However, despite the generality of the word, the overall context of Matthew probably implies everlasting punishment.
Paul never mentions hell in any of his writings. Revelation of course speaks of the lake of fire, into which the beast and those who worshiped him are thrown alive (19:20). Similarly, all the dead rise and are judged, with the wicked thrown into the lake of fire, along with death itself. It is specifically stated that Satan and the beasts of Revelation are then tormented day and night forever (Rev. 20:10). The best assumption is that this is also true of the other wicked, although Revelation does not explicitly say so.
Therefore, after looking at the Bible on hell, we find at least two instances where the punishment seems to be never-ending (Matt. 25:46; Rev. 20:10). Over the centuries, this understanding of hell has crystallized and solidified in Christian teaching. Indeed, the place hell holds in our thinking may come as much from medieval Christianity as from the role it plays in the Bible itself. In the end, you and I cannot decide what hell is, so our best bet is to avoid it at all costs and to share the good news of Christ to as many others as possible in hope that they will avoid it as well.
[1] Other passages are debated, of course, like Isaiah 26 and Ezekiel 37.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Christians and hell (9)
Continued from yesterday
__________
A serious question, however, is what "eternal punishment" is. Does Matthew want us to see the wicked suffering forever and ever? Certainly this is the understanding of hell that most of us have grown up hearing. Hell is a place where those who do not believe in Jesus suffer forever.
This is a very sensitive topic, and we should make a couple things very clear from the very beginning. First, there is a right or wrong answer, and it is not a matter of a vote. Like the question of whether God literally exists as a being who thinks, acts, and exists completely independent of us, the answer has nothing to do with us. Either God literally exists or he doesn't. In the same way, hell is either a place of never ending torment or it isn't. Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with it.
The second point is that the questions so many seem to be asking right now about hell are not simply some problem with our culture or lack of spirituality. They are real and difficult questions. Hell as we traditionally think of it is a place of infinite punishment. But even the sins of Hitler, Stalin, or the worse serial killer of all time at least seem finite. How could hell be just if God gives an endless punishment for finite crimes?
Some Christians have coherently answered that even one sin against God is an infinite sin and thus that even one violation of God's law is worthy of eternal hell. Yet this is an idea that comes from someone reading between the lines. The Bible doesn't actually say this.
It's even harder for us to put ourselves in God's place and imagine sending someone to never ending torment. How long would any of us let our worse enemy suffer in a fire, and what state of mind would it take for us to prolong it? If someone murdered my daughter, how long would I let them suffer in a fire before I mercifully told the executioner to put them out of their misery? An hour? What attitude would it take me to let that murderer go on suffering in a fire for a day or a week? It's hard for me to imagine how much hate I would have to have to let my enemy burn for a year.
Of course God is not a man. We at least must think of hell more in terms of justice than of vengeance. But again, in human terms, how cold and unfeeling would I have to be to let someone burn in torment for a whole month, even as a punishment for horrible crimes? We like to think that God is sad for people to go to hell--"I'm not sending you there. You're sending yourself, and I'm sad to see you go." But is God not God? Is he a slave to some abstract concept of justice? Does he not have the authority to pardon someone after a thousand years of torment, after a million or a billion years of torment?
What we are saying is that these are not just the questions of an unbeliever. They are the kinds of questions a believer might ask precisely because they believe God is "a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:2). We cannot wish hell away. We cannot get together and vote it into non-existence. But it is at the very least understandable if we find some tension between our belief that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13) and the traditional interpretation of eternal punishment.
It is well above my--or your--pay grade to determine what God does with hell. What we might do is clarify a little what the Bible seems to say and what it doesn't likely say about it...
__________
A serious question, however, is what "eternal punishment" is. Does Matthew want us to see the wicked suffering forever and ever? Certainly this is the understanding of hell that most of us have grown up hearing. Hell is a place where those who do not believe in Jesus suffer forever.
This is a very sensitive topic, and we should make a couple things very clear from the very beginning. First, there is a right or wrong answer, and it is not a matter of a vote. Like the question of whether God literally exists as a being who thinks, acts, and exists completely independent of us, the answer has nothing to do with us. Either God literally exists or he doesn't. In the same way, hell is either a place of never ending torment or it isn't. Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with it.
The second point is that the questions so many seem to be asking right now about hell are not simply some problem with our culture or lack of spirituality. They are real and difficult questions. Hell as we traditionally think of it is a place of infinite punishment. But even the sins of Hitler, Stalin, or the worse serial killer of all time at least seem finite. How could hell be just if God gives an endless punishment for finite crimes?
Some Christians have coherently answered that even one sin against God is an infinite sin and thus that even one violation of God's law is worthy of eternal hell. Yet this is an idea that comes from someone reading between the lines. The Bible doesn't actually say this.
It's even harder for us to put ourselves in God's place and imagine sending someone to never ending torment. How long would any of us let our worse enemy suffer in a fire, and what state of mind would it take for us to prolong it? If someone murdered my daughter, how long would I let them suffer in a fire before I mercifully told the executioner to put them out of their misery? An hour? What attitude would it take me to let that murderer go on suffering in a fire for a day or a week? It's hard for me to imagine how much hate I would have to have to let my enemy burn for a year.
Of course God is not a man. We at least must think of hell more in terms of justice than of vengeance. But again, in human terms, how cold and unfeeling would I have to be to let someone burn in torment for a whole month, even as a punishment for horrible crimes? We like to think that God is sad for people to go to hell--"I'm not sending you there. You're sending yourself, and I'm sad to see you go." But is God not God? Is he a slave to some abstract concept of justice? Does he not have the authority to pardon someone after a thousand years of torment, after a million or a billion years of torment?
What we are saying is that these are not just the questions of an unbeliever. They are the kinds of questions a believer might ask precisely because they believe God is "a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity" (Jonah 4:2). We cannot wish hell away. We cannot get together and vote it into non-existence. But it is at the very least understandable if we find some tension between our belief that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13) and the traditional interpretation of eternal punishment.
It is well above my--or your--pay grade to determine what God does with hell. What we might do is clarify a little what the Bible seems to say and what it doesn't likely say about it...
Christian Teaching Today...
Very interesting piece by Jenell Williams Paris in Christianity Today in response to Mark Noll's book, Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind. It really gives a good sense of the thousand different ways a Christian professor is pulled at a Christian college.
The body of Christ imagery is as always so simple and yet very helpful. Even among professors you will find different gifts. Some are gifted to lead the way in thought. Some are gifted to lead the way in service and application. Some are good at organizing the very place of learning. Some are good mentoring students. Some can do several of these things well.
A robust institution wants a little of everything and, even in the spread of universities, we also have the possibility of differing emphases.
The body of Christ imagery is as always so simple and yet very helpful. Even among professors you will find different gifts. Some are gifted to lead the way in thought. Some are gifted to lead the way in service and application. Some are good at organizing the very place of learning. Some are good mentoring students. Some can do several of these things well.
A robust institution wants a little of everything and, even in the spread of universities, we also have the possibility of differing emphases.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Jesus and Hell (8)
continued from here.
____________
The traditions of Jesus as we have them thus do not focus on hell, but clearly indicate that he believed it existed and that many would end up there. Of course we might debate the potential difference between what Jesus said historically and the way the gospel writers present him, but in this particular case such debates will likely end up in speculation rather than clear certainty. The comments on hell in the Jesus tradition go deep.
For example, there are the statements we mentioned earlier in the chapter about those among the living who will be thrown directly into Gehenna from the earth (Mark 9:47; Matt. 10:28). These two statements fit some of the criteria that the most skeptical historians have used to try to distinguish between things Jesus said and things they do not think he said. Here, these two sayings come from what most experts would consider two different layers of Jesus tradition, two separate sources of material. Mark is one source. Then Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4 represent some other, different source. [1]
Matthew and Luke have other material about hell in common. The queen of the south and the Ninevites who repented will rise from the dead at the judgment and condemn Jesus' generation for not repenting and believing (Matt. 12:41-42; Luke 11:31-32). Things will go better for ancient Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom in the judgment than for Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum, which largely did not accept Jesus (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-14). They all will rise for the final verdict. Interestingly, there seem to be levels of punishment.
Matthew in particular repeats numerous times the imagery of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" for the condemned, often taking place after being cast out into "outer darkness" (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). In one place, we hear that this is an eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46; cf. 18:8), that the wicked are going to a place that was originally prepared for the Devil and his angels (25:41). The other gospels do not mention that hell is a place where the wicked go forever...
[1] This other source is sometimes called "Q," which is short for the German word for source, "Quelle." However, it is not important for us here that Q be a real document. Clearly Matthew got this saying from some source other than Mark, because the saying is not in Mark.
____________
The traditions of Jesus as we have them thus do not focus on hell, but clearly indicate that he believed it existed and that many would end up there. Of course we might debate the potential difference between what Jesus said historically and the way the gospel writers present him, but in this particular case such debates will likely end up in speculation rather than clear certainty. The comments on hell in the Jesus tradition go deep.
For example, there are the statements we mentioned earlier in the chapter about those among the living who will be thrown directly into Gehenna from the earth (Mark 9:47; Matt. 10:28). These two statements fit some of the criteria that the most skeptical historians have used to try to distinguish between things Jesus said and things they do not think he said. Here, these two sayings come from what most experts would consider two different layers of Jesus tradition, two separate sources of material. Mark is one source. Then Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:4 represent some other, different source. [1]
Matthew and Luke have other material about hell in common. The queen of the south and the Ninevites who repented will rise from the dead at the judgment and condemn Jesus' generation for not repenting and believing (Matt. 12:41-42; Luke 11:31-32). Things will go better for ancient Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom in the judgment than for Bethsaida, Chorazin, and Capernaum, which largely did not accept Jesus (Matt. 11:20-24; Luke 10:13-14). They all will rise for the final verdict. Interestingly, there seem to be levels of punishment.
Matthew in particular repeats numerous times the imagery of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" for the condemned, often taking place after being cast out into "outer darkness" (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). In one place, we hear that this is an eternal punishment (Matt. 25:46; cf. 18:8), that the wicked are going to a place that was originally prepared for the Devil and his angels (25:41). The other gospels do not mention that hell is a place where the wicked go forever...
[1] This other source is sometimes called "Q," which is short for the German word for source, "Quelle." However, it is not important for us here that Q be a real document. Clearly Matthew got this saying from some source other than Mark, because the saying is not in Mark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
