Resurrection as Theme of Old Testament

Preamble

In 1 Corinthians 15:4, Paul says that Jesus was buried and that he has been raised according to the scriptures.  The Gospel of John, too, is clear that Jesus' resurrection is to be understood in reference to scripture (John 20:9; cf. Luke 24:46).  It is true that there are passages in the Old Testament that refer to resurrection (Psalm 16:8-11, 49, 73; Hosea 6:2, 13:4; Ezekiel 37; Isaiah 26:19; 53; Daniel 12:2), but the references are rare.  It may seem strange then to claim that resurrection is a main theme in the Old Testament.  However, I want to argue that if one pays attention to the overall story-line of the Old Testament, then it make good sense in the end to claim that resurrection is a main theme.  It is not the quantity of verses but their location and their relative importance that make the case.

The Story-line of the Old Testament

David Noel Freedman has written that the Hebrew Bible is a product of the exile.  This claim ought not to be passed over.  The primary history of Israel (from Genesis to 2 Kings) ends in exile and was compiled by learned Israelites while in exile in Babylon.  The last paragraph of 2 Kings discusses the release of King Jehoiachin of Judah from prison while in exile.  Robert Alter has pointed out that the exile theme is even in the book of Genesis (Adam is exiled from the Garden of Eden and Cain is exiled from the soil).  The theme of exile is also a preoccupation of the three great prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah).  The stories in the book of Daniel, a key for Jesus and the early Christian church, is set in the exile.  This is important because even when the exile was "over", Israel was in some sense still in exile because ruled by foreigners (in Daniel's case by the Greeks, especially Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and in Jesus' case by the Romans).  Freedman argues too that at the time of the exile, at least the first nine of the minor prophets had been written.

Cause of Exile

I'm not sure what most evangelicals would say is/are the main theme(s) of the Old Testament, but I'm sure Israel's sinfulness would be on any shortlist.  I think there is a truth here, even if it is commonly misunderstood.  The whole drift of the Old Testament is that the exile is the result of sin and disobedience.  In this sense, there is a kinship between exile and death, both are the result of sin.

Exile is not the Last Word

The Old Testament is clear that the exile is not the last word concerning Israel.  After exile there is the new age.  Joseph Blenkinsopp writes that the road from Babylon to Judah in Isaiah 40:3 (a passage of some importance for Christianity) has been eschatologized in Isaiah 35:8-10 and is now a metaphor for passage to the new age.  But it is precisely at this juncture that the Old Testament verses on resurrection raise their head.  For example, in Ezekiel 37, the great passage on resurrection is about the rebirth of the nation of Israel with reference to their end of exile and passage to the land of Israel.  The Old Testament describes the end of exile as the second Exodus.  Daniel, whose prayer which mentions exile (9:7), ends with the great deliverance of chapter 12 (12:2 being a classic resurrection passage.)  The earlier stories in Daniel have hinted at resurrection.  Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego are saved from death in the furnace and Daniel is saved from death in the Lion's den by the same sort of divine intervention that resurrection requires.  Obedience pays off.  In Ezekiel and Jeremiah, the obedience that brings life is a God-given new heart.

N.T. Wright has noted that the forgiveness of Israel's sins, the ushering in of the new age, the renewing of the covenant, the restoration of creation, and resurrection are all of the same piece.  In Jesus' resurrection, the new age has broken in.  This is why those passages from the Old Testament, especially Jeremiah (31), Ezekiel (36) and Isaiah (40-66) are so important for Christianity.  The new heart for obedience is available.  The real exile is from sin/death.

Paul

I have argued Paul interprets Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5 Christologically and that the reference to "live" in both verses refers to Jesus' (and our) resurrection.  This is huge because Habakkuk 2:4 is truly one the the most famous Old Testament passages.  It is by faithfulness that we gain eternal life.  That is exactly the lesson of the Old Testament.

Theological Upshot

Resurrection is huge.  It is huge in the Old Testament and it is huge in the New Testament.  It is about the new age and its availability in the here and now (Paul!).  We have no excuse to be sinners.  We are called to be "resurrected" saints and that is exactly the lesson of the New Testament.        

Resurrection and Apostleship

Preamble

It is interesting that in the New Testament apostleship is in some way associated with the resurrection of Jesus.  This is yet another clue as to the significance of the resurrection for the early church.

Acts 1:21-22

When the replacement for Judas was sought it is stated that the candidate is to have "accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us--one of these must become a witness with us to his resurrection."  This might not be that significant since the reference might be just to the entirety of Jesus ministry from beginning to end (ascension).  However, the resurrection is explicitly mentioned and since the ascension is known by Luke (Lk. 24:51, Acts 1:9), the evidence points to the conclusion that the resurrection is not to be just a marker for the end of Jesus' earthly ministry.  Anyway, to see the ascension of Jesus is to have seen the resurrected Jesus.  Notice also that the death of Jesus is not mentioned.  Of course this can be explained by the simple fact that not many actually saw Jesus' crucifixion.  But, Luke tends to summarize Jesus' earthly sojourn using the word "suffering", which though includes his death, is not restricted to his death (see especially 18:31-33).  Therefore, the death of Jesus is not singled out as an event which qualifies for apostleship.

1 Corinthians 9:1

Paul defends himself by asking, "Am I not free?  Am I not an apostle?  Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"  It has been pointed out that "Jesus our Lord" is really a t.t. for the risen Jesus.  The implication is that since Paul has seen the risen Jesus he can claim a special status in the Christian community.  This is brought out clearly in the next passage.

1 Corinthians 15:1-11

Paul summarizes the gospel and then lists all the witnesses to the resurrection:

• Cephas
• the twelve
• over 500 brothers
• James
• all the apostles
• Paul

Paul states that he is the last one to see the risen Jesus and is therefore the least of the apostles.  The implication is that seeing the risen Jesus is part of what it means to be an apostle.

Theological Upshot

It is important that apostleship is connected to being a witness of Jesus' resurrection.  I think the reason for this is a clue to the importance of the resurrection in early Christianity.  Being a witness to the resurrected Jesus is important because the resurrection of Jesus is part and parcel to the gospel message!  This is proven in Acts and in the letters of Paul.

The Meaning of "Faith" in Hebrews

Preamble

The Book of Hebrews is a favorite for evangelicals in part because of its use of sacrificial language.  However, the rest of the book does not sit well within the standard evangelical story.  I want to highlight one aspect that does not fit well and that is the examples of faith in chapter 11.

Chapter 11

The following is a list of the examples of faith in Hebrews and the verb used to flesh out the meaning of faith in each case:

• 4  Abel  offered a greater sacrifice than Cain
• 5 Enoch [no verb is given, but we are told he pleased (perhaps a reference to Hab. 2:2-3) God and Genesis 5:22 famously states he "walked with God".]
• 7 Noah  having been reverent, built the ark
• 8 Abraham obeyed...he went out
• 9 Abraham migrated
• 11 Abraham/Sarah? considered faithful the one having promised
• 17 Abraham offered Issac
• 20 Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau
• 21 Jacob blessed each of the sons of Joseph
• 22 Joseph gave orders concerning his bones
• 23 [Moses' parents] hid [Moses]
• 24 Moses refused to be called son of Pharaoh's daughter...having chosen to be mistreated...
• 27 Moses left Egypt
• 28 Moses instituted the passover
• 29 Israelites went through the Red Sea
• 30 [Joshua et al] having encircled for seven days
• 31 Rahab having welcomed the spies

Most of the examples use action verbs to flesh out the meaning of faith.  This is at odds with the emphasis of faith as mere belief in evangelical thought.  But it is clear that Hebrews has action in mind.  One way of parsing Hebrews 6:1-2 is as follows:

 Therefore, having left the basic teaching about Christ, let us move on to maturity, not laying again
the foundation of repentance from dead works and faith toward God [which is]
teachings concerning: baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection from the dead, and the eternal judgment.
 

  On this reading, repentance from dead works and faith toward God are in parallel and are summed up in the same things.  Also, in 3:18-19, "unbelief" and "disobedience" are treated as synonymous.

Faith and Resurrection

In a previous blog, I argued that the book of Hebrews interprets Habakkuk 2:4 as a claim that life follows obedience.  Much of the faith in Hebrews is oriented to the future promise or hope of the resurrection age.  Many of the examples in the list in chapter 11 allude to resurrection (see for example vs. 12, 19).  The foundation of this is Jesus' resurrection.  In 5:7-10, we are told that Jesus prayed to the one who is able to save him from death, and his prayers were heard because of his obedience.  This no doubt refers to his resurrection.  He was made perfect (through his suffering obedience leading to an exalted resurrection) and so because of his faithfulness (5:7) he became a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him (5:9). It is clear from this that obedience is a condition for salvation (see also 3:6, 14).

Theological Upshot

The standard evangelical story starts to crumble when pressure is applied on what is meant in Biblical texts by "faith".  "Faith" in the Bible is more akin to "fidelity" than it is to mere mental assent.    

An Argument for the Resurrection's Importance

Preamble

I will present an argument that we can gain insight into the importance of Jesus' resurrection for the early church by the mere fact that the early Christians chose Sunday as their special day of celebration.  This is significant for evangelicals since we tend to think of Jesus' crucifixion as the Christ event par excellence.  However, it wasn't Friday that early Christians honored as we would expect if we adhered to the evangelical emphasis.

New Testament Evidence

In Revelation 1:10 there is mention of the "Lord's Day".  This probably refers to Sunday.  Since it refers to "the Lord" it is meant to recall events in Jesus' life, that is, the resurrection.  It's true that we are not told that this was Sunday or the first day of the week, but one would probably expect the author to have mentioned the "Sabbath" if that was the day.  Later Christian writings are explicit on this point (see below).

In Corinthians 16:1-2, Paul mentions the first day of the week as a time when he would gather the individual's contributions.  Paul mentions the Galatian churches in this regard so at least something is special about Sunday.  It's likely that this was the day Christian met which would make Paul's task of collection easier.

Acts 20:7 is also put forward int his regard.  Here, we are told that on the first day of the week (see Mt. 28:1; Lk. 24:1) the Christians met and broke bread.  There are references to a meal Jesus had with his followers after his resurrection (presumably on a Sunday) which use language associated with the Eucharist: Luke 24:, 30, 35 (breaking bread); 24:43 (taking the fish); John 20:19-29 and 21:13 (taking and giving bread. fish also); see Mark 16:14 and Acts 10:41.  It could be argued that the Eucharist practice was instituted by Jesus in these episodes and that is why the church does it Sunday and not Thursday as we would expect from the Last Supper.

Other Evidence

 Here is a list of some of the key reference to Sunday and its association with the resurrection of Jesus.

•  Didache 14.1 "on the Lord's Day we meet and break bread."
• Ignatuis of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesian Christians 9.1 "no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which our life arose through him and his death." Also from this letter: "let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection-day, the queen and chief of all days." 
• Melito of Sardis wrote a treatise titled Concerning the Lord's Day
• Chrysostom, Psalms 119 "it was called the Lord's day because the Lord rose on that day."
• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, 27 Referring to a group of Ebionites who "celebrate the Lord's days very much like us in commemoration of his resurrection."  It has been argued that the Ebionites (a Jewish Christian sect) would not have observed Sunday in this way if the custom had originated outside of Palestine, which is further evidence of its antiquity.
• Epistle of Barnabas, 15.9 "we joyfully celebrate the eighth day, on which Jesus rose from the dead and, after being disclosed to us, ascended into the heavens." [see Lk. 24:51]
• Justin Martyr, Apology 1.67 Christians meet together on Sunday because "it is the first day, on which God...created the world, and the same day on which Jesus rose from the dead."
• Pliny the Younger, Book 10, letter 96 mentions that the Christians meet regularly before dawn on a fixed day.

It would be difficult to imagine a change from the Jewish Sabbath (see Col. 2:16) without a really good alternative.  The resurrection of Jesus provides such an alternative, which argues for its importance in the early church.

Theological Upshot

The resurrection of Jesus was of utmost importance to the early church.  Good Friday was good, but Easter Sunday is better!  We Christians worship on Sunday and not Friday, which is a clue to the importance of the resurrection!

Power and Resurrection in Paul

Preamble

A study of the use of the word "power" in Paul's letters shows how important real transformation and/or resurrection is for Paul.  I will even argue that when Paul refers to Jesus' crucifixion he has in mind his resurrection too.  For example, in 1 Corinthians Paul proclaims Christ crucified (1:23) and that he decided to know nothing among the Corinthians except Christ crucified (2:2).  I claim these statements utilize metonymy in which the mention of crucifixion has in mind the whole crucifixion-resurrection event.  Paul does so I will argue because he wants to say something about his own ministry.

"Power" in Paul

The thesis-like statement in Romans is that the gospel is the power of God for salvation (1:16).  This already hints of the crucifixion-resurrection event.  It's possible the crucifixion is hinted at because Paul prefaces this statement with the claim that he is not ashamed of the gospel.  This could very well point to Jesus' death as a shameful outcome for a Messiah.  The resurrection is hinted at by the mention of salvation.  For Paul, salvation and resurrection are sister concepts.  Romans begins with the claim that Jesus was designated Son-of-God-in-power according to a Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead (1:4).  We see here the close association of power with resurrection.  Other verses prove the association:

• 1 Corinthians 6:14 And God raised the Lord and will raise us by his power.
• 1 Corinthians 15:43 sown in dishonor it is raised in glory; sown in weakness, it is raised in power.
• 2 Corinthians 13:4 for indeed he was crucified in weakness but he lives by the power of God.  For we are weak in him but we will live with him by the power of God toward you. 
• Philippians 3:10 to know him and the power of the resurrection of him.

The power that Jesus acquired by his resurrection (Rom. 1:4) is demonstrated by his life giving ability:

Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [1 Corinthians 15:45]
 

Romans puts it this way:

 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. [Romans 8:10]
 

Note the role of the Holy Spirit in all this.  The Spirit is also wedded to resurrection.  It is for this reason that Paul ties both power and spirit to his own ministry:  "My speech and proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power." [1 Corinthians 2:4).

Paul's use of the crucifixion

I claim that Paul based his ministry on the pattern of Jesus' death and resurrection.  He apologized for his weakness by pointing to the example set by Jesus.  For Paul, the cross was weakness, not power; see the above quote where is says that Jesus was crucified in weakness.  Paul came in weakness but power follows just as Jesus' powerful resurrection followed his shameful crucifixion.  This is why I claim that when Paul mentions the crucifixion he has the power of the resurrection tied to it (see 1 Cor. 1:17-18).  He highlights Jesus crucifixion because Paul's own ministry mimicked the Jesus death-resurrection event.  The crucifixion in and of itself was weakness and shame, but because it demontrated Jesus' obedience it was followed by the power of the resurrection.

Theological upshot

We Christians ought to imitate both Jesus and Paul by embracing obedience, even obedience unto death (Phil. 2:8).  Though the world will see our lifestyle as weak and counter-cultural, we can be assured that true power is found in weakness.  As Paul says, "when I am weak, then I am strong."  Amen.

    

Enoch, Faithfulness and Eternal Life

Preamble

The figure of Enoch in the Old Testament is a mysterious character.  I will take a closer look at the passage in Genesis where he is mentioned.  I will argue that Enoch is a classic example of Habakkuk 2:4 as I interpret that verse.  I will find excellent confirmation in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, the only other Biblical passage where he is mentioned.  This is crucial evidence for my Gospel Beyond Belief because a certain interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4 lies at its heart, whereas its misinterpretation lies at the heart of the Standard Evangelical Story, a story that I think is a perversion of the Gospel.

The Life-Death Theme in Genesis

Since I claim that the heart of the Gospel message is Jesus' obedient death and resurrection/ascension/exaltation, and not his death as an animal-like sacrifice, it would make sense to find hints of the Gospel in the founding stories of Genesis.  That is exactly what we find.  The loss of eternal life is a major theme in Genesis.  After the disobedience in the garden, God did not want humans to attain eternal life by eating from the tree of life, so he guarded that tree with cherubim and a fiery, twirling sword (Gen. 3).  Therefore, God exiled Adam from the garden.  It is against this backdrop that we read about Adam's descendants in chapter 5.

List in Genesis 5

The descendants of Adam are listed following a set pattern: (1) A was x years old when he begot B; (2) A lived x years after begetting B and had other sons and daughters; (3) the entire lifetime of A was x years, then he died.  The list is as follows:

1. Adam
2. Seth
3. Enosh
4. Kenan
5. Mahalalel
6. Jared
7. Enoch
8. Methuselah
9. Lamech
10. Noah

What is remarkable is the addition of "then he died".  It seems added for emphasis, since one would think that that information is already given by how long A lived.  Therefore, this emphasis is telling because it was Adam's disobedience that led to death (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:19).  However, Enoch is an exception to this pattern in two ways: (1) instead of pattern 2's "A lived x years after begetting B", we read that Enoch "walked with God" (Gen. 5:22), (2) instead of patter 3's "then he died" we read that Enoch walked with God and that "he was no more, because God took him" (Gen. 5:24).

Implications

A strong case can be made that the reason we don't read "then he died" for Enoch is because he walked with God.  To walk with God is in part to be obedient.  This is why we are told that Noah walked with God (Gen. 6:9) who was "righteous" and "blameless", and why we are told Abraham walked with God (Gen 17:1) who was "blameless".  The conclusion is that Enoch was rewarded with life because he was faithful.

Habakkuk 2:4

On my website I argue that Paul and the Book of Hebrews quote Habakkuk 2:4 to mean that the righteous by faith[fulness] (obedience) will (be rewarded with eternal) live/life.  The verse is not saying that the righteous will live by faith as opposed to live by works or by anything else.  However, this is how the Standard Evangelical Story interprets Hab. 2:4.

Confirmation in Hebrews

On my website (Gospel Beyond Belief) I argue that Hebrews understands Habakkuk 2:4 as I do.  It is interesting to note that the great chapter on Faith[fulness] (chapter 11) is preceded by the quote of Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38.  This is significant.  In 11:5, we are told that Enoch "had pleased God" and that is why he did not experience death.  The author of Hebrews is most likely using the LXX because the LXX uses "pleases God" instead of "walks with God" in Genesis 5:22, 24.  This sheds light on the famous next verse: without faithfulness is impossible to please him (God).  One must also believe he rewards faithfulness.  The next verse talks about Noah who also walked with God!  Both Enoch and Noah were rewarded with kinds of life because they were obedient.  Therefore, chapter 11 mutually reinforces the meaning of Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38.  Life is a reward for obedience.

Jesus as Prime Example of Habakkuk 2:4

On my website I claim that Paul uses Jesus as the quintessential example of Habakkuk 2:4.  Jesus was righteous (obedient unto death) and was rewarded with eternal life (resurrection).  This is also the way Paul envisions his ministry and the Christian path in general.  This has monstrous consequence for how we interpret Paul and hence the Gospel, since the Standard Evangelical Story is wedded to a particular misinterpretation of Paul.

Resurrection as Primary

If I'm right about Habakkuk 2:4, then the resurrection of Jesus ought to be accorded the importance that it deserves, and as I argue, the New Testament proves.  Eternal life and the victory over death is the GOOD NEWS!

A Misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21

Preamble

An influential evangelical pastor/author has written a book in which he defends what I have called the standard evangelical story.  In chapter 11 (and 3) of that book he criticizes a certain interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (see especially pp. 174-180).  I intend here to defend the interpretation that this author criticizes in part by showing that his interpretation is false and a disaster for Christianity.  It will turn out that the verses he thinks support his case actually undermine it.   


The Basic Issue

His basic error is to assume that for Paul salvation leaves the Christian "ungodly" and that the righteousness we receive "is not the moral quality of our souls" (he is quoting here Charles Hodge).  In other words, he continues to defend imputation as a legal fiction and sees 2 Corinthians 5:21 as a classic statement of that doctrine.

2 Corinthians 5:21

The one not knowing sin he made sin on behalf of us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

His contention is that Christ is made sin (as a legal fiction--for he knew no sin) so that we are made righteous (as a legal fiction--for we are not really righteous).  He highlights this by italicizing the verse as follows:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The problem for him is that one would have expected on his interpretation something like this: "he made him sin so that we would be made righteous."  But that is not what we read.  The puzzle for his interpretation is the addition "of God".  Why did Paul talk of the righteousness of God when on his reading it is with Christ's righteousness we are clothed? 

The Interpretation Criticized

According to the interpretation I wish to defend, the "righteousness of God" is not Christ's righteousness (which in his case would be a genitive of origin), but is the power of God to set things right (see Romans 1:16-17 where the "power of God" is parallel to the "righteousness of God").  In other words, the phrase "the righteousness of God" is a subjective genitive or a possessive genitive (if righteousness is an attribute of God, but an attribute that pertains to action).  So, what 2 Corinthians 5:21 is saying is that Paul and his fellow evangelists are becoming the righteousness of God in the sense that they are God's ambassadors in carrying out God's saving activity, which for Paul is primarily resurrected life (both figurative and literal).  In other words, 2 Corinthians 5:21 has nothing to do with the legal fiction of imputation. He realizes this (see his p. 175), hence his attack.

Point #1

He seems to want to discredit the target interpretation because of its novelty ("unprecedented" is the word he prefers).  However, he ought to be aware by now that there are others who share the target interpretation other than N.T. Wright (his main opponent).  Morna Hooker gave a lecture in which she supported the alternative interpretation.  This lecture was given in honor of C.K. Barrett, the same person he quotes in approval of the standard interpretation ("The root of the thought is forensic: man is arraigned in God's court, and is unable to satisfy the judge unless righteousness, which he cannot himself produce, is given him.... Christ himself becomes righteousness for him (2 Cor. 5:21), and God the judge views him not as he is in himself but in Christ").  Douglas Campbell follows Wright and Hooker in supporting the alternative interpretation (see his The Deliverance of God: an Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, pp. 912-13).  He knows that just because this reading has not been the dominant one does not mean it is not true (see his p. 115).  However, he seems overly interested in conforming to Reformed tradition instead of the Truth (see the title of his chapter 8).  The question why God allowed a faulty interpretation to last so long is a different issue but that issue is not solved by adhering to a faulty interpretation despite the claim to "tradition" (see Mark chapter 7!).

Point #2

His definition of the  righteousness of God is constructed by him to allow the possibility that God's righteousness can be passed to the Christian.  However, as N. T. Wright has responded in his Justification (p. 66):

...it is not at all clear how [his] idiosyncratic definition of "God's righteousness" works out within the scheme of imputation that lies at the heart of his own reading.  If "God's righteousness" is "God's concern for God's own glory," what does it mean to suggest that this is imputed to the believer?  It could only mean "the believer's concern for God's own glory."  But concern for someone else's glory is not the same as concern for one's own.

 Wright's basic thrust is that it does not make sense for the judge to impute anything to the defendant.  Our author is clearly making a category mistake.

Point #3

Our author criticizes Wright for thinking that the traditional interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 makes that verse a "throw in".  He points out that Christ's death is for Paul "squarely underneath his apostolic ministry as its foundational, controlling impulse" (p. 176).  He points to 2 Corinthians 5:14:

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore we all have died.

He ties this verse to 5:21.  He also ties verse 5:21 to verse 5:17 ("If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation").  He thinks that the phrase "become the righteousness of God" is analogous to "become a new creation" (p. 177). 

His logic here undermines his case!  Morna Hooker, in her lecture advocating the interpretation he is against, pointed out that in 5:14-15, 18 and 21 Paul give summaries of the Gospel.  However, Hooker posits that he did so in order to apply them to his own ministry.  She also argues contra our author that the contrast between God's righteousness and our own as seen in Romans 10:3 and Philippians 3:9 simply is not relevant here.  See my blog on Resurrection in 2 Corinthians where I give an argument totally in line with  Hooker's contentions.  In that blog, I point out that Paul defends his ministry by noting that it follows the template of Jesus.  I will return to this point below, especially in regard to the resurrection--a point totally lost on our author.

His quote of 5:14 works against him.  The verse says that Christ died for all, therefore we all have died.  Note that it says we died, not the Christ died in our place.  That is a crucial difference (noted by Hooker).  We died to sin so that we might live to him (note "resurrection" talk seeping in here).  In my blog mentions above I noted that though Paul bases his ministry on the template of Jesus, there is no analogue to Jesus' death as a sacrificial animal.  Instead, the resurrection of Jesus is the what is always on the other side of the equation of Jesus's (or Paul's or the believer's) death.  The death is a death to sin so that real righteousness can flow from the believer.  The new creation (which for me is "resurrection talk") mentioned in 5:17 is just that!  The believer is created new to evidence the real righteousness that the believer did not evidence before the Gospel came.

He goes on to quote 5:18 as proof that we are being told how people are reconciled (p. 177):

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation... 

He seems oblivious that his quote undermines his case.  The analogue to "we become the righteousness of God" in 5:21, is "gave us the ministry of reconciliation" in 5:18 and "entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" in 5:19.  We are ambassadors of God to do what God does.  Note the similarities between the "power of God" and the "weapons of righteousness" in 6:7.  The righteousness of God is an active power, not something that is transferred from a judge to a defendant.

Theological Upshot

Our author's take on 2 Corinthians 5:21 reminds me of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, a desperate measure by the losing side.  It comes down to radically different interpretation of Christianity.  A weak, sinful humanity or a resurrected and transformed humanity.  That is the choice.  It is utterly amazing to me how little he discusses the resurrection, which for Paul is decisive!

     

  

  

Encouragement and Resurrection in John

Preamble

I claim that much of Jesus' encouragement in the gospel of John is related to resurrection (life).  This will show that salvation for John is described in terms of life and not in terms of forgiveness of sins though the latter is included in the former.

The Goal

The goal of Jesus is described by himself to be the return to the Father (see my last post: 13:1 [cf. Lk 9:51], 3; 14:12, 28; 16:5, 17, 28; 17:11, 13; 20:17).  I suggest that the reason for this is that the Father possesses life and gives that life to the Son (5:26, see also 14:19 where Jesus is said to have life).  That Jesus is resurrected and ascends to the Father is important for it makes possible the gift of the Spirit (7:39; 16:7).  I think the logic here is that Jesus makes possible the template (the "way") for the disciples to follow.

The Spirit and Life

It is the Spirit that begets eternal life (6:63: "the Spirit is the thing making alive...the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.").  Earlier Jesus had claimed that unless one be born of water and spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God (3:5).  The reason is that the Spirit gives life (see Gen. 2:7 where God's breath (= spirit) enlivens).  Death results when God's breath is removed (Gen. 6:3).

Trouble vs. Peace and Joy

I now turn to Jesus' words of encouragement with the purpose of arguing that they are related to the resurrected life.  Early in his last discourse Jesus tells the disciples not to be troubled (14:1).  It is interesting that the word "trouble" appears elsewhere in John in relation to death (11:33 in relation to Lazarus and in 13:21 in relation to Jesus).  Jesus immediately talks about the afterlife of the disciples (14:2-4), so the consolation of 14:1 seems to mean that the disciples are not to worry because life will follow any death.  This is why he says that they ought to trust in God and Jesus (14:1) because they grant life (5:21: "for just as the Father raises the dead and makes alive, so also the Son...makes alive.").

 In 14:27, Jesus says that his peace is his gift to the disciples, but it is not as the world gives peace.  A similar saying occurs in 16:33, which I think helps interpret 16:27.  For in 16:33, Jesus says that the disciples will find suffering in this world but not to fear because he has conquered the world.  I take it as given that the suffering in this world pertains to death.  But Jesus has conquered death precisely by raising from the dead.  In Revelation the martyrs are described as "conquerors" in part because they too will escape the evil of death. Another similarity between 14:27 and 16:33 is that they both are referenced to Satan and his realm of death.  14:27 is followed by 14:30 where Jesus says the prince of this world has no hold over him.  I think the thought is clear: Jesus, by raising from the dead has dealt a death-blow (if you will) to the Satanic realm of death.

Jesus' gift of peace is worded very similarly to the gift of eternal life in 10:28 ("and I give to them eternal life").

Jesus' peace is related to Jesus' joy, which is also related to resurrected life.  Joy in the gospel is often related to eternal life:

• 4:36 the reaper is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper may rejoice together.
• 8:56 Abraham rejoiced at seeing Jesus' day; this is said in the context of talk of Abraham and death.
• 9:15 Jesus rejoiced that he was not there when Lazarus died so that the disciple would believe (that he was a life giver?).

Therefore, when in 15:11 Jesus says that his joy may be the disciples' joy he is talking about life after death (cf. 17:13).

A clearer link between joy and resurrection occurs in 16.  There, Jesus says that the disciples' sadness at Jesus' death will turn to joy (16:20).  He then compares the situation to the pain of a woman in labor who rejoices at the birth of her child (16:21).  The pain corresponds to Jesus' death, but the joy corresponds to Jesus' resurrection.  In Revelation 12:5 (or so it can be argued) Jesus' resurrection is compared to birth (in Rev. 1:5 Jesus is called the first born from the dead).  Interestingly, in 16:16 Jesus uses a phrase (in a little while) that may come from Isaiah 26 and it is in Isaiah 26 where there is arguably one of the few mentions of resurrection in the Old Testament!  This is not a stretch because 16:21 also uses imagery from Isaiah 26. 

Conclusion

This exercise has shown that the resurrected life in John is the essence of the gospel message.  We are given encouragement because as Bob Dylan would say "death is not the end"!  There are few more powerful verses in the New Testament than John 16:33:

  I have said these things to you so that in me you may have peace.  In the world you will find suffering, but be cheerful, I have conquered the world.

Amen!

    

  

Why did early Christians call themselves "the Way"?

Preamble

Why did the early Christians call themselves "the Way"?  I think an answer to that question will tell us a lot about early Christianity and will provide us Christians today with a challenge as to how we ought to define ourselves.

Thesis

My thesis is this:  early Christians called themselves "the Way" because salvation for early Christians is a journey the goal of which is to be with God.  This way was exemplified by Jesus, which played out in his obedience (unto death) and resurrection--a course that is to be followed by his disciples. 

Proof

Luke is clear in the book of Acts that the early Christians called themselves "the Way" (see 9:1; 18:25-26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).  There are clues that this was a self-designation.  The term probably comes from Isaiah 40:3, a verse quoted elsewhere in the New Testament (Mt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk 3:4; Jn 1:23).  There is also evidence that the Jews at Qumran used Isa, 40:3 in a similar manner, but for them "the way" was a strict obedience to the law.  Even so, the evidence of Qumran will bolster my argument later.

Jesus Followed the Way

Another point to establish is that Jesus followed the way.  This is brought out in the reference to Isaiah 40:3 since this has to do with the way of the Lord (Jesus, for Christians), but it is also brought out in Acts (see 18:25-26).  Of course the clearest example of this is John 14:6 where Jesus says he is the Way (more on this below).

The Way Followed by Jesus is to be the Way Followed by his Disciples

The gospel of Mark is especially telling that the way of Jesus is the way of the disciples.  It is interesting that in all three major predictions of his death and resurrection, which just is "the way", we are told that Jesus said these things on the way! (see Mk. 8:27; 9:33-34; and 10:32).  These predictions of Jesus' fate are all tied to the fate of his disciples.  The way of Jesus is the way of the disciples.  Even outsiders knew that Jesus taught the way of God (Mk. 12:14).

More Evidence that the Way is about a Course in Life

The use of the word "way" in the New Testament refers to concrete actions (works if you will).  In Matthew 21:32 we are told about the way of righteousness (see also 2 Peter 2:21) and in 2 Peter 2:2 we are told about the way of truth.  A very nice segue to my discussion of the Gospel of John is Hebrews 10:20, where Jesus has opened a new and living way.

John

In John 14:6 we are told that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.  He is the way to the Father because he obeyed and was resurrected to be with God (a prominent theme in the gospel--13:1, 3, 33, 36; 14:12, 28; 16:5-7, 16-22, 28; 17:11, 13).  It's probable that in John 14:3, the way governs both the truth and life.  Jesus is the way to truth and the way to life.  He is the way to truth because he obeyed God.  In John 3:21, we are told to "do the truth"--a very odd way of talking to us evangelicals!  The way of truth as a course of action is also found in Psalms 119:30 and 86:11.  Truth even leads to life (see Prov. 15:24; Jer, 21:8; Psalms 16:11).  Jesus leads to life because he conquered death.  Jesus leads the way to the Father and his example is to be followed (see the conversation with Peter in Jn. 13:36-38).

Theological Upshot

It is a very significant fact that Christians called themselves "the Way".  The way is not just about beliefs and though it is true Christians were called believers, they were and we are to be much more than that!





 

God is (unrequited) love

To experience unrequited love is to experience the Divine.

Preamble

I want to draw a few lessons from the fact that God is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16).

God and Unrequited Love

It's not hard to show that God is intimately acquainted with unrequited love:

• God loves everyone.  God desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4).  God loves the world, not just the "saved" (Jn 3:16, cf. Mt 5:45)
• Not everyone loves God and everyone does not love God as they ought.

Given the understatement of the last point, it is safe to say that if God is love, then God knows unrequited love like no other, it is God's predominate emotion!

Does God experience Unrequited Love?

If you take the Bible seriously, the answer is yes!  The God of the Bible is not the product of the "philosophy shop", to borrow a phrase of William James (a philosopher!).  I think the biggest obstacle in assessing God's relationship to unrequited love is that our conception of God precludes such emotions.  However, the Bible witnesses to God's emotions.  Take Isaiah 63:10 as an example:

But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit...

The Hebrew word for "grieved" here means to hurt or to pain.  A similar idea is expressed in Ephesians 4:30, where Paul commands: "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God".  The Greek word lupeo means to cause sadness.  It is because of this verse that Barth said "the God proclaimed in Ephesians is not an unmoved mover." 

If we need any more proof that God experiences emotions akin to unrequited love we need look no further than the famous verse in John: "Jesus wept" (11:35).  The very next verse speaks of Jesus' great love associated with this weeping.

Lessons

God feels our pain when we love but are not loved back.  We need not feel guilty in loving someone who does not love us back.  God is not guilty for loving those who do not love back (most people) or do not love as they ought (everyone).

For me, the trickiest aspect of unrequited love is to let love be love and not to try to coerce or manipulate the beloved into loving back.  Love requires freedom and God risked a universe where people were free to love or not.  God does not coerce.  I claim the essence of love is a reciprocal, give-and-take relationship, based on the trinity.  The Biblical record is pretty clear that God's pursuit of our love is not coercive.  I get the hunch that when Jesus preached he simply offered himself freely but did so in a way that protected the freedom of the hearers.  The passage in Luke about the rich man and Lazarus is instructive.  At the end of this story, the rich man is sort of begging that his kin be coerced so that they will love God, but Abraham says that God's side of the love equation is sufficient (Moses and the prophets, let alone a resurrected Son!) so that the rich man's kin are without excuse.

Sure, God pursues us hard and he sent his Son to die and rise again, but this pursuit is not coercive.  God doesn't infringe on human freedom, and does so at great costs, so neither should we.  Love is a reciprocal deal and when the give-and-take breaks down love will eventually cease.  That is a bitter pill to swallow but that is the witness of Scripture.  People reject God even after the love shown at the cross.

Unrequited love is a bummer.  This is a lesson we can learn from God's love for us.  God's will is not always done here on earth.  This is why Jesus prays that it will be done!  You don't pray for something you think is a theological impossibility.  But the bummer of unrequited love is not alleviated by manipulating our beloved.  God doesn't do it and neither should we.  To borrow another phrase from William James, unrequited love proves there are always dregs at the bottom of the cup, no matter how good the coffee.

Resurrection as Salvation in Ephesians

Preamble

I want to demonstrate that for Paul in Ephesians it is the Resurrection (and Exaltation) of Jesus that is the primary instrument of salvation.

Ephesians 2:1-10

That Ephesians 2:1-10 is a unit can be seen by the inclusio using the verb "walk" (vs 2, 10).  The opening idea states the problem:  we are dead because of trespasses and sins.  This disobedience (v. 2) brings about God's wrath (v. 3).  The solution does not come until v. 5 and again the idea is repeated that we are dead in out trespasses.  The first verbs are "he made [us] alive with" (v. 5)  and "he raised [us] with [him]" (v.6).  This is the grace by which we are saved (v. 5).  It is clear that the solution is our resurrection from spiritual death.  This is predicated on the resurrection of Jesus.  Ephesians 1:20, which immediately precedes 2:1-10, says that God raised him from the dead.

The next verb in v. 6 is "seated us with [him]" in the heavenlies.  This exaltation again echoes what happened to Jesus in 1:20 where Jesus is seated on the right of God in the heavenlies.  This resurrection and exaltation no doubt is what is in mind in the very beginning of Ephesians when we are told that we are blessed with (1) every spiritual blessing, (2) in the heavenlies, and (3) in Christ (v. 1:3).

When we come to 2:8, a verse so dear to evangelicals, we read that we are saved by grace.  I have already contended that the grace involved here is Jesus' resurrection/exaltation.  But we read on: we are saved "through faith".  I have already blogged on this verse but I will hammer my point again.

Jesus' Obedience as key to his Resurrection/Exaltation

I will lay out the evidence with the condition and the instrument of that condition:

• 1:3 having  blessed us ------------- in Christ
• 1:4 he chose us ------------------- in Him
• 1:5 having predestined us  to sonship ------------------ through Jesus Christ
• 1:6 he favored us -------------------------- in the Beloved One
• 1:7 we have redemption/forgiveness of trespasses ----- in whom/through the blood of  him
• 1:9 having made known to us the mystery -------------- in Him
• 1:10 to sum up all things ------------------ in Christ/in Him
• 1:11 we were made an inheritance --------------- in whom/in Christ
• 1:13 salvation, sealed -------------- in whom/in whom
• 1:14 inheritance/redemption ----------------- [in whom]
• 1:20 he exerted ----------------------- in Christ
• 2:7 grace  --------------------------- in Christ
• 2:8 grace, saved ------------------ through faith
• 2:10 masterpiece -------------------------- in Christ Jesus
• 2:13 brought near -------------------------- in Christ Jesus/in the blood of Him
• 2:14 peace ------------------------------ in the flesh of Him
• 2:16 reconciled ---------------------------- through the cross
• 2:18 access --------------------------------through Him
• 3:12 access -----------------------------in whom/through the faithfulness of Him

This catalogue proves, I think, that the faith mentioned in 2:8 and 3:12 are related to those passages concerning Jesus death (vs. 1:7, 2:13, and 2:16).  This would only make sense if we are talking of Jesus' faithfulness/obedience and that his death is ultimately viewed as an act of obedience, even if it is also viewed metaphorically as animal-like sacrifice (5:2).

Our Faith/Belief in Ephesians

It is argued when determining the meaning of "faith" in 2:8 and 3:12 that a believers faith has already been mentioned in 1:1, 13, 15, and 19.  However, in all of these cases, it is not clear that this argument has much value.  Faith in these passages do not play an instrumental role as it is claimed for 2:8 and 3:12.

• 1:1 The faith here is most likely does not have Jesus as the object but is exercised in the realm of Jesus or incorporated with Jesus.  Hence, the NRSV translates 1:1 as the "faithful in Christ Jesus",  This is especially meaningful because if Jesus was faithful then to be incorporated with Jesus is to be faithful too (see Eph. 4:20, where the Ephesians are said to have learned Christ in terms of morality).
• 1:13 Again, it doesn't appear that it is Jesus as the object of faith.  Lincoln translates this verse as follows: "you also are in him, .... In Him also, when you believed, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..."
• 1:15 Again, "in the Lord Jesus" need not be the object of the faith but the realm in which the faith is exercised.
• 1:19 The "ones believing" does not have any immediate instrumental role so this verse is really a moot point.
• 3:17 this later verse does seem to have instrumental import, but it pertains to the believers heart so the believers faith having instrumental powers would make sense here.  It does not however mention faith in/of Him.

More Indications of the Importance of Resurrection/Exaltation in Ephesians

Twice Ephesians calls attention to some authoritative text (Ephesians 4:8 [Ps. 68:18] and 5:14 [baptismal liturgy?]) using the phrase "therefore it says".  Both these passages refer to resurrection/exaltation.

• 4:8 "Having ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive, he gave gifts to his people". 
• 5:14 "Arise, the one sleeping, and rise up from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

Conclusion

The Resurrection is crucial in Ephesians.  Being raised and exalted with Jesus is the template for the Christian life.  It is how sin is defeated and how the life God intends is to be lived.

John 3:36 and the word apeithon

Preamble

I want to examine one word in one verse from the Gospel of John.  In particular, I want to question why the NIV translators chose the translation they did.  My hunch is that there may be some theological machinations going on under the surface but I will let the reader decide for him or herself.

The Verse: 3:36

The one believing in the Son has eternal life, but the one apeithon the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

The Word: apeithon

Most modern English translations translate apeithon as "disobeys".  However, the two most influential translations for Evangelicals, the King James and the NIV, use different words:

King James: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

NIV: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.

Raymond Brown points out that the Latin tradition reads "disbelieves" on the analogy of 3:18 (The one believing in Him is not judged, but the one not believing already has been judged...), and that it is a natural contrast to the "believes" in  the first part of 3:36.  This  would explain the King James, but what about the NIV?  Why did the NIV chose the word "rejects"?

Other uses of apeithon in the New Testament

Unfortunately, John does not use the word elsewhere, but it is used in other NT books (Acts 14:2; 19:9; Rom. 2:8; 10:21; 11:30; 11:31; 15:31; Heb. 3:18; 11:31; 1 Pet. 3:1; 3:20; 4:17).

Romans 2:8  is instructive.  In Romans 2:6, Paul states a principle that God will recompense to each man according to his works (erga).  In verse 2:7, Paul states the positive outcome: to those who work (ergou) good, life eternal (sounds like John!).  But 2:8 states the negative outcome: to those being selfish and apeithousi the truth, wrath and anger (sounds like John!).  There is little question that our word in question is at least related to an action verb, especially given the emphasis on works in these verses.  This would make the word "disobeys" a natural translation.

Some of Paul's other uses of the word also pertain to actions.  In Romans 10:21, he quotes Isaiah 65:2: I reach out my hands toward a people apeithounta and opposing.  Isaiah 65:2 talks about those who "go the way not good", which is definitely an action.  Hebrews 3:18, similarly, mentions our word in relation to rebellion in 3:16 and sin in 3:17, both which have to do with action in relation to God, for which "disobedience" would be a dead-on translation.

It's interesting that both Hebrews 3:18 and 11:31 relate our word to either faith or unbelief, as does John 3:36.  I think the moral here is not to change the meaning of apeithon  but to broaden our conception of "belief" as used by NT writers!

NIV and John 3:36

So, why did the NIV use the word "rejects".  It could be that the root word of apeithon has to do with persuasion or the like and so rejects might seem appropriate.  My own sense is that the word "rejects" can naturally pertain to beliefs.  One can reject proposition such as "Jesus is the Son of God" or "Jesus died for my sins".  Is this a theological tipping of the hat by the NIV translators?  You be the judge!

Theological Upshot

To disobey the Son has to do with actions (works) and not just beliefs.  John is not just talking about believing the right stuff.  However, as I hope this exercise has shown, in order to teach obedience we first have to get the word right!  As I point out on my website, John 3:36 ought to inform our take on John 3:16, which for many is the Gospel in a nut-shell.

My Critique of Campbell's take on Leviticus 18:5

Preamble (!)

It's too bad that I'm picking on one the the few disagreements I have with Douglas Campbell's The Deliverance of God:  An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul.  Overall, his take on "Justification" mirrors what on my website I refer to as the "Standard Evangelical Story".  However, I still think he gets Paul's use of Leviticus 18:5 wrong, and I think the problems he admits he faces with respect to Romans 9:27-10:5 and Galatians 3:6-14 would vanish if he were to adopt my interpretation.

Works of Law

Ultimately, my disagreement with Campbell has to do with his understanding of "works of Law".  On my interpretation, "works of law" are something less than obeying the law in the full sense.  Campbell criticises Dunn's attempt to explain works of law in terms of Jewish identity markers.  But whatever "work of law" are, they seem to fall short of complete obedience to the law.  This is all my interpretation needs because my argument free-flows from the assumption that "works of law" are not the same as obeying the law and certainly not the same as "good works".  One of my main pieces of evidence is in Galatians 6:13: "Even the circumcised [those who are of the works of law] do not themselves obey the law."  This is confirmed in Galatians 3:10, cf. Romans 2 and Jesus' teaching in Matthew 23:23-24.  So, the problem isn't legalism nor is the problem that the law cannot be perfectly  fulfilled, the problem is that the law is not completely fulfilled.

Galatians 3:6-14

Campbell notices a nice chiasm in this section
A 3:6-9 Abraham
B 3:10 curse
C 3:11 life
C' 3:12 life
B' 3:13 curse
A' 3:14 Abraham
However, I think this structure actually reinforces my interpretation.  One would think that both middle sections (C/C') would say similar things and that is what they do on my interpretation, but are contrasting on Campbell's interpretation.

3:11a Now by law no one is being justified before God is clear,
3:11b because the just by fidelity will live [Hab. 2:4]
3:12a But the law is not of fidelity
3:12b but the one doing these things will live in them [Lev. 18:5]

Note that both 3:11a and 3:12a say something negative about the law and so I claim that both 3:11b and 3:12b say something positive and provide proof of the truth of the a's.

Here is how I see the argument go in verses 11 and 12:

(1) [3:11b] Those who are faithful get life (= justification).
(2) [3:12b] To be faithful to the law, one has to faithful to [do!] all the law
(3) [3:10] Those who are of the works of law do not obey all the law
(4) [3:12a] therefore, those who are of the works of law are not faithful
(5) [3:11a] therefore, those who are of works of law are not justified [get life] before God.

Campbell lays out his take in argument form of this section (p. 863) but does not address why Leviticus 18:5 fails.

Romans 9:27-10:5

Many commentators agree with my interpretation when it comes to Romans, even if they don't with regard to Galatians.  However, I want to make the case here too.

One of my key assumptions, that works of law is not the same as obeying the law completely, seems to be stated in 9:31: "But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness to that law did not arrive".  I take it that Israel failed to reach the goal of the "righteousness race".  Their proper goal was the law but they failed to reach it.  Campbell's translation of 9:31 is awkward: "But Israel, pursuing a torah of righteous activity toward that law, did not [attain righteousness]".

Campbell thinks that when Paul says "works of law" in 9:32 he is referencing Leviticus 18:5.  Furthermore, he does not think that "the person doing these things" or talk about Jesus doing anything reprises anything that Paul says about Jesus earlier.  However, he ignores 10:4 where Paul says that Jesus is the goal/end [telos] of the law.  If Jesus is the goal of the law then it would make sense to use Leviticus 18:5 positively.

Here is how I would make sense of 10:5 and it connection to 6-8 [see my website]:

For Moses writes of the righteousness of the law that the one having done these things will live in/by them, and...[Deut. 30:12-14]

Most translations interpret the connective de as 'but' which would imply a contrast between Leviticus 18:5 [10:5] and Deuteronomy 30:12-13 [10:6-8].  However, the connective can mean "and" which is how Paul uses  the gar...de sequence elsewhere (Rom. 10:10; 11:15; 7:8).  It would be odd for Paul to claim that Leviticus 18:5 fails and conflicts with another passage from the law!

Conclusion

These passages are the citadel of the standard evangelical story and so when they fail to defend that story the story is in big trouble.  The rest of Campbell's book, for the most part, does a great job presenting an alternative rereading of Paul's theology.

The Importance of the Resurrection in Colossians

The resurrection is key in Colossians.  Oddly enough Paul grounds the Colossians' faith and love upon the hope they heard in the word of truth of the good news (1:5).  The gospel here is defined as the Colossians' hope.  This is reiterated in 1:23 when Paul writes about the "hope of the good news".  What is this hope?  I contend that this is the resurrection of the Colossians at the end of the age, a resurrection made possible by Jesus' resurrection.  This hope is stored in heaven (1:5) but this does not mean that when the hope is fully realized it will "be in heaven".  Paul says that when Christ is revealed then those in him will also be revealed in glory (3:4).  This is because Christ in you is the hope of glory (1:27).  It is clear that this hope is the future eternal resurrected life made possible by Jesus' resurrection.

Further prove of this found in 1:12 where the Colossians are told that they have been qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints "in the light".  The "in the light" probably refers to the glory of the eternal kingdom where the resurrected dwell.  The next verse (1:13) says that the Colossians have been rescued from the authority of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of the Son.  This rescue reminds us of Exodus where God rescued Israel (see Ex. 6:6; 12:27; 14:30).  The Exodus from the slavery of sin is clear in 1:14 when it states that in Jesus we have redemption the forgiveness of sins.

It is very significant that the cure for sin is the death and resurrection of Jesus.  This is evident in 2:12-13.  In 2:12 we are told that the Colossians are buried and raised with Jesus.  In 2:13, they are dead in their trespasses (same word used in the singular in Rom. 5:15), but that they are made alive in Jesus.  They are made alive because Jesus was raised from the dead.  This is reiterated in 3:1, where the Colossians are told that they have been raised with Christ.  Christ is their life (3:4). 

The process of salvation in Colossians is therefore one of incorporation into Christ (hence all the talk of being "in Christ").  We die in Christ and we are made alive in Christ because he was killed and raised.  This is a far cry from just saying that our sins are forgiven because Jesus was sacrificed like an animal.

Some thoughts on Jesus' death in Colossians

Colossians 1:20 and 1:22

Jesus' death is mentioned in both Colossians 1:20 and 1:21-22:

• 1:20: and through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of the cross of him.
• 1:21-22: and you once having been alienated and enemies in the mind by evil works, yet now he reconciled in the body of the flesh of him through his death to present you holy and blameless and without reproach before him.

I want to argue that what it is about Jesus' death that atones or "does the work" is Jesus' obedience and not necessarily Jesus as an animal-like sacrifice.

The first argument pertains to the structure of 1:21-22:

• 21a and you once  ------  22a yet now
• 21b having been alienated and enemies in the mind ------ 21b he reconciled
• 21c by/in evil works ------ 22c by/in the body of the flesh of him through his death

The structure of verses 21 and 22 suggests that the counterpart to the evil works is the good work of Jesus' death on the cross.  This goes along the same tracks as Romans 5:12-21, where the sin of Adam is countered by the righteous act of Jesus.  Nothing in Colossians 1:22c points to Jesus as animal-like sacrifice.  One might point to the word "present" later in verse 22 and claim that this pertains to the sacrifical system, but this is not necessary because the word "present" could be a legal concept just as much as a cultic one.  The connection to Romans 5 is instructive because some of the very words in 1:22 occur in Romans 5:10 and in Romans 5:7 we have a likely reference to martyrdom (for rarely will anyone die for a righteous man--though perhaps for a good man someone might dare to die).  Also, on my website I claim that in Romans 5:1 we have a reference to the faithfulness of Jesus.  The important thing is that an act of martyrdom or a righteous act can reap benefits for others without it being an animal-like sacrifice.  Also, the focus of the description in Colossians 1:22 does not invoke the language we would expect if an animal-like sacrifice is meant ("blood" for example).

This brings me to Colossians 1:20, which does mention blood.  However, there is no reason to assume that an animal-like sacrifice is meant.  "Blood" could just be an example of metonymy (as "Hollywood" would be a stand-in for the movie business).  "Blood" could still be a reference to Jesus' obedience and could even pertain  to the "war" Jesus waged against the forces of evil (see Colossians 2:14-15).  "Blood" elsewhere in the Scripture can refer to death and not animal-like sacrifice (see Genesis 9:6 for a famous example).

It's true that Paul does not spell out the mechanism of atonement in Colossians but he tends to use language of incorporation which is not the language of animal-like sacrifice (see Colossians 2:11-12 as just one example).

Ephesians 3:12 (and 2:8) and Jesus' Obedience

Introduction

On my website, I mention seven occurrences of some form of pistis christou (faithfulness of Jesus).  There I argued that these refer to Jesus' obedience and not our faith in Jesus.  I want to argue the same thing for Ephesians 3:12 and then 2:8.  This is huge because 2:8 is part of the evangelical mantra of 2:8-9 (while 2:10 is largely ignored).

Ephesians 3:12

We are told that the mystery of Christ is in accordance with the eternal purpose that was carried out in Jesus (3:11), "in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through the pistis [faith/faithfulness] of/in him" (3:12).  I have deliberately left the translation vague in order to not prejudge the situation but my purpose is to argue for the following: "in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through [dia] the faithfulness [= obedience] of him [Jesus]."

Two arguments can be given for my translation.  The first concerns the context (3:1-12).  As  mentioned above, the mystery of Christ, which involves the Gentiles as fellow heirs (3:6), was made/carried out in Jesus (3:11).  This mentions the action of Jesus, which I take to be his obedience unto death and resurrection.  Likewise, in the very next verse we also have a reference to Jesus' action, "through the faithfulness of him".  Also, Jesus' obedience no doubt is included in the phrase "the boundless wealth of Christ" (3:8).

The other argument involves a parallel to 2:18.  There, we are told that "through him" we have access in one Spirit to the Father.  So, both 3:12 and 2:18 refer to access.  Now, the access of 2:18 is the result of Jesus' death: "But now in Christ Jesus you who were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" (2:13).  I take the blood of Christ to refer to his obedient death.  2:16 also refers to Jesus' death: we have been reconciled "through the cross".  So we have the following parallels:

2:16 "through the cross"
2:18 "through him"

Which argues that the access we have is due to Jesus' obedient death.  And we have this parallel:

2:18 access to the Father in Jesus' death
3:12 access to the Father through the faithfulness of him

Which argues that the faith in 3:12 is Jesus' faithfulness and not our belief.

Ephesian 2:8

This now brings us to 2:8-9:  We are saved by grace through [Jesus'] faith[fulness] and this is not of yourselves it is God's gift.  Not of works [of law] lest anyone should boast.

The context itself argues that the faith in question pertains to Jesus' obedient death and resurrection because the "Christ event" throughout the New Testament is considered a grace/gift of God (see my last post).  It would be odd to mention our belief in the middle of claiming that our salvation does not depend on us (!) which is what the standard evangelical reading has us do.

Answer to Objection

One might counter my reading of 3:12 with 3:17 and claim that "the faith" there is our faith.  First of all, even if 3:17 refers to our faith this just shows that our obedience is in view and is to mimic Jesus' obedience.  See my interpretation of Romans 1:17 on my website and Ephesians 2:10 which is almost always unquoted by evangelicals!  But, one could argue even here that it is Jesus' work that made possible the gift of the Spirit that is poured out in our hearts (see 3:16 which immediately preceeds 3:17).

Food For Thought

How different would evangelical Christianity be if Ephesians 2:8 was interpreted as refering to Jesus' faithfulness and not our belief?

Genesis 15:6 part 2; my answer to Rom. 4:4-5

A Criticism

I intend to respond to Romans 4:4-5, which many take to be counter-evidence to my reading of both Genesis 15:6 and Paul's use of it in Romans and Galatians.

In my last post I claimed that what was reckoned as righteousness in Abraham was faithfulness/trust/belief, and that Paul was not interested in "naked belief" as such.  The standard interpretation takes Paul to mean that by just believing without any good deeds, Abraham was accorded the status of being "righteous.  I guess the standard interpretation takes "righteous" to be a quality about humans that would normally involve good deeds.  However, God reckons Abraham righteous despite any good deeds.  In other words, Abraham is imputed with a righteousness that he does not inherently possess.  It is this standard interpretation with which I find fault.

Paul and Righteousness

I claim that when Paul uses the term "righteous" in the quote from Genesis 15:6, he means the righteousness of God (tsedaqah elohim/dikaiosyne theou), that is, God's righteousness, which I take to be God's justice or his covenant faithfulness.  He does not mean the righteousness of a human being.  Evidence of this comes from the opening statements in Romans which presents the theme for the whole letter.   Paul says that in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed (1:17).  Also, Romans chapter 4 is introduced by another reference to the righteousness of God (3:21, 22).  I have argued on my website that these refer to God's actions in sending Jesus to faithfully carry out God's plan of setting things right in the universe.

Therefore, when Paul says that God reckoned righteousness to Abraham he means that God reckoned to Abraham God's promise to set things right, and in this case this involves the death and resurrection of Jesus, which is the gospel.  Therefore, God's righteousness primarily involves the faithfulness of Jesus.  Jesus' faithfulness is contrasted with the unfaithfulness of Israel.  This is why "works of the law" is contrasted with pistis (which primarily means Jesus' obedient faithfulness but also human trust/faithfulness/belief):

• "Works of law" = those things which primarily identify Israel as Israel (circumcision, food laws, sabbath keeping etc.).  However, since Israel as a whole disobeyed the law, they were under a curse.  Therefore, "works of law" means disobedience.
• Pistis (faith) = the perfect faithfulness of Jesus, who offered the obedience God was looking for from Israel.

So to put it another way, and hence the contrast:

•  "Works of law" = disobedience
• Pistis (faith) = obedience

Romans 4:4-5

4 Now to the one working the reward is not accounted according to grace but according to debt, 5 but to the one not working, but trusting the one justifying the ungodly his faith is accounted for righteousness...

The reference to "working" is not related to "good deeds" but to the "works of the law" (see Rom. 3:28, which is immediately followed by reference to the Jew/Gentile theme in 3:29).  This is strong evidence that "working" is related to being Jewish, being "under the law".  The Jew/Gentile theme is also proven by the claim that Abraham does not have a "boast" because of "works" (4:2).  Elsewhere, Paul uses "boasting" in the context of the Jew/Gentile theme.  Not only in 3:37, but in 2:17 and 2:23.  This is huge because not only are the references in chapter 2 dealing with the Jew/Gentile theme, but they pinpoint what is wrong with "works of the law".  The problem is not that the Jews try to obey the law but can't (legalism), but that they don't obey the law (see the whole of 2:17-29 where Paul makes this crystal clear).  The problem is disobedience, of which Jesus is the answer.

Paul's point in the analogy in 4:4-5 is that the righteousness reckoned to Abraham is grace.  Above I claimed that when Paul refers to "righteousness" here he means God's righteousness and God's righteousness is revealed in the Jesus event.  It should not surprise us then when Paul refers to the Jesus event as a grace (see Rom. 5:15-17; 3:24; 6:14-15).  Abraham did not put God in debt because he was "Jewish" and the righteousness he merited (see Rom. 9:5) for everyone is a grace.  Note, however, that the implication in 4:4-5 is that the righteousness (God's saving activity) Abraham was reckoned is a reward too, and this because Abraham was faithful.

If anything, the Jews in Paul's time were guilty of relying on God's grace and not on legalism!  Paul's argument is that just being Jewish and relying on the covenants is not enough.  One must be obedient. 

Getting Genesis 15:6 right

Genesis 15:6 is just one more example of how subtle misinterpretation can lead to disaster.  This verse is quoted in Romans 4, Galatians 3:6 and James 2:23.  I claim that we Christians do not interpret the meaning of Genesis 15:6 correctly as used by Paul.  One would think that since James appears to correct a possible misinterpretation of Gen. 15:6 that his gloss would become the definitive interpretation in Christianity.  However, this does not seem to be the case.  However, I want to see how Paul uses Gen. 15:6 and I will argue that his understanding of the verse is not against James' gloss and is in sync with how this verse was understood by Jews in Paul's time.  One of the weaknesses of the standard interpretation is that Paul is making an argument the premises of which none of his fellow Jews would accept.

Genesis 15:6 in Context

Genesis 15:1-6, which forms a unit, can be outlined as follows:

• 15:1 Promise
• 15:2-3  Objection = lament
• 15:4-5 God meets objection
• 15:6 Abraham reacts and God acknowledges
• In verse 1, God promises that Abraham's reward will be great.  We are not told the reason for the reward or its nature.  However, from what Abraham says in verses 2-3 it appears that the reward would include an heir.  I would point out the the reason for the reward could very well be Abraham's faithfulness in obeying God up to this point.  After all, the book of Hebrews has Abraham obeying God as early as Genesis chapter 12 (Heb. 11:8): "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going."  Also, Abraham builds an altar at Shechem (12:7), at Bethel/Ai (12:8), and at Hebron (13:18).  Therefore, there is no question that Abraham believed in God before we get to chapter 15.  Abraham objects that he has no offspring but God counters that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars.  Then we come to 15:6:

and he trusted in God and he reckoned it to him as righteousness.

It appears that Abraham's trust is being rewarded with God's verdict of righteousness.  The big question is the meaning of "reckon".  Does it mean something like "counted", "imputed", "credited", "charged to ones account".  The key on this reading is that Abraham is deemed righteous when he was not really righteous.  On the other hand, does "reckon" mean something like : "calculate", "evaluate", "estimate", "consider", "think about" etc.  In this case Abraham is being deemed righteous because of something about himself.  Which is correct?  I want to argue that it is the latter and this drastically alters how we view the verse.  Normally, when "reckon" is used in the Old Testament the value judgment is related not to the speaker but to the qualities inherent in the object being reckoned: see Lev. 7:11-18; 17:1-9; Num. 18:25-32; 2 Sam. 19:20; Prov. 27:14; Ps. 106:31.  The last verse mentioned is huge because it shares much with Gen 15:6:

Ps 106:30 Phinehas stepped forth and intervened, and the plague ceased.  31 It was reckoned to his merit for all generations, to eternity.

There is no question that it is Phinehas' faithfulness that is being reckoned.  See also 1 Macc.2:52.

Paul's use of Genesis 15:6

The first thing to notice about the use in Romans is that the closest occurrence of "reckon" to chapter 4 is 3:28 and there is no question that the use there is not a fictious imputation (see also 6:11).  Paul is usually interpreted to mean that Abraham believed without doing anything and that this actionless belief is deemed to be righteous.  I think this is mistaken.  Paul is really interested in arguing that Gentiles can be sons of Abraham without coming under the law.  He argues that Abraham was deemed righteous before he was circumcised (which is a sort of proto-law, since the Mosaic law was not yet given).  The issue is not that Abraham just believed, but that he was righteous BEFORE the law (Genesis chapter 15 is before 17).  Abraham was basically a Gentile when he was called (ungodly, 4:5).  Therefore, he can be father of both Jews and Gentiles.  It makes no difference to Paul whether what was reckoned concerning Abraham was faithful acts or actionless trust.  In fact, in Romans 4:18-22, it seems that Paul is hyping Abraham's perseverance and this is certainly related to faithfulness and not merely naked belief.  This is why we read in 4:22:

Therefore, his faith was reckoned to him for righteousness [my italics]

Therefore, there is no reason why Paul is not interpreting Genesis 15:6 in line with James and his fellow Jews, with the caveat that he is viewing the issue of when Abraham was deemed righteous as important, whereas James does not.  The career after chapter 17 is not relevant to Paul's argument.

The issues in Galatians is the same as in Romans.

Theological upshot

If I am right about the interpretation of Genesis 15:6, then we cannot use Abraham as an example of naked belief versus good deeds.  That is not the issue.  Abraham had good deeds (he obeyed in chapter 12--Heb. 11:8) and Paul knew that!  The key is that Abraham had good deeds but that they were not deeds prescribed by the law because it had not been given yet (even the proto-law circumcision). 

    

Romans 4:25: "Resurrected for our Justification"

Why Romans 4:25?

Romans 4:25 associates Jesus' resurrection with our justification.  This is a remarkable assertion, since we tend to associate justification with Jesus' death.  Romans 4:24-25 reads as follows:

24 but for ours also.  It will be accounted to the ones who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 who was given over for [dia] our trespasses and was raised for [dia] our justification.

 Context

Romans 4:25 stands at the end of a whole section in Romans (1:18-4:25).  This section is the unveiling of the righteousness of God, which for Paul is what the gospel is all about: the gospel is the power of God for salvation (1:16).  It concerns Jesus who was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead (1:4).  The implication is that resurrection is part and parcel to salvation.  This is proven by what Paul says in 5:9-10 (we will be saved by his life).  Therefore, we should not be surprised that a major section ends with Jesus' resurrection.  One could argue that 4:25 also introduces the next section (chapters 5-8) where "life" is a major theme:

• 5:18  This is an interesting verse because it contains the word dikaiosis and the only other time that word is used is 4:25.  "So one man's righteous act leads to justification of life for all."
• 5:21 "So grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." 
• 8:11 "He who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies."

Justification is on par with eternal life (= salvation).  The trust Abraham demonstrated in God is on par with our trust in "he who raised Jesus from the dead" (4:24).  Abraham regarded his own body as good as dead and knew the deadness of Sarah's womb (4:19), but he trusted the God who "gives life to the dead" (4:17).

Meaning of "for" [dia] in "raised for our justification"

If our sin caused Jesus to die, then did our justification cause Jesus to resurrect?  The answer is probably "no" and that the second dia ought to mean "for the sake of", that is, Jesus resurrected in order to justify us.  The causal/final pairing using di' appears in 4:23-24, which is evidence that the same paring is meant in 4:25.

Is 4:25 merely rhetorical?

Even if 4:25 is merely rhetorical and that there is no real separation between the effects of Jesus' death and his resurrection, the fact that Paul stated the contrast shows the importance of the resurrection in the whole scheme of salvation (see 1 Cor. 15:17). 

 

Leviticus 18:5 and the Resurrection of Jesus

Introduction

In my last post, I claimed the Habakkuk 2:4 is the Gospel in a nutshell.  I now want to discuss Leviticus 18:5, which was probably the "John 3:16" of its day (Ezek 20:11, 13, 21; Neh 9:29; probably Luke 10:28; Gal. 3:12; Rom. 10:5; see also Pss. Sol. 14:2-3; CD III, 14-16; Philo, Congr 86-87; 4Q266, 11; 4Q504, 6; L.A.B. 23:10).  I contend that when Paul quotes Leviticus 18:5 he does so Christologically and therefore Leviticus 18:5 refers to Jesus' resurrection and his faithfulness, which is exactly what I claimed was going on with Habakkuk 2:4!  I'm going to first make my case in Romans and then turn to Galatians.

Original Context

Leviticus chapter 18 may be outlined as follows:
I. Israel not to mimic pagans but to obey God (2b-5)
II. Specific behavior that the Israelites are not to mimic (6-23)
III. Consequences for Israel if they do mimic pagans (24-30)

Beginning with (III), the consequence for the Israelites not obeying God's "statutes and judgments" is the they will be vomited by the land, just as the pagans were vomited by the land.  We are told that the pagans were cast out by God and that those Israelites who engage in such behaviour are to be cut off from their people.

In (I), we are told that that the Israelites are to obey God's "statutes and judgments" so that by doing them they will live in them (18:5).  The "will live" refers to the reward of life for obeying God.  This is so, I argue, because the contrast made in (III) for disobeying is exile and perhaps also death.  The same phrase, "statutes and judments", appears in (I) (verse 5) and in (III) (verse 26).  I say all this to establish that the phrase "to live" refers to life as a reward and not as a mode of being which English translations often leave ambiguous (this is the same problem faced by Habakkuk 2:4).

Romans 10:5

Paul quotes Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.  I think the standard evangelical interpretation of this quote is all wrong.  The standard reading has Paul quoting Leviticus 18:5 as the wrong way to pursue righteousness because it involves "doing".  I think this is wrong. 

In 9:31, Paul says that Israel pursued a law of righteousness but to that law did not arrive.  It is important for this verse to sink in.  Paul is not saying that Israel was wrong in pursuing the law, he is saying that they did not arrive at the goal (=law!).  They did not arrive at the goal because the goal of the law is Jesus (Rom. 10:4)!  The Israelites stumbled on the stone (= Jesus, see 1 Peter 2:6-8).

The goal of the law is Jesus.  This is exactly what Romans 10:4 says.  However, the standard evangelical reading interprets this verse to mean that Jesus is the end (taking the greek telos to mean "end" and not "goal") of the law, that is, Jesus terminated the law.  This in turn, leads directly to the wrong interpretation of Leviticus 18:5.  But we ought to keep in mind the fact that according to the standard evangelical reading, Paul is pitting scripture (Leviticus 18:5) against scripture (Deuteronomy 30).  Not only is this implausible, but it is a lousy strategy to use against his opponents, and he would be undermining his own goal of arguing that the word of God has not failed!

I take it that when Paul says that Jesus is the goal of the law, he is saying that the law points to Jesus and the Christ-event (death/resurrection/exaltation).  This is why he quotes Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30:12-14, because they both refer to the Christ-event:
Romans 10:5 with my gloss:

   For Moses writes concerning the righteousness of the law, that the man [Jesus] having done these things [obeyed God unto death] will live [resurrected] in them.

I take it that the next quote (also Moses=Deuteronomy!) also refers to the Christ event.  English translations already muddy the waters by translating the connective de as "but" however, de can also mean "and" and this is how Paul uses de in other places (Rom. 7:8; 10:10; 11:15).  The Deuteronomy text refers to both Jesus' exaltation (10:6, some think this refers to his incarnation but see 10:9) and to his resurrection (10:7 and 9).

Both Leviticus 18:5 and Deuteronomy 30 evidence the resurrection of Jesus (!) and that is why Paul quotes them.  Paul often fires a double shot of scripture at us, probably to fulfill the "two witnesses" idea: Rom. 9:25-26, 27-28, 30; 10:11-13, 20-21; 11:8-9, 26-27.

Galatians 3:12

I claim the same strategy Paul used in Romans is at work in Galatians.  Let me start by lining up three verses:

• 3:11a  by law--------no one--------justified
• 3:11b by faith-------the righteous--------will live
• 3:12b in them--------the one having done these things--------will live

I claim that both Habakkuk 2:4 (see my last blog) and Leviticus 18:5 are used by Paul as witnesses to both Jesus' obedience and his resurrection.  In Gal. 3:12 Paul says:

 But the law is not of faith, but (all') the one having done these things will live in [or "on account of"] them.

Most would take 12b to explain why the law is not of faith (because it involves doing).  I think this is wrong.  By "law" here, Paul means "works of the law" (see 3:10) and what he means is the idea that Jews can by members of God's family solely on account of their racial makeup which is proven by works of the law (circumcision etc).  Paul's point is that just because one is Jewish does not mean one is faithful and a member of the saved family of God.  The all' in this verse contrasts Jewish disobedience (= cursed=death) with the true faithfulness of Jesus (=blessing=life).  Leviticus 18:5 (3:12b) is being contrasted with 3:12a and NOT 3:11 (= Habakkuk 2:4).  Both Habakkuk 2:4 and Leviticus 18:5 reward obedience with life and that is the Christ-event!

Conclusion

When Paul uses scripture to evidence the Christ-event he has in mind the resurrection/exaltation of Jesus.  This goes to show how important the resurrection is to Paul's salvation scheme.