Jesus’ Obedience and Mark 1:9-13
I offer a hypothesis that the progression from baptism (1:9) to theophany or epiphany (1:10-11) to testing/temptation (1:12-13) is related to the obedience of Jesus. This hypothesis has the advantage of offering an explanation as to why the theophany follows the baptism and why the testing follows the theophany. I chose Mark because I believe my hypothesis is easier to make with Matthew for example because of Matthew 3:15 and a more full account of the temptation.
Why Theophany after Baptism?
A question seldom asked is why does the theophany follow the baptism? Is the baptism just the occasion for the theophany which could have occurred at any time? Mark 1:10-11 is as follows:
And immediately coming up out of the water he saw being open up the heavens and the Spirit as a dove descending towards [or “into”] him. And there was a voice out of the heavens, “You are the son of me, the beloved, with you I am well pleased.”
Of importance is that the descending Spirit occurs after the baptism; we are not led to think that the baptism in itself confers the Spirit. So, if the baptism in itself does not explain the theophany, then what does? The answer to that question depends on what the baptism meant.
The Importance of the Baptism
The importance of Jesus’ baptism can be seen by a few factors. First, Jesus’ public ministry only begins after the account of the baptism in all Gospels. In Mark, the gospel itself begins with John the Baptist and Mark 1:1 (“the beginning of the good news”) could be interpreted to refer to John the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism. This is further bolstered by what Peter says in Acts 10:37 (“You know the things having happened throughout all Judea, having begun from Galilee after the baptism which John preached”), especially if Mark was connected to Peter in a special way. Furthermore, we have a significant clue from Jesus himself in the controversy over his authority (Mark 11:27-33). There, we may infer that Jesus thought that John’s baptism was from God.
The last point segues to the actual meaning of John’s baptism. Josephus gives us an independent account of John’s baptism in Antiquities 18 §117:
For Herod killed him, although he was a good man and [simply] bade the Jews to join in baptism, provided that they were cultivating virtue and practicing justice toward one another and piety toward God. For [only] thus, in John’s opinion, would the baptism [he administered] indeed be acceptable [to God], namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as [it was taken for granted that] their souls had already been purified by justice.
This account jibes well with one of the horns of the dilemma Jesus forced on his opponents in Mark 11:31. Jesus seems to accuse his opponents for not believing John. The point is that John’s baptism signifies repentance and the willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus surely accuses his opponents elsewhere of exactly this fault, which is brought out even in the parable of the vineyard which immediately follows (Mark 12:1-12). It also jibes well with Mark 1:4 where John’s baptism is described as a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” The addition of “repentance” gives the impression that forgiveness is not the magical outcome of the baptism.
My thesis is that the theophany is in response to Jesus’ willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus had to come out to be baptized, not a trifling event and already shows the commitment of Jesus. The bugaboo is of course that Jesus did not sin, but that is of no real objection to the thesis. A comparison of Mark 1:5 (those from the Judean countryside and Jerusalem who confess their sins) with 1:9 (only Jesus with no mention of confession of sin) shows that Mark did not think Jesus’ sinlessness was an embarrassment to Jesus’ baptism. The reason is that the baptism was only the symbol of the obedient dedication Jesus demonstrated. Sure, Jesus was always obedient and always God’s Son, but it was only at the baptism that Jesus seems to have made the decision to follow God’s plans in a special, public way. I take it that this was the occasion for God’s pleasure expressed in Mark 1:11. Regardless of what “Son of God” also means, it at least means the obedient relationship a son has with his father, a relationship that is getting harder and harder for us in the individualistic West to understand.
Why Temptation after the Theophany?
This question is less controversial. Mark does not say why Jesus was tested/tempted nor does he relate any dialogue between Jesus and Satan. I take the connection to be related to Satan’s attempt to undermine Jesus’ obedient dedication. A similar dynamic is involved in Job. After (because!) Job is described as a righteous man (Job 1:1,8), Satan tests him because he doubts Jobs true character.
Theological Upshot
I think it is hard for most evangelicals to view Jesus as commending God’s favor because of something he does, however that is precisely what is happening according to my hypothesis. Commentators are fond to point out that Mark does not seem to offer Jesus as an example to follow in Mark 1:9-13. However, I do not think Mark related these incidents with no eye to discipleship. Jesus was obedient and expected others to be obedient. This is why his message is summarized in Mark 1:15 as “Repent, and believe in the Good News.”
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Israel in God's Plan
Israel in God’s Plan
In order to undercut the idolatry of nationalism in the United States many Christian thinkers have defended the proposition that God’s nationalistic agenda ended with Christ and that Christians are not to be conditioned by national or ethnic allegiances. I certainly agree that American Christians especially need to wake up and start treating Iraqi and Palestinian Christians for example, of which there are quite a few, on par with American Christians. In fact, American Christians need to start treating all people as those beloved of God. However, where does this put the Jewish question? Is God done with the nation of Israel/Jewish people. What is the theological significance of the State of Israel?
I want to argue that, based primarily on Romans 11, God’s national agenda for Israel has not ended.
Israel in the Teachings of Jesus
Israel certainly figures in the teachings of Jesus. Here are a few key texts:
Matthew 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent out commanding them saying: “Do not go among the Gentiles and do not enter a city of the Samaritans, but go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24: He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
These two passages find indirect support from a comment made by Paul in Romans 15:8: “For I say Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God, and to confirm the promises to the patriarchs.”
In Matthew 10:5, the fact that Jesus sends out twelve, a number that harkens back to the twelve tribes of Israel, is highly significant. Also, Paul’s use of the word “circumcision” in Romans 15:8 is clearly directed to physical Israel and not some sort of spiritual Israel.
An historical argument is that a lot of theological spade work was needed to be done by Paul in order for the Gentiles to have equal standing in the Church. This begs the question "why?"
Romans 11
I contend that according to Paul, Israel is not a non-factor in God’s plans after Jesus’ death and resurrection. There is a pattern that Paul hits a couple of times:
11:12b their failure → riches for the Gentiles » their fullness → greater riches (implied)
11:15 their rejection → reconciliation of the world » their acceptance → life from the dead
By “fullness” Paul is probably referring quantitatively because that is also the use in 11:25 as applied to the Gentile. In context, the “their” in “their fullness” and “their acceptance” clearly refers to that which is contrasted with a remnant in 11:7: “the rest were hardened.” In 11:16, Paul uses two metaphors which again make reference to the whole of Israel:
Firstfruits [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the lump [the whole of Israel]
Root [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the branches [the whole of Israel]
All of this leads to 11:26: “and so all Israel will be saved.” The controversy concerns what Paul means by “all Israel.” Some take this to refer to the church, the entire spiritual Israel (see Gal. 6:16). However, Paul has used the word “Israel” in this section (9-11) to this point to refer to national Israel and not to a spiritual Israel. Paul wants to prevent Gentile boasting and it would undercut that purpose to all of a sudden invoke a term that includes Gentiles. Of course, “all” is hyperbolic and probably does not refer to each and every Jew, but only to a representative whole.
Some have argued that Paul was not referring to a large-scale Jewish conversion at the end. I find their arguments unconvincing.
(1) In 11:26 it is argued that "and so" better means "thus, in this manner" and not "in the end". We can grant the point without destroying the temporal aspects. The manner in which Israel is saved is by being provoked by jealousy which doesn't happen until [the until in verse 11:25 rules out giving no temporal weight to "and so" in 11:26] the fullness of Gentiles comes in.
(2) It is also argued that the addition of the "now" in 11:31 rules out the future interpretation of 11:26. A look at 11:30-31 is helpful as it informs our interpretation of 11:26.
For just as you once disobeyed God, but now have received mercy by their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient for your mercy, that also they may [now] receive mercy.
The "now" in "they may now receive mercy" is (a) not in every manuscript and (b) if it is original it most likely is added only to highlight the eschatological imminence of this phase (so Dunn).
(3) It is also argued that Paul's quote of Isaiah 59:20-21 in 11:26-27a is referring to Jesus' past and not to the Parousia. However, the verb tense is future: "will come out of Zion the one delivering". Also, Paul's use of "delivering" elsewhere refers to eschatological events on par with the Parousia: Romans 7:24, 1 Thess. 1:10 (so Dunn again).
(4) Paul's use of Isaiah 27:9 in 11:27b ("when I take away the sins of them") is glossed by these arguers to be "whenever" in order to eliminate the temporal aspect. However, Isaiah 27:9 (from the "Isaiah Apocalyspe") was most likely chosen by Paul to highlight the eschatolocal timeframe and so is totally in-line with viewing 11:26-27a as the Parousia.
Once we establish that Paul is referring to a future Jewish salvation, we are now in a position to go back to 11:12b and 11:15 and took at how Jewish fullness and acceptance figure in God’s plan. Paul implies greater riches and “life from the dead.” That Paul is referring some sort of eschatological state is indicated by a comparison of 11:15 with 5:10: “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved [future, cf. 13:11] by his life.” It would seem then that future role of national Israel is to have eschatological significance.
Theological upshot
If national Israel is to have eschatological significance, this ought to inform Christian theology. The Jewish Philosopher Emil Fackenheim claims that the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel are “root events” in Jewish history. I think it behooves us Christians to take these root events seriously and learn from them. Also, we might have a clue as to why the imminence of the Kingdom sensed by Jesus, Paul, and the early church has taken so long to consummate. The Jews have yet to realize their God-given mandate, a mandate lived out by Jesus the Jew.
In order to undercut the idolatry of nationalism in the United States many Christian thinkers have defended the proposition that God’s nationalistic agenda ended with Christ and that Christians are not to be conditioned by national or ethnic allegiances. I certainly agree that American Christians especially need to wake up and start treating Iraqi and Palestinian Christians for example, of which there are quite a few, on par with American Christians. In fact, American Christians need to start treating all people as those beloved of God. However, where does this put the Jewish question? Is God done with the nation of Israel/Jewish people. What is the theological significance of the State of Israel?
I want to argue that, based primarily on Romans 11, God’s national agenda for Israel has not ended.
Israel in the Teachings of Jesus
Israel certainly figures in the teachings of Jesus. Here are a few key texts:
Matthew 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent out commanding them saying: “Do not go among the Gentiles and do not enter a city of the Samaritans, but go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24: He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
These two passages find indirect support from a comment made by Paul in Romans 15:8: “For I say Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God, and to confirm the promises to the patriarchs.”
In Matthew 10:5, the fact that Jesus sends out twelve, a number that harkens back to the twelve tribes of Israel, is highly significant. Also, Paul’s use of the word “circumcision” in Romans 15:8 is clearly directed to physical Israel and not some sort of spiritual Israel.
An historical argument is that a lot of theological spade work was needed to be done by Paul in order for the Gentiles to have equal standing in the Church. This begs the question "why?"
Romans 11
I contend that according to Paul, Israel is not a non-factor in God’s plans after Jesus’ death and resurrection. There is a pattern that Paul hits a couple of times:
11:12b their failure → riches for the Gentiles » their fullness → greater riches (implied)
11:15 their rejection → reconciliation of the world » their acceptance → life from the dead
By “fullness” Paul is probably referring quantitatively because that is also the use in 11:25 as applied to the Gentile. In context, the “their” in “their fullness” and “their acceptance” clearly refers to that which is contrasted with a remnant in 11:7: “the rest were hardened.” In 11:16, Paul uses two metaphors which again make reference to the whole of Israel:
Firstfruits [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the lump [the whole of Israel]
Root [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the branches [the whole of Israel]
All of this leads to 11:26: “and so all Israel will be saved.” The controversy concerns what Paul means by “all Israel.” Some take this to refer to the church, the entire spiritual Israel (see Gal. 6:16). However, Paul has used the word “Israel” in this section (9-11) to this point to refer to national Israel and not to a spiritual Israel. Paul wants to prevent Gentile boasting and it would undercut that purpose to all of a sudden invoke a term that includes Gentiles. Of course, “all” is hyperbolic and probably does not refer to each and every Jew, but only to a representative whole.
Some have argued that Paul was not referring to a large-scale Jewish conversion at the end. I find their arguments unconvincing.
(1) In 11:26 it is argued that "and so" better means "thus, in this manner" and not "in the end". We can grant the point without destroying the temporal aspects. The manner in which Israel is saved is by being provoked by jealousy which doesn't happen until [the until in verse 11:25 rules out giving no temporal weight to "and so" in 11:26] the fullness of Gentiles comes in.
(2) It is also argued that the addition of the "now" in 11:31 rules out the future interpretation of 11:26. A look at 11:30-31 is helpful as it informs our interpretation of 11:26.
For just as you once disobeyed God, but now have received mercy by their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient for your mercy, that also they may [now] receive mercy.
The "now" in "they may now receive mercy" is (a) not in every manuscript and (b) if it is original it most likely is added only to highlight the eschatological imminence of this phase (so Dunn).
(3) It is also argued that Paul's quote of Isaiah 59:20-21 in 11:26-27a is referring to Jesus' past and not to the Parousia. However, the verb tense is future: "will come out of Zion the one delivering". Also, Paul's use of "delivering" elsewhere refers to eschatological events on par with the Parousia: Romans 7:24, 1 Thess. 1:10 (so Dunn again).
(4) Paul's use of Isaiah 27:9 in 11:27b ("when I take away the sins of them") is glossed by these arguers to be "whenever" in order to eliminate the temporal aspect. However, Isaiah 27:9 (from the "Isaiah Apocalyspe") was most likely chosen by Paul to highlight the eschatolocal timeframe and so is totally in-line with viewing 11:26-27a as the Parousia.
Once we establish that Paul is referring to a future Jewish salvation, we are now in a position to go back to 11:12b and 11:15 and took at how Jewish fullness and acceptance figure in God’s plan. Paul implies greater riches and “life from the dead.” That Paul is referring some sort of eschatological state is indicated by a comparison of 11:15 with 5:10: “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved [future, cf. 13:11] by his life.” It would seem then that future role of national Israel is to have eschatological significance.
Theological upshot
If national Israel is to have eschatological significance, this ought to inform Christian theology. The Jewish Philosopher Emil Fackenheim claims that the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel are “root events” in Jewish history. I think it behooves us Christians to take these root events seriously and learn from them. Also, we might have a clue as to why the imminence of the Kingdom sensed by Jesus, Paul, and the early church has taken so long to consummate. The Jews have yet to realize their God-given mandate, a mandate lived out by Jesus the Jew.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
My take on the "Mosque" at Ground Zero
Is a Mosque (Cultural Center) at (near) Ground Zero a good idea? Let’s work with a worse-case scenario: let’s assume that Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mastermind behind the “Mosque”, wants to stick it to the West and that he wants the “Mosque” to be a symbol of Islamic supremacy (and Western weakness in letting it get built) and that he chose the name “Cordoba House” as purposely provocative. [Cordoba was the seat of the caliphate in what is now Spain after the Islamic invasion from North Africa; in Cordoba a Mosque was built over the site of a Cathedral.] Let’s assume that every Muslim that visits the “Mosque” wants the death of America and let’s assume that Islam itself, not just the brand practiced by the terrorist few, is inconsistent with Western values. [It is a well known philosophical axiom going back to at least Plato that relativism, and in this case religious relativism, is self-refuting. Not all religions can be as good as any other for the simple reason that there can be religions that claim exclusive truth.]
So what?
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York stated his case thus: “should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.” There is no question of rights, as Bloomberg’s response evidences, but there is a question of right. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director Abraham H. Foxman argued along these lines when he stated his opposition in terms of the sensitivity of the victims.
Again, so what?
We really can’t police other people’s decency. If Islam wants to be insensitive, let them, but it is also our right to point out insensitivity without being labeled bigots, a point made by Foxman. We are so blinded by our mistaken equation that tolerance = relativism that we feel strange critiquing other’s religion. I’m a Christian and I have no qualms critiquing my religion, and critiquing versions of Christianity I once held. If you look up “tolerance” in the dictionary you will find that it often pertains to views that are against one’s own.
I think the best response is to preserve toleration and if we really want to change Islam it will be by loving Muslims as ourselves. Show kindness to the Muslim that you come across in everyday situations. Your kindness might just be the key to stopping the tit-for-tat morality that fuels Islamic terrorism in the first place.
So what?
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York stated his case thus: “should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.” There is no question of rights, as Bloomberg’s response evidences, but there is a question of right. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director Abraham H. Foxman argued along these lines when he stated his opposition in terms of the sensitivity of the victims.
Again, so what?
We really can’t police other people’s decency. If Islam wants to be insensitive, let them, but it is also our right to point out insensitivity without being labeled bigots, a point made by Foxman. We are so blinded by our mistaken equation that tolerance = relativism that we feel strange critiquing other’s religion. I’m a Christian and I have no qualms critiquing my religion, and critiquing versions of Christianity I once held. If you look up “tolerance” in the dictionary you will find that it often pertains to views that are against one’s own.
I think the best response is to preserve toleration and if we really want to change Islam it will be by loving Muslims as ourselves. Show kindness to the Muslim that you come across in everyday situations. Your kindness might just be the key to stopping the tit-for-tat morality that fuels Islamic terrorism in the first place.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Love (Agape), Wrath and God
Agape: Self-sacrifice or Mutuality?
Ever since Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros), the Christian conception of love has been basically equated with self-sacrifice. This conception is rooted in a Christology in which Jesus gives himself over for those whom he loves. However, some have contested this conception and prefer to define love in terms of mutuality. This mutuality is in turn rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel Beyond Belief, with its emphasis on the obedience of Jesus, falls on the mutuality side. Jesus’ death on the cross was not just his self-giving for sinners but operated in a mutual relationship with the Father. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death with an eye on Jesus’ relationship to the Father. For example, in Gethsemane Jesus conceives of his death as God’s will and his submission to that fate as his willingness to obey. It’s clear that Jesus thought that his death played a part in God’s plan, a plan that included Jesus, for after Gethsemane Jesus states that he will be seated at the right hand of God. This is to say that Jesus’ death, while a self-sacrificial happening, cannot be solely conceived in terms of self-sacrifice but also in terms of mutuality. Of course, this isn’t to say that self-sacrifice is not a crucial component in mutuality, but it is to say that it is not the last word.
Agape and Wrath
Once one defines love (agape) as self-sacrifice, then one has a hard time reconciling God’s love and God’s wrath. If God is love and is always sacrificing his agenda for those whom he loves, then there is precious little room for wrath. However, if agape is viewed in terms of mutuality then wrath is the expression of a failure in mutuality.
Ever since Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros), the Christian conception of love has been basically equated with self-sacrifice. This conception is rooted in a Christology in which Jesus gives himself over for those whom he loves. However, some have contested this conception and prefer to define love in terms of mutuality. This mutuality is in turn rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel Beyond Belief, with its emphasis on the obedience of Jesus, falls on the mutuality side. Jesus’ death on the cross was not just his self-giving for sinners but operated in a mutual relationship with the Father. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death with an eye on Jesus’ relationship to the Father. For example, in Gethsemane Jesus conceives of his death as God’s will and his submission to that fate as his willingness to obey. It’s clear that Jesus thought that his death played a part in God’s plan, a plan that included Jesus, for after Gethsemane Jesus states that he will be seated at the right hand of God. This is to say that Jesus’ death, while a self-sacrificial happening, cannot be solely conceived in terms of self-sacrifice but also in terms of mutuality. Of course, this isn’t to say that self-sacrifice is not a crucial component in mutuality, but it is to say that it is not the last word.
Agape and Wrath
Once one defines love (agape) as self-sacrifice, then one has a hard time reconciling God’s love and God’s wrath. If God is love and is always sacrificing his agenda for those whom he loves, then there is precious little room for wrath. However, if agape is viewed in terms of mutuality then wrath is the expression of a failure in mutuality.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Pacifism and the Lamb in Revelation
Introduction
I want to question the pacifist reading of Revelation by analyzing the use of the “Lamb” Christology. I hope to show that the Lamb Christology is meant to provide an example for a pacifist Christian response in the here and now (the “Tribulation and Persecution” stage) but is not meant to apply to the divine violence we find at the end (the “Wrath and Judgment” stage).
The Pacifist Reading of Divine Violence in Revelation
The pacifist reading of the divine violence in Revelation is to claim that it is only figurative and that the only way Jesus confronts evil is by being “lamblike”. For example, advocates of the pacifist reading find it very significant that in 19:11-21, a passage where Jesus is viewed as Divine Warrior, there is no actual description of a battle. As another example, they will point out that in chapter five the lion motif is replace by the lamb (5:5—lion; 5:6—lamb).
I agree that the lamb motif is meant to provide Christians with an example to follow in the here and now. However, this example does not pertain to how God/Jesus deals with evil at the eschatological end. To show this I want to analyze the use of the term “lamb” in Revelation.
The Use of “Lamb” in Revelation
There are 28 references to Jesus as a lamb in Revelation (a 29th involves a pseudo-Christ=13:11): 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4(x2), 10; 15:3; 17:14(x2); 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3. The distribution of this term in the structure of Revelation is highly significant. In part one of my blog, I claimed that there are basically three time periods in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution
2. Wrath and Judgment
3. Salvation
I argue that “lamb” is used mainly in stage one and is largely absent in stage two. This is a significant indication that the divine violence we find in stage two is not easily swept under the pacifist rug. This makes sense. Christians are to be pacifists in the here and now precisely because evil will be dealt with by divine powers at the end (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19). If this is the logic of Revelation, and a strong argument can be made that it is, then the pacifist reading is in trouble.
There are heavenly worship scenes in Revelation (4:1-5:14, 7:1-17; 10:1-11:14; 14:1-20; 15:1-4; 19:1-10, 21:9-22:5). Of the 28 references to the lamb, 22 appear in those sections. I claim that those scenes are meant to remind persecuted Christians of heavenly realities and encourage them to imitate the Lamb in the face of evil powers. Significantly, in those passages directly related to wrath (the trumpets, bowls and 19:11-21:8) there are zero references to the Lamb. I think the reason for this is obvious, in the wrath scenes Christians are not given a model of imitation. Rather, they are only given a vision of justice to comfort them in their suffering.
Theological Upshot
I think Revelation gives Pacifists what they really want: human pacifism; but it also gives non-pacifists what they really want: real justice. I believe that when pacifism turns into idolatry bad consequences can follow just as much as anything idolatrous.
I want to question the pacifist reading of Revelation by analyzing the use of the “Lamb” Christology. I hope to show that the Lamb Christology is meant to provide an example for a pacifist Christian response in the here and now (the “Tribulation and Persecution” stage) but is not meant to apply to the divine violence we find at the end (the “Wrath and Judgment” stage).
The Pacifist Reading of Divine Violence in Revelation
The pacifist reading of the divine violence in Revelation is to claim that it is only figurative and that the only way Jesus confronts evil is by being “lamblike”. For example, advocates of the pacifist reading find it very significant that in 19:11-21, a passage where Jesus is viewed as Divine Warrior, there is no actual description of a battle. As another example, they will point out that in chapter five the lion motif is replace by the lamb (5:5—lion; 5:6—lamb).
I agree that the lamb motif is meant to provide Christians with an example to follow in the here and now. However, this example does not pertain to how God/Jesus deals with evil at the eschatological end. To show this I want to analyze the use of the term “lamb” in Revelation.
The Use of “Lamb” in Revelation
There are 28 references to Jesus as a lamb in Revelation (a 29th involves a pseudo-Christ=13:11): 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4(x2), 10; 15:3; 17:14(x2); 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3. The distribution of this term in the structure of Revelation is highly significant. In part one of my blog, I claimed that there are basically three time periods in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution
2. Wrath and Judgment
3. Salvation
I argue that “lamb” is used mainly in stage one and is largely absent in stage two. This is a significant indication that the divine violence we find in stage two is not easily swept under the pacifist rug. This makes sense. Christians are to be pacifists in the here and now precisely because evil will be dealt with by divine powers at the end (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19). If this is the logic of Revelation, and a strong argument can be made that it is, then the pacifist reading is in trouble.
There are heavenly worship scenes in Revelation (4:1-5:14, 7:1-17; 10:1-11:14; 14:1-20; 15:1-4; 19:1-10, 21:9-22:5). Of the 28 references to the lamb, 22 appear in those sections. I claim that those scenes are meant to remind persecuted Christians of heavenly realities and encourage them to imitate the Lamb in the face of evil powers. Significantly, in those passages directly related to wrath (the trumpets, bowls and 19:11-21:8) there are zero references to the Lamb. I think the reason for this is obvious, in the wrath scenes Christians are not given a model of imitation. Rather, they are only given a vision of justice to comfort them in their suffering.
Theological Upshot
I think Revelation gives Pacifists what they really want: human pacifism; but it also gives non-pacifists what they really want: real justice. I believe that when pacifism turns into idolatry bad consequences can follow just as much as anything idolatrous.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Jesus the Divine Warrior: Violence in the NT
Introduction
Critics of religion will point out that religion, Christianity included, fosters violence. It behooves Christians to be prepared to answer those critics and persons from other faiths who will defend their violence by pointing out the violence in the Bible, even if this gambit commits the fallacy of tu quoque. I don’t think Christians can easily make some sort of Old Testament/New Testament distinction, for while it is true that in the Old Testament God is often viewed as a Divine Warrior, it is equally true that in the New Testament (Revelation) Jesus is also viewed as a Divine Warrior. I intend to assess the theological significance of the divine violence we find in Revelation. I intend to show that the divine violence in Revelation is of a specific sort and in no way justifies human violence in the here and now.
The Basic Timeline in Revelation
Without argument I claim that there are three basic time divisions in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution (directed against Christians but also includes wrath against the persecutors, since sin tends to bring about its own punishment)
2. Wrath and Judgment (directed against the persecutors of the Christians)
3. Eschatological Salvation (for the persecuted Christians)
I take it that certain passages rehearse the same basic storyline:
1:9-3:22 (7 letters)
4:1-8:5 (7 seals)
8:6-11:19 (7 trumpets)
12:1-15:4
15:5-16:21 (7 bowls)
19:11-21:8
7 Letters (1:9-3:22)
This section ties to 19:11-21:8 in a sort of promise-fulfillment relationship. In the initial vision John sees Jesus with a sharp two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. Some interpreters take this sword to represent “words” since it comes from the mouth and so the violent image would be only figurative. However, it has also been noted that a short Roman sword resembled a tongue. Furthermore, this tongue/sword functions elsewhere in Revelation in equally violent imagery:
2:16: repent therefore, but if not I will come to you soon and war with them by the sword of my mouth.
19:15 and out of his mouth goes forth a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.
19:21 and the rest were killed with the sword of the one sitting on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth.
Since the letters are tied to 19:11-21:8, it is of importance that the latter section concerns Jesus’ return and his armies and does not involve human violence at all.
Another violent image in the letters involves the promise to the conquerors in the church of Thyatira that they will rule the nations with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken (2:27). However, this scene again links up with 19:11-21:8 and there Jesus rules (shepherds) the nations with a rod of iron (19:15). It follows that when the conquerors rule the nations it refers to the time after Jesus’ return and not to the here and now (see 20:4-6).
Finally, and again in the letter to Thyatira, we read that Jesus will kill the “children” (i.e. followers) of the false prophetess Jezebel if they do not repent (2:23). This graphic image probably pertains to the Last Judgment and we are not told how Jesus will kill or how Jesus is involved in the process. The image is probably meant to foster repentance and there is really nothing unusual that the unrighteous suffer death at the Last Judgment.
7 Seals
The seven seals appear on a scroll with writing on the inside and on the back; some scholars take these to be the trumpet and bowl plagues respectively. It should not be forgotten that the seals are opened by Jesus. However, this may only mean that the plagues of the seals are under divine authorization even if they are not divinely willed. This is likely given that the divine passive (“it was given”) occurs throughout the seals and considering that the agents in the seals are most likely evil themselves. For example, in 6:8 Death and Hades are mentioned but these same two appear later to be demonic actors (20:14). Therefore, the violence of the seals need not be attributed to divine action, even if they further God’s plans.
Those plans seem to involve judgment for the persecution of Christians. In the fifth seal, the martyrs ask when God will judge and avenge their blood. The context seems to show that the plagues are on account of the persecution of the Christians. The sixth seal, the great day of divine wrath, follows this prayer in the fifth seal and therefore suggests that the great end-time battle is in response to the suffering of Christians. This also suggests that there are two stages: tribulation and persecution (the “short time”) involving the first five seals and wrath and judgment involving the sixth seal.
The seventh seal introduces the seven angels who are given seven trumpets. These angels could also be the angels involved in the bowl plagues and that they stand before God again highlights that the trumpets and bowls are under God’s authorization, even if he is not implicated in the actual violence.
7 Trumpets
The seven trumpets are introduced by an angelic symbolic event that shows their intent. In 8:3-5, an angel (who stands at the altar before the throne—which proves this angel is not demonic) takes a censer filled with the prayers of the saints (see the fifth seal) and fills it with fire and throws it on the earth. The implication is that the trumpet plagues are in response to the suffering of Christians.
The fifth trumpet features the violence of the locusts. That the divine passive occurs in this section (9:1,3,5) and that the angel ruling the locusts appears to be demonic, shows that the violence here is not God’s doing but under his authority. God allows evil to punish itself. The sixth trumpet also appears to involve demonic agents (the four angels) but they are summoned by a voice from the altar before God who tells the angel with the sixth trumpet to release the four demonic angels.
The seventh trumpet features the 24 elders who sing that God will destroy the destroyers of the earth. However, we are not told how God would do this.
12:1-15:4
The divine passive (“it was given”) appears in this section too (13:5, 7, 14, 15) which again shows that the violence is not willed by God but is perpetrated by evil agents under God’s authority.
Many scholars take the 144,000 in chapter 14 to be a militaristic image, however, we are not told how they fight and they are no longer in the here and now as they probably have already been martyred. On this score, this section has a passage that best encapsulates the attitude that Christians ought to have in the face of violence (13:10): if anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he goes; if anyone is to be killed by the sword, he by the sword is to be killed.
This section includes some passages that are not kind to the unrighteous. They will:
• Drink of the wine of God’s wrath (14:10)
• Tormented by fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the lamb (14:10)
The unrighteous will be gathered and thrown into the winepress of the wrath of God. This violence is done by angels and is at the final Judgment.
7 Bowls
The bowls evoke the bowl which contains the prayers of the saints (5:8) and the smoke in the opening scene also evokes the prayers of the saints (8:2-5). This would indicate that the bowls are in response to the suffering of the saints. Again, the bowls are commissioned by a voice from the temple and explicitly represent the wrath of God. The reason for the bowls is also explicitly stated: because they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets (16:6). None of the violence in this section is said to implicate God.
19:11-21:8
This section contains the image of Jesus as a Divine Warrior. However, the timing of the violence is at the end of time and does not involve humans in the here and now. Jesus is accompanied by an army but this army is explicitly said to be in heaven.
In 19:13, we are told that Jesus’ is wearing a garment dipped in blood. This evokes Isaiah 63:3 where God’s garments are stained by the blood of his enemies. Some scholars believe that the blood here refers to Jesus’ crucifixion because Jesus’ garment is already stained before he enters battle (even though the winepress imagery is used two verses later!). More likely is the theory that the blood refers to the martyrdom of his followers and Jesus’ martyrdom would be included in this. In this way, the blood would be a reason why Jesus is warring with the enemies.
Conclusion
The divine violence in Revelation is in response to the violence committed against Christians. This is a clue as to the purpose of the book of Revelation. Christians are not to resort to violence in the here and now because vengeance will be had by divine powers at the end. Also, significantly, most of the divine violence is attributed to angels and not to God directly. Interestingly, Jesus’ reference to violence in the gospels follows this pattern. Violence is relegated to the end (final judgment) and is usually attributed to angels (see Matthew 8:11-12//Luke 13:28-29; Mt. 24:45-51//Lk. 12:42-46; Mt. 25:14-30//Lk. 19:11-27; Mt. 22:2-14//Lk. 14:16-24; Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 7:19).
Critics of religion will point out that religion, Christianity included, fosters violence. It behooves Christians to be prepared to answer those critics and persons from other faiths who will defend their violence by pointing out the violence in the Bible, even if this gambit commits the fallacy of tu quoque. I don’t think Christians can easily make some sort of Old Testament/New Testament distinction, for while it is true that in the Old Testament God is often viewed as a Divine Warrior, it is equally true that in the New Testament (Revelation) Jesus is also viewed as a Divine Warrior. I intend to assess the theological significance of the divine violence we find in Revelation. I intend to show that the divine violence in Revelation is of a specific sort and in no way justifies human violence in the here and now.
The Basic Timeline in Revelation
Without argument I claim that there are three basic time divisions in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution (directed against Christians but also includes wrath against the persecutors, since sin tends to bring about its own punishment)
2. Wrath and Judgment (directed against the persecutors of the Christians)
3. Eschatological Salvation (for the persecuted Christians)
I take it that certain passages rehearse the same basic storyline:
1:9-3:22 (7 letters)
4:1-8:5 (7 seals)
8:6-11:19 (7 trumpets)
12:1-15:4
15:5-16:21 (7 bowls)
19:11-21:8
7 Letters (1:9-3:22)
This section ties to 19:11-21:8 in a sort of promise-fulfillment relationship. In the initial vision John sees Jesus with a sharp two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. Some interpreters take this sword to represent “words” since it comes from the mouth and so the violent image would be only figurative. However, it has also been noted that a short Roman sword resembled a tongue. Furthermore, this tongue/sword functions elsewhere in Revelation in equally violent imagery:
2:16: repent therefore, but if not I will come to you soon and war with them by the sword of my mouth.
19:15 and out of his mouth goes forth a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.
19:21 and the rest were killed with the sword of the one sitting on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth.
Since the letters are tied to 19:11-21:8, it is of importance that the latter section concerns Jesus’ return and his armies and does not involve human violence at all.
Another violent image in the letters involves the promise to the conquerors in the church of Thyatira that they will rule the nations with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken (2:27). However, this scene again links up with 19:11-21:8 and there Jesus rules (shepherds) the nations with a rod of iron (19:15). It follows that when the conquerors rule the nations it refers to the time after Jesus’ return and not to the here and now (see 20:4-6).
Finally, and again in the letter to Thyatira, we read that Jesus will kill the “children” (i.e. followers) of the false prophetess Jezebel if they do not repent (2:23). This graphic image probably pertains to the Last Judgment and we are not told how Jesus will kill or how Jesus is involved in the process. The image is probably meant to foster repentance and there is really nothing unusual that the unrighteous suffer death at the Last Judgment.
7 Seals
The seven seals appear on a scroll with writing on the inside and on the back; some scholars take these to be the trumpet and bowl plagues respectively. It should not be forgotten that the seals are opened by Jesus. However, this may only mean that the plagues of the seals are under divine authorization even if they are not divinely willed. This is likely given that the divine passive (“it was given”) occurs throughout the seals and considering that the agents in the seals are most likely evil themselves. For example, in 6:8 Death and Hades are mentioned but these same two appear later to be demonic actors (20:14). Therefore, the violence of the seals need not be attributed to divine action, even if they further God’s plans.
Those plans seem to involve judgment for the persecution of Christians. In the fifth seal, the martyrs ask when God will judge and avenge their blood. The context seems to show that the plagues are on account of the persecution of the Christians. The sixth seal, the great day of divine wrath, follows this prayer in the fifth seal and therefore suggests that the great end-time battle is in response to the suffering of Christians. This also suggests that there are two stages: tribulation and persecution (the “short time”) involving the first five seals and wrath and judgment involving the sixth seal.
The seventh seal introduces the seven angels who are given seven trumpets. These angels could also be the angels involved in the bowl plagues and that they stand before God again highlights that the trumpets and bowls are under God’s authorization, even if he is not implicated in the actual violence.
7 Trumpets
The seven trumpets are introduced by an angelic symbolic event that shows their intent. In 8:3-5, an angel (who stands at the altar before the throne—which proves this angel is not demonic) takes a censer filled with the prayers of the saints (see the fifth seal) and fills it with fire and throws it on the earth. The implication is that the trumpet plagues are in response to the suffering of Christians.
The fifth trumpet features the violence of the locusts. That the divine passive occurs in this section (9:1,3,5) and that the angel ruling the locusts appears to be demonic, shows that the violence here is not God’s doing but under his authority. God allows evil to punish itself. The sixth trumpet also appears to involve demonic agents (the four angels) but they are summoned by a voice from the altar before God who tells the angel with the sixth trumpet to release the four demonic angels.
The seventh trumpet features the 24 elders who sing that God will destroy the destroyers of the earth. However, we are not told how God would do this.
12:1-15:4
The divine passive (“it was given”) appears in this section too (13:5, 7, 14, 15) which again shows that the violence is not willed by God but is perpetrated by evil agents under God’s authority.
Many scholars take the 144,000 in chapter 14 to be a militaristic image, however, we are not told how they fight and they are no longer in the here and now as they probably have already been martyred. On this score, this section has a passage that best encapsulates the attitude that Christians ought to have in the face of violence (13:10): if anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he goes; if anyone is to be killed by the sword, he by the sword is to be killed.
This section includes some passages that are not kind to the unrighteous. They will:
• Drink of the wine of God’s wrath (14:10)
• Tormented by fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the lamb (14:10)
The unrighteous will be gathered and thrown into the winepress of the wrath of God. This violence is done by angels and is at the final Judgment.
7 Bowls
The bowls evoke the bowl which contains the prayers of the saints (5:8) and the smoke in the opening scene also evokes the prayers of the saints (8:2-5). This would indicate that the bowls are in response to the suffering of the saints. Again, the bowls are commissioned by a voice from the temple and explicitly represent the wrath of God. The reason for the bowls is also explicitly stated: because they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets (16:6). None of the violence in this section is said to implicate God.
19:11-21:8
This section contains the image of Jesus as a Divine Warrior. However, the timing of the violence is at the end of time and does not involve humans in the here and now. Jesus is accompanied by an army but this army is explicitly said to be in heaven.
In 19:13, we are told that Jesus’ is wearing a garment dipped in blood. This evokes Isaiah 63:3 where God’s garments are stained by the blood of his enemies. Some scholars believe that the blood here refers to Jesus’ crucifixion because Jesus’ garment is already stained before he enters battle (even though the winepress imagery is used two verses later!). More likely is the theory that the blood refers to the martyrdom of his followers and Jesus’ martyrdom would be included in this. In this way, the blood would be a reason why Jesus is warring with the enemies.
Conclusion
The divine violence in Revelation is in response to the violence committed against Christians. This is a clue as to the purpose of the book of Revelation. Christians are not to resort to violence in the here and now because vengeance will be had by divine powers at the end. Also, significantly, most of the divine violence is attributed to angels and not to God directly. Interestingly, Jesus’ reference to violence in the gospels follows this pattern. Violence is relegated to the end (final judgment) and is usually attributed to angels (see Matthew 8:11-12//Luke 13:28-29; Mt. 24:45-51//Lk. 12:42-46; Mt. 25:14-30//Lk. 19:11-27; Mt. 22:2-14//Lk. 14:16-24; Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 7:19).
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Over-interpreting Jesus
Introduction
I want to look at two passages that I believe are over-interpreted by many evangelicals: the parable of the lost sheep (Mt. 18:12-14//Lk. 15:3-7) and the saying on not calling the righteous but sinners (Mk. 2:15-17//Mt. 9:9-13//Lk. 5:29-32). I claim that evangelicals over-interpret these passages when they claim that Jesus denies that there are righteous ones and that Jesus is really only using “righteous” as code for “self-righteous”.
The Passages
Lost/Stray Sheep
The parable is basically the same in both Matthew and Luke. A man has 100 sheep and 1 is lost or strays. Would not the man leave the 99 and search for the 1 and then rejoice when it is found? The interlocutor is supposed to say “yes” and this affirmative proves the lesson Jesus intends to make. But what lesson is that? The contexts in both Matthew and Luke clarify the situation.
Luke: Jesus explains the parable by noting that there is more joy in heaven over 1 sinner who repents then over the 99 righteous who have no need to repent. Since the audience is the Scribes and Pharisees who are grumbling about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners, the lesson is that the Pharisees and the Scribes ought to be happy that the “sinners” are receiving divine grace in the same way that the 1 sheep received grace over the 99. However, the standard evangelical gloss is to claim that since the Pharisees and Scribes represent the 99 sheep and since they are really unrighteous hypocrites, this shows that Jesus’ use of the word “righteous” is only code for “self-righteous”.
My problem with the standard evangelical gloss is that granting that Jesus wanted to show the Pharisees and Scribes that they ought to have a loving heart for those who are lost (tax-collectors and sinners), and even granting that he wanted them to identify with the 99 who are righteous (even though Jesus thinks they are unrighteous), this does not mean that Jesus in the parable thought the sheep represented the unrighteous or that the righteousness that is ascribed to the 99 is impossible. If Jesus thought those represented by the 99 in the parable were just as lost as those represented by the lost sheep, then the grace shown the lost sheep would not stand out and this would under-mind the parable to some extent.
Luke certainly thinks that persons can be described as righteous. In the beginning of gospel, Luke describes Zechariah, Elizabeth and Simeon as “righteous”. Jesus also describes person as righteous (14: 14, see also 16:10). Also, the context in the gospel of Matthew seems to rule out the interpretation of the 99 as truly unrighteous.
Matthew: the context in Matthew does not involve the Pharisees or Scribes which gives the lesson of the parable a different twist but the same basic flavor. Jesus’ point in Matthew seems to be directed against possible haughty church leaders whom Jesus does not want to mimic the Pharisees. However, in this case, there is not the same tug to claim that the church leaders, or whomever, are the 99 who claim to have not wandered but truly have. Sure, they may be haughty and that should be guarded against but in the parable, the sheep really haven’t wandered. Also, Jesus calls persons righteous: 13:16, 23:35, 25:46—said even after 25:37 where “righteous” may be code for “self-righteous”.
Call the Sinners, not the Righteous
All the synoptic gospels contain this saying with minor variations (Luke records “to repentance”). The context also involves the Pharisees and Scribes and so when Jesus says I have come not to call the righteous but sinners, it is again assumed on the standard evangelical reading that the Pharisees and Scribes are the “healthy” or “strong” who claim to not be ill but truly are.
The same basic retort to this gloss can be made as with the lost sheep. There is no reason to assume in the parable that all are really ill. The point seems to be that like the lost sheep those who receive more divine assistance need it the most. The saying’s point I think would be dulled if all were ill for then Jesus would have to justify why he is associating more with the sinners and tax collectors.
Prodigal Son
I think the same logic applies to the prodigal son. When the older son is mad and resentful at the treatment of the younger son, and even perhaps does not have the relationship with his father that he ought to have, and even if the Pharisees and Scribes are meant to relate to the older son, this does not mean that the older son is no better off the younger son. Again, I think the point is that the older son ought to be more loving toward his younger son and perhaps even his father, but he still is the one who was always with his father. The point of the grace shown the younger son would be dulled if the older son was in the same boat as the younger son.
Conclusion
The passages in question simply do not justify the claim that Jesus did not think that anyone could be attributed righteousness.
I want to look at two passages that I believe are over-interpreted by many evangelicals: the parable of the lost sheep (Mt. 18:12-14//Lk. 15:3-7) and the saying on not calling the righteous but sinners (Mk. 2:15-17//Mt. 9:9-13//Lk. 5:29-32). I claim that evangelicals over-interpret these passages when they claim that Jesus denies that there are righteous ones and that Jesus is really only using “righteous” as code for “self-righteous”.
The Passages
Lost/Stray Sheep
The parable is basically the same in both Matthew and Luke. A man has 100 sheep and 1 is lost or strays. Would not the man leave the 99 and search for the 1 and then rejoice when it is found? The interlocutor is supposed to say “yes” and this affirmative proves the lesson Jesus intends to make. But what lesson is that? The contexts in both Matthew and Luke clarify the situation.
Luke: Jesus explains the parable by noting that there is more joy in heaven over 1 sinner who repents then over the 99 righteous who have no need to repent. Since the audience is the Scribes and Pharisees who are grumbling about Jesus welcoming and eating with sinners, the lesson is that the Pharisees and the Scribes ought to be happy that the “sinners” are receiving divine grace in the same way that the 1 sheep received grace over the 99. However, the standard evangelical gloss is to claim that since the Pharisees and Scribes represent the 99 sheep and since they are really unrighteous hypocrites, this shows that Jesus’ use of the word “righteous” is only code for “self-righteous”.
My problem with the standard evangelical gloss is that granting that Jesus wanted to show the Pharisees and Scribes that they ought to have a loving heart for those who are lost (tax-collectors and sinners), and even granting that he wanted them to identify with the 99 who are righteous (even though Jesus thinks they are unrighteous), this does not mean that Jesus in the parable thought the sheep represented the unrighteous or that the righteousness that is ascribed to the 99 is impossible. If Jesus thought those represented by the 99 in the parable were just as lost as those represented by the lost sheep, then the grace shown the lost sheep would not stand out and this would under-mind the parable to some extent.
Luke certainly thinks that persons can be described as righteous. In the beginning of gospel, Luke describes Zechariah, Elizabeth and Simeon as “righteous”. Jesus also describes person as righteous (14: 14, see also 16:10). Also, the context in the gospel of Matthew seems to rule out the interpretation of the 99 as truly unrighteous.
Matthew: the context in Matthew does not involve the Pharisees or Scribes which gives the lesson of the parable a different twist but the same basic flavor. Jesus’ point in Matthew seems to be directed against possible haughty church leaders whom Jesus does not want to mimic the Pharisees. However, in this case, there is not the same tug to claim that the church leaders, or whomever, are the 99 who claim to have not wandered but truly have. Sure, they may be haughty and that should be guarded against but in the parable, the sheep really haven’t wandered. Also, Jesus calls persons righteous: 13:16, 23:35, 25:46—said even after 25:37 where “righteous” may be code for “self-righteous”.
Call the Sinners, not the Righteous
All the synoptic gospels contain this saying with minor variations (Luke records “to repentance”). The context also involves the Pharisees and Scribes and so when Jesus says I have come not to call the righteous but sinners, it is again assumed on the standard evangelical reading that the Pharisees and Scribes are the “healthy” or “strong” who claim to not be ill but truly are.
The same basic retort to this gloss can be made as with the lost sheep. There is no reason to assume in the parable that all are really ill. The point seems to be that like the lost sheep those who receive more divine assistance need it the most. The saying’s point I think would be dulled if all were ill for then Jesus would have to justify why he is associating more with the sinners and tax collectors.
Prodigal Son
I think the same logic applies to the prodigal son. When the older son is mad and resentful at the treatment of the younger son, and even perhaps does not have the relationship with his father that he ought to have, and even if the Pharisees and Scribes are meant to relate to the older son, this does not mean that the older son is no better off the younger son. Again, I think the point is that the older son ought to be more loving toward his younger son and perhaps even his father, but he still is the one who was always with his father. The point of the grace shown the younger son would be dulled if the older son was in the same boat as the younger son.
Conclusion
The passages in question simply do not justify the claim that Jesus did not think that anyone could be attributed righteousness.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Did Jesus Preach the Gospel of Evangelicalism?
It has been argued that Luke 18:9-14 is evidence that Jesus did preach the Evangelical Gospel. The Lukan passage is as follows:
9 And he said to some, the ones having put confidence in themselves that they are righteous and despising others, this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee having stood, to himself was praying these things: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, swindlers, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice during the week, I tithe everything as much as I get.’ 13 But the tax collector having stood at a distance was not willing even the eyes to raise up to heaven, but was beating his chest saying ‘God, have mercy on me the sinner.’ 14 I say to you, this one went down having been justified to his house rather than that one, because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted.”
The standard Evangelical gloss on this passage is to claim (from verse 11) that the Pharisee is a moral man (he doesn’t swindle, he isn’t unrighteous, he doesn’t commit adultery, he isn’t a tax collector) and to claim (from verse 12) that he is a religious (he fasts and tithes). The point Jesus is making is that one is not justified by being righteous even if that righteousness is God-given—after all, it is pointed out that the Pharisee is thanking God for his righteousness. This standard Evangelical gloss further bolsters its position by appealing to Luke 17:10 where after having done all that is commanded, we are admonished to say we are only “worthless slaves”. Also, the ruler in Luke 18:18-30 claims to have righteousness only to be told by Jesus that he still lacks.
I find serious problems with this gloss. First, I question the assumption that Jesus sees the Pharisee as a moral man. In verse 9 there is an important “and” added to the description of those who put confidence in themselves on account of their (perceived) righteousness. The “and” adds to the description those who “despise others”. No one would want to claim that despising others is a mark of the moral man. That this “despising others” is important is proved by what Jesus says at the end of the passage: exalting oneself is bad—notice the clue about the tax collector standing “at a distance” which proves his humility. Notice also, that the Pharisee is not said to be righteous by Luke (the narrator) or by Jesus (the parable teller). The Pharisee’s so-called righteousness is only learned from his own mouth, which is dubious evidence indeed. It also ought to be noted that nothing in the parable assumes that the tax collector remains a sinner after his pentitent prayer. I would think that Jesus is commending his humility, not his sinfulness.
Furthermore, in Luke 11:39-44 when Jesus confronts real Pharisees, he grants that they have a modicum of outward righteousness but they need to be clean on the inside too. Significantly, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for tithing mint, rue and herbs but neglecting justice and Love of God. The mark of tithing is precisely one of the traits the Pharisee in the chapter 18 parable advances in his favor. Equally significant, the real Pharisees are chastised in chapter 11 for loving exaltation which is exactly the sin Jesus admonishes in the chapter 18 parable.
I also take issue with the other Lukan passages which the standard gloss advances. In Luke 17:10 the point is not that doing all the commandments is not to be encouraged , but the point is that in doing all the commandments one is only doing one’s duty and should not be exalted on that account. The ruler in Luke 18 is not chastised for obeying the commandments he lists but that he needs to do more. Jesus doesn’t say the one thing he lacks is “faith” but what he does say is “sell all, give to the poor, follow me”. Jesus is not saying that righteousness is useless, but that the ruler needs more righteousness.
Therefore, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Pharisee in the parable of Luke 18 is NOT a moral man and so the whole edifice of the standard Evangelical gloss simply cannot get going. The point of the parable is not that righteousness is bad but that what is needed is MORE righteousness. The upshot is that one cannot refer to Luke 18:9-14 as evidence that Jesus preached the Evangelical Gospel.
9 And he said to some, the ones having put confidence in themselves that they are righteous and despising others, this parable: 10 “Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one was a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee having stood, to himself was praying these things: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, swindlers, unrighteous, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice during the week, I tithe everything as much as I get.’ 13 But the tax collector having stood at a distance was not willing even the eyes to raise up to heaven, but was beating his chest saying ‘God, have mercy on me the sinner.’ 14 I say to you, this one went down having been justified to his house rather than that one, because everyone exalting himself will be humbled, but the one humbling himself will be exalted.”
The standard Evangelical gloss on this passage is to claim (from verse 11) that the Pharisee is a moral man (he doesn’t swindle, he isn’t unrighteous, he doesn’t commit adultery, he isn’t a tax collector) and to claim (from verse 12) that he is a religious (he fasts and tithes). The point Jesus is making is that one is not justified by being righteous even if that righteousness is God-given—after all, it is pointed out that the Pharisee is thanking God for his righteousness. This standard Evangelical gloss further bolsters its position by appealing to Luke 17:10 where after having done all that is commanded, we are admonished to say we are only “worthless slaves”. Also, the ruler in Luke 18:18-30 claims to have righteousness only to be told by Jesus that he still lacks.
I find serious problems with this gloss. First, I question the assumption that Jesus sees the Pharisee as a moral man. In verse 9 there is an important “and” added to the description of those who put confidence in themselves on account of their (perceived) righteousness. The “and” adds to the description those who “despise others”. No one would want to claim that despising others is a mark of the moral man. That this “despising others” is important is proved by what Jesus says at the end of the passage: exalting oneself is bad—notice the clue about the tax collector standing “at a distance” which proves his humility. Notice also, that the Pharisee is not said to be righteous by Luke (the narrator) or by Jesus (the parable teller). The Pharisee’s so-called righteousness is only learned from his own mouth, which is dubious evidence indeed. It also ought to be noted that nothing in the parable assumes that the tax collector remains a sinner after his pentitent prayer. I would think that Jesus is commending his humility, not his sinfulness.
Furthermore, in Luke 11:39-44 when Jesus confronts real Pharisees, he grants that they have a modicum of outward righteousness but they need to be clean on the inside too. Significantly, Jesus chastises the Pharisees for tithing mint, rue and herbs but neglecting justice and Love of God. The mark of tithing is precisely one of the traits the Pharisee in the chapter 18 parable advances in his favor. Equally significant, the real Pharisees are chastised in chapter 11 for loving exaltation which is exactly the sin Jesus admonishes in the chapter 18 parable.
I also take issue with the other Lukan passages which the standard gloss advances. In Luke 17:10 the point is not that doing all the commandments is not to be encouraged , but the point is that in doing all the commandments one is only doing one’s duty and should not be exalted on that account. The ruler in Luke 18 is not chastised for obeying the commandments he lists but that he needs to do more. Jesus doesn’t say the one thing he lacks is “faith” but what he does say is “sell all, give to the poor, follow me”. Jesus is not saying that righteousness is useless, but that the ruler needs more righteousness.
Therefore, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Pharisee in the parable of Luke 18 is NOT a moral man and so the whole edifice of the standard Evangelical gloss simply cannot get going. The point of the parable is not that righteousness is bad but that what is needed is MORE righteousness. The upshot is that one cannot refer to Luke 18:9-14 as evidence that Jesus preached the Evangelical Gospel.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
"Lamb of God" in John 1:29, 36
John the Baptist sees Jesus coming and says: “Look, the Lamb (amnos) of God, the one taking away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, later the Baptist simply says: “Look, the Lamb of God” [1:36]). The standard evangelical interpretation of “Lamb of God” is that the lamb refers to the animal used in either purification/sin sacrifice (Leviticus 4-5:13) or the guilt/reparation sacrifice (Leviticus 5:14-6:7). I want to argue that this interpretation is perhaps the least likely of those most often given.
Four Interpretations
Sacrificial Lamb
This interpretation is the one that evangelicals are most likely to espouse as mentioned above. The description that the lamb “takes away the sin of the world” naturally leads one to think of the sin/guilt offering because those sacrifices surely dealt with sins. Another link to these types of animal sacrifices is via Isaiah where the Servant is likened to a sheep led to slaughter (53:7) and his life is an offering for sin (53:10). John does allude to Isaiah 53 elsewhere (12:38=Isaiah 53:1—see also 12:40=Isaiah 6:10).
The first question to ask is whether the lamb in Isaiah 53:7 is necessarily a sacrificial lamb. The context of Isaiah 53:7 concerns the silence of the Servant in the face of his suffering. This silence is likened (Hebrew reads “as a lamb”) to a lamb going to the slaughter and to a sheep before the shearers. The point is the animal’s silence. We are not told that the lamb’s slaughter is for a sacrifice for the sheep being sheared definitely does not pertain to sacrifice. Also, it is not clear that if there is sacrificial meaning in Isaiah 53 that it might not better refer to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. The bearing or taking on sin is not the same as taking away but this point is not decisive, however Isaiah 53:8 does mention being cut off from the land of the living and the scapegoat suffers a similar fate (“cut-off land”=Leviticus 16:22). Finally, the “guilt offering” in Isaiah 53:10 may not refer to animal sacrifice but might refer to another meaning (of the term “asam”) used in Genesis 26:10 and 1 Samuel 6:3-4, 8, 17. Even assuming that the Servant is likened to a sacrifice, and the words “he poured out his life-blood to death” (Isaiah 53:12) could add to this imagery, it should be noted that the Servant’s suffering is just as much in the fore as his death. He was despised and shunned, suffered, knowing sickness (53:3), and abused (53:7). These do not necessarily involve death and so the description of the Servant as a sacrifice would only be a metaphor, since there is no indication that sacrificial animals suffered as part of the cultic praxis.
Paschal Lamb
This interpretation is probably the strongest. The Passover lamb is a central feature of the Passover, whereas the lamb in Isaiah is only an incidental reference. That the Passover lamb could be said to be sacrificed is clear from Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 5:7: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new mixture, as you are unleavened; for indeed the Passover [lamb] of us was sacrificed, Christ.” This may have developed from the fact that the Paschal lambs were killed by priests in the Temple. But strictly speaking, the paschal lamb was not a sacrifice (see below).
The Passover theme is prevalent in John, especially in connection with Jesus’ death. In 19:14, we are told that Jesus was condemned to death at noon the day before the Passover, which is the exact time when the priests began slaughtering the paschal lambs. In 19:29, we are told that wine was given to Jesus with the help of hyssop, and it was hyssop that was used to smear the blood of the paschal lamb on the doorposts (Exodus 12:22). In John 19:36, we are told that none of Jesus’ bones were broken, which seems to fulfill the requirement for the paschal lamb in Exodus 12:46. Finally, Jesus is the lamb in Revelation, a work related to John and Passover themes exist there too: Rev. 5:6 (slain lamb), Rev. 15:3 (Song of Moses=song of Lamb). Rev. 22:1 (Lamb=living water=Moses and water from rock), Rev. 5:9 (ransoming blood of lamb).
The theological upshot of this is that since the paschal lamb was not strictly atoning, there is no reason to assume that by saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God that his death just is a death on par with a sacrificial animal. The paschal blood saved not by atoning for sin but by marking the houses of the Israelites who were to be spared from God’s wrath. The Israelites were slaves and their redemption was not related to sin in any straightforward manner. In like manner, the blood of Jesus can save without being the blood of a sin/guilt offering.
However, this interpretation must still deal with the addition “the one taking away the sin of the world”. It seems likely that in the case involving Jesus, the redemption (the smearing of the blood on the doorposts, which is not a sacrifice) was redemption from the slavery to sin (see Paul!) and so the paschal lamb analogy can still work because Jesus’ redemption really was related to sin (even if the original Passover was not). However, again, this makes Jesus’ death and his blood on par with the Passover and not sacrificial animals.
This interpretation is probably strengthened by comparison with 1 Peter 1:18-19: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” This verse is very much in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief because by describing Jesus as “without defect or blemish” (see Exodus 12:5), Peter is probably referring to Jesus’ obedience. It is Jesus’ obedience that atones, not his blood-like-an-animal.
Lamb of Isaiah 53
I have really already covered this one by its connection to the first interpretation, but there is no reason to think that John the Baptist could not have also had Jesus and his role as the Suffering Servant in mind when he called him the “Lamb of God”. However, it just does not seem like the primary one. Also, even if the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 plays a part, it is only by analogy to sacrifice and not sacrifice in reality.
Apocalyptic Lamb
This interpretation is related to how the lamb functions in Revelation and in other Jewish writings. The apocalyptic lamb would take away sin by destroying evil. Comparisons with I John are also helpful in understanding this interpretation:
3:5: the one was manifested that the sins he might take away
3:8: for this reason was manifested the Son of God, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The weakness of this interpretation is that there is really no other reference to an Apocalyptic Lamb in John, though it does appear in Revelation. However, as with the suffering servant from Isaiah, there is no reason why this interpretation might have not also been behind John the Baptist’s proclamation.
Conclusion
It should be clear that the paschal lamb is entirely different from the lambs used in other sacrifices. Even a paschal lamb can be related to the removal of sin if the redemption itself is from the slavery to sin. If the Passover as it is conceived in Christianity is tied to the New Exodus, and if the New Exodus is from the slavery to sin, then to be redeemed from sin is the same as to be forgiven from sin or that sin has been taken away. So, when John the Baptist says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he can mean that the blood of the paschal lamb redeems us and it is sin from which we are redeemed. Nothing here dictates that we have to conceive of Jesus’ death as a literal animal-like sacrifice.
Four Interpretations
Sacrificial Lamb
This interpretation is the one that evangelicals are most likely to espouse as mentioned above. The description that the lamb “takes away the sin of the world” naturally leads one to think of the sin/guilt offering because those sacrifices surely dealt with sins. Another link to these types of animal sacrifices is via Isaiah where the Servant is likened to a sheep led to slaughter (53:7) and his life is an offering for sin (53:10). John does allude to Isaiah 53 elsewhere (12:38=Isaiah 53:1—see also 12:40=Isaiah 6:10).
The first question to ask is whether the lamb in Isaiah 53:7 is necessarily a sacrificial lamb. The context of Isaiah 53:7 concerns the silence of the Servant in the face of his suffering. This silence is likened (Hebrew reads “as a lamb”) to a lamb going to the slaughter and to a sheep before the shearers. The point is the animal’s silence. We are not told that the lamb’s slaughter is for a sacrifice for the sheep being sheared definitely does not pertain to sacrifice. Also, it is not clear that if there is sacrificial meaning in Isaiah 53 that it might not better refer to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. The bearing or taking on sin is not the same as taking away but this point is not decisive, however Isaiah 53:8 does mention being cut off from the land of the living and the scapegoat suffers a similar fate (“cut-off land”=Leviticus 16:22). Finally, the “guilt offering” in Isaiah 53:10 may not refer to animal sacrifice but might refer to another meaning (of the term “asam”) used in Genesis 26:10 and 1 Samuel 6:3-4, 8, 17. Even assuming that the Servant is likened to a sacrifice, and the words “he poured out his life-blood to death” (Isaiah 53:12) could add to this imagery, it should be noted that the Servant’s suffering is just as much in the fore as his death. He was despised and shunned, suffered, knowing sickness (53:3), and abused (53:7). These do not necessarily involve death and so the description of the Servant as a sacrifice would only be a metaphor, since there is no indication that sacrificial animals suffered as part of the cultic praxis.
Paschal Lamb
This interpretation is probably the strongest. The Passover lamb is a central feature of the Passover, whereas the lamb in Isaiah is only an incidental reference. That the Passover lamb could be said to be sacrificed is clear from Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 5:7: Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new mixture, as you are unleavened; for indeed the Passover [lamb] of us was sacrificed, Christ.” This may have developed from the fact that the Paschal lambs were killed by priests in the Temple. But strictly speaking, the paschal lamb was not a sacrifice (see below).
The Passover theme is prevalent in John, especially in connection with Jesus’ death. In 19:14, we are told that Jesus was condemned to death at noon the day before the Passover, which is the exact time when the priests began slaughtering the paschal lambs. In 19:29, we are told that wine was given to Jesus with the help of hyssop, and it was hyssop that was used to smear the blood of the paschal lamb on the doorposts (Exodus 12:22). In John 19:36, we are told that none of Jesus’ bones were broken, which seems to fulfill the requirement for the paschal lamb in Exodus 12:46. Finally, Jesus is the lamb in Revelation, a work related to John and Passover themes exist there too: Rev. 5:6 (slain lamb), Rev. 15:3 (Song of Moses=song of Lamb). Rev. 22:1 (Lamb=living water=Moses and water from rock), Rev. 5:9 (ransoming blood of lamb).
The theological upshot of this is that since the paschal lamb was not strictly atoning, there is no reason to assume that by saying that Jesus is the Lamb of God that his death just is a death on par with a sacrificial animal. The paschal blood saved not by atoning for sin but by marking the houses of the Israelites who were to be spared from God’s wrath. The Israelites were slaves and their redemption was not related to sin in any straightforward manner. In like manner, the blood of Jesus can save without being the blood of a sin/guilt offering.
However, this interpretation must still deal with the addition “the one taking away the sin of the world”. It seems likely that in the case involving Jesus, the redemption (the smearing of the blood on the doorposts, which is not a sacrifice) was redemption from the slavery to sin (see Paul!) and so the paschal lamb analogy can still work because Jesus’ redemption really was related to sin (even if the original Passover was not). However, again, this makes Jesus’ death and his blood on par with the Passover and not sacrificial animals.
This interpretation is probably strengthened by comparison with 1 Peter 1:18-19: “You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without defect or blemish.” This verse is very much in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief because by describing Jesus as “without defect or blemish” (see Exodus 12:5), Peter is probably referring to Jesus’ obedience. It is Jesus’ obedience that atones, not his blood-like-an-animal.
Lamb of Isaiah 53
I have really already covered this one by its connection to the first interpretation, but there is no reason to think that John the Baptist could not have also had Jesus and his role as the Suffering Servant in mind when he called him the “Lamb of God”. However, it just does not seem like the primary one. Also, even if the lamb of Isaiah 53:7 plays a part, it is only by analogy to sacrifice and not sacrifice in reality.
Apocalyptic Lamb
This interpretation is related to how the lamb functions in Revelation and in other Jewish writings. The apocalyptic lamb would take away sin by destroying evil. Comparisons with I John are also helpful in understanding this interpretation:
3:5: the one was manifested that the sins he might take away
3:8: for this reason was manifested the Son of God, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
The weakness of this interpretation is that there is really no other reference to an Apocalyptic Lamb in John, though it does appear in Revelation. However, as with the suffering servant from Isaiah, there is no reason why this interpretation might have not also been behind John the Baptist’s proclamation.
Conclusion
It should be clear that the paschal lamb is entirely different from the lambs used in other sacrifices. Even a paschal lamb can be related to the removal of sin if the redemption itself is from the slavery to sin. If the Passover as it is conceived in Christianity is tied to the New Exodus, and if the New Exodus is from the slavery to sin, then to be redeemed from sin is the same as to be forgiven from sin or that sin has been taken away. So, when John the Baptist says that Jesus is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, he can mean that the blood of the paschal lamb redeems us and it is sin from which we are redeemed. Nothing here dictates that we have to conceive of Jesus’ death as a literal animal-like sacrifice.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
2 Corinthians 5:21
Introduction:
There is a virtual theological war being waged today in Evangelical circles as to the meaning of basic ideas such as justification, the righteousness of God, imputation etc. One of the battleground verses is no doubt 2 Corinthians 5:21. I want to argue that the standard Evangelical interpretation of this verse is faulty. Basically, I want to argue that the “righteousness” in the verse refers to God’s activity of saving, judging, vindicating, etc. That is, I take the phrase “righteousness of God” to be a subjective genitive. I will bolster my interpretation of Genesis 15:6 because there I also claim that the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is God’s righteousness as understood has his saving, judging, vindicating etc. I hope to accomplish this task in part by comparing 2 Corinthians 5:21 with Galatians 3:13-14, which I take to be the outgrowth of Galatians 3:6=Genesis 15:6. I believe this comparison will be a decisive factor as to the correctness of the subjective genitive interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21.
The Verse:
The one not knowing sin [noun] on behalf of us sin [noun] he made, that we might become the righteousness [noun] of God in him.
Note that the verse is not a tidy balanced statement akin to Irenaeus’ “Christ became what we are so that we might become what he is”. In other words, the verse does not say: “Christ was made sin so that we would be made righteous.” (The verse also does not say that we might receive or attain righteousness as does Romans 9:30). Also, the referent of “us” has always been a crux since it need not necessarily refer to all Christians.
The Standard Evangelical Interpretation:
The standard Evangelical gloss on this verse is that the righteousness in question is ours (or the “we” in the verse), so that the phrase “righteousness of God” is either a genitive of origin or an objective genitive. The righteousness concerns our standing before God. It is precisely this understanding of the verse I want to refute. The first red flag, in addition to my note under the verse above, is that on the standard reading one might have expected that we become the “righteousness of Christ” because many Evangelicals read this verse in terms of imputation. However, as I will mention below, Paul has much to say about being “in Christ” and what he says simply cannot be reduced to the idea of imputation as commonly understood.
The Gospel Beyond Belief Interpretation:
When Paul says that we have become the righteousness of God, he is saying that he (and his co-workers and all Christians?) partakes in those activities in which God engages which show God being righteous, such as blessing, reconciling, saving, redeeming etc. Paul is not saying that he becomes righteous before God by being imputed with Christ’s righteousness. Jesus is made sin in the sense that he exhausted the curse of the law which was death due to disobedience. The redemption of Israel means the blessing of the nations, hence the similarities between 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13, and 4:4-5—see below on the issue of the pronouns in Paul.
The Context:
The context certainly favors the Gospel Beyond Belief interpretation. Throughout 2 Corinthians and especially at points near 5:21, Paul indentifies his work with God’s activity:
• 5:18 having given to us the ministry of reconciliation.
• 5:19 having put in us the message of reconciliation.
• 5:20 we are ambassadors as God is entreating through us.
• 5:21 we might become the righteousness of God.
• 6:1 as ones working together with him [God], also we entreat [same word used in 5:20].
The activity of God is rife in these surrounding verses: reconciling, the grace of God (6:1, the verse immediately after 5:21), saving (6:2).
Paul is a servant of God who enacts God’s will (6:4), who is “in the power of God” (6:7) and uses the “weapons of righteousness” (6:7), which no doubt come from God as the phrase “through the weapons of righteousness” immediately follows the phrase “in the power of God”.
It should also be said that elsewhere in Paul, the “righteousness of God” is clearly God’s activity:
• Romans 1:17 for the righteousness of God is in it revealed [this follows 1:16, which mentions the “power of God” and precedes 1:18 and the “wrath of God” which certainly refers to God’s activity).
• Romans 3:5 but if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God [this is meant to pick up the activities of God in 3:4 (judging) and in the same verse “inflicting wrath.”
• Romans 3:21-26 in these verses God’s righteousness is tied to his activities of displaying (25), passing by (25), and justifying (26).
Parallel with Galatians 3:13-14:
2 Corinthians 5:21 is very similar to Galatians 3:13-14 and it is this similarity which is very instructive. Compare the verses:
• Galatians 3:13-14: Christ redeemed US from the curse of the law, having become on behalf of us a curse, because it has been written cursed is everyone having hung on a tree, THAT to the nations the blessings of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus, THAT the promise of the Spirit we might receive through faithfulness.
• 2 Corinthians 5:21: The one not knowing sin on behalf of us sin he made, THAT WE might become the righteousness of God in him.
The similarities are thus (1) on behalf of us (2) in Christ Jesus/him (3) US/WE (4) THAT (5) curse/sin.
The final similarity (6) comes after the “that’s” and concerns activities of God. In Galatians it is the blessings of Abraham which are due to God’s grace (3:18) and in 2 Corinthians the direct analogue is the righteousness of God—note the use of “grace” in 6:1, the verse immediately following 5:21. This similarity (as well as the gift of the Spirit, which also figures heavily in Galatians 3) argues for the identification of the blessing of Abraham and the righteousness of God. Since the blessing of Abraham is God-given and an activity of God, then so is the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is then saying that Paul and the “we” become the agents of God’s blessing, which is exactly what Paul says in the rest of 2 Corinthians.
The Pronouns in 2 Corinthians:
It ought to be highlighted too that the pronouns in 2 Corinthians need not be universal even in the sense of all Christians. The “we” in 5:21 might only refer to Paul and his co-workers. After all, the use of “us” in 5:18b, 5:19b, and 5:20a most likely refer to Paul and his co-workers primarily, as does the meaning in 6:1. Sure, Paul would no doubt want all Christians to imitate him in his ministry but that is not to say that the primary referent to the pronouns here are all Christians. Furthermore, some have argued that the “us” in Galatians 3:13 refers to Jews or Jewish Christians since it is they who were under the curse of the law. If this is so, then it is more likely that the “us” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 refers to Jewish Christian too, of whom Paul belonged.
Theological upshot:
If 2 Corinthians 5:21 is to be interpreted as indicated then this verse simply cannot be used to ground the doctrine of imputation. According to the Gospel Beyond Belief there is a sense in which Jesus’ obedience is imputed to humanity by the grace of God. However, when Paul uses the phrase “in Christ” he has a certain relationship in mind and it is not imputation. In 2 Corinthians 5:14 Paul says that Jesus died for all and so that “all died”. Jesus did not die only in the place a person but so that the person too would die and also rise to life. For Paul, the changes in a Christians are real, they are not legal fictions. As one of many, many examples those in Christ will “walk” according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4); the walk metaphor certainly goes well beyond mere belief. (Paul also uses the walk metaphor when he says that we “keep in step with the steps” of Abraham (Romans 4:12)—this metaphor is usually lost in English translations.)
There is a virtual theological war being waged today in Evangelical circles as to the meaning of basic ideas such as justification, the righteousness of God, imputation etc. One of the battleground verses is no doubt 2 Corinthians 5:21. I want to argue that the standard Evangelical interpretation of this verse is faulty. Basically, I want to argue that the “righteousness” in the verse refers to God’s activity of saving, judging, vindicating, etc. That is, I take the phrase “righteousness of God” to be a subjective genitive. I will bolster my interpretation of Genesis 15:6 because there I also claim that the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is God’s righteousness as understood has his saving, judging, vindicating etc. I hope to accomplish this task in part by comparing 2 Corinthians 5:21 with Galatians 3:13-14, which I take to be the outgrowth of Galatians 3:6=Genesis 15:6. I believe this comparison will be a decisive factor as to the correctness of the subjective genitive interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21.
The Verse:
The one not knowing sin [noun] on behalf of us sin [noun] he made, that we might become the righteousness [noun] of God in him.
Note that the verse is not a tidy balanced statement akin to Irenaeus’ “Christ became what we are so that we might become what he is”. In other words, the verse does not say: “Christ was made sin so that we would be made righteous.” (The verse also does not say that we might receive or attain righteousness as does Romans 9:30). Also, the referent of “us” has always been a crux since it need not necessarily refer to all Christians.
The Standard Evangelical Interpretation:
The standard Evangelical gloss on this verse is that the righteousness in question is ours (or the “we” in the verse), so that the phrase “righteousness of God” is either a genitive of origin or an objective genitive. The righteousness concerns our standing before God. It is precisely this understanding of the verse I want to refute. The first red flag, in addition to my note under the verse above, is that on the standard reading one might have expected that we become the “righteousness of Christ” because many Evangelicals read this verse in terms of imputation. However, as I will mention below, Paul has much to say about being “in Christ” and what he says simply cannot be reduced to the idea of imputation as commonly understood.
The Gospel Beyond Belief Interpretation:
When Paul says that we have become the righteousness of God, he is saying that he (and his co-workers and all Christians?) partakes in those activities in which God engages which show God being righteous, such as blessing, reconciling, saving, redeeming etc. Paul is not saying that he becomes righteous before God by being imputed with Christ’s righteousness. Jesus is made sin in the sense that he exhausted the curse of the law which was death due to disobedience. The redemption of Israel means the blessing of the nations, hence the similarities between 2 Corinthians 5:21, Galatians 3:13, and 4:4-5—see below on the issue of the pronouns in Paul.
The Context:
The context certainly favors the Gospel Beyond Belief interpretation. Throughout 2 Corinthians and especially at points near 5:21, Paul indentifies his work with God’s activity:
• 5:18 having given to us the ministry of reconciliation.
• 5:19 having put in us the message of reconciliation.
• 5:20 we are ambassadors as God is entreating through us.
• 5:21 we might become the righteousness of God.
• 6:1 as ones working together with him [God], also we entreat [same word used in 5:20].
The activity of God is rife in these surrounding verses: reconciling, the grace of God (6:1, the verse immediately after 5:21), saving (6:2).
Paul is a servant of God who enacts God’s will (6:4), who is “in the power of God” (6:7) and uses the “weapons of righteousness” (6:7), which no doubt come from God as the phrase “through the weapons of righteousness” immediately follows the phrase “in the power of God”.
It should also be said that elsewhere in Paul, the “righteousness of God” is clearly God’s activity:
• Romans 1:17 for the righteousness of God is in it revealed [this follows 1:16, which mentions the “power of God” and precedes 1:18 and the “wrath of God” which certainly refers to God’s activity).
• Romans 3:5 but if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God [this is meant to pick up the activities of God in 3:4 (judging) and in the same verse “inflicting wrath.”
• Romans 3:21-26 in these verses God’s righteousness is tied to his activities of displaying (25), passing by (25), and justifying (26).
Parallel with Galatians 3:13-14:
2 Corinthians 5:21 is very similar to Galatians 3:13-14 and it is this similarity which is very instructive. Compare the verses:
• Galatians 3:13-14: Christ redeemed US from the curse of the law, having become on behalf of us a curse, because it has been written cursed is everyone having hung on a tree, THAT to the nations the blessings of Abraham might come in Christ Jesus, THAT the promise of the Spirit we might receive through faithfulness.
• 2 Corinthians 5:21: The one not knowing sin on behalf of us sin he made, THAT WE might become the righteousness of God in him.
The similarities are thus (1) on behalf of us (2) in Christ Jesus/him (3) US/WE (4) THAT (5) curse/sin.
The final similarity (6) comes after the “that’s” and concerns activities of God. In Galatians it is the blessings of Abraham which are due to God’s grace (3:18) and in 2 Corinthians the direct analogue is the righteousness of God—note the use of “grace” in 6:1, the verse immediately following 5:21. This similarity (as well as the gift of the Spirit, which also figures heavily in Galatians 3) argues for the identification of the blessing of Abraham and the righteousness of God. Since the blessing of Abraham is God-given and an activity of God, then so is the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is then saying that Paul and the “we” become the agents of God’s blessing, which is exactly what Paul says in the rest of 2 Corinthians.
The Pronouns in 2 Corinthians:
It ought to be highlighted too that the pronouns in 2 Corinthians need not be universal even in the sense of all Christians. The “we” in 5:21 might only refer to Paul and his co-workers. After all, the use of “us” in 5:18b, 5:19b, and 5:20a most likely refer to Paul and his co-workers primarily, as does the meaning in 6:1. Sure, Paul would no doubt want all Christians to imitate him in his ministry but that is not to say that the primary referent to the pronouns here are all Christians. Furthermore, some have argued that the “us” in Galatians 3:13 refers to Jews or Jewish Christians since it is they who were under the curse of the law. If this is so, then it is more likely that the “us” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 refers to Jewish Christian too, of whom Paul belonged.
Theological upshot:
If 2 Corinthians 5:21 is to be interpreted as indicated then this verse simply cannot be used to ground the doctrine of imputation. According to the Gospel Beyond Belief there is a sense in which Jesus’ obedience is imputed to humanity by the grace of God. However, when Paul uses the phrase “in Christ” he has a certain relationship in mind and it is not imputation. In 2 Corinthians 5:14 Paul says that Jesus died for all and so that “all died”. Jesus did not die only in the place a person but so that the person too would die and also rise to life. For Paul, the changes in a Christians are real, they are not legal fictions. As one of many, many examples those in Christ will “walk” according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4); the walk metaphor certainly goes well beyond mere belief. (Paul also uses the walk metaphor when he says that we “keep in step with the steps” of Abraham (Romans 4:12)—this metaphor is usually lost in English translations.)
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Genesis 15:6 part 2
Genesis 15:6
Introduction:
Genesis 15:6 is one of the most important verses with regard to Christian theology in the whole Old Testament--it is quoted by both Paul (Galatians 3:6, Romans 4:3) and James (James 2:23). I want to argue that the standard evangelical understanding of this verse is mistaken and that this mistake has monumental consequences for Christian theology. My main goal is to determine how Paul interpreted the verse in both Galatians and Romans, but before I do that I need to lay the groundwork. The reader is invited to read my commentaries on Galatians and Romans for a more comprehensive reading of Paul’s theology—this exploration of Genesis 15:6 is only meant to bolster that reading.
The Verse:
Literally the verse reads: and he trusted/had faith in Yahweh and he reckoned it to him righteousness.
Hebrew: hqdx wl hbvjyw hwhyb ,mahw
1. The verb “trusted/had faith” means to have confident trust in someone and the form of the verb (perfect with waw consecutive) refers to repeated action. The verb, which is used with a “b”, is translated in the NRSV as “believed in” (Ex. 14:31, Num. 14:11, Jer. 12:6 [without the “in”], Ps. 119:66, and 2 Chron. 20:20), but also as “trust/trusted” (Ex. 19:9, Num. 20:12, 1 Sam. 27:12). This verb is to be distinguished from the same root verb but used with a “l” which means to accept a report or what one says as true, which the NSRV always translates as “believe/believed” (Gen. 45:26, 1 Kings 10:7/2 Chron. 9:6, Isa. 53:1, Jer. 40:14, Prov. 14:15). This is a point to which I will return.
2. The context of the verse is a dialogue between Abraham and Yahweh. The verse seems to be an interpretive comment otherwise unparalleled. One might have expected a response from God in the order of: “you are righteous before me”. Again, this a point to which I will return.
3. The subject of “reckoned” linguistically could either be Abraham or God. The two main interpretations I will consider take the subject to be God.
4. The meaning of “righteousness” is also a point of contention. It could either mean righteousness of Abraham, that is, right standing before God in the sense of meeting the criterion of correct behavior or it could mean the righteousness of God in the sense that God will act righteously with regard to Abraham and those associated with him by delivering, vindicating, and blessing etc.
The Two Main Interpretations
The Standard Evangelical Interpretation:
The Standard Evangelical interpretation takes the verse to mean that Abraham believed God and that his belief was reckoned as righteousness. The thought is that merely believing takes the place of righteous behavior in God’s eyes. God demands righteous behavior but humans cannot deliver so merely believing is the substitute. Clearly on this reading the “righteousness” is Abraham’s and pertains to his standing before God.
The Problem:
There are severe problems with this reading. The main one is that the context in Genesis never makes a distinction between “merely believing” and righteousness seen as correct behavior. The intended audience would simply not make this dichotomy because it is totally unmotivated. For the standard reading to make sense Abraham’s mere belief has to be a one-time event and it is this belief that is reckoned as righteousness. However, as mentioned above the verb form implies repeated action and it is clear that Abraham believed God prior to 15:6. Already at 12:4 (So Abram went, as the LORD had told him) we are told that Abraham obeyed God and we assume he believed him in order to obey. The NT book of Hebrews harkens back to this verse when it says that by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance (Heb. 11:8). Also, Abraham certainly believed the promises at 13:14-17, well before 15:6. Therefore, it is unlikely that the author of Genesis has in mind Abraham’s one-off act of belief in 15:6, but has a wider reference and a reference that includes Abraham’s obedience.
The Gospel Beyond Belief Interpretation:
The Gospel Beyond Belief interprets the verse as follows: Abraham was faithful to Yahweh and Yahweh rewarded Abraham by crediting to Abraham righteousness in the sense that Yahweh promised Abraham that he (Yahweh) would act righteously toward Abraham and those associated with him. On this reading, Abraham’s faith does not mean merely believing but includes his obedience and the righteousness in question is God’s.
The Advantages:
1. The first advantage to consider is that the context supports this reading. Other texts in Genesis explicitly state that God’s righteousness is given on account of Abraham’s obedience. In 26:3-4 we are told that God will act righteously because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, my laws. Genesis 22:16-18 also links God’s righteous activity to Abraham’s obedience. God will be righteous because you [Abraham] have done this, you have not withheld your son, your only son. It is significant that there is actually a formal link between Abraham’s obedience in 22:16, which uses the triplet “your son, your only one, whom you love” and a triplet found in 12:1, which uses “your land, your birthplace, your father’s house”. The triplets seem to highlight the cost that Abraham must pay to obey God. Also, in both chapters 12 and 22 God tells Abraham to go to a place God will show him. We ought also to include the story in chapter 19:29 where God acts righteously toward Lot seemingly on account of Abraham (God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow).
2. There is a very similar verse to Genesis 15:6 in Psalm 106:30-31 and there the righteousness that is reckoned is clearly God’s. Psalms 106:30-31 reads: “Then Phineas stood up and interceded, and the plague was stopped. And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.” This no doubt harkens back to Phineas’ faithful act recounted in Numbers 25. The meaning is clear; Phineas’ act is rewarded with God’s righteousness.
3. The context of Genesis chapter 15 echoes the story-line in Numbers 25 in that God rewards obedience with his righteousness. This righteousness in both cases takes the form of a covenant (15:7-12 in the Abraham case, Numbers 25:12 in the Phineas case). This provides a rationale as to why the narrator decided to comment on Abraham’s faithfulness and deem it worthy of God’s covenant. Therefore, the Gospel Beyond Belief provides a reason why Genesis 15:6 is said, a feature that we have seen the standard reading lacks. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the covenant chapter 17 is precisely predicated on Abraham’s obedience: “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless…And I will make my covenant between me and you” (17:1-2).
4. Since I am ultimately interested in Paul’s reading it is of some importance to show that other writings interpreted Genesis 15:6 in the manner of the Gospel Beyond Belief. This is of some importance in that if Paul was going to argue using Genesis 15:6, then his arguments would be stronger if they were based on readings accepted by his opponents. For example, Sirach 44:19-21 attributes God’s covenant (his righteousness) to Abraham’s faithfulness under trial and 1 Maccabees 2:52 explicitly alludes to Genesis 15:6: “Was not Abraham found faithful under temptation, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,” and regardless of whose righteousness is meant it is clear that more is involved than just belief. Both Sirach and Maccabees were in the LXX that Paul would have read. We also ought not to downplay James 2:23, if not for thinking that the righteousness is God’s but for the sense that Abraham’s faith was not mere belief. If Christians are to take seriously the entire canon, then James ought to at least be factored in how Genesis 15:6 ought to be interpreted.
Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:6
I now will argue that Paul’s understanding of Genesis 15:6 is in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief. As a preface I will say that I think two of the reasons Paul used Genesis 15:6 are that Abraham was uncircumcised at that time and that it was in here that scripture linked faithfulness with God’s righteousness. I will begin with Galatians and use that as a springboard for Romans.
Galatians
I argued in my commentary on Galatians that in Galatians 3:2, 5 Paul mentions that the gift of the Spirit was given on account of Jesus’ faithfulness. Now, this gift of the Spirit in on par with God acting righteously. Therefore, when in Galatians 3:6, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 it would make complete sense to equate the righteousness in question as God’s righteousness. If God’s righteousness is in mind, then the rest of Galatians 3 fits nicely into place. We can now flesh out God’s righteousness as “blessings” (vss. 8, 14), “the promise” (vss. 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29; note that in verse 14 the promise concerns the Spirit which would directly tie-in with 3:2, 5), “a covenant” (vss. 15, 17, see also 4:21-31) and grace (v. 18). I would even argue that Galatians 3:8 is really a restatement of 3:6=Genesis 15:6:
Galatians 3:8: will be blessed in you all the nations.
The blessedness in 3:8 corresponds to the righteousness in 3:6; the “in you” in 3:8 corresponds to the merit-earned faithfulness of Abraham in 3:6.
Paul’s plan in Galatians is to show that Gentiles are included in what was merited to Abraham. In other words, Gentiles are saved not like Abraham, but because of Abraham. Anyway, the standard reading has problems with Abraham because his faith was in God and not Jesus. Also, once Paul is said to be making a distinction between faith and works, then faith is turned into a work as that which humans must meet in order to meet God’s standards.
Romans
As with Galatians, Paul uses Abraham to show that Gentiles are members of his family because membership in his family is not solely based on physical descent. It has been suggested that the opening verse in chapter 4 ought to be translated “Do you think that we Jews have considered Abraham our forefather only according to the flesh?” Paul will argue that, no, Abraham is the father of all those who are faithful and not just the Jews, that is, not just those who have the works of the law (= circumcision). The boast before God in verse 2 has to do with being Jewish and it is this that Paul questions. In 2:17, Paul says that being Jewish is consistent with being disobedient (=unfaithful). But then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to show that Abraham is the father of both Jews and Gentiles who are faithful, which is exactly his line of argument in chapter 2. Paul is not talking about Abraham’s belief as opposed to works, he is referring to Abraham’s faithfulness. Again, Paul chooses Genesis 15:6 because at that time Abraham was not circumcised so that he could also be the father of the uncircumcised Gentiles. The talk of “works” in verses 4-5, is solely related to the issue of being Jewish and not related to good deeds. The lesson in verses 6-7 is the same, Gentiles who are faithful will be forgiven, that is, their lawless deeds will not be accounted.
Conclusion
There is no reason to suppose that Paul did not read Genesis 15:6 as his fellow Jews would have read it. It is an interpretive principle to assume that Paul would agree with this common reading and then see if his ideas make sense. In this case, Paul comes out better on the Gospel Beyond Belief reading than on the standard evangelical reading, which has to posit a reading of Paul at odds with the common Jewish reading.
Introduction:
Genesis 15:6 is one of the most important verses with regard to Christian theology in the whole Old Testament--it is quoted by both Paul (Galatians 3:6, Romans 4:3) and James (James 2:23). I want to argue that the standard evangelical understanding of this verse is mistaken and that this mistake has monumental consequences for Christian theology. My main goal is to determine how Paul interpreted the verse in both Galatians and Romans, but before I do that I need to lay the groundwork. The reader is invited to read my commentaries on Galatians and Romans for a more comprehensive reading of Paul’s theology—this exploration of Genesis 15:6 is only meant to bolster that reading.
The Verse:
Literally the verse reads: and he trusted/had faith in Yahweh and he reckoned it to him righteousness.
Hebrew: hqdx wl hbvjyw hwhyb ,mahw
1. The verb “trusted/had faith” means to have confident trust in someone and the form of the verb (perfect with waw consecutive) refers to repeated action. The verb, which is used with a “b”, is translated in the NRSV as “believed in” (Ex. 14:31, Num. 14:11, Jer. 12:6 [without the “in”], Ps. 119:66, and 2 Chron. 20:20), but also as “trust/trusted” (Ex. 19:9, Num. 20:12, 1 Sam. 27:12). This verb is to be distinguished from the same root verb but used with a “l” which means to accept a report or what one says as true, which the NSRV always translates as “believe/believed” (Gen. 45:26, 1 Kings 10:7/2 Chron. 9:6, Isa. 53:1, Jer. 40:14, Prov. 14:15). This is a point to which I will return.
2. The context of the verse is a dialogue between Abraham and Yahweh. The verse seems to be an interpretive comment otherwise unparalleled. One might have expected a response from God in the order of: “you are righteous before me”. Again, this a point to which I will return.
3. The subject of “reckoned” linguistically could either be Abraham or God. The two main interpretations I will consider take the subject to be God.
4. The meaning of “righteousness” is also a point of contention. It could either mean righteousness of Abraham, that is, right standing before God in the sense of meeting the criterion of correct behavior or it could mean the righteousness of God in the sense that God will act righteously with regard to Abraham and those associated with him by delivering, vindicating, and blessing etc.
The Two Main Interpretations
The Standard Evangelical Interpretation:
The Standard Evangelical interpretation takes the verse to mean that Abraham believed God and that his belief was reckoned as righteousness. The thought is that merely believing takes the place of righteous behavior in God’s eyes. God demands righteous behavior but humans cannot deliver so merely believing is the substitute. Clearly on this reading the “righteousness” is Abraham’s and pertains to his standing before God.
The Problem:
There are severe problems with this reading. The main one is that the context in Genesis never makes a distinction between “merely believing” and righteousness seen as correct behavior. The intended audience would simply not make this dichotomy because it is totally unmotivated. For the standard reading to make sense Abraham’s mere belief has to be a one-time event and it is this belief that is reckoned as righteousness. However, as mentioned above the verb form implies repeated action and it is clear that Abraham believed God prior to 15:6. Already at 12:4 (So Abram went, as the LORD had told him) we are told that Abraham obeyed God and we assume he believed him in order to obey. The NT book of Hebrews harkens back to this verse when it says that by faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance (Heb. 11:8). Also, Abraham certainly believed the promises at 13:14-17, well before 15:6. Therefore, it is unlikely that the author of Genesis has in mind Abraham’s one-off act of belief in 15:6, but has a wider reference and a reference that includes Abraham’s obedience.
The Gospel Beyond Belief Interpretation:
The Gospel Beyond Belief interprets the verse as follows: Abraham was faithful to Yahweh and Yahweh rewarded Abraham by crediting to Abraham righteousness in the sense that Yahweh promised Abraham that he (Yahweh) would act righteously toward Abraham and those associated with him. On this reading, Abraham’s faith does not mean merely believing but includes his obedience and the righteousness in question is God’s.
The Advantages:
1. The first advantage to consider is that the context supports this reading. Other texts in Genesis explicitly state that God’s righteousness is given on account of Abraham’s obedience. In 26:3-4 we are told that God will act righteously because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, my laws. Genesis 22:16-18 also links God’s righteous activity to Abraham’s obedience. God will be righteous because you [Abraham] have done this, you have not withheld your son, your only son. It is significant that there is actually a formal link between Abraham’s obedience in 22:16, which uses the triplet “your son, your only one, whom you love” and a triplet found in 12:1, which uses “your land, your birthplace, your father’s house”. The triplets seem to highlight the cost that Abraham must pay to obey God. Also, in both chapters 12 and 22 God tells Abraham to go to a place God will show him. We ought also to include the story in chapter 19:29 where God acts righteously toward Lot seemingly on account of Abraham (God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow).
2. There is a very similar verse to Genesis 15:6 in Psalm 106:30-31 and there the righteousness that is reckoned is clearly God’s. Psalms 106:30-31 reads: “Then Phineas stood up and interceded, and the plague was stopped. And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation forever.” This no doubt harkens back to Phineas’ faithful act recounted in Numbers 25. The meaning is clear; Phineas’ act is rewarded with God’s righteousness.
3. The context of Genesis chapter 15 echoes the story-line in Numbers 25 in that God rewards obedience with his righteousness. This righteousness in both cases takes the form of a covenant (15:7-12 in the Abraham case, Numbers 25:12 in the Phineas case). This provides a rationale as to why the narrator decided to comment on Abraham’s faithfulness and deem it worthy of God’s covenant. Therefore, the Gospel Beyond Belief provides a reason why Genesis 15:6 is said, a feature that we have seen the standard reading lacks. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the covenant chapter 17 is precisely predicated on Abraham’s obedience: “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless…And I will make my covenant between me and you” (17:1-2).
4. Since I am ultimately interested in Paul’s reading it is of some importance to show that other writings interpreted Genesis 15:6 in the manner of the Gospel Beyond Belief. This is of some importance in that if Paul was going to argue using Genesis 15:6, then his arguments would be stronger if they were based on readings accepted by his opponents. For example, Sirach 44:19-21 attributes God’s covenant (his righteousness) to Abraham’s faithfulness under trial and 1 Maccabees 2:52 explicitly alludes to Genesis 15:6: “Was not Abraham found faithful under temptation, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness,” and regardless of whose righteousness is meant it is clear that more is involved than just belief. Both Sirach and Maccabees were in the LXX that Paul would have read. We also ought not to downplay James 2:23, if not for thinking that the righteousness is God’s but for the sense that Abraham’s faith was not mere belief. If Christians are to take seriously the entire canon, then James ought to at least be factored in how Genesis 15:6 ought to be interpreted.
Paul’s Use of Genesis 15:6
I now will argue that Paul’s understanding of Genesis 15:6 is in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief. As a preface I will say that I think two of the reasons Paul used Genesis 15:6 are that Abraham was uncircumcised at that time and that it was in here that scripture linked faithfulness with God’s righteousness. I will begin with Galatians and use that as a springboard for Romans.
Galatians
I argued in my commentary on Galatians that in Galatians 3:2, 5 Paul mentions that the gift of the Spirit was given on account of Jesus’ faithfulness. Now, this gift of the Spirit in on par with God acting righteously. Therefore, when in Galatians 3:6, Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 it would make complete sense to equate the righteousness in question as God’s righteousness. If God’s righteousness is in mind, then the rest of Galatians 3 fits nicely into place. We can now flesh out God’s righteousness as “blessings” (vss. 8, 14), “the promise” (vss. 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 29; note that in verse 14 the promise concerns the Spirit which would directly tie-in with 3:2, 5), “a covenant” (vss. 15, 17, see also 4:21-31) and grace (v. 18). I would even argue that Galatians 3:8 is really a restatement of 3:6=Genesis 15:6:
Galatians 3:8: will be blessed in you all the nations.
The blessedness in 3:8 corresponds to the righteousness in 3:6; the “in you” in 3:8 corresponds to the merit-earned faithfulness of Abraham in 3:6.
Paul’s plan in Galatians is to show that Gentiles are included in what was merited to Abraham. In other words, Gentiles are saved not like Abraham, but because of Abraham. Anyway, the standard reading has problems with Abraham because his faith was in God and not Jesus. Also, once Paul is said to be making a distinction between faith and works, then faith is turned into a work as that which humans must meet in order to meet God’s standards.
Romans
As with Galatians, Paul uses Abraham to show that Gentiles are members of his family because membership in his family is not solely based on physical descent. It has been suggested that the opening verse in chapter 4 ought to be translated “Do you think that we Jews have considered Abraham our forefather only according to the flesh?” Paul will argue that, no, Abraham is the father of all those who are faithful and not just the Jews, that is, not just those who have the works of the law (= circumcision). The boast before God in verse 2 has to do with being Jewish and it is this that Paul questions. In 2:17, Paul says that being Jewish is consistent with being disobedient (=unfaithful). But then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to show that Abraham is the father of both Jews and Gentiles who are faithful, which is exactly his line of argument in chapter 2. Paul is not talking about Abraham’s belief as opposed to works, he is referring to Abraham’s faithfulness. Again, Paul chooses Genesis 15:6 because at that time Abraham was not circumcised so that he could also be the father of the uncircumcised Gentiles. The talk of “works” in verses 4-5, is solely related to the issue of being Jewish and not related to good deeds. The lesson in verses 6-7 is the same, Gentiles who are faithful will be forgiven, that is, their lawless deeds will not be accounted.
Conclusion
There is no reason to suppose that Paul did not read Genesis 15:6 as his fellow Jews would have read it. It is an interpretive principle to assume that Paul would agree with this common reading and then see if his ideas make sense. In this case, Paul comes out better on the Gospel Beyond Belief reading than on the standard evangelical reading, which has to posit a reading of Paul at odds with the common Jewish reading.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Genesis 15:6
"he trusted the Lord, and he reckoned it to him as righteousness". There are basically three ways to interpret this crucial verse:
(1) the Lord reckoned to Abraham righteousness [that is, the righteousness is Abraham's, the righteousness pertains solely to Abraham and his standing with God].
(2) Abraham reckoned to the Lord righteousness.
(3) the Lord reckoned to Abraham righteousness [that is, the righteousness is God's--it does not pertain solely to Abraham but can be lavished on others on account of Abraham's trust].
(1) is the standard evangelical reading. Abraham believed God and God reckoned him as righteous. This is usually [but not by James-see below] understood to be that righteousness is something that even a believing Abraham did not deserve before the reckoning. The problem with this is that there is nothing to prepare the reader for this interpretation. There is no distinction made between "belief/faith" on the one hand and "righteousness" on the other.
(2) would mean that Abraham trusted God and thought that God would fulfill his promise, that is God is righteous. This is possible. However, this is not how the LXX understood the verse and is also not how a similar verse is interpreted (Psalm 106:31).
(3) would mean that God merited to Abraham righteousness in the sense that God would benefit Abraham and Abraham's seed on account of Abraham's trust. This interpretation makes sense of Genesis 19:29 (if God remembering Abraham has in mind Abraham's credit-meriting trust/faithfulness) and it makes sense of Genesis 22:16-18 and 26:3-5 (Paul used 15:6 because at that time Abraham was not circumcised; he did not use 15:6 because "trust" is different than "faithfulness").
The importance of these differences is huge. If one adopts the usual construal of (1), then Abraham's trust is mere belief and the righteousness he has is undeserved and therefore imputed. This is how evangelicals read Paul's gloss on Genesis 15:6. However, if one adopts (3), then there is no separation between faith/works and that Abraham's trust is on par with his faithfulness. God's righteousness is then had by grace by those who benefit from Abraham's merit-earning faithfulness. This interpretation is then used to better intepret Paul and his entire theological enterprise (along the lines of the "New Perspective").
James' correction of a possibly early misinterpretation of Paul concerns how one reads the "trusted". James read it as faithfulness and not mere belief, which would go hand-in-hand with (3). However, it is unclear what for James "righteousness" entails. Is it solely for the individual [in which case James holds (1) but not how that is usually understood] or does it also involve merit-earning righteousness for others. From what James says it seems that righteousness pertains to the individual (Abraham, Rahab, or anyone), but there is no reason why he thought that it pertains solely to the individual, especially in the case of Abraham.
Therefore, my bet, if i were a betting man, is with (3).
(1) the Lord reckoned to Abraham righteousness [that is, the righteousness is Abraham's, the righteousness pertains solely to Abraham and his standing with God].
(2) Abraham reckoned to the Lord righteousness.
(3) the Lord reckoned to Abraham righteousness [that is, the righteousness is God's--it does not pertain solely to Abraham but can be lavished on others on account of Abraham's trust].
(1) is the standard evangelical reading. Abraham believed God and God reckoned him as righteous. This is usually [but not by James-see below] understood to be that righteousness is something that even a believing Abraham did not deserve before the reckoning. The problem with this is that there is nothing to prepare the reader for this interpretation. There is no distinction made between "belief/faith" on the one hand and "righteousness" on the other.
(2) would mean that Abraham trusted God and thought that God would fulfill his promise, that is God is righteous. This is possible. However, this is not how the LXX understood the verse and is also not how a similar verse is interpreted (Psalm 106:31).
(3) would mean that God merited to Abraham righteousness in the sense that God would benefit Abraham and Abraham's seed on account of Abraham's trust. This interpretation makes sense of Genesis 19:29 (if God remembering Abraham has in mind Abraham's credit-meriting trust/faithfulness) and it makes sense of Genesis 22:16-18 and 26:3-5 (Paul used 15:6 because at that time Abraham was not circumcised; he did not use 15:6 because "trust" is different than "faithfulness").
The importance of these differences is huge. If one adopts the usual construal of (1), then Abraham's trust is mere belief and the righteousness he has is undeserved and therefore imputed. This is how evangelicals read Paul's gloss on Genesis 15:6. However, if one adopts (3), then there is no separation between faith/works and that Abraham's trust is on par with his faithfulness. God's righteousness is then had by grace by those who benefit from Abraham's merit-earning faithfulness. This interpretation is then used to better intepret Paul and his entire theological enterprise (along the lines of the "New Perspective").
James' correction of a possibly early misinterpretation of Paul concerns how one reads the "trusted". James read it as faithfulness and not mere belief, which would go hand-in-hand with (3). However, it is unclear what for James "righteousness" entails. Is it solely for the individual [in which case James holds (1) but not how that is usually understood] or does it also involve merit-earning righteousness for others. From what James says it seems that righteousness pertains to the individual (Abraham, Rahab, or anyone), but there is no reason why he thought that it pertains solely to the individual, especially in the case of Abraham.
Therefore, my bet, if i were a betting man, is with (3).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
