Habakkuk 2:4 and the Resurrection of Jesus

Introduction

If asked to sum up the gospel in a nutshell, many Christians would answer with John 3:16.  I think that Habakkuk 2:4 should also be in the running.  This may be odd given that it is an Old Testament verse, but it is quoted three times in the New Testament (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11; and Hebrews 10:38).  I think that this verse is wrongly understood by most evangelicals, and though I have commented on it on my website, I want to flesh out the meaning some more here.  I contend that as used by Paul, Habakkuk 2:4 refers to the death and resurrection of Jesus and therefore of all Christians generally.

Original Context

The book of Habakkuk begins with a dialogue between the prophet and God:

• 1:2-4 complaint by prophet
• 1:5-11 God answers
• 1:12-2:1 second complaint by prophet
• 2:2-20 God answers

In the first complaint, Habakkuk questions why God allows the wicked in Judah to surround the righteous (1:4).  He claims that because of God's inaction the law (torah) fails (1:4).  It fails because the law (Deuteronomy in this case?) promises reward for obedience and punishment for disobedience.

God responds by noting that he will punish the wicked in Judah by raising up the Chaldeans (Babylonians).

This does not please Habakkuk because he still questions why the wicked (the Babylonians) are allowed to devour the righteous (1:13).  The righteous in this case being the victims in the first complaint?

God responds by promising that the Babylonians are doomed.  In the midst of this response God promises that the righteous by faithfulness will live (2:4).  The context favors the interpretation that life is a reward for the faithfulness of the righteous, just as punishment is the reward for wickedness (there are five woes on the wicked in 2:6-20).  There is no thought about different paths to righteousness, one of them being faith, which is how most Christians would interpret the sentence: "the righteous lives by faith".  The Jewish Publication Society translates 2:4 along the lines I advocate:

the righteous man is rewarded with life for his fidelity

Paul's and Hebrew's Christocentric Reading of Habakkuk 2:4

I contend that Paul interpreted Habakkuk 2:4 Christologically: the righteous man (Jesus) is rewarded with life (resurrection) for his fidelity (death on the cross).  This is what I claim is the Gospel in a nutshell.  I will now lay out the argument drawing on Douglas A. Campbell's work.  I present seven arguments.

(1) Paul uses "the righteous one" (o dikaios) in his quotation.  Paul often refers to Jesus with an arthrous construction.
(2) o dikaios is also a Christological title elsewhere in the New Testament (Acts 7:52; 22:14; 3:14; 1 Peter 3:18; 1 John 2:1)
(3) Evidence in Hebrews (10:37-38): the book of Hebrews quotes Habakkuk 2:3-4 and the text that author used (LXX) probably already has a messianic interpretation ("the one who is coming", "my righteous one").  The context of Hebrews also favors the interpretation that life is a reward for faithfulness.
(4) In the Wisdom of Solomon, a work Paul probably knew, there is "a righteous man" who suffers and is granted life by God.
(5) If Paul draws the key phrase "by means of faithfulness" (ek pisteos) from Habakkuk 2:4, then this explains why he may have eliminated a pronoun from the LXX.  [The LXXb reads: "the righteous out of my faithfulness shall live".]  It concerns Jesus' faithfulness.
(6) Messianic reading delivers on what Paul says in Romans 1:2-4, which mentions the resurrection and the predictions of the prophets!  If Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 is interpreted Christologically then we have a perfect example of what Paul stated in 1:2-4.
(7) That Paul could interpret Scripture Christologically is not a stretch.  I may add that Leviticus 18:5 ought to be interpreted Christologically too.

Importance of the Christological Reading

We can now settle the dispute whether ek pisteos modifies the righteous or life.  It modifies life because Paul would not suggest Jesus was righteous by faith.  Paul uses the phrase ek pisteos only in Galatians and Romans and he quotes Habakkuk 2:4 only in Galatians and Romans.  This is strong evidence that elsewhere in Paul's thought ek pisteos refers to Jesus' faithfulness!  This has devastating theological consequences (see my website).  This helps make my case that it is Jesus' obedience that atones and not his animal-like sacrifice.  It also serves as a perfect example for Christians, we too will be rewarded with eternal life for our faithfulness.  This also gives us a smooth interpretation of Romans 1:17:

The righteousness of God is being revealed through it [the gospel] by means of [Jesus'] fidelity and for [our] fidelity, as it is written, 'The righteous one, be means of fidelity, will live.'

Resurrection in John: a Commentary on John 10:17

Introduction

The Gospel of John has been call the "Gospel of Life".  This is clear from the stated purpose of the Gospel itself: "But these things have been written that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that [through] believing, you may have life in his name" (20:31).  By "life" (zoe) here John means eternal life.  "Eternal life" (aionios zoe) occurs 17 times in the Gospel (3:15, 16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2, 3).  However, even without the modifier "eternal", "life" for John means eternal life; zoe occurs 19 times in the Gospel (1:4 [x2]; 3:36; 5:24, 26 [x2], 29, 40; 6:33, 35, 48, 51, 53, 63; 8:12; 10:10; 11:25; 14:6; 20:31).  This can be proven by context and by John's use of "life = psyche" when discussing normal life (10:11, 15, 17; 12:25 [x2]; 13:37, 38; 15:13).

I want to argue the importance of the resurrection of Jesus for John by looking at one verse (10:17):

Therefore, the Father loves me because I lay down my life that again I may take it.

10:17 and Context

One of the key words in 10:17 is the word "that" (hina).  Jesus lays down his life in order to take it back again.  in other words, the reason Jesus dies is in order to resurrect.  I would think that this is a bold statement for most evangelicals.  It is interesting to see how 10:17b is translated:

• NIV: --only to take it up again
• King James: that I might take it again
• NAS: so that I may take it again
• NRSV: in order to take it up again

To my ears anyway, the NIV seems the weakest, eventhough it logically makes sense.  The word "only" logically makes "take it up again" a necessary condition for the "laying down of life".  However, the double dash seems to needlessly separate the two phrases and their logical connection.  Be that as it may, a good argument from context can be made for the more purposive reading.

 John goes on (10:18):

No one takes it from me but I lay it down of my own accord.  I have the authority to lay it down and I have the authority to receive it again.  This command I received from the Father.

Jesus' death and resurrection are both commanded by the Father.  God's commandment is related to his will and earlier we were told (6:38-40):

for I have come down from heaven not to do my will but the will of him who sent me.  And this is the will of him who sent me that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me but raise it up on the last day.  This indeed is the will of my Father that all who see the Son and believe in him may have eternal life; and I will raise them up on the last day.

What is missing here is the link between Jesus' resurrection and its necessity for the resurrection of Christians.  However, the Gospel make this clear (14:19b): because I live, you also will live.  See also 11:25 (I am the resurrection and the life) and 14:6 (I am the way, the truth and the life).  In 3:14-15 (one of three "lifted up" passages, along with 8:28 and 12:32-34) we read:

and as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so it is necessary for the Son of Man to be lifted up, that (hina) everyone believing in him may have eternal life.

The content of "lifted up" surely includes the cross because of a) the comparison with the serpent on the pole (Num. 21:9) and b) the kind of death Jesus was to die in one of the other "lifted up" passages (12:33).  However, the "lifting up" ought to also include the resurrection and ascension:

•  8:28 When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will have realized that I AM
• 12:32 When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself.

The realities envisioned here would not likely have been the case at the crucifixion alone; see R. Brown (vol. 1, p. 146).

This brings us to one final point.  In 10:16 we are told of "other sheep" (Gentiles?).  In 12:20-23, there are hints that the Greeks will come only when Jesus is glorified (resurrection etc.) and that a grain of wheat if it dies will bear much fruit (12:24).  Clearly, Jesus' resurrection is to have "cash value".

Theological Upshot

The resurrection in John is huge.  It is perhaps not a coincidence that in all three of the main predictions of the death and resurrection of the Son of Man in the synoptic gospels we have lessons on discipleship.  Also in John, the saying about the grain of wheat dying is followed by a saying of discipleship (12:25):

Those who love their life will lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

The reason that this radical life is possible is because of the resurrection.  Jesus has conquered death!  Amen.

 

    

The Role of Resurrection in 2 Corinthians

Introduction

I want to analyze the role that the resurrection of Jesus plays in 2 Corinthians.  It will turn out that it plays a crucial role. The theme I wish to highlight is that Paul models his ministry on the gospel event (suffering/death of Jesus followed by the resurrection).  This fact, I think, has some theological consequences, the main one for my purposes being that for Paul the gospel event ought not to be interpreted solely, if at all, in terms of Jesus as an animal-like sacrifice.  This is so, because Paul no where specifies an analogue to Jesus as an animal-like sacrifice in his use of the gospel as his model.

The Data

I will present some verses as data for my thesis:

1:5
A: as abound the sufferings of the Messiah to us
B: so through the Messiah abounds also the encouragement to us

1:6
A: now whether we are being afflicted
B: it is for your encouragement and salvation

1:7
A: as sharers you are of the sufferings
B: so also of the encouragement

1:9
A: We ourselves in ourselves have had the death sentence
B: that we should not have trust in ourselves but in God, the one raising the dead

3:6
A: the letter kills
B: but the Spirit gives life

4:10
A: always the dying of Jesus in my body bearing about
B: that also the life of Jesus in the body of us might be manifested

4:11
A: to death are are being given over because of Jesus
B: that also the life of Jesus may be manifested in the mortal flesh of us

4:12
A: death works in us
B: but life in you

4:16
A: our outward body is being decayed
B: yet our inward man is being renewed day by day

4:17
A: the present lightness of the affliction
B: works out for us an eternal weight of glory

5:14-15
A: one on behalf of all died then all have died; and on behalf of all he died
B: that the ones living no longer to themselves may live but to the one on behalf of them having died and having been raised

8:9
A: he became poor though being rich
B: that you by the poverty of that one may become rich

11:7
A: humbling myself
B: that you may be exalted

12:9
A: in weakness
B: power...is perfected
A': I will boast in the weaknesses of me
B': that the power of the Messiah might be a shelter over me

12:10
A: whenever I am weak
B: I am strong

13:4
A: he was crucified out of weakness
B: but he lives by the power of God
A': we are weak in him
B': but we will live with him by the power of God toward you

Commentary

The first thing to notice is how often negative descriptions appear in the A's (suffering, death) and how often positive descriptions appear in the B's (consolation, life).  Also, there are many times different actors in the A's and B's for the individual verses.  I think this data goes to show that for Paul, what Jesus was for us, Paul and his co-workers are to the Corinthians.  This means that there is a correlation between the gospel event of which Jesus is the main actor and the ministry of Paul.  This correlation can tell us something because the mission of Jesus is for Paul a model for his own ministry.  This would not be the case if Jesus' mission was seen primarily as an animal-like sacrifice, for Paul does not say that his own blood has any atoning value.

Paul can justify himself and his ministry because it is based on the gospel event itself.  This shows how crucial for Paul is the resurrection of Jesus.

5:21

I have already blogged on this one verse but let me add it to the data and then analyze it some more:

5:21
A: the one not knowing sin he [God] made sin on behalf of us
B: that we might become the righteousness of God in him

What does it mean that Jesus was made sin?  The standard evangelical story might claim that the second "sin" would be a "sin-offering".  This is unlikely because the first use of "sin" cannot mean a sin offering and it would be strange for Paul to use the word twice so close together and change its meaning.  A better referent would be to the scapegoat of Leviticus 16.

What does it mean to become the righteousness of God?  See my blog, but suffice it to say that it pertains to the activity of God in making things right, which in our case is through Jesus and the gospel event.  Since sin is related to death, how is life related to the righteousness of God, since we would expect to see that concept given all the other data.  However, in two other occurrences of "righteousness of God" we do see life mentioned:

• Philippians 3:9-11  not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through the faithfulness of the Messiah, the righteousness of God based on faith.  I want to know him and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

This sounds a lot like 2 Corinthians!  The faithfulness of Jesus is also mentioned in 2 Corinthians, at least arguably, in 4:13 ("having the same Spirit of faithfulness [as Jesus]").  It could then be argued that the speaker of Ps. 116:10 would be Jesus.  See my website on "the faithfulness of the Messiah".

• Romans 10:3 to the righteousness of God they did not submit.

The mention of resurrection occurs in 10:9.

Conclusion

The resurrection is all-important for Paul.  Without it, we simply do not have the gospel event.  This ought to make us reexamine our views of the atonement and our belief the Jesus' is an animal-like sacrifice.  For Paul, the gospel event is something we participate in, it is not something that only Jesus does for us.  Of course, this is NOT to say that we exactly mirror Jesus, because it is Jesus perfect faithfulness that saves and nothing we could or did do.  

    

1 Peter and the Resurrection: A Case Study

Introduction

1 Peter is an excellent example of the importance of Jesus' resurrection in the scheme of salvation.  1 Peter has been plagued by its position in the canon, its relative brevity and its inevitable association with 2 Peter, but its message is in total agreement with what I term the Gospel Beyond Belief.

The Clarion Call of Resurrection

It does not take Peter long to mention Jesus' resurrection.  Already in verse 1:3 he says:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!  By his mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

What Jesus' resurrection means is nothing short of "salvation"; this can be seen by what immediately follows.  The Greek preposition that precedes "living hope" also precedes two other analogous phrases:

• to/for a living hope
• to/for an inheritance imperishable and undefiled and unfading
• to/for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last times

I think the thought is clear that Jesus' resurrection makes possible the resurrection of others and it is primarily this resurrection that is salvation.

In verse 1:21 we read:

Through him [Jesus] you have come to trust in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are set on God.

Once again "hope" is associated with the resurrection of Jesus because it makes possible the resurrection of others.

Finally, in 3:21, a very revealing passage, we read:

And baptism...now saves  you--not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It is clear that the basis of salvation is the resurrection of Jesus.  For Peter, salvation is eternal life with God and this life is based on the resurrection of Jesus.  Peter tells us that the prophets were told of the career of Jesus (1:11): "sufferings and after these glories".  The sufferings [plural] no doubt include Jesus' crucifixion but are not limited to these.  Peter, after quoting Isaiah 53:9,  mentions suffering that goes beyond crucifixion (2:23):

When he was abused he did not return abuse; when he suffered he did not threaten

The glories mentioned in 1:11 no doubt refer to Jesus resurrection and exaltation.

"Atonement" Passages

I now want to look at some passages that have been read to bolster the view that Jesus' death is as an animal-like sacrifice for sin.  The first occurs already in verse 1:2:

[chosen] in the foreknowledge of God the Father and consecrated by the Spirit for obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ.

The reference here is most likely to Exodus 24:3-8.  After the Israelites profess to obey [note the obedience in our present verse] Moses sprinkles them with blood, the blood of the covenant.

Another passage also speaks of Jesus' blood (1:18-19):

You know that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your ancestors, not with perishable things like silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like a lamb without defect or blemish.

The word "ransomed" is not  a word associated with animal-like sacrifice.  It has to do with the buying back of slaves and its referent is most likely the Exodus.  The same Greek word appears in the LXX of Exodus (6:6; 13:13, 15) and in passages often associated with the second exodus (Isa. 35:9; 51:11; 52:3).  The lamb therefore is the Passover lamb which is not an animal-like sin sacrifice. 

Another "atonement" passage is 2:24:

He [Jesus] himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that free from sins, we might live for righteousness.

This seems not to be about animal-like sacrifice for the simple reason that the sacrificial animal was not to be stained with imperfection (sin).  Rather, the imagery could be the scapegoat of Leviticus 16 or the condemed criminal of Deuteronomy 21:23 (in the LXX of that verse, we have the same words for "body" and "tree" that we find in 1 Peter 2:24).  Similar things can be said about 3:18, where we are told that Christ suffered for sins.  There is no clue about animal-like sacrifice and we are told that though Jesus was put to death in the flesh, he was made alive by the Spirit--a clear reference to his resurrection.  Anyway, the thought in 2:24 is close to Paul and the mention of "to live for righteousness" is a key for the path of salvation in 1 Peter.  This provides a nice segue.

Path to Salvation

Recall that in 1:3 we are told that we are given new birth through the resurrection of Jesus.  This new birth is the path to salvation.  Peter tells us to desire spiritual milk as new-born babes (2:2).  The reason is so that "you may grow into salvation".  Obedience is the key for Peter.  We are to be holy in all conduct (1:15, see Lev. 19:2), live in fear because God judges impartially on works (1:17!), purify our souls by obedience (1:22), live by the will of God (4:2), love one another because love covers a multitude of sins (4:8).  Peter tells us that it is hard for the righteous to be saved (4:18), but the clear implication is that one must be righteous to be saved!

Grace

Grace for Peter is none other than eternal life itself.  He calls it the "Grace of life" (3:7).  Elsewhere, salvation (again = resurrected life) is called a grace (1:10) and grace is something brought when Jesus is revealed, which again refers no doubt to resurrected life (1:13).  So, grace is always in the background for Peter.  

  

Jesus' Faithfulness in the book of Revelation

Introduction

I intend to argue that the book of Revelation nicely confirms my basic hypothesis that it is Jesus' obedience, which certainly includes his death, and not his crucifixion seen as an animal-like sacrifice that atones.


Jesus as Faithful Witness

In part of the prescript to the entire book, we are told that Jesus is "the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5).  These three descriptions coincide with Jesus' death, resurrection, and exaltation respectively.  I contend that the reason why Jesus is the firstborn from the dead and ruler of the kings of the earth is precisely because he was obedient.  Jesus' death is described as a faithful witness (martyr), which highlights his obedience.  This description of Jesus also occurs in 3:14 ("the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation").  Jesus is the beginning of God's creation because (and I borrow the words of G.B. Caird) "when God set in motion the creative process, what he intended to produce was Christ and men like Christ who would respond to him with utter faith and obedience."  Jesus is also called faithful and true in 19:2.

The two witnesses in Rev. 11 also deserve comment because their career mimics that of Jesus.  They die (we are even told in the same city where Jesus was crucified [11:8]), they are raised to life [11:11] and are exalted [11:12]).

Human Faithfulness like Jesus' Faithfulness

One of the key arguments that it is Jesus' obedience that is the important factor is that humans are described with the same language with which Jesus is described.  For example, in Rev. 2:14 Antipas is described as a "faithful witness" because he was killed where Satan dwells.  Also, Jesus is described as a conqueror (3:21; 5:5), just as are those addressed in the seven letters to the churches.  In fact, the same reward that Jesus accrued because of his obedience is open to his followers.  Jesus promises authority over the nations to the conquerors (2:27) just as he received authority from the Father (2:28).  A similar idea is expressed in 3:21: "I will give a place with me on my throne, just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne."

Two verses containing genitive phrase are also important here.  In 2:13 (my faith) and in 14:12 (the faithfulness of Jesus), the genitives are probably both subjective and therefore refer to Jesus' faithfulness and not "faith in Jesus".  [Oddly enough, Dunn and Hays disagree on this!]

Atonement Verses

It is now time to look at both 1:5-6 and 5:9-10.  1:5-6 reads as follows:

To the one loving us and having freed us from the sins of us by the blood of him and made us a kingdom of priests to his God and Father.

Similarly, 5:9-11:

Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain and purchased ones for God with your blood from every tribe and tongue and people and nation and made them for our God a kingdom and priests, and they will reign on earth.

 Given the Exodus reference in both passages (Ex. 19:6), and the language of setting free in the first, it is likely we are dealing with a reference to the Passover Lamb, by whose blood Israel was freed from Egypt.  In the present case, the blood of Jesus frees us from sins.  The verb "to purchase" in the second passage also relates to Exodus in that slaves are bought with a price (see 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23; Gal. 3:13; 4:5).  The important point here is that the Passover Lamb is not a sin sacrifice.  Its blood brought life, just as Jesus' blood brought life by conquering the effects of sin, namely, death.  On Jesus as the Passover Lamb see also 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 Cor. 5:7; and importantly if the gospel is related to the apocalypse, the Gospel of John: 1:29 (see my previous blog on this); 2:13; 6:4; 18:28; 19:36.  Additional Exodus reference in Revelation adds to the connection: the Song of Moses in 15:3 and the living water in Rev. 7:17 and 22:1 reminds us of the water Moses brought forth from the rock.

It should also be noted that blood is used as a symbol of death throughout Revelation and this shows that we ought not to put too much weight of the word "blood" so as to tie it to sin animal sacrifices: see 6:10; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:2.

Primary Eschatological Goal in Revelation is Life and not Forgiveness of Sins

What humans are saved from in Revelation is primarily Death and Hades, not sin per se.  One of the first things Jesus says in the book is that he is living and that he holds the keys of death and hades (1:17-18).  Many of the rewards for the conquerors refer to life: eat from the tree of life (2:7; cf. 22:2); crown of life (2:10), name not blotted out of book of life (3:5; cf. 21:12).  The battle in the end results in Death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire (20:14).  This explains why the resurrection of Jesus is tied to his death (1:17-18; 2:8).

Conclusion

 I have tried to show the meaning of Jesus' death in Revelation.  I have tried to show that the image of Jesus as a animal-like sacrifice is simply not there.  This ought to give us pause.

 

Recentering Christianity on the Resurrection: my thoughts on the Book of Acts

Introduction

My purpose here is to recenter Christianity on the Resurrection of Jesus and away from the Crucifixion by examining the book of Acts.  It is my contention that evangelical theology has put way too much focus on the Crucifixion and that this has damaged both evangelical theology and evangelical praxis.  The book of Acts is, I think, a superb example of the relative importance of the Resurrection of Jesus vis-a-vis the Crucifixion.

Luke's Summaries

Luke summarizes his gospel's presentation by noting that Jesus "presented himself living, after he suffered."  Peter states that Jesus' suffering fulfilled what was foretold in the prophets (3:18).  Similarly, Paul uses scripture to show that it was necessary for Jesus to suffer (17:2-3).  In fact, in Luke's gospel, Jesus also says that "it has been written that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day" (Lk 24:26).  No doubt, Jesus death comes under the rubric of suffering but the word suffering seems to go beyond mere crucifixion.  These summaries are small clues that the focus of Luke (and Peter, Paul, and Jesus) was not the crucifixion.

Choosing the Twelve

Peter says something interesting when he claims that the twelfth disciple must be a witness to the resurrection (1:22).  Notice he does not mention that the twelfth must be a witness to the death of Jesus.  The theme of being a witness to Jesus' resurrection is found in other passages in Acts:
     2:32: This Jesus God raised of which we are all witnesses
     3:15: the Author of life you killed, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses
     4:33: with great power the apostles were giving testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
     10:40-41: this one God raised up...and granted him to be visible...to witnesses...
     13:30-31:  God raised him up...to those who are now witnesses of him to the people.
The notion of being a witness to Jesus' crucifixion is entirely absent.

Peter's Pentecost Sermon

Peter's Pentecost sermon highlights Jesus' resurrection: "God raised him up, having destroyed the birth pains of death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power" (2:24).  After noting that David had died and was buried, he goes on to quote a psalm where David alludes to the resurrection of Jesus: "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption" (2:31, quoting Psalm 16:10).  Peter does mention Jesus' death but only to mention the role taken by his audience: "this man...you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (2:23).  Most of the references to Jesus' death are stated to implicate his killers: 3:15; 4:10; 7:52; 10:39; 13:28.

Another theme in Peter's sermon is Jesus' exaltation, a direct result of his resurrection (and not his crucifixion).  "This Jesus God raised up...being therefore exalted at the right hand of God."  David is again used as a foil (2:34) and a Psalm is quoted (2:34-35, quoting Psalm 110:1).  Jesus' exaltation also appears many times in Acts, passages often referred to as exhibiting "Resurrection Christology."  Besides 2:32-36, we have:  5:31: "God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."  Note that the notion of Jesus as Savior and of the forgiveness of sins is not at all connected with Jesus' crucifixion, but with Jesus' resurrection/exaltation.  Another exaltation passage is 7:55-56 and another "Resurrection Christology" passage is 13:32-33: "And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as it is written in the second psalm, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you.'"

Peter's Speech at Solomon's Portico
As quoted above (3:15), Peter says that Jesus is the Author of life.  There is some question as to the exact meaning of the greek word for "author" but is may have to do with Jesus as the firstfruits of the resurrection.

Peter's and John's Arrest

We are told that what annoyed the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, was that Peter and John were proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead (4:2).  Interestingly, Peter describes Jesus as a Nazarene whom his audience crucified but that God raised him from the dead (4:10).  No mention is made of the crucifixion as a theologically significant event.  Similarly, at his second arrest, Peter and the apostles open their defense with a direct reference to Jesus' resurrection:  "The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you killed by hanging on a tree" (5:30).

Peter's speech in Caesarea

Peter offers a summary of Jesus earthly life to Cornelius and again refers to Jesus' resurrection: They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day..." (10:39-40).

Paul at Athens

In Athens we are told that Paul was said to be a proclaimer of strange divinities, because he was preaching Jesus and the Resurrection (17:18, it seems it was thought that "Resurrection" was the name of a god/goddess).  Paul also states that God "has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead" (17:31-32).

Paul's Arrest and Defense

When he was before the Sanhedrin, Paul says he was "on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead" (23:6).  Paul says the same thing at a later trial (24:21).  At the trial before Felix, Paul says he has a hope in God that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous.  Before Agrippa and Bernice, Paul says: "I stand on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night.  It is for this hope, your excellency, that I am accused by Jews!  Why is it incredible by any of you that God raises the dead" (16:6-8)?

Lack of Crucifixion Atonement Theology

Forgiveness of sins in Acts mostly is dependent upon repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus (see 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 22:16; 26:18).  The only possible exceptions are 8:32-33 and 20:28.  20:28 reads as follows: "...the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son."  However, blood here may just be another term for life because Paul uses the same word a couple of verses prior: "I am innocent of the blood of all" (20:26).  Isaiah 53 is proof-texted in 8:32-33 but the section quoted stops just short of the part about being put to death for the transgressions of others.

Conclusion

I have tried to show the importance of the resurrection as a theological category and how it overshadows any crucifixion theology.  This is true in Paul's letters (as I have argued elsewhere) and especially true in Acts.  It's time for us evangelicals to follow suit.

Meaning of "Hallowed be thy name"

Hallowed be Thy Name

I want to point out that there is a sense of “Hallowed be thy name” in the Lord’s Prayer that is probably original but is not the usual sense given to that phrase.

The archaic English word “hallowed” means to sanctify or to make holy. In the OT, there are two basic senses of hallowing: 1) humans hallow God’s name or do not profane God’s name by being rightly related to God; 2) God sanctifies his own self or name. The first is the more usual sense given to “hallowed” and so on this reading the phrase in question is really a pious exclamation. The second sense, however, is the more common one in the OT, and it is this sense that I want to claim is the one Jesus meant. On this reading, Jesus is asking God to sanctify his own name. God does this by manifesting his Godly qualities. This is especially true in Ezekiel (20:41; 28:22, 25; 36:23; 38:16, 23; 39:27).

One argument for the second sense is to analyze the structure of the Lord’s Prayer which is certainly obscured in English translations (I’ll take Matthew’s version):

Our Father, the one in the heavens,

     Let be revered the name of you

     Let come the kingdom of you

     Let be done the will of you

As in heaven also on earth

The three middle phrases all share a similar grammatical structure and all are not connected by the word “and”. These facts help tie together the three phrases. Once the three phrases are treated on par, then it is easy to take the sense of hallowing as something God himself does. If Jesus is asking God to rule as king and to do his will, then it is likely that he is asking God to sanctify his name. The last phrase most likely pertains to all three middle phrases and not just to the last as is commonly thought. Jesus is asking God for the eschatological realities to be realities in the here-and-now.

Another argument for the second sense of hallowed comes from the Gospel of John 12:28 where Jesus says “Father, glorify your name.” Note the use of “Father”, which is all we find in Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer. It is clear that Jesus is asking God to glorify his own name.

Good Friday 4/15/22

Judgment Seat of Christ

It is common among evangelicals to separate the "judgment seat of Christ" (as used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:10) from the last, Great White Throne judgment. The logic of this separation is backed up by the concept stated in Romans 8:1 that in Christ there is no condemnation, so that the "judgment seat of Christ" must be a sort of sham kangaroo court for Christians where no judgment is really rendered. The Great White Throne judgment is for non-Christians, where the judgment is always in the negative.

I think there are at least three devastating arguments against this separation.
Argument 1: Analysis of Romans 8:1
This argument undercuts most of the rationale for having two separate judgments. In Romans 8:1, Paul says that "There is now then no condemnation to the ones in Christ Jesus." The key to this verse is the phrase "in Christ". To be "in Christ" for Paul is to be incorporated with Christ so as to share things that are of Christ. A natural reading of Romans 8 would be to take this "in Christ" as a sort of eschatological ideal. Those who walk in the Spirit are those "in Christ". However, we are not told if there is any tension within a person that doesn't totally walk in the Spirit but also walks in the flesh. It is in this double walking case, which includes everyone, and not the eschatological ideal of Romans 8:1, that calls for judgment.

Argument 2: Romans 14:10
This argument relies on a sister-wording "judgment seat of God" which in context clearly includes Christians. Therefore, the special wording "judgment seat of Christ" may not be of much significance. This reminds me of an error Mormans make in interpreting the doublets of Hebrew poetry. Just because there are two different words used (for example: "Zion" and "Jerusalem"), does not mean that two different locations are in mind.

Argument 3: Jesus' Parables do not allude to a Kangaroo Court
When Jesus speaks of judgment, it always seems to involve one process. A prime example of this is the parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:24-30 where clearly one judgment is in mind.

I believe these arguments show that the "judgment seat of Christ" as a sham judgment is itself a sham. It is motivated by a theological picture that ignores any mention of good/bad works and how that is judged.

1 Thessalonians as Test Case

Introduction

Raymond E. Brown, in his Introduction to the New Testament, claims that "1 Thess has at times been neglected because it does not treat the great Pauline theme of justification by faith apart from works of the Law." I agree that 1 Thess does not treat what has become the standard Protestant/evangelical reading of Paul, but this is strong evidence that the standard reading is defective. I hope to show that 1 Thess is in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief. Therefore, we will get a glimpse as to the relative importance of Jesus' resurrection over against the importance of his crucifixion in early Christianity.

Paul's Summary in 1:9-10

Paul summarizes the Thessalonians state thus: You turned to God from idols, to serve a God living and true, and to wait for his Son from the heavens, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, the one delivering us from the coming wrath." The first thing to notice about this passage is that the relevant descriptions of Jesus are (1) resurrection (not crucifixion) and (2) delivering from coming wrath (we are not told this is done by the crucifixion). The question is how does Jesus deliver us from the coming wrath? The standard interpretation claims that it is the crucifixion that seals the deal. However, if this were the case we would have expected a past tense verb in 1:10 (the one who delivered us from the coming wrath).

The Importance of Resurrection

Also, the rest of the letter speaks against the standard reading. The alternative manner in which Jesus delivers is primarily by raising from the dead and making resurrection possible for his followers. This is perhaps why Paul emphasizes that God is "living" in 1:9 (as opposed to dead idols?).

The first crucial passage is 4:13-18, where we are told that Jesus "died and rose again" (4:14), and this is the foundation for the "hope" (4:13) of future resurrection. I singled out the word "hope" from 4:13 because the very same word is used to describe salvation in 5:8: "and for a helmet the hope of salvation". This is clearly future and so cannot refer to the crucifixion which would have been past tense for Paul.

The second crucial passage is 5:9-10: "For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him." The standard reading would put all the weight of their interpretation on the words "died for us" and so read this passage as one that exalts the crucifixion. However, as Morna Hooker has pointed out, the words "live with him" totally undermine the standard reading. Jesus died, yes, one has to die to rise again, but it is the rising again that is the important factor in this passage. The reason Jesus died is to rise again, so that he can conquer death for those who are slaves to sin/death. The salvation that is obtained is life after death on account of Jesus' resurrection NOT forgiveness of sin on account of Jesus' crucifixion.

Theological Upshot

One is struck by the absence of "forgiveness" in 1 Thessalonians. Sure, forgiveness is taken for granted by Paul, but the salvation goes well beyond the mere verdict of forgiveness.

The meaning of "Grace"

The concept of "grace" for most evangelicals includes some notion of unmerited or undeserved favor or gift. I want to argue that the Biblical concept of grace (gk: charis; heb: chen) does not necessarily have to be unmerited or undeserved, and viewing it so can lead to misinterpretations.

Genesis 6:8

The Greek of the LXX interprets the Hebrew chen of Genesis 6:8 as charis (grace): "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." The very next verse (Gen. 6:9) describes Noah as "righteous", "blameless" and that he "walked with God." The point seems to be that the reason Noah found favor with God was that he was righteous, blameless and walked with him. The same logic seems to be involved in Genesis 7:1 where the LORD commands Noah to go into the ark because Noah alone was found to be "righteous".

Evangelical gambit

The evangelical retort would be to claim that Genesis 6:8 precedes 6:9 and so it is the grace that makes Noah righteous. However, there are two major problems with this gambit. First, the fact that Genesis 6:8 precedes 6:9 may only be due to structural concerns. Genesis 6:8 acts as a sort of introductory proclamation that is interrupted with a genealogical comment on Noah in 6:9-10. [In fact, some scholars would say that the rest of chapter 6 (6:9-22) is an interruption and that the story doesn't pick up again until 7:1 where again we are told that Noah was righteous!] Second, and more importantly, there is no indication in the story that Noah was a part of the wickedness that led to the LORD's decision to wipe out humanity. We are never told that Noah was a bad man and that the LORD's choice of him is based solely on the LORD's whim. On the contrary, the statement that the earth was corrupt "in the view of the LORD" (6:11) seems to be purposely contrasting itself with 7:1 where Noah was righteous "in the view of the LORD." Also, the statements about Noah's righteousness are not relativized to after he was made righteous by the LORD's grace but are relativized by "in this age" (6:9 and 7:1); this would be an odd way to put the fact that Noah was a bad man until the LORD's grace made him good. The natural way to read the flood narrative is that Noah was chosen because he walked with the LORD (6:9).

Other uses of "find favor" in Genesis also seem to undermine the fact that grace must be unmerited. In Genesis 33:15, Jacob protests to Esau: "Why should I find such favor in the eyes of my lord." The logic is that Jacob is wondering what he has done to merit Esau's favor, indicating that favor is usually given in response to something merited. This seems to be the case in Genesis 39:4 where Joseph finds favor with Pharaoh but only after we are told that Pharaoah saw that the LORD was with Joseph and that all he did succeeded (39:3).

Luke 2:40

In Luke 2:40 we are told that the grace of of God was upon Jesus. Grace cannot involve something that is unmerited because Jesus is not a sinner. If anything, God's favor is due to Jesus' strength and wisdom, descriptions which immediately precede God's favor.

Theological upshot

We must be careful not to allow a certain theological picture dominate how we think about and interpret Scripture. "Grace" is an important concept in Christianity and it behooves us to be clear what it means in all contexts and uses.

Jesus' Faith in Mark 9:23?

A case can be made that Jesus is refering to his own faith in the story of the demonic boy and his father (Mark 9:14-29). A man brings his boy to Jesus and tells Jesus that his disciples were not strong enough to cast out the demon. Jesus responds: "O faithless generation, how long will I be with you, how long will I put up with you? Bring him to me." Why does Jesus say, "how long will I be with you?" A case can be made that Jesus is pointing out that he does have the power to cast out because he has the requisite faith. The flow from 9:22 to 9:23 bolsters this conclusion. The man asks Jesus "if you can do anything [ei ti dyne], help us [boetheson hemin]." Jesus replies by quoting the man's question: "if you are able [ei dyne]?" The logic seems to be that Jesus is annoyed at the thought that he might not be able. Jesus goes on to say that "all things are possible [panta dynata] for the one believing [to pisteuonti]." The focus seems to clearly be Jesus and his power, a power his pistis makes possible. Jesus also seems to allude to his own faith in Mark 11:22. After the cursing of the fig tree, Jesus seems to teach that similar things can happen if you "have faith in God," implying that the fig tree incident was on account of Jesus' faith in God.

Theological upshot

If Jesus believes, that belief is always active, it does things through the power of God. Jesus is the founder and perfecter of our faith because he walked the talk.