Preamble
Thinking changes things. There is no doubt about it. For Christians, prayer can be viewed as a type of thinking that changes things drastically. An example from the book of Daniel chapter 10 is instructive. Daniel begins to fast and pray for three weeks. He is later told that as soon as he began his ascetical practices an angel was dispatched to help him gain understanding. The angel of Persia interferes with this angel's mission to come to Daniel for three weeks, exactly the time Daniel fasted and prayed. Now, given the assumption that as portrayed in Daniel the angels (Michael of Israel, angel of Persia, angel of Greece) affect events on earth, then is goes without saying that the prophet Daniel set in motion events in the angelic realm that had consequences on earth. Daniel changed things.
Hypothesis
I want to suggest, that perhaps there is a counterpart to prayer that effects things for the worse. I'll call it "the power of negative thinking". Perhaps when we engage in negative thinking towards someone, we unleash demonic powers that negatively influence events on earth. For example, let's say we are angry at someone who does us wrong and we pine for vengeance and are glad when evil befalls this particular person. Could it be that we really do make this person vulnerable to the influences of evil that we have set in motion? This "anti-prayer" could cause real damage in the world and it comes about because of our negative thoughts.
Food for Thought
It is well known that Jesus emphasized the inner thought world of the individual. There are a string of passages in Matthew 5 that are famous in this regard. For example, he associates anger with murder (5:21-22) and he associates lusting with actual adultery (5:27-28). It is also well known that Jesus had a robust sense of the demonic. Tying up the strong man through exorcisms was a staple of his ministry. Could it be that Jesus had a keen sense of the union of these two themes? Could it be that Jesus knew that our inner thoughts affect the demonic realm and are not just the starting point for 'actual' sins?
We Control our Thoughts
We are the policemen of our thoughts. Even if a bitter, evil thought comes into our consciousness, that doesn't mean we can't subdue it and control it. For example, if we harbor resentment and bitterness towards someone and an evil thought passes our minds we could choose to cover that person in prayer and bless them. Even if we don't "feel" the sentiment, we can at least refrain from unleashing demonic powers that cause havoc. True love is not just a sentiment. It is an intentional stance to be taken.
Loving Our Enemies
What better way to begin to love our enemies than by practicing our thought control or renewing mind (Romans 12:2) on those who we do have love for in a sentimental way yet still get angry and bitter at. Practice on the easy targets and the harder ones will be less hard.
Theological Upshot
Our thoughts matter. We are co-actors in a large drama that includes angelic free agents who can affect events on earth. It behooves us to start taking control of our thoughts. Much depends upon it, regardless of the truth of the above hypothesis.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Sunday, May 26, 2013
Conquering and Resurrection in book of Revelation
Preamble
Conquering or overcoming is a prominent concept in Revelation. I will argue here that its use in Revelation includes the idea of resurrection.
Jesus as Conqueror
The bedrock of the use of "conquer" in Revelation is that Jesus conquered. In 5:5 we are told that Jesus is worthy to open the seals because he conquered. There Jesus is described as the lion of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:9) and the root of David (Isaiah 11:1,10). The OT passages from which these descriptions derive have to do with literal military violence. However, the way Revelation depicts Jesus' conquering is through his death, the very opposite of violence! Note the slain Lamb in 5:6 who has seven horns (symbols of conquering). The key here, though, for my purposes is that the slain lamb is standing, which represents his resurrection. Jesus' career is summarized in 1:5 with three descriptions which all seem to pertain to conquering:
Further proof of the importance of the resurrection comes in chapter 12. The great red dragon wanted to devour Jesus but he was "snatched up" to heaven to rule the nations with a rod of iron (12:5). Some scholars have even argued on the strength of the idea of "firstborn from the dead" that the mention of the woman giving birth refers to Jesus resurrection. Either way, Jesus' death per se is not mentioned. Next, we are told that Michael defeated the dragon which many take to be the heavenly counterpart of Jesus' victory (death and resurrection).
Jesus as Template of Conquering
3:21 is the last of seven promises uttered to those who conquer. This is significant because it ties together Jesus' career with his followers. Just as Jesus overcame and sits with the Father, so his disciples will sit with Jesus on his throne if they overcome. 12:11 goes so far as to say that the disciples conquer by the blood of the Lamb, that is they conquer in the same way Jesus did. I think resurrection is in the background here but I think John highlights Jesus' death because he want to prime his readers for their possible if not likely fate.
Disciples Conquering
However, talk of the disciples resurrection and exaltation is also rife in Revelation, but importantly tied to death. The question in 6:12 (who is able to stand) seems to be answered in 7:9 (a great multitude standing before the throne). The "standing" here most likely refers to resurrection. In 11:11 the two witnesses are resurrected with the description that they "stood" on their feet. Richard Bauckham's discussion of this passage is illuminating:
Theological Upshot
In ways very similar to Paul, John can highlight Jesus "death" and "blood" when we want to impress upon the reader the absolute requirement suffering and death (at least in some cases) and that to follow Jesus means that we have to "put on our grave clothes". However, this does not mean that the resurrection is not lurking behind the scenes. It clearly does in both Paul and in Revelation. The resurrection gives the conqueror hope. This is why all the promises to the conqueror in the letters involve some eschatological reward.
Conquering or overcoming is a prominent concept in Revelation. I will argue here that its use in Revelation includes the idea of resurrection.
Jesus as Conqueror
The bedrock of the use of "conquer" in Revelation is that Jesus conquered. In 5:5 we are told that Jesus is worthy to open the seals because he conquered. There Jesus is described as the lion of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:9) and the root of David (Isaiah 11:1,10). The OT passages from which these descriptions derive have to do with literal military violence. However, the way Revelation depicts Jesus' conquering is through his death, the very opposite of violence! Note the slain Lamb in 5:6 who has seven horns (symbols of conquering). The key here, though, for my purposes is that the slain lamb is standing, which represents his resurrection. Jesus' career is summarized in 1:5 with three descriptions which all seem to pertain to conquering:
- the faithful witness (primarily his faithfulness unto death)
- the firstborn of the dead (resurrection)
- ruler of the kings of the earth (exaltation)
Further proof of the importance of the resurrection comes in chapter 12. The great red dragon wanted to devour Jesus but he was "snatched up" to heaven to rule the nations with a rod of iron (12:5). Some scholars have even argued on the strength of the idea of "firstborn from the dead" that the mention of the woman giving birth refers to Jesus resurrection. Either way, Jesus' death per se is not mentioned. Next, we are told that Michael defeated the dragon which many take to be the heavenly counterpart of Jesus' victory (death and resurrection).
Jesus as Template of Conquering
3:21 is the last of seven promises uttered to those who conquer. This is significant because it ties together Jesus' career with his followers. Just as Jesus overcame and sits with the Father, so his disciples will sit with Jesus on his throne if they overcome. 12:11 goes so far as to say that the disciples conquer by the blood of the Lamb, that is they conquer in the same way Jesus did. I think resurrection is in the background here but I think John highlights Jesus' death because he want to prime his readers for their possible if not likely fate.
Disciples Conquering
However, talk of the disciples resurrection and exaltation is also rife in Revelation, but importantly tied to death. The question in 6:12 (who is able to stand) seems to be answered in 7:9 (a great multitude standing before the throne). The "standing" here most likely refers to resurrection. In 11:11 the two witnesses are resurrected with the description that they "stood" on their feet. Richard Bauckham's discussion of this passage is illuminating:
The symbolic narrative of 11:11-12 means not that the nations have to see the literal resurrection of the Christian martyrs before they are convinced of the truth of their witness, but that they have to perceive the martyrs' participation in Christ's triumph over death. In fact, the way that Christian martyrdom, in the early centuries of the church, impressed and won people to faith in the Christian God, was precisely thus. The martyrs were effective witnesses to the truth of the Gospel because their faith in Christ's victory over death was so convincingly evident in the way they faced death and died.I should note that this passage inspired this blog.
Theological Upshot
In ways very similar to Paul, John can highlight Jesus "death" and "blood" when we want to impress upon the reader the absolute requirement suffering and death (at least in some cases) and that to follow Jesus means that we have to "put on our grave clothes". However, this does not mean that the resurrection is not lurking behind the scenes. It clearly does in both Paul and in Revelation. The resurrection gives the conqueror hope. This is why all the promises to the conqueror in the letters involve some eschatological reward.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Why do Evangelicals downgrade the Resurrection?
Preamble
I suggest that one of the many reasons why Evangelicals downgrade Jesus' resurrection, especially in relation to his crucifixion, is the antipathy to the resurrection in the scholarly world. Like it or not, the scholarly world influences even Evangelical thought. Church leaders study at seminaries and most seminaries are in touch with the scholarly world and are influenced by it. In the end, the antipathy to the resurrection in the scholarly world boils down to a lack of faith in resurrection, either Jesus' or in general. This lack of faith trickles down to the Evangelical in the pew, or so I suggest.
Examples
Two of my favorite Catholic scholars, Raymond Brown and John P. Meier, are cases in point. Brown has written a 752 page tome on The Birth of the Messiah and a 2-volume 1608 page tome on The Death of the Messiah. Nothing like this is devoted to the resurrection. His The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus devotes pp. 69-129 to the topic. His other book on the resurrection, A Risen Christ in Eastertime, is just as slim, with only about a hundred pages devoted to the topic. Even he admits that neither of these books are truly a commentary.
Meier's epic A Marginal Jew (4 volumes to date and going strong) is not to touch the Resurrection. The reason Meier gives is the Jesus' resurrection is not "in principle open to the observation of any and every observer", is "affirmed only by faith", and is not "in principle perceivable by all interested and fair-minded observers."
Meier's conception of the resurrection I think is already flawed and that he seems to lack the faith in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. It is against this typical scholarly position that N. T. Wright basically wrote his The Resurrection of the Son of God. Wright argues the the concept of "resurrection" is this period involved bodily resurrection and is therefore open to the type of verification that Meier seems to think is lacking. (See also Stephen T. Davis 'Seeing ' the Risen Jesus.)
Theological Upshot
I think the lesson for Christians is to be sensitive to all the factors that shape our thought and how we read the Word. Sometimes pernicious ways of reading the text are so underground that we don't even realize they are operative. I think this is the case with the resurrection. This is one the the foundations of Christianity and perhaps we need to read with an intentional view to highlight what the Bible as a whole says about resurrection and its importance. I claim that if we do this we will read Paul, for example, differently than we do now. The time has come.
I suggest that one of the many reasons why Evangelicals downgrade Jesus' resurrection, especially in relation to his crucifixion, is the antipathy to the resurrection in the scholarly world. Like it or not, the scholarly world influences even Evangelical thought. Church leaders study at seminaries and most seminaries are in touch with the scholarly world and are influenced by it. In the end, the antipathy to the resurrection in the scholarly world boils down to a lack of faith in resurrection, either Jesus' or in general. This lack of faith trickles down to the Evangelical in the pew, or so I suggest.
Examples
Two of my favorite Catholic scholars, Raymond Brown and John P. Meier, are cases in point. Brown has written a 752 page tome on The Birth of the Messiah and a 2-volume 1608 page tome on The Death of the Messiah. Nothing like this is devoted to the resurrection. His The Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus devotes pp. 69-129 to the topic. His other book on the resurrection, A Risen Christ in Eastertime, is just as slim, with only about a hundred pages devoted to the topic. Even he admits that neither of these books are truly a commentary.
Meier's epic A Marginal Jew (4 volumes to date and going strong) is not to touch the Resurrection. The reason Meier gives is the Jesus' resurrection is not "in principle open to the observation of any and every observer", is "affirmed only by faith", and is not "in principle perceivable by all interested and fair-minded observers."
Meier's conception of the resurrection I think is already flawed and that he seems to lack the faith in the bodily resurrection of Jesus. It is against this typical scholarly position that N. T. Wright basically wrote his The Resurrection of the Son of God. Wright argues the the concept of "resurrection" is this period involved bodily resurrection and is therefore open to the type of verification that Meier seems to think is lacking. (See also Stephen T. Davis 'Seeing ' the Risen Jesus.)
Theological Upshot
I think the lesson for Christians is to be sensitive to all the factors that shape our thought and how we read the Word. Sometimes pernicious ways of reading the text are so underground that we don't even realize they are operative. I think this is the case with the resurrection. This is one the the foundations of Christianity and perhaps we need to read with an intentional view to highlight what the Bible as a whole says about resurrection and its importance. I claim that if we do this we will read Paul, for example, differently than we do now. The time has come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
