Trying to summarize Paul under three headings: Paul the Jew, Paul the Christ-Follower, and Paul the Apostle. This is the first of "Paul the Christ-Follower."
________
Paul the Christ-Follower
Paul speaks of a time when God was pleased "to reveal his Son in me" (Gal. 1:16). In Acts 9 we get a fuller version of this event. On his way to Damascus, the risen Christ appeared to Paul and changed the trajectory of his life from someone zealous for the ethnic distinctives of the Jewish Law to someone who zealously proclaimed that Christ is king.
Like many Jews of his day, Paul may have already been looking for a messiah, a king, to come eventually to rule over a renewed nation of Israel. As a Pharisee, Paul would already have believed in a future resurrection at least for those killed because of their faithfulness to God. But initially, the idea that Jesus might be this king did not compute for Paul. Messiahs were not supposed to die, and the resurrection was supposed to happen all at once, not just to one individual.
Not only that, but this Jesus was not zealous for the Law the way he thought the messiah surely would be. Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. He did not seem to pay much attention to the rules about the sabbath or matters of purity. He included people who were unclean in his fellowship.
All of that changed when Christ appeared to him, and Paul had to rethink his entire way of understanding. Jesus was the Messiah, the "anointed one," the "Christ" in Greek. He now confessed that "Jesus is Lord," perhaps the earliest Christian confession of faith. To say Jesus was Lord was to say that God raised him from the dead and enthroned him as king of the universe (Ps. 110:1). This is the heart of the gospel, the "good news," for Paul: Jesus has arrived as God's king to set up God's kingdom. He is the one Lord who goes with the one God (1 Cor. 8:6). He will come again to earth soon to finish what he started, to judge the earth while rescuing those who confess him as Lord.
However, Paul tells us that the focus of his preaching was the cross (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:23). In the cross, like the believers before him, Paul saw Christ's death as a sacrifice for sins. Through the "faith of Jesus," God showed his people his continuing faithfulness to them. But unlike most believers before him, Paul argued that this sacrifice could apply both to Jews and Gentiles. He believed that God graciously would accept Gentiles because of Christ's death, as well as Jews.
In fact, Paul came to believe that God accepted Jews on exactly the same basis, that no amount of keeping of the Jewish Law could establish a right relationship between a Jew and God. After all, he had been blameless at keeping the Law and still needed Christ. God must obviously be looking for something other than Law keeping, and it turned out to be the cross of Christ.
Paul follows through with the new revelation. The Jewish Law put the Jews under a curse. It only showed their inability to keep it. The death of Christ redeemed them from that curse. God in his grace had decided to reconcile the entire world to himself through Christ, apart from things like circumcision, the purity and food laws, or sabbath observance. These are things Paul primarily had in mind when he said a person could not be made right with God or "justified" by "works of Law" (e.g., 3:28), the things that most separated Jew from Gentile. God was both the God of the Jews and the Gentiles (Rom. 3:29). He was the God of all who had faith in him (4:16), those who have trusted in what he has done through Christ (9:33). All who call on the name of the Lord Jesus will be saved from God's coming judgment (10:13).
Key for Paul was that a person participate and "get inside" of Christ's death and resurrection. We are baptized into Christ. We are buried with him in baptism (Rom. 6:4), and we rise with him to live a new life in his resurrection (6:8; 8:11). The life that we now live, we live "in the faithfulness of the Son of God" (Gal. 2:20, my translation). God accomplishes this transformation through the Holy Spirit, whom God has given us as both a guarantee and down payment of our inheritance that is to come (2 Cor. 5:5).
The result is that we now live a life "according to the Spirit" rather than "according to the flesh," which is how we used to live (Gal. 5:16; Rom. 8:8), a life of love toward our neighbor. Paul's ethic for his Gentile converts is basically the Jewish Law stripped of its ethnic particulars. External matters like circumcision and purity rules, even sabbath observance are not part of God's expectation for Gentile believers. However, they remain under Christ's law (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:21). They remain, for example, under the sexual prohibition of the Jewish Scriptures, which Christians later came to call the "Old" Testament.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Paul the Jew 2
Continued from yesterday...
... Nor is it likely that Paul viewed himself as a moral failure before he "discovered" justification by faith. This was also one version of the older story. Paul, plagued by his moral failures as revealed in Romans 7, finally realizes that he must depend entirely on Christ for his righteousness. Now that he believes, he still cannot do the good he wants to do (7:19), but God now looks at Christ's righteousness rather than his. Paul is both sinner and righteous, as long as he keeps repenting.
Again, this scenario is a fair description of Martin Luther's pilgrimage, but it is not Paul's. [1] In Philippians 3:6, Paul says that before he believed on Christ, he was faultless, "as for righteousness based on the law." Indeed, Paul regularly tells his churches confidently to imitate his way of living (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:16-17; Phil. 4:9), and the word repentance rarely leaps from his subconscious in his writings--in fact never in relation to himself. Paul was not a bad Pharisee. He simply had an encounter with Christ that led him in another direction!
The vast majority of experts on Romans now agree that Paul never meant Romans 7 to depict a never-ending struggle for believers to do the right thing. Indeed, we are reading this chapter exactly the opposite of how Paul meant it if we do not read it in the flow of Romans 6-8. In these chapters, Paul contrasts what it is like to be a slave to sin with what it is like to have the Spirit within. The end of the argument is Romans 8, where he talks about the Spirit setting a person free from the law of sin and death (8:2).
On the way there, Paul vividly dramatizes in Romans 7 the plight of the person, especially the Jew, who does not have the Spirit but wants to keep the essence of the Law, such as the command not to covet. At the dramatic climax, he pictures this poor person crying out, "Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?" (7:24) The answer quickly follows, "through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:25). Now by the power of the Spirit, we can fulfill the "just requirement of the law" (8:4, NRSV), which Paul later tells us is to love our neighbor (13:8-10).
Paul does say some things in his writings that paved the way for later Christians like Tertullian to consider Christians a "third race," neither Jew nor Gentile. [2] In 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Paul says that "to the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews... to those not having the law I became like one not having the law." But this statement is really about keeping the Jewish Law--especially the parts like circumcision that distinguished Jew from Gentile--rather than about him abandoning his identity as an Israelite. Romans 11 gives us the bigger picture.
For a time, the hearts of many Jews are hardened not to believe. Certainly there remains a remnant of "true Israel" at present (e.g., Rom. 9:6), but most of ethnic Israel does not currently believe. God is instead at this time grafting into the tree of Abraham the "full number of the Gentiles" (11:25). Israel's lack of faith, in God's plan, has created an opportunity for the Gentiles to hear and believe the good news as well (e.g., 11:11). But once that full number of the Gentiles comes in, then Israel itself will believe too: "all Israel will be saved" (11:26). The "part" that is hardened (11:25) will become the "all" that believes (11:26).
For Paul, Israel thus remained the people of God. Jews who believed remained part of true Israel. Gentiles who believed could become a part of true Israel as well.
[1] We have Krister Stendahl, more than any other expert on Paul, to thank for these observations. See "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," now in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (***). I dedicated the second volume of this series to him and N. T. Wright.
[2] To the Gentiles 1.8.
... Nor is it likely that Paul viewed himself as a moral failure before he "discovered" justification by faith. This was also one version of the older story. Paul, plagued by his moral failures as revealed in Romans 7, finally realizes that he must depend entirely on Christ for his righteousness. Now that he believes, he still cannot do the good he wants to do (7:19), but God now looks at Christ's righteousness rather than his. Paul is both sinner and righteous, as long as he keeps repenting.
Again, this scenario is a fair description of Martin Luther's pilgrimage, but it is not Paul's. [1] In Philippians 3:6, Paul says that before he believed on Christ, he was faultless, "as for righteousness based on the law." Indeed, Paul regularly tells his churches confidently to imitate his way of living (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:16-17; Phil. 4:9), and the word repentance rarely leaps from his subconscious in his writings--in fact never in relation to himself. Paul was not a bad Pharisee. He simply had an encounter with Christ that led him in another direction!
The vast majority of experts on Romans now agree that Paul never meant Romans 7 to depict a never-ending struggle for believers to do the right thing. Indeed, we are reading this chapter exactly the opposite of how Paul meant it if we do not read it in the flow of Romans 6-8. In these chapters, Paul contrasts what it is like to be a slave to sin with what it is like to have the Spirit within. The end of the argument is Romans 8, where he talks about the Spirit setting a person free from the law of sin and death (8:2).
On the way there, Paul vividly dramatizes in Romans 7 the plight of the person, especially the Jew, who does not have the Spirit but wants to keep the essence of the Law, such as the command not to covet. At the dramatic climax, he pictures this poor person crying out, "Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?" (7:24) The answer quickly follows, "through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:25). Now by the power of the Spirit, we can fulfill the "just requirement of the law" (8:4, NRSV), which Paul later tells us is to love our neighbor (13:8-10).
Paul does say some things in his writings that paved the way for later Christians like Tertullian to consider Christians a "third race," neither Jew nor Gentile. [2] In 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Paul says that "to the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews... to those not having the law I became like one not having the law." But this statement is really about keeping the Jewish Law--especially the parts like circumcision that distinguished Jew from Gentile--rather than about him abandoning his identity as an Israelite. Romans 11 gives us the bigger picture.
For a time, the hearts of many Jews are hardened not to believe. Certainly there remains a remnant of "true Israel" at present (e.g., Rom. 9:6), but most of ethnic Israel does not currently believe. God is instead at this time grafting into the tree of Abraham the "full number of the Gentiles" (11:25). Israel's lack of faith, in God's plan, has created an opportunity for the Gentiles to hear and believe the good news as well (e.g., 11:11). But once that full number of the Gentiles comes in, then Israel itself will believe too: "all Israel will be saved" (11:26). The "part" that is hardened (11:25) will become the "all" that believes (11:26).
For Paul, Israel thus remained the people of God. Jews who believed remained part of true Israel. Gentiles who believed could become a part of true Israel as well.
[1] We have Krister Stendahl, more than any other expert on Paul, to thank for these observations. See "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," now in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (***). I dedicated the second volume of this series to him and N. T. Wright.
[2] To the Gentiles 1.8.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Hebrews excerpt for the day...
From a chapter I am writing on "Hebrews and the Temple":
"Indeed, part of the new perspective we are proposing is a recognition that this kind of argument usually has a certain implicit circularity to it. It wonders why Hebrews does not mention the destruction of the temple when it is arguing against relying on the temple. If, however, Hebrews is not arguing against relying on the temple, the argument loses almost all of its intuitive power. True, it would make no sense to argue against relying on the temple’s sacrificial system if it were already destroyed. The audience could not rely on the temple then even if they tried. If, however, Hebrews is consoling a group of people troubled by the temple’s absence, then the question simply becomes why the author does not explicitly mention the central cause of the audience’s wavering. Interestingly, we have to ask this question anyway, no matter what we think the underlying situation was. For whatever reason, the author chose to speak in generalities rather than in specifics."
"Indeed, part of the new perspective we are proposing is a recognition that this kind of argument usually has a certain implicit circularity to it. It wonders why Hebrews does not mention the destruction of the temple when it is arguing against relying on the temple. If, however, Hebrews is not arguing against relying on the temple, the argument loses almost all of its intuitive power. True, it would make no sense to argue against relying on the temple’s sacrificial system if it were already destroyed. The audience could not rely on the temple then even if they tried. If, however, Hebrews is consoling a group of people troubled by the temple’s absence, then the question simply becomes why the author does not explicitly mention the central cause of the audience’s wavering. Interestingly, we have to ask this question anyway, no matter what we think the underlying situation was. For whatever reason, the author chose to speak in generalities rather than in specifics."
Paul the Jew 1
I am very grateful to Wesleyan Publishing House for publishing soon to be three books on Paul's letters. Although there is a wealth of books out there on Paul, I was convinced that a lot of the great insights on Paul these last thirty years have not made it to the pew, including the Wesleyan pew. What started out as a single book project, "Life Reflections on Paul's Life and Letters," has now become three books! The first reflects on Paul's Earlier Letters. The second ended up just being reflections on Romans.
Now the third one is being proofed, Paul: Prisoner of Hope. It will cover the later letters of the Pauline corpus. As often happens, I got long winded and these chapters, which were originally meant to be part of the second volume, became a third volume in their own right...
... which means I quickly need to write a new "first chapter" for the third volume that catches a reader up to speed with the other two books, just in case someone starts with this one. I've decided to do so in three sections: Paul the Jew, Paul the Christ-follower, and Paul the apostle. Today is Paul the Jew.
______________
Chapter 1: Introducing Paul
This is the last in a series of three volumes reflecting on Paul's life and letters. Accordingly, this book starts near the end of a discussion that has already extensively covered Paul's known ministry. The first volume, Paul: Messenger of Grace, reflected on Paul's early life, as well as on some of his early letters: 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, since I wonder if it was written while Paul was at Ephesus. The second volume, Paul: Soldier of Peace, reflected extensively on his letter to the Romans.
In this book, we finish reflecting on the remaining letters of the Pauline collection: Ephesians, Colossians, the Pastoral letters, and we will cover 2 Thessalonians and Philemon here as well. However, since you may not have read the two previous books on Paul, I want to take a few pages to summarize some of the key dimensions of Paul's life and ministry up to this point. Most of the letters in this volume differ in some interesting ways from Paul's earlier ones, and it is helpful to have an idea of the starting point before looking at the variations!
1. Paul the Jew
Paul was a Jew, just as Jesus was a Jew. Christians throughout the centuries have often seen this fact as irrelevant, as if when Paul became a Christian, he abandoned his Jewishness entirely. He is thought to have changed religions and perhaps even become a model for anger or hatred against Jews today. It is unfortunate, but evil hearts throughout the centuries have often used such ideas as an excuse to persecute or even slaughter Jews. [1]
In part as a result of the Holocaust, the last few decades have seen a careful re-examination of some of these assumptions. What we have found is some glaring holes in this way of looking at Paul. For example, Paul identifies himself as an Israelite and a "Hebrew" in more than one place long after after he believed in Jesus (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5; Rom. 11:1). In fact, Acts 23:6 has Paul identifying himself as a Pharisee in the present tense over twenty years after he became a Christ follower! [2]
It is only because Christianity and Judaism are two distinct religions today that we tend to see Paul as changing religions or converting from one religion to another. Paul would not have seen it that way. For him, the Jews remained the natural branches of the tree, with Gentiles being grafted in (Rom. 11:17-21). One of the most obvious mistakes is to think of "Paul" as his Christian name, as if Paul threw away his Jewish name Saul when he "converted." Acts continues to call him "Saul" well over ten years after he believed on Jesus.
If the prevalent picture drawn of Paul's Jewishness has often been skewed, even more so has the picture of Judaism. [3] The old story was that Judaism was a legalistic religion that believed you had to earn your salvation by good works. Our hero Paul then comes along and realizes that works play no role at all in getting right with God. We are made right with God by faith alone, purely as a matter of God's grace.
This interpretation of Paul has of course everything to do with the argument between Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's. But it seriously skews Paul's argument with other Christians in the first century. The people Paul spars with in Galatians were other Christian Jews--including Peter and James--and, even then, he was arguing on the proper understanding of Jewish faith rather than in terms of Christianity versus Judaism as a separate religion. He was arguing over the proper interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, the only Scriptures that existed at the time.
It is also important to recognize that these arguments are not the central topic of Paul's letters as a whole. They come up primarily in Romans and Galatians, where the question of how Gentiles can be incorporated into the people of God is at issue. Even there, the topic is not "Can a person earn their salvation?" but "Does a Gentile need to convert fully to Judaism to be saved?" The works under discussion are not primarily good works, but "works of law"--especially the ones like circumcision that separated Jew from Gentile ethnically.
A thorough look through all the Jewish literature of Paul's day reveals both that there was a wide spectrum of Jewish beliefs at the time and that all or nearly all of them saw God's grace as the ultimate basis for right standing before him. [4] Further, as the Wesleyan and other traditions have always argued, how one lives remains an element in final salvation for Paul, not in terms of how good a person is but in terms of walking in faithful relationship with God. The older Lutheran version of Paul was thus wrong on both ends--wrong about how grace-less Judaism was and wrong about how works-less Paul was. [5]
[1] An early reflection on this dynamic, written by a Jew in part while on the run from the Nazis in France, was Jules Isaac's Jesus and Israel (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971 [1948]).
[2] Of course, we have to interpret this fact carefully. Paul was a master at rhetoric, and Acts tends to give a "conservative" portrait of Paul. It is doubtful that Paul would have normally identified himself as a Pharisee at this point in his ministry.
[3] The work that broke the dam on this issue was E. P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977).
[4] 4 Ezra, from about AD100 is sometimes mentioned as an exception.
[5] Like any tradition, present day Lutheran interpreters of Paul do not simply repeat the interpretations of Luther. They have assimilated the discussions of the last thirty years into their interpretations.
Now the third one is being proofed, Paul: Prisoner of Hope. It will cover the later letters of the Pauline corpus. As often happens, I got long winded and these chapters, which were originally meant to be part of the second volume, became a third volume in their own right...
... which means I quickly need to write a new "first chapter" for the third volume that catches a reader up to speed with the other two books, just in case someone starts with this one. I've decided to do so in three sections: Paul the Jew, Paul the Christ-follower, and Paul the apostle. Today is Paul the Jew.
______________
Chapter 1: Introducing Paul
This is the last in a series of three volumes reflecting on Paul's life and letters. Accordingly, this book starts near the end of a discussion that has already extensively covered Paul's known ministry. The first volume, Paul: Messenger of Grace, reflected on Paul's early life, as well as on some of his early letters: 1 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Philippians, since I wonder if it was written while Paul was at Ephesus. The second volume, Paul: Soldier of Peace, reflected extensively on his letter to the Romans.
In this book, we finish reflecting on the remaining letters of the Pauline collection: Ephesians, Colossians, the Pastoral letters, and we will cover 2 Thessalonians and Philemon here as well. However, since you may not have read the two previous books on Paul, I want to take a few pages to summarize some of the key dimensions of Paul's life and ministry up to this point. Most of the letters in this volume differ in some interesting ways from Paul's earlier ones, and it is helpful to have an idea of the starting point before looking at the variations!
1. Paul the Jew
Paul was a Jew, just as Jesus was a Jew. Christians throughout the centuries have often seen this fact as irrelevant, as if when Paul became a Christian, he abandoned his Jewishness entirely. He is thought to have changed religions and perhaps even become a model for anger or hatred against Jews today. It is unfortunate, but evil hearts throughout the centuries have often used such ideas as an excuse to persecute or even slaughter Jews. [1]
In part as a result of the Holocaust, the last few decades have seen a careful re-examination of some of these assumptions. What we have found is some glaring holes in this way of looking at Paul. For example, Paul identifies himself as an Israelite and a "Hebrew" in more than one place long after after he believed in Jesus (e.g., 2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5; Rom. 11:1). In fact, Acts 23:6 has Paul identifying himself as a Pharisee in the present tense over twenty years after he became a Christ follower! [2]
It is only because Christianity and Judaism are two distinct religions today that we tend to see Paul as changing religions or converting from one religion to another. Paul would not have seen it that way. For him, the Jews remained the natural branches of the tree, with Gentiles being grafted in (Rom. 11:17-21). One of the most obvious mistakes is to think of "Paul" as his Christian name, as if Paul threw away his Jewish name Saul when he "converted." Acts continues to call him "Saul" well over ten years after he believed on Jesus.
If the prevalent picture drawn of Paul's Jewishness has often been skewed, even more so has the picture of Judaism. [3] The old story was that Judaism was a legalistic religion that believed you had to earn your salvation by good works. Our hero Paul then comes along and realizes that works play no role at all in getting right with God. We are made right with God by faith alone, purely as a matter of God's grace.
This interpretation of Paul has of course everything to do with the argument between Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500's. But it seriously skews Paul's argument with other Christians in the first century. The people Paul spars with in Galatians were other Christian Jews--including Peter and James--and, even then, he was arguing on the proper understanding of Jewish faith rather than in terms of Christianity versus Judaism as a separate religion. He was arguing over the proper interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures, the only Scriptures that existed at the time.
It is also important to recognize that these arguments are not the central topic of Paul's letters as a whole. They come up primarily in Romans and Galatians, where the question of how Gentiles can be incorporated into the people of God is at issue. Even there, the topic is not "Can a person earn their salvation?" but "Does a Gentile need to convert fully to Judaism to be saved?" The works under discussion are not primarily good works, but "works of law"--especially the ones like circumcision that separated Jew from Gentile ethnically.
A thorough look through all the Jewish literature of Paul's day reveals both that there was a wide spectrum of Jewish beliefs at the time and that all or nearly all of them saw God's grace as the ultimate basis for right standing before him. [4] Further, as the Wesleyan and other traditions have always argued, how one lives remains an element in final salvation for Paul, not in terms of how good a person is but in terms of walking in faithful relationship with God. The older Lutheran version of Paul was thus wrong on both ends--wrong about how grace-less Judaism was and wrong about how works-less Paul was. [5]
[1] An early reflection on this dynamic, written by a Jew in part while on the run from the Nazis in France, was Jules Isaac's Jesus and Israel (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971 [1948]).
[2] Of course, we have to interpret this fact carefully. Paul was a master at rhetoric, and Acts tends to give a "conservative" portrait of Paul. It is doubtful that Paul would have normally identified himself as a Pharisee at this point in his ministry.
[3] The work that broke the dam on this issue was E. P. Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1977).
[4] 4 Ezra, from about AD100 is sometimes mentioned as an exception.
[5] Like any tradition, present day Lutheran interpreters of Paul do not simply repeat the interpretations of Luther. They have assimilated the discussions of the last thirty years into their interpretations.
Review of new NIV
Ben Witherington posted this link on his blog to an excellent review of the NIV. It's excellent because of the way it breaks down the issues of choosing a translation. If you're interested, have a look!
Sunday, December 04, 2011
Second Sunday of Advent: Hebrews 11
In one reckoning, the second Sunday of Advent thinks about hope. Hebrews 11 might seem like a strange place to go for Advent. It is more usually associated with faith. But hope and faith are intricately connected in Hebrews 11.
Hebrews 11 does not give a definition of faith but multiple descriptions of faith. It's opening proverb is that faith is the stuff we have now of things we are hoping will come to pass. Faith is the proof we have now of things we do not yet see. In keeping with the overall meaning of Hebrews, Hebrews connects faith with continuing on in our journey through this world even though Christ has not yet returned. In this context, faith is about endurance. It is believing in the things for which we hope even though they have not yet materialized.
In the context of Hebrews, the invisible has to do with promises God has given us for the future. These are not promises not to suffer. Quite the contrary--Hebrews 11 is full of examples of people who did suffer on this earth, though they looked to a city and country that was yet to come. But we can of course expand the meaning to things we cannot see now too.
We can believe this year that God is in control, despite the fact that he allows a lot of things to happen we might want to change if we were God. We can believe that it is right to love our enemies and to live a selfless life, even though our human intuition tells us this is stupidity. And we can believe that one day, God will play out the final reset on evil that he started on the cross.
Hebrews 11 does not give a definition of faith but multiple descriptions of faith. It's opening proverb is that faith is the stuff we have now of things we are hoping will come to pass. Faith is the proof we have now of things we do not yet see. In keeping with the overall meaning of Hebrews, Hebrews connects faith with continuing on in our journey through this world even though Christ has not yet returned. In this context, faith is about endurance. It is believing in the things for which we hope even though they have not yet materialized.
In the context of Hebrews, the invisible has to do with promises God has given us for the future. These are not promises not to suffer. Quite the contrary--Hebrews 11 is full of examples of people who did suffer on this earth, though they looked to a city and country that was yet to come. But we can of course expand the meaning to things we cannot see now too.
We can believe this year that God is in control, despite the fact that he allows a lot of things to happen we might want to change if we were God. We can believe that it is right to love our enemies and to live a selfless life, even though our human intuition tells us this is stupidity. And we can believe that one day, God will play out the final reset on evil that he started on the cross.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
The End of the Earth...
I found it. It's at the International Bus Station in Vienna.
Not by a long shot really, of course. This is a brief thought on my psychology and sociology. I'm not sure people know what I mean when I say that we draw lines around reality. These lines usually relate to real things--like where rivers are located. But we construct boundaries in our minds well beyond.
When I went to the International Bus Station to buy bus tickets, it had the feel of getting ready to cross a line. An unfamilar subway to the industrial side of town. Down a side staircase and out into a none too friendly looking street. Then a bus station with a lot of Eastern European looking people, people headed to places like Belgrade and Serbia.
It was then the thought hit me. I was at the end of the earth. I don't know Hungarian or the host of languages spoken in relatively tiny patches of southeastern European lands. Then this morning we crossed the barrier to the East, leaving the "Western world."
The current line in my mind was drawn more than anything by the Soviet Union. It more than anything else is responsible for the difference between how the subway trains here look here in Budapest, Hungary where I write and how they look in Austria just a few kilometers to the west.
To think that Austria-Hungary used to be a unit! The buildings here are as beautiful as anywhere in Europe and more than most. To think that the oldest underground train is here--Hungary was not behind technologically a hundred years ago. And of course I'm using Wi-Fi as we speak and paid for the hostel with a credit card.
The lines are as much in my mind as in reality. We did not fall off the earth in the bus just after we crossed the border.
Not by a long shot really, of course. This is a brief thought on my psychology and sociology. I'm not sure people know what I mean when I say that we draw lines around reality. These lines usually relate to real things--like where rivers are located. But we construct boundaries in our minds well beyond.
When I went to the International Bus Station to buy bus tickets, it had the feel of getting ready to cross a line. An unfamilar subway to the industrial side of town. Down a side staircase and out into a none too friendly looking street. Then a bus station with a lot of Eastern European looking people, people headed to places like Belgrade and Serbia.
It was then the thought hit me. I was at the end of the earth. I don't know Hungarian or the host of languages spoken in relatively tiny patches of southeastern European lands. Then this morning we crossed the barrier to the East, leaving the "Western world."
The current line in my mind was drawn more than anything by the Soviet Union. It more than anything else is responsible for the difference between how the subway trains here look here in Budapest, Hungary where I write and how they look in Austria just a few kilometers to the west.
To think that Austria-Hungary used to be a unit! The buildings here are as beautiful as anywhere in Europe and more than most. To think that the oldest underground train is here--Hungary was not behind technologically a hundred years ago. And of course I'm using Wi-Fi as we speak and paid for the hostel with a credit card.
The lines are as much in my mind as in reality. We did not fall off the earth in the bus just after we crossed the border.
Which tax cuts?
The payroll tax cut benefits the majority of people, especially the middle class. The tax cuts that were the big issue in the supercommittee were the ones primarily for those who make millions. If a person opposes one in the name of not raising taxes, doesn't a person have to oppose the other for the same reason?
It's legitimate to oppose raising one and not the other for economic reasons (and this argument has been used for not raising on both ends of the wealth spectrum). You might think one or the other cut benefits the economy more. But if your argument is not raising taxes, then there's something else driving your position, something you're not owning up to.
It's legitimate to oppose raising one and not the other for economic reasons (and this argument has been used for not raising on both ends of the wealth spectrum). You might think one or the other cut benefits the economy more. But if your argument is not raising taxes, then there's something else driving your position, something you're not owning up to.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Obama kissing China's prime minister
I'm pretty sure the pictures are doctored, but these were in Vienna advertising the United Colors of Benetton. ;-) The second one is Merkel of Germany kissing French Sarkozy.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Targum of Hebrews 13:9-16
I love the idea of targum--an interpretive paraphrase of Scripture. The Jews did it. Arguably there is a significant element of this in the NT use of the OT, as well as in the early phase of copying the New Testament. The old idea that they counted line by line to make sure they didn't miss anything applied to the Masoretes 1000 years later, not to the biblical authors and early Christians. The Message was much more the name of the game than the ESV.
I'd love to do a targum on the whole New Testament, but I doubt any publisher would be interested. But here's my targum on Hebrews 13:9-16:
"Do not be carried away with the varied, strange, Levitical substitutes that have arisen since the temple’s destruction. We should be confident in God’s grace through the sacrifice of Christ rather than in whatever foods some are now suggesting represent the foods they used to eat in the temple. We have the altar of Christ, a sacrificial altar from which those who only rely on the “wilderness tabernacle” do not have authority to eat. When Israel was in the wilderness, they took the carcasses of sacrificial animals outside the camp and burned them. Jesus’ body was also taken outside the gate of Jerusalem—our altar is not inside the camp, nor inside the earthly tent. Let us therefore go outside the camp, outside Jerusalem, and bear the reproach that Jesus bore when the Romans crucified him, just as the Romans have brought shame on us again by destroying Jerusalem and the temple. The earthly Jerusalem is not our true city anyway, and we should not expect it to remain forever. We belong instead to the heavenly Jerusalem that is coming. The sacrifices we should be offering now are sacrifices of praise, doing good deeds, and fellowship. We should not worry about the old temple sacrifices."
I'd love to do a targum on the whole New Testament, but I doubt any publisher would be interested. But here's my targum on Hebrews 13:9-16:
"Do not be carried away with the varied, strange, Levitical substitutes that have arisen since the temple’s destruction. We should be confident in God’s grace through the sacrifice of Christ rather than in whatever foods some are now suggesting represent the foods they used to eat in the temple. We have the altar of Christ, a sacrificial altar from which those who only rely on the “wilderness tabernacle” do not have authority to eat. When Israel was in the wilderness, they took the carcasses of sacrificial animals outside the camp and burned them. Jesus’ body was also taken outside the gate of Jerusalem—our altar is not inside the camp, nor inside the earthly tent. Let us therefore go outside the camp, outside Jerusalem, and bear the reproach that Jesus bore when the Romans crucified him, just as the Romans have brought shame on us again by destroying Jerusalem and the temple. The earthly Jerusalem is not our true city anyway, and we should not expect it to remain forever. We belong instead to the heavenly Jerusalem that is coming. The sacrifices we should be offering now are sacrifices of praise, doing good deeds, and fellowship. We should not worry about the old temple sacrifices."
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
John and Anti-Judaism 4
Reading through Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament. For previous summaries:
Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism
Luke-Acts and Anti-Judaism
Now chapter 4, John. Of all the books of the New Testament, John is the one most open to charges of antisemitism and anti-Judaism. "The Jews" in John are often synonymous with "the world" in John, which is diametrically opposed to God. The term is used some 70 times in John. They want to kill Jesus, and their father is the devil. Clearly it was easy enough at least for later readers to see in these words a completely negative designation of Jews not only as a religion (anti-Judaism) but as a race (antisemitism). As Gregory Baum once put it, "many generations of John's readers have perceived the Gospel as encouraging them to look with contempt on the Jewish people" (81).
There are some potentially mediating factors. The word sometimes has a neutral sense (about a dozen times). Sometimes the word means "Judean" rather than Jew. In a number of the most pejorative instances, "the Jews" seem to be the religious authorities in Jerusalem.
The relationship to Gentiles is not straightforward. The word Gentile never appears in John. Almost all of those who follow Jesus in John are themselves Jews. Still, John explains things that a Jew would know, implying that it is written so that Gentiles could read it. The majority position on the "sheep not of this fold" verse is that it refers to Gentiles.
I posted yesterday matters relating to the possible history of John both as a document and as a community. These sorts of issues potentially impact the way we understand John's use of language like "the Jews." For example, if the scholarly consensus is correct, then John's community at some point was forced out of mainstream Jewish synagogues. So Baum once argued that "the Gospel needs to be read as a response to a painful exclusion rather than as an attempt to force and hasten a separation" (84).
Donaldson concludes the chapter thinking about John rhetorically. He believes that 20:31 most likely should be rendered, "these are written so that you might continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ" and thus that John addressed an internal community (contra Bauckham). As such, we have an inner-Jewish debate rather than an externally driven anti-Judaism.
It would be fun to explore further, but this is where our discussion of Donaldson's chapter ends.
Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism
Luke-Acts and Anti-Judaism
Now chapter 4, John. Of all the books of the New Testament, John is the one most open to charges of antisemitism and anti-Judaism. "The Jews" in John are often synonymous with "the world" in John, which is diametrically opposed to God. The term is used some 70 times in John. They want to kill Jesus, and their father is the devil. Clearly it was easy enough at least for later readers to see in these words a completely negative designation of Jews not only as a religion (anti-Judaism) but as a race (antisemitism). As Gregory Baum once put it, "many generations of John's readers have perceived the Gospel as encouraging them to look with contempt on the Jewish people" (81).
There are some potentially mediating factors. The word sometimes has a neutral sense (about a dozen times). Sometimes the word means "Judean" rather than Jew. In a number of the most pejorative instances, "the Jews" seem to be the religious authorities in Jerusalem.
The relationship to Gentiles is not straightforward. The word Gentile never appears in John. Almost all of those who follow Jesus in John are themselves Jews. Still, John explains things that a Jew would know, implying that it is written so that Gentiles could read it. The majority position on the "sheep not of this fold" verse is that it refers to Gentiles.
I posted yesterday matters relating to the possible history of John both as a document and as a community. These sorts of issues potentially impact the way we understand John's use of language like "the Jews." For example, if the scholarly consensus is correct, then John's community at some point was forced out of mainstream Jewish synagogues. So Baum once argued that "the Gospel needs to be read as a response to a painful exclusion rather than as an attempt to force and hasten a separation" (84).
Donaldson concludes the chapter thinking about John rhetorically. He believes that 20:31 most likely should be rendered, "these are written so that you might continue to believe that Jesus is the Christ" and thus that John addressed an internal community (contra Bauckham). As such, we have an inner-Jewish debate rather than an externally driven anti-Judaism.
It would be fun to explore further, but this is where our discussion of Donaldson's chapter ends.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
The History of John
I've finished the next chapter in Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament. It is on the Gospel of John and may be my post tomorrow. But I was struck by the gap between the church and the academy when I read Donaldson's description of the current consensus on the "two-level" nature of John's Gospel. I'm struck because I have to imagine that the vast majority of pastors in America, after reading this post, would say, "Consensus? I've never even heard of that." Or even more: "I completely disagree with that" or "That doesn't fit with the way I approach Scripture."
It is a microcosm of many issues, where the vast majority of experts in a particular subject who follow the standards of "objective" research have come to a particular perspective that is highly questioned on a popular level. Then usually a counter-community of experts arises with a primary goal of arguing that the evidence can be read in a different way. Such counter-guilds appear to be following the rules of research but they do so from a deductive rather than inductive perspective. They start with their conclusion and go to the evidence to support it rather than starting with the evidence and drawing conclusions that seem to fit the data most straightforwardly. [1 postmodern footnote]
Enough preface. And now, the "consensus" of experts on the history of the Gospel of John, forged primarily by Raymond Brown, a godly Roman Catholic who passed away a couple years ago. The consensus is that John has two interpretive layers. The one has to do with Jesus. The other has to do with the individuals who produced John and their "community."
1. The Gospel of John has some seams...
... that seem to indicate that it was not written in one sitting. Rather, it seems to have developed as a document over time. In 3:22 Jesus comes into Judea... but he has already been there since 2:13. In 6:1 Jesus goes to the other side of Galilee... but he was not on this side before but in Jerusalem. In 14:31 Jesus tells his disciples to get up... but he talks for three more chapters before they do. Chapter 20 ends the book... but then it goes on and tells about the author of John in the third person in chapter 21. One that Donaldson doesn't mention is the fact that Jesus performs many signs (2:23; 3:2) in between his first (2:11) and second (4:54) signs.
It thus seems quite likely that the Gospel of John was written in stages and, since the last chapter talks about the beloved disciple as author, it would seem that John himself (remembering that we don't actually know it was John--the text never identifies the beloved disciple) was not the one who put it into its current form.
As an inspiration break, I don't see any of this as contradicting the idea of inspiration. Editing can be inspired just as well as sitting down and writing. It might, however, mess with unexamined assumptions we have.
2. The Beloved Disciple
The majority of John experts do not think that this was John the son of Zebedee but another follower of Jesus who was not one of the Twelve (Hengel suggested someone we know of called John the elder). The Twelve do not play a major role in John and in fact Peter is subordinated to the beloved disciple in the narrative. Given the prominence of Judea and Jerusalem in John, the majority consider this disciple to be from Judea rather than Galilee.
To some, the extra interest in John the Baptist suggests the author might have started as a follower of him. At the same time, I would add, John de-emphasized the Baptist in a way that may say something about the situation at Ephesus and followers of JB even later when Paul was there (cf. Acts 19).
3. Expulsion from synagogue
The Gospel of John is quite distinct from the Synoptics in its theology. It is, for example, far more dualistic. Its Christology is more explicitly "high" than most of the rest of the New Testament. In Brown's hypothesis (supplemented by J. Louis Martyn), John's group is eventually expelled from the Jewish synagogue. In the majority hypothesis, it is unlikely at the time of Jesus that anyone would be expelled from a synagogue for believing Jesus was the Messiah. The incidents with the blind man and his parents in John would thus reflect the situation of the community that produced the Gospel rather than incidents from the historical Jesus.
4. Arrival in Ephesus
Tradition has John at Ephesus, and the majority hypothesis is comfortable with the idea that John and his community might have left Judea around the time of the Jewish War and moved to Ephesus.
5. John reaches its current form.
After John's death, John 21 was added as an epilog, while additional material like chapters 15-17 was added.
Something like the preceding is the majority hypothesis. Certainly it is subject to critique and evaluation. Some parts seem more solid to me than others. For example, that the Gospel of John developed in stages seems very likely to me because of the seams. It also seems likely to me that it reached its current form after the death of the Beloved Disciple. I am also very sympathetic to the idea that this disciple was not one of the Twelve, that he was from Judea, and that he died in Ephesus.
The two level reading of John is what I suspect may be the most controversial in pulpit and pew. It implies that John is not straightforward history but is highly symbolic and a mixture of two histories--that of Jesus and that of one group of early believers. I might mention that Richard Bauckham has recently questioned whether any of the gospels can be read as written for an individual community.
I thought you'd want to know ;-)
[1] No one is objective. The theories of inductive research are always subject to critique and revision. They often are at some point.
It is a microcosm of many issues, where the vast majority of experts in a particular subject who follow the standards of "objective" research have come to a particular perspective that is highly questioned on a popular level. Then usually a counter-community of experts arises with a primary goal of arguing that the evidence can be read in a different way. Such counter-guilds appear to be following the rules of research but they do so from a deductive rather than inductive perspective. They start with their conclusion and go to the evidence to support it rather than starting with the evidence and drawing conclusions that seem to fit the data most straightforwardly. [1 postmodern footnote]
Enough preface. And now, the "consensus" of experts on the history of the Gospel of John, forged primarily by Raymond Brown, a godly Roman Catholic who passed away a couple years ago. The consensus is that John has two interpretive layers. The one has to do with Jesus. The other has to do with the individuals who produced John and their "community."
1. The Gospel of John has some seams...
... that seem to indicate that it was not written in one sitting. Rather, it seems to have developed as a document over time. In 3:22 Jesus comes into Judea... but he has already been there since 2:13. In 6:1 Jesus goes to the other side of Galilee... but he was not on this side before but in Jerusalem. In 14:31 Jesus tells his disciples to get up... but he talks for three more chapters before they do. Chapter 20 ends the book... but then it goes on and tells about the author of John in the third person in chapter 21. One that Donaldson doesn't mention is the fact that Jesus performs many signs (2:23; 3:2) in between his first (2:11) and second (4:54) signs.
It thus seems quite likely that the Gospel of John was written in stages and, since the last chapter talks about the beloved disciple as author, it would seem that John himself (remembering that we don't actually know it was John--the text never identifies the beloved disciple) was not the one who put it into its current form.
As an inspiration break, I don't see any of this as contradicting the idea of inspiration. Editing can be inspired just as well as sitting down and writing. It might, however, mess with unexamined assumptions we have.
2. The Beloved Disciple
The majority of John experts do not think that this was John the son of Zebedee but another follower of Jesus who was not one of the Twelve (Hengel suggested someone we know of called John the elder). The Twelve do not play a major role in John and in fact Peter is subordinated to the beloved disciple in the narrative. Given the prominence of Judea and Jerusalem in John, the majority consider this disciple to be from Judea rather than Galilee.
To some, the extra interest in John the Baptist suggests the author might have started as a follower of him. At the same time, I would add, John de-emphasized the Baptist in a way that may say something about the situation at Ephesus and followers of JB even later when Paul was there (cf. Acts 19).
3. Expulsion from synagogue
The Gospel of John is quite distinct from the Synoptics in its theology. It is, for example, far more dualistic. Its Christology is more explicitly "high" than most of the rest of the New Testament. In Brown's hypothesis (supplemented by J. Louis Martyn), John's group is eventually expelled from the Jewish synagogue. In the majority hypothesis, it is unlikely at the time of Jesus that anyone would be expelled from a synagogue for believing Jesus was the Messiah. The incidents with the blind man and his parents in John would thus reflect the situation of the community that produced the Gospel rather than incidents from the historical Jesus.
4. Arrival in Ephesus
Tradition has John at Ephesus, and the majority hypothesis is comfortable with the idea that John and his community might have left Judea around the time of the Jewish War and moved to Ephesus.
5. John reaches its current form.
After John's death, John 21 was added as an epilog, while additional material like chapters 15-17 was added.
Something like the preceding is the majority hypothesis. Certainly it is subject to critique and evaluation. Some parts seem more solid to me than others. For example, that the Gospel of John developed in stages seems very likely to me because of the seams. It also seems likely to me that it reached its current form after the death of the Beloved Disciple. I am also very sympathetic to the idea that this disciple was not one of the Twelve, that he was from Judea, and that he died in Ephesus.
The two level reading of John is what I suspect may be the most controversial in pulpit and pew. It implies that John is not straightforward history but is highly symbolic and a mixture of two histories--that of Jesus and that of one group of early believers. I might mention that Richard Bauckham has recently questioned whether any of the gospels can be read as written for an individual community.
I thought you'd want to know ;-)
[1] No one is objective. The theories of inductive research are always subject to critique and revision. They often are at some point.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Date of Hebrews: Excerpt
I was happy with how this paragraph came out. In context, I'm addressing arguments by David deSilva that 10:2 implies that sacrifices are still being offered at the time of writing, as well as Luke Timothy Johnson's argument that 8:13 implies that the cultus has not been destroyed yet. Of course the use of the present tense has long been shown to be irrelevant to the case because Josephus, Clement, and others do the same long after the temple was destroyed.
____________
...When we therefore try to reconstruct the mindset of Jews toward the temple in the time between the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kochba revolt, we get a sense that the temple was physically destroyed but not permanently destroyed in their conceptual framework. If we want to evaluate the possibility that Hebrews was written in this period, we have to forget that we know the temple was never rebuilt. We have to picture a time when “various strange teachings” (13:9) might come into play as a coping mechanism until such time as the temple was re-established. God had allowed the temple to be destroyed before, but once Israel’s sins were purged, he had faithfully seen it rebuilt. So he would again. This is the way we must expect many Jews to have thought in those years, and it is against such a backdrop that we must evaluate the possibility that Hebrews comes from this period.
____________
...When we therefore try to reconstruct the mindset of Jews toward the temple in the time between the destruction of the temple and the Bar Kochba revolt, we get a sense that the temple was physically destroyed but not permanently destroyed in their conceptual framework. If we want to evaluate the possibility that Hebrews was written in this period, we have to forget that we know the temple was never rebuilt. We have to picture a time when “various strange teachings” (13:9) might come into play as a coping mechanism until such time as the temple was re-established. God had allowed the temple to be destroyed before, but once Israel’s sins were purged, he had faithfully seen it rebuilt. So he would again. This is the way we must expect many Jews to have thought in those years, and it is against such a backdrop that we must evaluate the possibility that Hebrews comes from this period.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Advent 1: John 1
Today is the first Sunday of Advent and it seemed appropriate to reflect these next few Sundays about the coming of Jesus. John 1 seemed a good place to start.
"In the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine. This Logos was with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through it, and apart from it, not even one thing came into existence. That which has come into existence by it was life, and the life was the light of mortals. And the light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness has not put it out."
It is not until verse 14 that we hear, "the Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld its glory, like the glory of the only born from the Father, full of grace and truth."
The Logos was the word of God, his will in action. When God created the world, he spoke. Everything came into existence when God spoke a word. To speak of Jesus as God's Logos come into the world is thus to say that Jesus is the instrument by which God accomplished his will for the world. That will was "full of grace and truth." His will was to make sons and daughters in the world of all who would receive him (1:12). His will was an expression of love, for it was because God so loved the world, that he sent his Son into it (3:16-17).
Jesus on earth "tabernacled," which is to say that he was a tent in which God was present in the world. Jesus on earth brought life to the dark in the world. The first Sunday of Advent is about expectation about foreshadowing, about prophetic anticipation. What are we to anticipate? This year I am anticipating the Spirit of Christ filling the world again this year and thus God's will coming into the world again this year. I am anticipating God's presence being in and among us, bringing grace and truth to the world once more.
"In the beginning was the Logos. The Logos was with God, and the Logos was divine. This Logos was with God in the beginning. Everything came into existence through it, and apart from it, not even one thing came into existence. That which has come into existence by it was life, and the life was the light of mortals. And the light is shining in the darkness, and the darkness has not put it out."
It is not until verse 14 that we hear, "the Logos became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld its glory, like the glory of the only born from the Father, full of grace and truth."
The Logos was the word of God, his will in action. When God created the world, he spoke. Everything came into existence when God spoke a word. To speak of Jesus as God's Logos come into the world is thus to say that Jesus is the instrument by which God accomplished his will for the world. That will was "full of grace and truth." His will was to make sons and daughters in the world of all who would receive him (1:12). His will was an expression of love, for it was because God so loved the world, that he sent his Son into it (3:16-17).
Jesus on earth "tabernacled," which is to say that he was a tent in which God was present in the world. Jesus on earth brought life to the dark in the world. The first Sunday of Advent is about expectation about foreshadowing, about prophetic anticipation. What are we to anticipate? This year I am anticipating the Spirit of Christ filling the world again this year and thus God's will coming into the world again this year. I am anticipating God's presence being in and among us, bringing grace and truth to the world once more.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
CEB and Jesus' secret trip
I don't know if you've ever noticed John 7:3-10. In 7:8, Jesus tells his brothers that he's not going up to the Feast of Tabernacles. Then in 7:10, he goes up secretly. The 1984 NIV actually added the word "yet" to 7:8 to avoid the issue: "I am not yet going up to the feast." The new NIV, as well as the ESV and other translations, swallow hard and leave "yet" out because it is unlikely.
So here's the CEB: 7:3 "Jesus’ brothers said to him, 'Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.' For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
"Therefore Jesus told them, 'My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.' After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
"However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret."
There are enough issues that surround this verse to make your head spin. There's the question of John presenting Jesus. Is this exactly how it happened? There's the question of what even John is saying. Then there's the question of what God expects in terms of truth-telling. Are we too "Victorian" to see what the expectations were in the first century?
Jesus at least seems to shade the truth a little in John's presentation. True, he does not go to Jerusalem to do what his brothers are making fun of. He goes up with a different purpose. At the very least, it isn't George Washington and the cherry tree, a lovely tale invented, you guessed it, in the 1800's... when Victoria was queen of England ;-)
So here's the CEB: 7:3 "Jesus’ brothers said to him, 'Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.' For even his own brothers did not believe in him.
"Therefore Jesus told them, 'My time is not yet here; for you any time will do. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil. You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come.' After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
"However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret."
There are enough issues that surround this verse to make your head spin. There's the question of John presenting Jesus. Is this exactly how it happened? There's the question of what even John is saying. Then there's the question of what God expects in terms of truth-telling. Are we too "Victorian" to see what the expectations were in the first century?
Jesus at least seems to shade the truth a little in John's presentation. True, he does not go to Jerusalem to do what his brothers are making fun of. He goes up with a different purpose. At the very least, it isn't George Washington and the cherry tree, a lovely tale invented, you guessed it, in the 1800's... when Victoria was queen of England ;-)
Luke-Acts and Anti-Judaism.
Next installment of Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament. For previous summaries:
Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism
Today is Luke-Acts and, once again, Donaldson does not disappoint in terms of giving us an excellent "lay of the land." Once again, he captures three basic perspectives:
1. Israel rejected and replaced by the church.
Luke does not have a verse like Matthew 27:25, but the book of Acts does end with a very strong turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles. Coming as it does at the climax of Acts, one could (and many have) easily argued that Luke-Acts is a story of a definitive rejection of Jesus by the Jews with a definitive turning away from Israel thereafter.
In this reading, Luke starts full of hope. Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon--they all looked to the consolation of Israel and the redemption of Jerusalem. But alas, Ernst Haenchen argued that by the end of Acts, Luke has written off the Jews in favor of the Gentiles. Luke-Acts taken in its totality pictures God as done with Israel.
2. Purged Israel joined by the Gentile church
The moderating view is that, following Jacob Jervell, the mission to Israel is a success and then the mission moves on to the Gentiles. Sure, not all Israel ends up saved, but those who are to be saved within Israel are. "The picture that Luke presents, then, is not of Israel's rejection but of its division" (65). A purged and repentant Israel thus fulfill the expectations of people like Zechariah and Simeon. Now the mission can continue to the Gentiles.
3. Israel and church in tension
I'm not sure that I like this way of titling the third option, but it is the one that I favor. In this interpretation, Luke-Acts looks to some future time for the fulfillment of some predictions.
[As an aside, I do not form this conclusion as a dispensationalist. I form it on the basis of inductive Bible study. I do enjoy the fact that, at least on one score, it vindicates the lowly Dallas types over the haughty WTS types]
Jesus answer to his disciples in Acts 1:6 is not, "You're wrong to think some earthly kingdom is still coming to Israel." His answer is, "in God's time." Similarly, mention of a "times of the Gentiles until..." in Luke 21:24. The implication is that, at the end of time, God will restore political Israel and the nation will turn to Christ. The turning away at the end of Acts signals the full advent of the times of the Gentiles, not a permanent abandonment. This interpretation, by the way, fits very well with Paul in Romans 11 as well.
[Again, I say this as a Bible-head, not as a modern prophecy teacher. Any attempt to equate modern Israel with the Israel of these texts is problematic because modern Israel does not accept Jesus as messiah.]
Some of the question of tone then has to do with the social location of "Luke" and his audience (remembering that the work never identifies its author). It is generally accepted that the author was a Gentile (although even here I think the case is not as clear as often assumed). It is generally accepted that the author is writing after the fall of Jerusalem, perhaps 80's.
As far as rhetorical features, Donaldson mentions a number, including that Luke-Acts is apologetic history, that it is favorable to the Romans, that it stresses continuity with Israel. Donaldson does not, however, give a conclusion on whether it aimed at outsiders or insiders. Is Theophilus a patron? A potential convert? A symbolic name? A Roman official?
As for me, I do think Acts has a tendency to blame "the Jews" for the trouble that followed early Christians like Paul, but at the same time it is very positive toward Christian Jews like James. Indeed, Luke-Acts favors a more "conservative" form of Christianity in relation to Judaism than Paul, in my opinion. I do not think anti-Judaism is an appropriate term, especially since the kingdom will be restored to Israel in the final time.
Introduction
Matthew and Anti-Judaism
Today is Luke-Acts and, once again, Donaldson does not disappoint in terms of giving us an excellent "lay of the land." Once again, he captures three basic perspectives:
1. Israel rejected and replaced by the church.
Luke does not have a verse like Matthew 27:25, but the book of Acts does end with a very strong turning away from the Jews to the Gentiles. Coming as it does at the climax of Acts, one could (and many have) easily argued that Luke-Acts is a story of a definitive rejection of Jesus by the Jews with a definitive turning away from Israel thereafter.
In this reading, Luke starts full of hope. Zechariah, Elizabeth, Simeon--they all looked to the consolation of Israel and the redemption of Jerusalem. But alas, Ernst Haenchen argued that by the end of Acts, Luke has written off the Jews in favor of the Gentiles. Luke-Acts taken in its totality pictures God as done with Israel.
2. Purged Israel joined by the Gentile church
The moderating view is that, following Jacob Jervell, the mission to Israel is a success and then the mission moves on to the Gentiles. Sure, not all Israel ends up saved, but those who are to be saved within Israel are. "The picture that Luke presents, then, is not of Israel's rejection but of its division" (65). A purged and repentant Israel thus fulfill the expectations of people like Zechariah and Simeon. Now the mission can continue to the Gentiles.
3. Israel and church in tension
I'm not sure that I like this way of titling the third option, but it is the one that I favor. In this interpretation, Luke-Acts looks to some future time for the fulfillment of some predictions.
[As an aside, I do not form this conclusion as a dispensationalist. I form it on the basis of inductive Bible study. I do enjoy the fact that, at least on one score, it vindicates the lowly Dallas types over the haughty WTS types]
Jesus answer to his disciples in Acts 1:6 is not, "You're wrong to think some earthly kingdom is still coming to Israel." His answer is, "in God's time." Similarly, mention of a "times of the Gentiles until..." in Luke 21:24. The implication is that, at the end of time, God will restore political Israel and the nation will turn to Christ. The turning away at the end of Acts signals the full advent of the times of the Gentiles, not a permanent abandonment. This interpretation, by the way, fits very well with Paul in Romans 11 as well.
[Again, I say this as a Bible-head, not as a modern prophecy teacher. Any attempt to equate modern Israel with the Israel of these texts is problematic because modern Israel does not accept Jesus as messiah.]
Some of the question of tone then has to do with the social location of "Luke" and his audience (remembering that the work never identifies its author). It is generally accepted that the author was a Gentile (although even here I think the case is not as clear as often assumed). It is generally accepted that the author is writing after the fall of Jerusalem, perhaps 80's.
As far as rhetorical features, Donaldson mentions a number, including that Luke-Acts is apologetic history, that it is favorable to the Romans, that it stresses continuity with Israel. Donaldson does not, however, give a conclusion on whether it aimed at outsiders or insiders. Is Theophilus a patron? A potential convert? A symbolic name? A Roman official?
As for me, I do think Acts has a tendency to blame "the Jews" for the trouble that followed early Christians like Paul, but at the same time it is very positive toward Christian Jews like James. Indeed, Luke-Acts favors a more "conservative" form of Christianity in relation to Judaism than Paul, in my opinion. I do not think anti-Judaism is an appropriate term, especially since the kingdom will be restored to Israel in the final time.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Excerpt: Hebrews 13:9-14
Here's an excerpt from my writing today. I'm discussing 13:9 and whether it might refer to participation in the temple cultus: "With various strange teachings do not be carried
away, for it is good for the heart to be confident in [God’s] grace, not in
foods that do not benefit those who walk in them."
________
... Two considerations, however, point in a different direction in this instance. The first is the way the author describes the teaching in question. Most interpreters render xenos in 13:9 as “strange.” It is of course possible that, if the temple had continued to exist, a later Gentile Christian at some point might have described the normal operations of the temple cultus as "strange." The question is whether anyone prior to 70CE would have, Jew or Gentile believer. On the face of it, it does not seem very likely that any mainstream Christian--especially a Christian Jew--would describe the idea of the sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple as a "strange teaching."
Indeed, it seems unlikely that "strange teachings" relating to the Levitical cultus would have arisen while the temple was still standing. In itself, this warning not to participate in miscellaneous and peculiar practices of a Levitical nature is one piece of an overall puzzle that we are arguing points to a post-70CE date for the sermon. We can imagine that, in the absence of a temple, any number of synagogue and other practices might emerge intending to serve in some way as a substitute for the now defunct sanctuary. [1] It is neither possible nor necessary for us to know exactly what they were, only to recognize the forces that make their existence more than plausible.
A second argument against the exhortation of 13:9 referring to temple sacrifices is the way that it arises in its literary context. It is plausible enough that the central high priestly argument of Hebrews alludes to the operations of the Jerusalem temple in one way or another, even though it only refers explicitly to the wilderness tabernacle. Although 13:9-14 alludes back to those earlier arguments, it seems to bring up a new issue, even if it is related. These verses are part of a collection of miscellaneous instructions in the final chapter, the letter closing to the sermon. This admonition about strange teachings is neither at the beginning of these final exhortations nor is it the final one.
It thus does not arise in a way that makes it seem like the central point of the whole sermon, which it would presumably be if it were about the Jerusalem temple. Indeed, how odd it would be if, after so much generality in the bulk of the sermon, the author only got to the point in the letter conclusion, after the sermon part was already for all intents and purposes over! It seems much more likely that this later instruction is related to the central argument but only in a somewhat peripheral way.
Accordingly, 13:9-14 does not affect our argument that Hebrews never argues against participation in the mainstream Levitical cultus. Rather, its argument always urges the audience to rely positively on Christ as a means of atonement. The audience can be confident in relation to what Christ has done. While the author argues that the Levitical cultus did not take away sins and was ineffective as a means of atonement, he never then proceeds to say, "So do not participate in it."
[1] Jukka Thoren, Barnabas Lindars***
________
... Two considerations, however, point in a different direction in this instance. The first is the way the author describes the teaching in question. Most interpreters render xenos in 13:9 as “strange.” It is of course possible that, if the temple had continued to exist, a later Gentile Christian at some point might have described the normal operations of the temple cultus as "strange." The question is whether anyone prior to 70CE would have, Jew or Gentile believer. On the face of it, it does not seem very likely that any mainstream Christian--especially a Christian Jew--would describe the idea of the sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple as a "strange teaching."
Indeed, it seems unlikely that "strange teachings" relating to the Levitical cultus would have arisen while the temple was still standing. In itself, this warning not to participate in miscellaneous and peculiar practices of a Levitical nature is one piece of an overall puzzle that we are arguing points to a post-70CE date for the sermon. We can imagine that, in the absence of a temple, any number of synagogue and other practices might emerge intending to serve in some way as a substitute for the now defunct sanctuary. [1] It is neither possible nor necessary for us to know exactly what they were, only to recognize the forces that make their existence more than plausible.
A second argument against the exhortation of 13:9 referring to temple sacrifices is the way that it arises in its literary context. It is plausible enough that the central high priestly argument of Hebrews alludes to the operations of the Jerusalem temple in one way or another, even though it only refers explicitly to the wilderness tabernacle. Although 13:9-14 alludes back to those earlier arguments, it seems to bring up a new issue, even if it is related. These verses are part of a collection of miscellaneous instructions in the final chapter, the letter closing to the sermon. This admonition about strange teachings is neither at the beginning of these final exhortations nor is it the final one.
It thus does not arise in a way that makes it seem like the central point of the whole sermon, which it would presumably be if it were about the Jerusalem temple. Indeed, how odd it would be if, after so much generality in the bulk of the sermon, the author only got to the point in the letter conclusion, after the sermon part was already for all intents and purposes over! It seems much more likely that this later instruction is related to the central argument but only in a somewhat peripheral way.
Accordingly, 13:9-14 does not affect our argument that Hebrews never argues against participation in the mainstream Levitical cultus. Rather, its argument always urges the audience to rely positively on Christ as a means of atonement. The audience can be confident in relation to what Christ has done. While the author argues that the Levitical cultus did not take away sins and was ineffective as a means of atonement, he never then proceeds to say, "So do not participate in it."
[1] Jukka Thoren, Barnabas Lindars***
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Matthew and anti-Judaism 2
I'm reading through Terence Donaldson's Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament. My summary of the first chapter is here: Introduction.
Today I want to summarize his again excellent chapter 2 on Matthew.
Donaldson ends up laying out three basic positions on the issue. But it is worthwhile to get the mother of all potentially anti-semitic verses out on the table before giving them, as he does: "Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matt. 27:25, NRSV). This verse has often been taken in Christian history as an indication that Jews remain perpetually under blame for the death of Jesus. Throughout history, people who call themselves Christians have used the verse as an excuse to persecute and kill Jews, just as some people would do toward homosexuals today hiding behind other verses.
The three positions are:
1. Rejection of ethnic Israel and replacement by a Gentile Church
This interpretation of Matthew sees God having bent over backwards to give Israel every opportunity to respond so that their final rejection and replacement are finally justified. In the end, the Church is almost completely Gentile. The Great Commission is understood to say, "Go and make disciples of all the Gentiles"... and not the Jews, by implication. This is a possible translation.
This interpretation sees a transition within the Gospel of Matthew from a beginning that still holds out hope for Israel to an end that has completely abandoned Israel. The Gospel begins with a genealogy that firmly connects Jesus to Israel. The mission in Matthew 10 is to the lost sheep of Israel and excludes Gentiles and Samaritans. Initially, Matthew distinguishes the leaders of Israel from the crowds. Then, in this interpretation, the distinction falls away at the time of crucifixion, where the crowds join the leaders. In this interpretation, the Great Commission now excludes Israel and the mission is now toward the Gentiles, with the Church fully replacing ethnic Israel, which is now soundly rejected. Some with this position might even argue that Matthew was written by a Gentile to a Gentile church.
2. Rejection of ethnic Israel and replacement by a Church with both Jews and Gentiles
This is a somewhat softer version of the replacement interpretation. Israel is rejected and replaced by a "third race" that is neither Jew nor Gentile. So "even if--as is quite likely--Matthew sees the destruction of Jerusalem as divine punishment on 'this generation' for its persecution of the line of prophets that culminates with Jesus (23.29-36), the idea of definitive rejection does not necessarily follow" (41).
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with this quote. The way Matthew has edited the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in 22:7 implies that Matthew was written after the destruction (compare the version in Luke 14). I see comments like 27:25 more as explanatory and backward looking than forward looking--this is why God allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed in the past. I can accept that it might also have functioned as a polemic against competing Jewish groups of the time (e.g., perhaps the Pharisees about to set up shop at Jamnia).
Against the "complete shift" version #1 above, this version argues that the people are once again distinguished from Israel's leaders after the crucifixion in 27:64. And throughout Matthew, the phrase "all the nations" presumably includes Israel (e.g., 25:32). Cannot the Great Commission be read as an extension of the mission to the nations rather than a shutting of the door to Israel?
3. The Church as the lost sheep of Israel, joined by Gentiles
This is my position and the one to which I believe Donaldson is most sympathetic. In this perspective, "Matthew has an Israel-centered view of the group to which he and his readers belong" (43). The author thus has a "remnant or sectarian outlook." The Gentiles thus join the restored portion of Israel rather than replacing them.
On the one hand, "Matthew seems to have little interest in those aspects of the law that would have differentiated Jew from Gentile (e.g., circumcision, food laws)" (44). On the other, he is quite keen to see Jesus bringing a fulfillment to the OT Scriptures, including its law. Matthew thus argues for the most meaningful kind of continuity between believers and the Israel of the past.
As far as the purpose of the rhetoric, most consider it "social formation." The goal is not so much to vilify others as to create internal group cohesion (kind of like when I go Wesleyan on the blog). Another interesting twist Donaldson mentions is the irony of Christ's blood being upon someone. Why yes, his blood is on us to save us from our sins (1:21)!
Today I want to summarize his again excellent chapter 2 on Matthew.
Donaldson ends up laying out three basic positions on the issue. But it is worthwhile to get the mother of all potentially anti-semitic verses out on the table before giving them, as he does: "Then the people as a whole answered, 'His blood be on us and on our children!'" (Matt. 27:25, NRSV). This verse has often been taken in Christian history as an indication that Jews remain perpetually under blame for the death of Jesus. Throughout history, people who call themselves Christians have used the verse as an excuse to persecute and kill Jews, just as some people would do toward homosexuals today hiding behind other verses.
The three positions are:
1. Rejection of ethnic Israel and replacement by a Gentile Church
This interpretation of Matthew sees God having bent over backwards to give Israel every opportunity to respond so that their final rejection and replacement are finally justified. In the end, the Church is almost completely Gentile. The Great Commission is understood to say, "Go and make disciples of all the Gentiles"... and not the Jews, by implication. This is a possible translation.
This interpretation sees a transition within the Gospel of Matthew from a beginning that still holds out hope for Israel to an end that has completely abandoned Israel. The Gospel begins with a genealogy that firmly connects Jesus to Israel. The mission in Matthew 10 is to the lost sheep of Israel and excludes Gentiles and Samaritans. Initially, Matthew distinguishes the leaders of Israel from the crowds. Then, in this interpretation, the distinction falls away at the time of crucifixion, where the crowds join the leaders. In this interpretation, the Great Commission now excludes Israel and the mission is now toward the Gentiles, with the Church fully replacing ethnic Israel, which is now soundly rejected. Some with this position might even argue that Matthew was written by a Gentile to a Gentile church.
2. Rejection of ethnic Israel and replacement by a Church with both Jews and Gentiles
This is a somewhat softer version of the replacement interpretation. Israel is rejected and replaced by a "third race" that is neither Jew nor Gentile. So "even if--as is quite likely--Matthew sees the destruction of Jerusalem as divine punishment on 'this generation' for its persecution of the line of prophets that culminates with Jesus (23.29-36), the idea of definitive rejection does not necessarily follow" (41).
By the way, I wholeheartedly agree with this quote. The way Matthew has edited the Parable of the Wedding Banquet in 22:7 implies that Matthew was written after the destruction (compare the version in Luke 14). I see comments like 27:25 more as explanatory and backward looking than forward looking--this is why God allowed Jerusalem to be destroyed in the past. I can accept that it might also have functioned as a polemic against competing Jewish groups of the time (e.g., perhaps the Pharisees about to set up shop at Jamnia).
Against the "complete shift" version #1 above, this version argues that the people are once again distinguished from Israel's leaders after the crucifixion in 27:64. And throughout Matthew, the phrase "all the nations" presumably includes Israel (e.g., 25:32). Cannot the Great Commission be read as an extension of the mission to the nations rather than a shutting of the door to Israel?
3. The Church as the lost sheep of Israel, joined by Gentiles
This is my position and the one to which I believe Donaldson is most sympathetic. In this perspective, "Matthew has an Israel-centered view of the group to which he and his readers belong" (43). The author thus has a "remnant or sectarian outlook." The Gentiles thus join the restored portion of Israel rather than replacing them.
On the one hand, "Matthew seems to have little interest in those aspects of the law that would have differentiated Jew from Gentile (e.g., circumcision, food laws)" (44). On the other, he is quite keen to see Jesus bringing a fulfillment to the OT Scriptures, including its law. Matthew thus argues for the most meaningful kind of continuity between believers and the Israel of the past.
As far as the purpose of the rhetoric, most consider it "social formation." The goal is not so much to vilify others as to create internal group cohesion (kind of like when I go Wesleyan on the blog). Another interesting twist Donaldson mentions is the irony of Christ's blood being upon someone. Why yes, his blood is on us to save us from our sins (1:21)!
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Kudos to Gingrich...
... for not wanting to split up immigrant families who've been here for 25 years. I'd like to think that the influence of Jim Garlow is somewhere in the background of that comment!
I bet I'd actually like a lot of the candidates more if they could actually say and do what they really think.
I bet I'd actually like a lot of the candidates more if they could actually say and do what they really think.
One perspective on church splits...
Caught an international service in English here in Munich Sunday afternoon. It was a church that has had one or two splits in the past (in good Protestant fashion). A gentleman stood up to greet the church who had been there since its beginning. His comments were interesting in the light of the church's history.
He said, if you have differences, try to come to an agreement. But don't waste too much time if you can't. We will need thousands more churches to spread the good news to everyone, so part company in peace and go start a new church.
Never heard it put that way before! ;-)
He said, if you have differences, try to come to an agreement. But don't waste too much time if you can't. We will need thousands more churches to spread the good news to everyone, so part company in peace and go start a new church.
Never heard it put that way before! ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
