Jesus Prohibits Divorce (a look at Mark 10:2-9)

Jesus Prohibits Divorce

It is not often remarked that Jesus prohibits divorce.  The evidence is pretty clear: 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; Matthew 5:32//Luke 16:18 (note no exception); Mark 10:2-12//Matthew 19:3-12.  I want highlight what Jesus says in Mark 10:2-9.

Mark 10:2-9

The Pharisees test Jesus by asking whether divorce is lawful (v.2).  Jesus retorts by asking what Moses commanded (v.3).  They respond by alluding to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 where divorce is allowed via a certificate of dismissal (v.4).  However, Jesus response to this is very interesting and has far reaching implications.  Jesus answers that Moses wrote this command because of "hardness of heart" (v.5).  In other words, this law was because of human frailty and is not in the deeper sense the result of God's will.  For Jesus, God's will on this matter is that divorce is not permitted.  He uses Genesis (1:27; 2:24) to argue that divorce is contrary to God's designs.

Jesus Trumps the Law

What is interesting about Jesus' argument is that he assumes that Scripture (Deuteronomy) is not the last word concerning God's true will and this will is written into creation (Genesis). Perhaps we could say that the Law is evidence that God adjusts his message to the state of humanity because he is merciful and gracious (and a realist?).  However, Jesus thinks there is a new game in town (Mt. 9:17) and the situation is changed so that the previous divine accommodation is no longer operative.  Christianity brings the Spirit and the Spirit brings the condition that makes divorce a thing of the past.

Theological Upshot

It is true that at the consummation of all things there will be no marriage at all (Mk 12:25) but in the meantime there is no excuse for Christians to divorce.  The new heart promised in the the prophets has come.  What God has joined together, let no one separate!
   

The Kingdom is forcefully advancing: Matthew 11:12

Preamble
The interpretation of Matthew 11:12 is difficult.  NRSV: "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence [or NSRV's alternative reading: has been coming violently], and the violent take it by force."  I will offer an argument for taking "has suffered violence" [biazo] as forcefully advancing, that is, as middle and not passive.

Spiritual Warfare
Jesus and the evil spiritual powers did not enjoy each other's company.  Demons seem afraid of Jesus asking him if he will destroy (Mk. 1:24) or torment (Mk. 5:7) them.  The fear seems to be based on Jesus' power to make the demons do something against their will.  The fear is well-founded because at Jesus' command demons are cast out sometimes it seems with great pain (Mk. 1:26).  How does Jesus' word have this power?  Clues could reside in the verbs used to describe Jesus' response.  In Mark 1, Jesus rebukes (epitiman) the demon and tells it to be silent (phimoo).  Scholars have argued that the term for "rebuke" corresponds to the Hebrew (ga'ar) which in the Old Testament is often paired with words such as "destroy", "vanquish", and "trample" (see especially Zech. 3:2).  Also, the term for "be silent" means in other contexts "to muzzle" or "to strangle".  We just don't know the physics of the metaphysical but somehow Jesus' power extends to the spiritual realm in such a way that "forceful" language is used in scripture.

"Force" language is also used to describe Jesus' overall stance versus the evil spiritual powers.  Jesus taught that the strong man must be bound before his property can be plundered (Mk. 3:27/Mt. 12:29/Lk. 11:21-22 [Luke adds the term "overcomes" or "attacks"]).  Again, Jesus' actions are described using "force" language.

Jesus interaction with the evil powers is part and parcel to the advancement of the Kingdom of God.  Jesus claimed that his exorcisms are by the finger of God (Lk. 11:20) or the Spirit of God (Mt. 12:28) and that they prove the Kingdom has arrived.

Matthew 11:12
Given the above it would make sense for Jesus to say that the Kingdom of God is advancing forcibly.  This make sense also in the immediate context.  Jesus had told John's disciples, who had come to question whether Jesus is the one to come, to report what they have seen and heard.  He then lists actions indicative of his ministry (see Mt. 11:5).  Exorcisms are not specifically mentioned in this list but exorcisms are mentioned in summaries of Jesus' ministry (Mt. 8:16).

Scholars have also argued that it could make sense to say "the Kingdom advances forcibly (biazo), and violent people (biastes) have been raiding it."  D. A. Carson has argued that a term can be used with two different senses, a phenomenon termed "antanaclasis".  The logic of the scene could be then explained by Jesus telling John that the Kingdom is indeed at hand but that it is being met with resistance.  However, if the second clause were to be interpreted in a positive sense (people press into the Kingdom), then the whole verse would be positive and Carson's solution would not be needed.  The latter option also corresponds better with the Luke parallel (Lk. 16:16).  Luke has "the Kingdom of God is being preached" instead of "the Kingdom is forcibly advancing".

Theological Upshot
The Kingdom of God is all about confronting the evil powers and taking back enemy territory.  Scripture uses martial language for a reason.  We are in a war.  

Miracles and the Meaning of Christianity

Preamble

Why did Jesus perform so many miracles?  I claim that an answer to this question goes to the heart of what Christianity is about.

Two inadequate Explanations of Miracles in the New Testament

1. Miracles proved Jesus deity.  This explanation seems to falter for the following considerations:

• Jesus never appeals to miracles to prove his divine status
• Others worked wonders and their divinity was not asserted (Elijah, Elisha etc.)

     2. Jesus used miracles to draw people to his message.  This falters too:

• In Mark 7:36, Jesus orders the recipients of his miracle to tell no one.  He is reticent in getting acclaim via his miracles.
• Jesus escapes miracle hungry crowds (John 6:15--after feeding miracle).
• Jesus purposely does miracles without crowds (Mark 5:40).

Two Better Explanations of Miracles in the New Testament

1. Miracles evidence Jesus' compassion.  See for example Matthew 20:34, John 11:35--raising Lazarus, et al.  This explanation actually dovetails into the next and best explanation.
2. Miracles express the presence, character, and hope of the Kingdom of God, in other words, they are symbols and foretastes of the kingdom of God itself.

• The miracles themselves are more often to put right what is not as it is intended to be (healing blindness, deafness, muteness, and lameness).  Jesus' miracles were not just firework displays, they met human needs.  They were signs that God's rule was beginning to put things right.
• The type of miracles Jesus performed were indicative of the reign of God as put forth in Isaiah 35:4-10, which Matthew seems to allude to in 15:29-31 where the litany of Isaiah is repeated twice.
• Exorcisms (a type of miracle) are signs of the defeat of Satan's kingdom which makes room for the Kingdom of God.  This is how Jesus viewed it in light of Mark 3:27//Matthew 12:29 (the strong man bound in order to plunder).
• Jesus himself directly links his miracles to the Kingdom of God: Luke 4:18-19; Matthew 11:2-6//Luke 7:18-23; Luke 9:1-2; Matthew 12:28 "if by the Spirit of God"//Luke 11:20 "if by the finger of God".
• Even some of the "nature" miracles fall in line here.  Jesus stills the storm using the same verb that he used to exorcise demons.  The storm was probably a Satanic event meant to take out the ambassadors of God's Kingdom.  The feeding miracles meet people's needs.  The cursing of the fig tree was probably an enacted parable of judgment.

Miracles and Jesus' Disciples

Jesus gives authority to his disciples to perform miracles (Matthew 10:1//Luke 9:1-2), and they perform exactly the type of miracles Jesus performed.  Acts is replete with miracles done by the disciples (see summary at 2:35 and 5:12-16).  Peter and Paul and Stephen and Philip all perform miracles which echo Jesus' miracles.  The reason they too perform miracle is that they were Jesus' ambassadors of the Kingdom of God.  The Kingdom of God arrives with healing and making things whole.

Miracles Today

If miracles are part and parcel of the Kingdom of God, then we would expect the church throughout history to perform them.  Cessationist arguments to the contrary are based on a mistaken view of what miracles were meant to accomplish.  If the Kingdom of God is nothing more than information to be believed ("Jesus died for our sins"), then it might make sense to say that miracles ceased because on that view the miracles were only there to call attention to the Gospel message so understood.  However, the Gospel evidence of miracles totally undermine this picture.  The miracles are part of the Kingdom of God, not just some carney sideshow.  Perhaps miracles happen where there is most need for God's power: human powerlessness.  If we in the West do not see miracles perhaps that says more about us and our non-reliance on God's power than it does about the possible cessation of miracles.

Theological Upshot

The miracles matter and they matter for reasons.  Paul says in 1 Corinthians 4:20 that the Kingdom of God (Paul rarely uses these terms) is not a matter of talk but of power.  Miracles are God's power setting things right.  It's time for us evangelicals to unmask our talk-only theology and put the power back into the Gospel where real transformation and new creation happen and not mere imputation, that is, mere talk.

An Argument against Christian Conspiracy Theories

Preamble

I intend to argue that Christian Conspiracy Theories fail to run the gauntlet of scripture.  Specifically, I will use Ephesians 6:10-20 (especially 6:12) to severely cast doubt on the belief that there is a human cabal that manipulates world events to advance a (satanic) agenda.


Two Alternatives

There are two basic alternatives, the first I endorse and the second I will argue against:

1. Satan and his spiritual minions (demons etc.) conspire directly to influence world events by using the disobedience (greed, pride etc.) of individuals.  The intelligence for this manipulation remains with Satan.  Human actors need not be privy to Satan's strategies and schemes.
2. Satan and his minions use a secret human Cabal to influence world events.

The Cabal

Most conspiracy theories (not just Christian ones) posit a human Cabal that manipulates events.  The relationship between Satan and this Cabal takes two basic forms, with the second form also coming in two forms:

1. The Cabal is conscious of Satanic influence, that is, the Cabal are Satan worshipers who get their strategies directly from Satan.
2. The Cabal is merely influenced by Satan without necessarily being conscious of his schemes.

• 2a) Satan assembled the Cabal (without their conscious knowledge).
• 2b) Satan just uses an existing Cabal to accomplish his plans.

Problems with the Cabal from Satan's perspective

Relying on the Cabal is dangerous for Satan.  Investing his strategy with humans runs risks:

• Humans may repent and turn to God and bring down the Cabal (destruction from within)
• The Cabal may experience a leak and be discovered (destruction from without)
• It very hard to set up a Cabal.  Actual Satan worshipers in the case of (1) are very rare, so not only does Satan need powerful humans but he needs them to be Satanists.  In the case of (2a), it might be rather difficult to orchestrate the formation of a Cabal with the requisite power to manipulate world events.  In the case of (2b), there are no guarantees that Satan will find a suitable ready-made Cabal to do his dirty work.

The alternative I endorse does not face any of these difficulties because Satan does not need a Cabal, he just influences individuals directly through the run-of-the-mill sins of greed, pride etc.  The retort to this from the conspiracy side is that Satan is not intelligent enough to influence world events merely through individual disobedience.  That proposition is difficult to prove, furthermore, the testimony of scripture is clear that Satan is constantly at work in, or at least a threat to, the lives of individuals:

• Peter (Mk 8:31-33)
• Judas (Lk 22:3, Jn 13:27)
• Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3)
• See also Eph. 2:2, 4:27, 6:11-12; 2 Tim. 2:25; 1 Cor. 7:5; 2 Cor. 2:11, 11:15

Problems with the Cabal from the the Christian conspiracy theorist's perspective

• Many Christian conspiracies posit a Cabal to explain how something like the one world government or new world order is to come about.  But scripture attests that Satan already has world power:
• God of this age 2 Cor. 4:4
• Prince of the Power of the Air Eph. 2:2
• Prince of this world Jn. 12:31, 14:30, 16:11
• Implied in Mt. 4:8,9
• There are too many candidates for the Cabal: Masons, Zionist Jews, Illuminati, Bilderbergers, CFRers, Skull and Bones, Templar Knights, Opus Dei, Priory of Sion, Rosicrucians, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Ordo Templis Orientis etc.  If a Cabal is discovered how do we know it is the top dog and not a low-rung group.  Perhaps our discovered Cabal is only a plant that is meant to throw one off the scent.  This proves that the existence of the Cabal is really worthless from a Christian perspective because we would never know if we had the real thing.
• It's hard to prove the existence of the Cabal for by definition it is super secret.  If there is evidence for the existence of a Cabal then theorists must be fair and admit evidence when it goes against the existence of a Cabal.  Conspiracy theorists are notorious for not adhering to this principle.  On this score, my alternative is much simpler.  Most of the phenomena that the Cabal is meant to explain is more simply explained just using greed and pride etc.  Why are Hollywood movies they way they are?  Because being the way they are makes someone money.
• The Christian belief in the Cabal just mimics non-Christian conspiracy thinking which is dangerous considering the anti-Semitism of many non-Christian conspiracies.  Of course, this doesn't prove that there are not Cabals but it does remind Christians that Conspiracy Theories do not have a Christian origin.  Non-Christian conspiracies have to postulate the Cabal since they don't have recourse to Satan, though even here some alien/reptilian theories come very close if not identical to the demonic. 
• Conspiracies, especially of the (2b) type, tend to slide into the belief that Satan just uses individuals because it is a small step from merely influencing a ready-made Cabal to influencing mere individuals.  Taking the intelligence out of the Cabal is a huge step away from your standard Conspiracy.
• Conspiracies are distracting.  They concentrate on the kingdom of Satan at the expense of the Kingdom of God.  
• Many Conspiracies rely on a faulty interpretation of Revelation but that is another blog!  

Ephesians 6:12

One of the biggest strikes against the Cabal is the teaching that our struggle is not against flesh and blood but against Satan and his minions.  So even if there is a Cabal, who cares?  From a Christian perspective that is not the heart of our struggle.  This also goes to show that conspiracy theorists tend to be rather judgmental and unloving and suspicious of behavior that may otherwise be righteous.  

What Conspiracy Theorists get right

The one thing Christian conspiracy theorists get right is being suspicious of power that other Christians may not recognize as satanic.  

Theological Upshot

Conspiracy Theories add next to nothing to the Kingdom of God.  They are worthless.

Open Theism and Peter's Denials

Preamble

In my last blog I used the idea of "prophetic strength" to argue that Open Theism provides the best explanation of Biblical prophecy.  I argued that most prophecy has rather low strength.  However, there are prophecies that seem to have rather high strength.  I will discuss one of these, the denials of Peter, and argue that its strength is perhaps not as high as may first appear.

The Predictions:

All four Gospels have Jesus predicting that Peter will deny him in the future.  Matthew and Mark have this prediction said on the way to Gethsemane and Luke and John have is said at the Last Supper.

• Matthew 26:34: Truly I say to you that during this night before a cock crows, three times you will deny me.
• Mark 14:30: Truly I say to you today this night before a rooster crows twice you will deny me three times.
• Luke 22:34: I tell you, Peter, will not crow today a rooster until three times you deny to know me.
• John 13:38: Truly, truly, I say to you never will a cock crow until you deny me three times.

The reason that these predictions are used against Open Theism is that they seem very specific and supposedly involve Peter's free will choices.

Preliminary Consideration:


Mark's prediction is different from the others in that he has Peter's three denials occurring before the rooster crows twice.  There is another difficulty that has to do with the actual three denials.  Here are the questioners in each of the Gospels [and where they said their question or accusation]:

• Matthew: 1)  One [used in tandem with "another" in the second denial] servant woman [court]; 2) Another woman [entrance way]; 3) Those present [entrance way]
• Mark: 1) One of the servant women of High Priest [courtyard]; 2) Same servant woman [presumably in the courtyard still even though Peter moved to the forecourt]; 3) bystanders [forecourt]
• Luke: 1) A certain servant woman [courtyard]; 2) Another man [courtyard]; 3) A certain man (another) [still in courtyard]
• John: 1) gatekeeper servant woman [courtyard]; 2) servants and guards [courtyard still]; 3) One (masculine) of the servants of the High Priest, a relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off [courtyard still]

The difficulty is harmonizing all these denials.  It is clear that the gospels cannot be referring to the same individuals in the second and third denials.

Other considerations:

• John has an episode at the end of his Gospel (chapter 21) where Jesus questions Peter three time which seems to echo Peter's three denials.  This seems to shows that Jesus thought of Peter's denials in terms of three.
• Jesus could have said something like "Before a cock crows twice, thrice you will deny me." [Mark's version]  This 2/3 pattern is similar to the 3/4 pattern in Proverbs 30:15,18,21,29 and Amos, and to the 2/3 pattern in Job 33:29.  In other words, there is Biblical warrant for saying that Jesus was using an idiom and so the numbers "two" and "three" may only be incidental to the actual prediction. 

My Solution:

My proposal is that Jesus was only trying to teach Peter that his bravado was unwarranted and that Peter was not ready for the reality of the disappointment that the Kingdom of God was about suffering and not political onslaught.  However, Jesus' prediction was most likely not meant to be foretelling but was a strategic challenge to help Peter when the moment of the disappointment arrived.  The importance of the prediction is not to show off Jesus' predictive powers but for the nurturing of Peter.  The open theist Greg Boyd has made the point that Jesus in the Gospel of John (chapter 21) alludes to Peter's denials in order to teach him the real values of the Kingdom and that he predicted that Peter would follow him on the road of suffering and death.  This episode helps tie together Jesus' motive for saying what he did to Peter and what actually happened.

There is no reason why Jesus cannot use language in such a way as to challenge and there is no reason why Jesus cannot use language that is hyperbolic or figurative or whatever.  It is my conjecture that Jesus' prediction used an idiom and the purpose of the idiom was to communicate Jesus' assurance that Peter would deny him.  Jesus was only saying that he was sure Peter would deny him.  Jesus was sure that Peter's bravado was misplaced (because Peter believed in a political messiah?) and he was sure that there would be opportunity for Peter to deny him.  At the same time, Jesus was sure Peter would try try to follow (albeit at a distance) because he knew Peter had deep feelings for Jesus.  So, Jesus uttered his statement to Peter to warn him that his confidence was misplaced.

Sure, Peter could have not denied Jesus and he could have then come to Jesus and complained that Jesus was wrong.  But couldn't Jesus have then replied by saying that the only reason he worded things they way he did was for Peter's benefit and that it was meant to make Peter think about the foundations of his commitment.  Jesus could have said: "Look Peter, I wasn't putting my divinity on the line and predicting that you would 100% for sure deny me, but that is not what I was attempting to do, I only wanted you to learn about yourself.  Can't I use language that is strategic and not literally true?  After all, you have heard me say a lot of parables you knew I used language in ways everyone else does."


Open Theism

If I am correct about the meaning of Jesus' prediction, then this gives considerable more leeway in how this prediction is assessed in relation to Open Theism.  All that "needed" to happen for Jesus' prediction to be literally true, if that is the way we want to go, is to say that Peter denied Jesus before dawn, but it would not have necessarily taken supernatural knowledge to come to this conclusion.  Jesus knew a lot about Peter and he knew a lot about the situation.

I will grant that the Gospel writers were impressed by the fact that Peter literally fulfilled Jesus' figurative "prediction" since they all recounted three denials.  I think they did this because they did want Jesus' figurative prediction to be literally true in order to highlight Jesus' superior knowledge.  However, since we cannot harmonize all the Gospel denials, it is safe to say that Peter denied Jesus on multiple occasions (compare the so-called "six denial solution").  This is bolstered by the fact that the Gospels at times claim that the questioners/accusers were plural, in which case, it would be hard for an eye-witnesses to count the actual denials (see Matthew's and Mark's third and John's second). But if this is true, then those who hold the view that the future of the universe is completely settled cannot point to the precision of Peter's denials as evidence against Open theism.  There were more than three and Jesus was not very specific how these denials occurred.  In other word, Jesus prediction had rather low strength.

The Open theist can always claim that God could have just forced Peter to deny Jesus three times, and forced the rooster to crow after the third (this may have been true even on my story) and forced the questioners/accusers to question or accuse.  But why?  Nothing hung on Jesus' prediction being literally true.  It is not where Jesus put his emphasis.  Jesus put his emphasis on Peter's attitude.

Finally, Jesus, in John's last chapter (21) alludes to Peter's three denials.  The only thing this need show is that someone (Peter, the other disciple who was present [only mentioned in John, by the way!], or someone else, could have noticed that Peter denied Jesus on multiple time and amazingly literally fulfilled Jesus figurative saying).  Jesus picked up on that and asked Peter three times in keeping with the three in his figurative prediction.  Nothing here requires that the future be completely settled.

Theological Upshot:

I conclude that Peter's denials do not cast doubt on Open Theism.  The accounts themselves just do not lend themselves to the type of future prediction that the settled view predicts. Open Theism is still the best explanation of the strength of Biblical prophecy, including Peter's denials.    

Open Theism and Biblical Prophecy

Preamble

Bible prophecy is often used to refute Open theism, but I want to argue that Bible prophecy actually supports Open theism versus the settled view.  My basic argument is that Open theism provides the best explanation of the strength of Bible prophecy.  If my argument is sound, then there are some important ramifications which I will discuss below.

Form of the Argument

Premise 1:  The strength of Bible prophecy is value X.
Premise 2:  Open theism provides a better explanation of value X than the Future-is-settled view.
Therefore Open theism is preferable to the settled view.

Premise 1

To understand premise 1, I want to explain what I mean by the strength of prophecy.  I contend that the strength of Bible prophecy as a whole depends on the strength of individual prophecies and the quantity of such prophecies.  Let us say for the sake of argument that Jesus was born in a manger on the evening of March 31, 4 B.C. in Bethlehem to parents of Davidic lineage.  If this was so, then the following predictions, let's say made in 500 B.C., would be on a scale of weaker strength prophecies to stronger strength prophecies:

1. A King will be born
2. A King will be born in Israel
3. A King will be born in Bethlehem
4. A King will be born in Bethlehem in 37-4 B.C.
5. A King will be born in Bethlehem in 4 B.C.
6. A King will be born in Bethlehem in 4 B.C. on March 31st
7. A King will be born in Bethlehem in 4 B.C. on the evening of March 31st
8. A King named Jesus will be born in Bethlehem in 4 B.C. on the evening of March 31st
9. A King named Jesus will be born in a manger in Bethlehem in 4 B.C. on the evening of March 31st
10. A King named Jesus will be born in a manger in Bethlehem in 4 B.C. on the evening of March 31st to parents named Joseph and Mary.

Prediction 10 is stronger than prediction 1 because you have to know much more about the future to be right about 10 than you do about 1. Specificity is not the only measure of the strength of prophecy, however. The amount of such prophecies also figures in the calculus.  It could be the case that one prediction of value 4 is stronger that two predictions of value 3, but that would depend on the scale.  But the obvious point remains that the more correct predictions the Bible makes the stronger Bible prophecy will be.  But keep in mind that prophecies of low strength are still true.

I contend that the individual Old Testament prophecies concerning Jesus' first advent fall in the 2-3 range in the (imperfect) scale of my example, but they do not reach to strength 4.  This leads me to rate the overall strength of Bible prophecy, taking into account quantity as well as quality,  in the 2-3 or 3-ish range.  This is fairly low.    



Premise 2

Open theism provides a better model for why Bible prophecy would have strength 2 or 3 and not 9 or 10.  If the future is open then there is a lot of historical wiggle room that God gives freedom.  Given this freedom, and given God's unthwartable sovereign plans, then we wouldn't expect Bible prophecy to be much higher than 2 or 3.  Open theism is often compared to a chess game in which a grandmaster will always beat a novice even though the grandmaster does not know in advance what moves the novice will make.  The grandmaster's plan of victory is assured.  God's plans are assured even though the individual moves might not be known in advance.  The grandmaster will win, even though we don't know that it is by capturing the rook and forcing checkmate on move 14, say.  In other words, the reason the strength of Bible prophecy is low is that Open theism is true.

A person who believes that the future is completely settled might have a response to all this, even if they were to admit that the strength of Bible prophecy is in the 2-3 range.  They might want to say that God purposely keeps the strength of the prophecies low.  But why?  It can't be to glorify himself because God would get more glory if the predictions had a higher strength.  It's harder to predict 10 than 1 in the example I gave, so the reason why God keeps prophetic strength low is not related to his glory.  Some might claim that keeping prophetic strength low safeguards faith.  But this gambit seems to plays into the hands of Open theists because it highlights God's desire to safeguard human free will.  If God went about amazing people with predictions of the 10 variety then it wouldn't take any faith to believe in him. So, the non-open theist lands in a dilemma.  Therefore, Open theism provides a better explanation as to why prophetic strength is low.

Ramifications

Since I claim Old Testament prophecy of Jesus' first advent has a rather low strength, and that Jesus is important and ought to garner as high a strength as any other Biblical topic, then we ought not expect prophecies yet to be fulfilled to have any higher strength.  If this is so, then much of the pin-the-tail on the anti-Christ speculation is rendered fruitless.  Bible prophecy just doesn't work that way.  The same would apply to prophecies at all times, including those in Daniel, for example.  If so, does this have bearings on how we date that book?

Theological Upshot

I have tried to show that Bible prophecy actually is a boon and not a bane to Open Theism.  I grant the subjective nature of my arguments but I think the basic logic holds.

Jesus' Argument for the Resurrection

Preamble:

Jesus' argument for the Resurrection (Mark 12:18-27) is brilliant, if not unusual.  I want to present this argument and assess its cogency.

Mark 12:18-27:

18 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying,

19 "Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.
20 There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children;
21 and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise;
22 none of the seven left children.  Last of all the woman herself died.
23 In the resurrection whose wife will she be?  For the seven had married her."

24 Jesus said to them, "Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?
25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'?
27 He is the God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong."

Structure of Mark 12:18-27:

Based on J. P. Meier's work, the structure of this passage can be outlined as follows:

I. 12:18-23
    a. 12:18-19 Sadducees do not believe in the fact of resurrection (18) and use Moses to show that the resurrection is ridiculous (Deuteronomy 25:5, cf. Genesis 38:8).
    b. 12:20-23 Sadducees set up a fictitious scenario based on the Moses passage to show that the resurrection leads to a ridiculous consequence.

II. 12:24-27
    a. 12:24-25 Jesus states that the Sadducees are wrong about the fact of resurrection and wrong about the manner of resurrection (24), and then argues in reverse the two points, first that the Sadducees are wrong about the manner of resurrection (25).
    b. 12:26-27 Jesus argues the fact of resurrection using Moses (Exodus 3:6).

Jesus' argument resurrection in Mark 12:26-27

Jesus' logic in verses 26-27 seems to go as follows:

Premise #1: God defines himself in relation to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Premise #2: God would not define himself in relation to dead things.
Conclusion #1: Therefore, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob cannot be dead.
Conclusion #2: Therefore, The three men must be alive or will be alive in the future; in other words, the resurrection must be fact.  QED.

Cogency of Jesus' argument

Jesus' argument is unprecedented.  It relies on God's abhorrence of death.  There is nothing more counter to the God of Life than death.  Jesus capitalizes on this to reason that God would not define himself in terms of inanimate dust, rotting flesh or the like.  God's identification with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at least shows that God thought highly of these individuals and so it would be out of character for God to let those whom God cares about to rot in the grave for all time.  If God has the power to raise these individuals from the dead, then he would do so at least in this case.  So, we are right back to the power of God, which informed Jesus response to the manner of Resurrection.  Jesus argued that God has the power to raise individuals to a angelic-like state and therefore circumvents the Sadducees faulty scenario.  Therefore God has the power to raise individuals to life.  It's a question about God's power.

Theological Upshot

Does God have the power to raise individuals from the dead?  That is a question we have to ask. Christianity answers with an unequivocal "Yes"!
    

  

Attacking the Citadel: Psalm 40 in Hebrews 10

The Citadel

The book of Hebrews is perhaps the citadel of the standard evangelical story.  According to that story, the atonement occurred at Jesus' death.  However, I want to argue, borrowing ideas from David Moffitt's book, that the book of Hebrews locates the atonement after Jesus' resurrection.  It was Jesus' "indestructible life" (Heb. 7:15) that qualified him to be the High Priest resembling Melchizedek.  Furthermore, this resurrected/exalted life was possible because of Jesus' obedience unto death.  Hebrew's use of Psalm 40 in chapter 10, I think, provides a devastating blow to the standard evangelical story and provides further proof of the christological interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4, which Hebrews quotes at the end of chapter 10!

Hebrews 10:5-7 (Psalm 40:6-8)

Therefore, entering the world he [Christ] says, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; whole burnt offerings and [offerings] for sin you did not take pleasure in.  Then I said, 'Behold, I have come (in the scroll of the book it has been written concerning me) to do O God the will of you.'"

What is interesting about this quote is that taken at face value it totally undermines the standard evangelical story, since atonement on that story consists in Jesus' death, which in turn is viewed essentially as the death of a sacrificial animal, the very thing this verse rails against.  Another point is that the Old Testament has "to do your will, my God, I desire."  However, in Hebrews, "to do your will" is the object of "I have come".  So, in Hebrews Jesus came to do God's will, which the psalmist could only desire to do.  This is consistent with how Hebrews views Jesus elsewhere (4:15).

Hebrews 10:10 (The offering of Jesus' body)

Moffitt asks:

...could it be that the author conceived of Jesus' body being offered in terms of his deliverance out of death rather than, as it is widely assumed, the event of his death per se...at what moment was God pleased by the offering of Jesus' body in a way that the other sacrifices and offerings did not please him?  Was it when that body died?  Or, could it be when Jesus entered the heavenly tabernacle and presented his body before God?

Moffitt is referring to Hebrews 10:10 where it is claimed that "we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once and for all.  He claims that when Jesus rose and ascended he became qualified to be High Priest and it was his sprinkling of his blood (which represents life and not death) that atones, which all happened in heaven and not at the cross on earth.

Jesus' Perfected

The references to Jesus being perfected (2:10; 5:9; 7:28) have to do with Jesus resurrection/exaltation.  He was obedient to God in ways that Israel was not.  He passed the tests and was resurrected as a result.  This seems to be the thought of Hebrews 5:7-10.

Theological Upshot

It is Jesus' obedience that atones and it is obedience to God that Hebrews wants to instill in its audience.

 

  

Joseph of Arimathea and the Resurrection

Joseph of Arimathea and the Resurrection

Preamble
All four Gospels relate how a Joseph of Arimathea requested the body of Jesus from Pilate.  These passages are very exciting for an apologist but it takes some interesting detective work to see why.  I contend that before Jesus' resurrection, Joseph was a marginal 'disciple' of Jesus (Mt. 27:57; Jn 19:38a--perhaps meaning no more than he was intrigued by his teachings) but that after Jesus' resurrection he became a bona fide disciple.  The truth of this would attest to the reality of the resurrection!

Does it make sense for a Roman ruler to hand over a body of a crucified man?
Writing ca. 200 AD, Ulpian states that the victims of capital punishment are not to be refused to their relatives and Paulus adds that they should not be refused to any who seek burial for them.  However, Eusebius (EH 5.1.61-62) relates how the martyrs of Lyons were displayed for six days and then burned to ashes.  Suetonius reports that Augustus refused burial to many in the wake of the fall of Sejanus (31 AD).  There is also the evidence of Petronis who writes in Nero's time about a soldier in Ephesus who neglected his duty to guard the bodies of the crucified; when they were secretly buried the soldier feared severe punishment.  It is true that Pilate would not have wanted someone convicted of being king of the Jews to be considered a hero, but it is also true that he thought Jesus innocent and suspected that some of the Jewish authorities were jealous of Jesus (Mk 15:10).

Mark
Mark begins with a time indication (15:42): "And, it being already evening, since it was preparation day, that is, the day before Sabbath..."  Mark is referring to the time Jesus died (3 p.m.--the ninth hour) but before sunset (since it was still Friday, the preparation day--recall the Jewish day begins at sunset).  I have italicized the words in the previous passage to highlight the urgency of the scene.  According to Jewish Law (Deut 21:22-23): "If there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for cursed of God is the one hanged."  Also, given that the next day was a holy day (Sabbath), this would have intensified the Jewish outrage of such a profanity (having Jesus remain on the cross).  So, if a Jew requested the body of Jesus, it need not signify that he was a family member or a disciple; it need only signify that he was eager to fulfill Jewish, that is, God's Law.

Mark continues the scene thus: "...having come Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the council, who also himself was looking forward to the kingdom of God, having boldness he went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus."  Notice that Mark does not claim that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus.  He tells us he was from Arimathea (Lk calls 'a city of the Jews'--meaning in Judea).  Arithathea (Rentis or Ramallah?) was not in Galilee and since this is the first mention of Joseph in any gospel, it appears Joseph was not a disciple who came from Galilee with Jesus.

Mark tells us that Joseph was a respected council member (Sanhedrin).  Recall that the 'whole Sanhedrin' (but see 14:63-64) sought testimony to put Jesus to death (14:55) and gave Jesus over to Pilate (15:1).  Mark also states that Joseph was awaiting for the kingdom of God.  Perhaps he was akin to the scribe who was not far from the Kingdom of God in Mk 12:28-34.  Luke also says this and he could have wanted the readers to think of Simeon in Lk 2:25.

Finally, Mark states that it took courage for Joseph to go to Pilate.  This would make sense too if Joseph feared he would be considered a sympathizer of a would-be-king but what would have saved him was that he was a member of the group that asked for Jesus' death.

Further Evidence
Now, Pilate would not have been thrilled to hand over Jesus' body to a bona fide disciple.  John, who like Matthew calls Joseph a disciple, states that Joseph was a hidden disciple because of fear of the Jews (Jn 19:38a).  This point indicates that Joseph was a marginal disciple and that is why Mark and Luke fail to mention that he was a disciple--because they did not know?  In Luke, we are told that Joseph disagreed with the decision and course of action of the Sanhedrin (but did he do so secretly?).  Other indication that Joseph was not a bona fide disciple are that while he was burying Jesus, no Gospel tells that there was any cooperation between Joseph and the women followers who were present (see Mk 15:47).  Also, Mark tells us that Joseph took Jesus' body down (Mk 15:46) which agrees with Acts 13:27-29 which says that "they [the Jews] took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb."

Matthew adds that Joseph was a rich man which may add plausibility in that Pilate may not have wished to offend a man of high standing.  It also indicates that Joseph could own a new tomb (Mt 27:60).

There are also other clues to our picture.  In Mark, Joseph bought a linen cloth (sidon--same as the young man in Mk 14:51-52) and tied up Jesus and put him in a burial place hewn out of the rock (Isa 22:16).  This action seems to be the bare minimum (only Mt adds that the cloth was clean and white and no Gospel tells us that Joseph washed the body).  Joseph does not bring spices--the women have to do this.

It should be noted that Joseph's tomb was new (no one was yet laid there--Lk 23:53; Jn 19:41).  This adds the apologetic that the empty tomb meant that it was Jesus who was raised.  Also, was are told the Jesus' women followers saw where Joseph placed the body.  So, they knew when they came back that the tomb was Jesus'.  Notice also that the women are concerned about fulfilling the Law (Ex 20:8-10).

Nicodemus
In John, we are told that Nicodemus helped Joseph and brought 100 pounds (remember Judas' complaint about one pound of myrrh (myron) in Jn 12:3-5) of spices (aroma), being a mixture of myrrh (smyrrh) and aloes (aloe).  But notice that it was not Joseph who brought these (dry) spices.It should be pointed out that Nicodemus (only mentioned in Jn) too was probably a marginal disciple.  We were told earlier that he was a Pharisee, a teacher of Israel who came to Jesus at night (Jn 3:10) and who later disagreed with fellow Sanhedrists concerning a technicality in the Law (Jn 7:50-52).  However, we are not told that Nicodemus was a disciple and Jesus seems to criticize his type (Jn 12:42-43).  His offering of spices is perhaps symbolic of messianic abundance or the reality of Jesus' burial; Josephus (War 1.33.9 #673; Ant 17.8.3 #199) tells us that five hundred servants were needed to carry the spices at the burial of Herod the Great.  (The kings of Judah were buried in garden tombs [2 Kings 21:18, 26] just as Jesus was buried in a garden [Jn 19:41].

Conclusions

It would seem then that Joseph of Arimathea probably buried Jesus because he was sympathetic to his teachings (which explains why it was he who made sure Jesus was buried according to Jewish Law).  Later, after the resurrection, Joseph became a bona fide disciple and that is why his name was remembered and why Matthew and John call him a disciple.

Theological Upshot

Not only is this story of apologetic value but I think John wants us not to be like Joseph and Nicodemus but to be daylight disciples.  The resurrection ensures this.  It is the bedrock of Christianity!

The Kingdom of God is Everything

Preamble

The Kingdom of God is everything.

Many evangelical Christians view Christianity as believing the right things in order to go to Heaven. Therefore, the mission of the Church is to get others to believe the right things so that they will go to Heaven.  I believe this account 1) gets Christianity wrong, that is, it is based on faulty theology and 2) actually makes its own goal of getting people to believe certain things more difficult!

The Lord's Prayer

Jesus prays for three things (so I would argue): 1) God's name to be hallowed, 2) God's Kingdom to come, and 3) God's will be done.  Where? In Heaven?  No, on Earth!  The Kingdom of God is also about this earth:  the new Heavens and Earth (Isaiah 65:17, 66:22; Revelation 21:1).  God wants to redeem this earth.

My point is that the Kingdom of God is where God reigns and God reigns when love reigns and loves reigns in many ways:

• When a family takes a Sunday picnic together.
• When friends go out for pizza and make each other laugh.
• When a person is friendly to the supermarket cashier.
• When a person fails to get angry at the person who cut them off in traffic.
• When a mother reads a book to her child.
• When a small group prays for each other.
• When a person calls their grandmother to say hi.
• When a person talks to a stranger at the pool and gives a word of encouragement.

The Kingdom of God is everything.  Yes, it also:

• When a person shares the gospel with a friend.

But it's not only that.

Conversion

Studies have shown that converts are more likely to join a group through networks and interpersonal bonds.  My point here is that the stronger the network the more likely someone will convert.  "They shall know you by your love."  Therefore, when a church has strong networks, they will more likely recruit people and then they will get that recruit to believe the correct X, Y, and Z.  However, when the goal is just information based the convert is likely to relapse.

Theological Upshot

Therefore, it's not a sin for a church to develop strong social networks and to do things that foster that.  In fact, that might be the best way to get recruits.  Sure, there is a need to be intentional about reaching out to others but don't you first need something to give?  Just a thought.    

How is Jesus the "Son of God"?

Preamble

There are three main ways Jesus' sonship is conceived:

1. Biological: God is the literal father of Jesus.  This is fostered by the virgin birth infancy narratives (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-38) and provides a nice rationale for saying the Jesus is half God and half man/human.
2. Ontological: God is Jesus' father because Jesus shares God's essence or being.  This is fostered by the preexistence passages.
3. Functional: God is Jesus' father because the relationship between God and Jesus mirrors well the human relationship between a father and a son.

I intend to argue that (1) is mistaken, (2) is true, but then the question is why that relationship uses the metaphor of sonship as opposed to some other metaphor such as 'brotherhood'?, and that (3) is both true and instructive.  I contend that most evangelicals tend to view Jesus' sonship only in terms of (1) and (2) and in so doing short shrift (3).  I contend that short shrifting (3) downplays certain qualities of Jesus (and of God) that are crucial both theologically and practically.

Biological sense is mistaken

The infancy narratives do not state that God provided the male aspect and Mary the female aspect of Jesus.

• The first point is obvious.  It is the Holy Spirit that is the agent in Jesus' conception, not God the Father.  Of course, this Spirit is God's spirit and so perhaps this is not a knock down.
• The term "Holy Spirit" is feminine in Hebrew and neuter in Greek, so a reader would not naturally view it as the male contribution to the conception of Jesus.
• The Greek in Matthew 1:18 (she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit) literally means "in stomach having" which pertain more to being pregnant than becoming pregnant.  Also, the "by" in "by the Holy Spirit" is usually points to the female role in reproduction!  Also, the idiom in verse 20 ("for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit") is not the exactly the idiom used when the male role is meant.  Also, in terms of story line, how would it reassure Joseph to go along with the marriage if paternity is something other than his?
• Luke 1:35 has "the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you", which uses language which is nonsexual.  Parallels for "come upon you" are found in Acts 1:8, Isaiah 32:15 and 1 Samuel 16:13 where sexuality is not at issue.
• "Son of God" language occurs at important junctures in the Gospel if Mark but Mark does not contain an infancy narrative/virgin birth account.  Sonship language in John would also not pertain to (1) but more to (2).  John doesn't have a virgin birth narrative and doesn't show evidence of knowing about it.
• The silence of the virgin birth in the rest of the New Testament and even in Matthew and Luke outside of the infancy narratives (!) make it hard to argue that it was the virgin birth and God's paternity that led to sonship language.

Why is the Ontological sense couched in terms of Sonship?

There is no doubt that according to the New Testament Jesus shares the essence or being of God.  But why would this be couched in terms of Sonship and not, say, brotherhood, for brothers too would share a common essence or being?  It would seem to me that one would have to prove that in Biblical times it was true that a son was viewed as sharing the same essence or being as his father and that perhaps brotherhood could been used instead but simply was not.  I'm not sure how one would prove this but my hunch is that the son-father relationship was not conceived in this way anymore than that a father and son were both male humans etc.  A particular father was simply different than his son.

Functional or metaphorical Sonship

My basic argument here is that sonship language, including 'Son of God' language is based on the special relationship that exists between human fathers and sons.  Once this sense is ignored, very important aspects of Jesus (and of God) are ignored.

• In Biblical times the relationship between a father and a son was special.  A son would often take the vocation of his father and would take after him in other ways.  A son would be obedient to his father and as an heir would continue his father's legacy.  He would try to bring honor to his father by acting in appropriate ways.
• Based on the reality of the first point, there were "son of" idioms which traded on the father-son relationship.  "Sons of Belial" for example does not claim that its referent is the biological offspring of "worthlessness" but that the referent takes after, behave like a personified worthlessness would act.  In the Beatitudes, Jesus calls peacemakers "sons of God" because God is a peacemaker and peacemakers would be behaving like God.  Likewise, in John 8:44 Jesus claims that certain people have the Devil as their father, not because the Devil had sexual relations with their mothers but because they behaved like the Devil.  Compare what he says in John 8:39 that Abraham's children would do the type of things Abraham did.  Paul says something similar in Galatians 3:7, Abraham's children are those who take after him by having his faith. 
• There are many uses of "sons of God" which again trade of the special human relationship between father and son.  Israel (Exodus 4:22), angels (Genesis and Job), Davidic King (2 Samuel 7:14, Psalm 2) and individual Israelites are all called "sons of God" where common essence or being is not at issue.
• There are clear indications that when Jesus is called "Son of God" a Davidic King reference is meant.  For example, when Peter confesses Jesus as Messiah (Davidic King) he add "Son of God".  This is so because God is considered King and so the King of Israel would be acting like God.

Theological Upshot

One aspect of viewing Jesus as "Son of God" in terms of function is that Jesus' obedience to the Father is not forgotten.  Jesus says as much in John 5.  There he says that the Son can only do what he sees the Father doing.  Jesus is clear that he does what the Father does.  Also, the aspect of love is highlighted too.  Just as a human father loves his son, so the the Heavenly Father loves the Son.

We evangelicals ought to have confidence in claiming that Jesus is of the same essence or being as God so we are not afraid to face the human-like aspects of Jesus' relationship to God the Father.  We should not be so wedded to the "Son of God" that we forget the "Son of Man"!    

Faith in Jesus or the Faithfulness of Jesus?

My summary of Douglas A. Campbell's The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (with special reference to Romans 1:17 & 3:22)

Preamble:

I offer here a summary of a very important article on certain passages in Paul.  The issues go to the heart of how we interpret Christianity as a whole.  I will offer a few bracketed comments but it is mostly just a summary.  Let the reader decide the issues for him or herself.

The Basic Issue:

This article was written as a contribution to a debate concerning a certain genitive that appears in Paul: namely, pistis christou, which depending on how the genitive is interpreted yields two very different and far-reaching readings:

1. Faith in Jesus Christ.  This is how most evangelicals interpret the phrase.
2. Faithfulness of Jesus Christ.  This is how Campbell interprets the phrase.

The first reading places emphasis on human reaction, namely faith, which usually is glossed as 'belief'.

The second reading places emphasis on what Jesus did and has nothing to do with human belief.  Campbell thinks that the pistis christou debate can be resolved in part by looking at Romans 1:17 where the key issues are introduced.

Summary of Campbell's article:

 Romans 1:17a and 3:22

Campbell's basic argument in this section is that "faith" in Romans 1:17 and 3:22 discloses or reveals God's righteousness in instrumental terms and this is something that "faith in Jesus" cannot do but "faithfulness of Jesus" can. In other words, our faith is not the means by which God's righteousness is revealed but Jesus' faithful death on the cross is the means by which it is revealed.  Campbell begins with Romans 1:17.  The crux of this verse is the meaning of the prepositional series: "from faith to faith" [the NIV bungles this by its "by faith from first to last].  He presents four points that must be kept in mind:

1. Habakkuk 2:4 is cited in 1:17b and uses the same phrase ("by faith") that appears in 1:17a which suggests that they have the same meaning in both places.  This eliminates construing 1:17a in terms of God because that could not be the meaning in 1:17b (the Habakkuk quote).
2. That Habakkuk 2:4 underlies 1:17a and elsewhere in Paul is suggested by the occurrence of "by faith" in Romans and Galatians (21 times) but nowhere else, and it is in Romans and Galatians where Habakkuk 2:4 is quoted.
3. Galatians 2:16 uses two prepositions "by faith" and "through faith" without really any change in meaning of the phrases.  Therefore, since "through" involves the meaning of "by means of" then "by" likewise means "by means of", which is consistent with the meaning in Habakkuk 2:4.
4. Other instrumental phrases can be seen functioning in further parallels to "by faith" in certain passages.  See Philippians 3:9 for example.

Similarities between Romans 1:16-17 and 3:21-22:

• Both deploy "righteousness of God" as subject.  
• It is "revealed" in 1:17 and "manifested" in 3:22.  
• It is revealed "by faith" in 1:17 and manifested "through faith" in 3:22.  
• "To everyone with faith" in 1:16 is matched by "to the ones with faith" in 3:22
• Scripture is mentioned in both texts: quoted in 1:17 (Habakkuk 2:4) and the "law and the prophets" are referred to in 3:21.

Therefore, Campbell concludes that these two passages are sister texts and their association of faith with the means by which the righteousness of God is revealed/manifested cannot be explained by interpreting "faith" as our belief in Jesus.  Our faith affirms something already known as true, it responds to the gospel message, it does not reveal or manifest the gospel.

Campbell gives further evidence that the "faith" in question pertains to Jesus, that is, it means the faithfulness of Jesus:

• Pistis ("faith") in Greek can mean "belief", "trust" and "faithfulness".  Both Josephus and the LXX attest to the notion that pistis can mean "fidelity".
• Paul often refers to the story of Jesus' passion metonymically, that is, mentioning one element of a whole but meaning to evoke the whole.  "Obedience", "blood", "death", "cross/crucifixion" can all refer to the whole of the passion narrative.  Therefore, he can refer to Jesus' obedient death on the cross by mentioning only the "pistis of Jesus" (the faithfulness or fidelity of Jesus).
• "Fidelity" fits the martyrological themes in the passion of Jesus.  Other martyrologies explicitly mention "fidelity" (Maccabees 15:24; 16:22; 17:2).  Obedience also figures in martyrologies and Paul uses "obedience" as a summary of Jesus' saving activity in Romans 5:19 (see also Philippians 2:5-11 where humility and submission are also martyrological themes).
• Paul uses pistis- and obedience- word groups together where they mean the same thing.  This makes sense in Paul's social world where obedient clients are faithful and trustworthy and submissive and vice versa.  See Philippians 2:12 & 17; 2 Thess. 1:8-10; Romans 1:5 and 16:26. In Romans 10, a sequence of calling, believing, hearing, preaching, sending or proclaiming is then enumerated from verse 14 onward, followed by "but not all obeyed the good news" in verse 16.  Paul immediately quotes Isaiah 53:1 as if to explain the preceding: "Lord, who believed the report of us."  Therefore, pistis and obedience language go hand-in-hand.

A Christological reading of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17b

Campbell marshals seven arguments that Habakkuk 2:4 is to be interpreted Christologically:

"The righteousness of God is being revealed through it [the gospel] by means of fidelity [Jesus'] for fidelity [our], as it is written, 'The righteous one [Jesus], by means of fidelity [obedient death on a cross], will live [resurrected].'"

1. the arthrous [using "the"] construction to denote Christ is consistent with Paul's use elsewhere: the Son, the Christ, the one, the one having died.
2. "The righteous one" is a Christological title elsewhere in the New Testament: Acts 7:52; 22:14; James 5:6 and Matthew 27:19
3. In Hebrews 10:37-39, which quotes Habakkuk 2:3-4 is reasonably interpreted messianically.  The LXX of Habakkuk 2:3-4 opens up the possibility of a messianic reading.  "The coming one" and "the righteous one" are in parallel and would easily be taken to refer to Jesus.
4. The Wisdom of Solomon, which perhaps is alluded to in the opening chapter of Romans, mentions a righteous man who suffers and is then granted life by God.
5. If Paul draws the key phrase "by faith" from Habakkuk 2:4 and uses it programmatically elsewhere this would explain why he drops the pronoun "my' because the pronoun would have no or the wrong antecedent.
6. Messianic reading of Habakkuk 2:4 fulfills what Paul sets in motion in Romans 1:2-4.  He says the Jesus event fulfills scripture and this is precisely what happens by citing Habakkuk 2:4.  This is all the more important when it is noted that Paul mentions "resurrection" in 1:4, and that the "will live" alludes to resurrection[!]
7. That Paul could interpret scripture messianically is not in dispute: see 2 Cor. 1:20 and 4:4-6

Campbell thinks this evidence is compelling in arguing for the messianic reading of Habakkuk 2:4 in which case "by faith" means "by the faithfulness of".

"To all the ones believing (or being of the faithfulness of Jesus)" in Romans 3:22

Campbell next discusses the end phrase of Romans 3:22: "to all the ones believing (or being faithful, trusting etc.)".  He discusses three aspects of this verse:

1. The meaning of "all" which refers the he Jew/gentile issue.
2. The participle "believing" or "being faithful" and its mode.  The word play that unfolds in these texts creates two important possibilities for interpreting faith's modality: a) the faith of the Christian echoes the fidelity of Christ himself in some sense.  They copy the faithful Christ, or b) they possess faith because they participate in Christ.  Paul's use of pistis-language is informed by scriptural intertexts: Isaiah 28:16b, Genesis 15:6
3. Implicit object of the believing or faithfulness is God not Jesus.  He presents three reasons: a) intertextual: it is God in the texts Paul quote.  It is rare in Paul where Jesus is the object of faith-terminology.  b) God occurs about 150 times in Romans, 44 before 3:22; he is the object of faith in 4:3, 17, 20, 10:9 largely because God is the object in the intertexts (Genesis 15:6, Isaiah 28:16b etc.). c) syntactical.  the object of Jesus's fidelity is God.  Therefore we have: "The righteousness of God has been disclosed through the fidelity of Christ [in God] for those who trust [in God]."

 

 

   

The importance of Romans 8:34

Preamble:

That the resurrection is a key for Paul can be proved by looking at one verse (among many!), namely, Romans 8:34.

Romans 8:34:

Who is the one condemning?  Christ Jesus the one having died, but rather having been raised, who is also at the right hand of God, who also intercedes on behalf of us.

The "but rather" in Greek is used to supplement or even correct what has preceded.  Paul is saying that Jesus resurrection is a more key factor in what he is going to say.  This is brought out even more clearly when we compare Romans 8:31-39, which contains our verse in question, and Romans 5:1-11, and especially 5:9-10.

Links between Romans 5:1-11 and 8:31-39:

There are common themes in these two sections, which probably should not surprise us since chapters 5-8 forms a rather distinct unit within Romans.  Here are some of the commonality:

• Just: 5:1,9  ----------- 8:33
• Suffering 5:3 -------------- 8:35-37
• God's love 5:5,8 ------------------ 8:35,39
• death 5:6,8,10 ----------------------- 8:34
• saved from wrath  5:9 ----------------- 8:34
• resurrection 5:10 --------------------- 8:34
• 'for us' 5:5-6 ----------------------------8:31,32,34

These common themes are instructive because in 5:9-10 Paul uses language very similar to 8:34.

Romans 5:9-10:

By much then rather having been justified now by the blood of him will we be saved through him from the wrath; for if enemies being we were reconciled to God through the death of the Son of him by much rather having been reconciled will we be saved by the life of him.

The present reality enjoyed by the death of Jesus is the lesser and the future enjoyed by the resurrection of Jesus is the greater.  This trades on the death/life theme.  If Jesus' death does things, then his resurrected life does better thing (or things made more sure).  The same Greek word used in 8:34 for "rather" is used here.

Theological upshot:

Jesus' resurrection is the key to Romans.  The small correction made in 8:34 is very telling.  Without the resurrection we have no enthronement and without the enthronement we do not have Jesus as our intercessor.

Refuting Attempts to discount Jesus' teaching part two

Preamble

To continue from my last blog, I want to argue that Paul seems to assume that the teachings of Jesus pertain to the New Covenant era.

The Law of Christ

In Galatians 6:2, Paul exhorts us to bear one another's burdens thereby fulfilling "the law of Christ".  This law of Christ probably is to be identified with Jesus' teaching to love one another (see also 1 Corinthians 9:21, where Paul speaks of himself as "not God's lawless one, but Christ's enlawed one").  Evidence if this comes from Galatians 5:14 which echoes Jesus' teaching in Matt 22:34-40/Mark 12:28-34.  The "loving one another" is explicitly cited by Jesus in John 13:34; 15:12, 17 as a command, which is of course related to the idea of a law.  As a side note, in John 13:34 this command is called "new" and Raymond Brown has argued that this is related to the New Covenant.  Furthermore, the new covenant passage in Jeremiah 33 speaks of a law being written on the heart.  This connection would bolster the hypothesis that "the law of Christ" in Paul is definitely a new covenant idea--an idea going back to the teachings of Jesus.  It is not an accident that much of Jesus' sermon on the mount has to do with one's heart and not merely outward appearance.  This provides a nice segue to my next topic.

The Word of Christ

In Colossians 3:16 Paul exhorts to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly".  It's possible that the "word of Christ" concerns that message about Christ, but a case can be made it refers to the Message of Jesus, that is, the word spoken and taught by Jesus.  Earlier in Colossians we read (3:12-14):

As God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience.  Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord had forgiven you, so you must forgive.  Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.

David Wenham has pointed out that this passage has similarities with Matthew 5:48/Luke 6:35, 36.  This is evidence that the "word of Christ" in 3:16 is related to Jesus' teachings.

Theological Upshot

The gambit to claim that Jesus' teachings are obsolete flies in the face of too much New Testament, that is, post-advent-of-New-Covenant material.  I find it interesting that what many find troublesome about Jesus' teachings in the Gospels are repeated by Paul in his letters!  This is a strong indication that evangelicals are getting Paul wrong.  

Refuting Christian attempts to discount Jesus' teachings using Matthew 28:16-20

Preamble
Christians employ two related strategies to discount Jesus' teaching.  I intend here to refute these attempts by looking at one particular verse in Matthew (28:20a).  That Christians discount Jesus' teachings sounds odd, but the reason for it has to do, in my opinion, with a misreading of Paul.  Since many evangelicals get Paul wrong and since this misreading of Paul conflicts with Jesus' teaching, then the teachings of Jesus must go.  It's as if Christians are given a choice between Jesus and Paul and they choose Paul.

Two Strategies to Discount Jesus' Teachings
Christians try to discount Jesus' teachings by either claiming (1) that Jesus' teaching were only for the Jews or (2) claiming that Jesus' teaching occurred before the New Covenant which commenced at his death, therefore Jesus' teachings are no longer operative.

(1) It is true that Jesus did teach mostly Jews (Matthew 10:5-6; 15:25; Romans 15:8).  However, this does not necessarily mean that his teaching does not apply to Gentiles.

(2) It is true that Jesus taught before he died, but this does not necessarily mean that his teaching is obsolete given the New Covenant.

Matthew 28:20a
This verse occurs in the passage where Jesus commissions the church (28:16-20):

Now the eleven went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus commanded them, and having seen him they worshiped him, but some doubted.  And Jesus approached and spoke to them saying: "All authority in heaven and on the earth has been given to me.  Go therefore and make disciples of the all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Teaching them to obey all the things I have commanded you.  And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age." [italics mine]

This passage refutes in one fell swoop the two strategies to undermine Jesus' teachings.  The first thing to notice is that Jesus directs his words here to "the eleven" so when he says "all the things I have commanded you" he is meaning the disciples.  It is to his disciples that Jesus teaches in the five great discourses in Matthew (also, summaries of Jesus' mission mention teaching throughout the gospel [4:23; 9:35; 11:1]):

1. Sermon on the Mount (5-7) see 5:1.  Notice that the mount harks back to Moses and Mount Sinai.  Could it be that his mount is the the New Covenant mount, meant to put Jesus' teaching in a new period?  In this regard, see Matthew 13:52.  The transfiguration (compare Moses [Exodus 34:29] who also appeared here!) and this scene also occur on mounts.  This sounds like "New Covenant" to me.  Even the language "all that I commanded you" harks back to Moses/Old Covenant and Exodus (see for example Exodus 7:2) which again implies New Covenant!
2. Missionary Discourse (10) see 10:1, 5.
3. Parabolic Discourse (13) see 13:10, 36.
4. Church discourse (18) see 18:1
5. End Times Discourse (24-25) see 24:1, 3.

It seems likely then that Jesus in 28:16-20 is alluding to his teaching to the disciples in the body of the gospel.  This is also brought out by the past tense of commanded.  It is unlikely that he is referring to teaching after his resurrection because Matthew does not indicate there was any!

This argues against the New Covenant ploy because Jesus is assuming that his teaching is relevant to the time of the New Covenant, since he said 28:16-20 after his death.

The word "nations" in 20:19 clearly indicates that Jesus teachings are to be passed on to non-Jews as well (Jews are included too since he does not say "Gentiles").  Also, the language of having authority harks back to Daniel 7:14 where mention is made of "peoples, nations, and languages" which also refers to non-Jews.

Theological Upshot
There is simply no good reason to claim that Jesus' teachings before his death are not relevant teachings for Gentiles.  If the teachings of Jesus do not jibe with what a Christian ought to believe maybe we need to reconsider what a Christian ought to believe.  If we had to pick between Jesus and Paul would it perhaps be better to pick Jesus?