A case can be made that Jesus is refering to his own faith in the story of the demonic boy and his father (Mark 9:14-29). A man brings his boy to Jesus and tells Jesus that his disciples were not strong enough to cast out the demon. Jesus responds: "O faithless generation, how long will I be with you, how long will I put up with you? Bring him to me." Why does Jesus say, "how long will I be with you?" A case can be made that Jesus is pointing out that he does have the power to cast out because he has the requisite faith. The flow from 9:22 to 9:23 bolsters this conclusion. The man asks Jesus "if you can do anything [ei ti dyne], help us [boetheson hemin]." Jesus replies by quoting the man's question: "if you are able [ei dyne]?" The logic seems to be that Jesus is annoyed at the thought that he might not be able. Jesus goes on to say that "all things are possible [panta dynata] for the one believing [to pisteuonti]." The focus seems to clearly be Jesus and his power, a power his pistis makes possible. Jesus also seems to allude to his own faith in Mark 11:22. After the cursing of the fig tree, Jesus seems to teach that similar things can happen if you "have faith in God," implying that the fig tree incident was on account of Jesus' faith in God.
Theological upshot
If Jesus believes, that belief is always active, it does things through the power of God. Jesus is the founder and perfecter of our faith because he walked the talk.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Jesus' Obedience in Mark 1:9-13
Jesus’ Obedience and Mark 1:9-13
I offer a hypothesis that the progression from baptism (1:9) to theophany or epiphany (1:10-11) to testing/temptation (1:12-13) is related to the obedience of Jesus. This hypothesis has the advantage of offering an explanation as to why the theophany follows the baptism and why the testing follows the theophany. I chose Mark because I believe my hypothesis is easier to make with Matthew for example because of Matthew 3:15 and a more full account of the temptation.
Why Theophany after Baptism?
A question seldom asked is why does the theophany follow the baptism? Is the baptism just the occasion for the theophany which could have occurred at any time? Mark 1:10-11 is as follows:
And immediately coming up out of the water he saw being open up the heavens and the Spirit as a dove descending towards [or “into”] him. And there was a voice out of the heavens, “You are the son of me, the beloved, with you I am well pleased.”
Of importance is that the descending Spirit occurs after the baptism; we are not led to think that the baptism in itself confers the Spirit. So, if the baptism in itself does not explain the theophany, then what does? The answer to that question depends on what the baptism meant.
The Importance of the Baptism
The importance of Jesus’ baptism can be seen by a few factors. First, Jesus’ public ministry only begins after the account of the baptism in all Gospels. In Mark, the gospel itself begins with John the Baptist and Mark 1:1 (“the beginning of the good news”) could be interpreted to refer to John the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism. This is further bolstered by what Peter says in Acts 10:37 (“You know the things having happened throughout all Judea, having begun from Galilee after the baptism which John preached”), especially if Mark was connected to Peter in a special way. Furthermore, we have a significant clue from Jesus himself in the controversy over his authority (Mark 11:27-33). There, we may infer that Jesus thought that John’s baptism was from God.
The last point segues to the actual meaning of John’s baptism. Josephus gives us an independent account of John’s baptism in Antiquities 18 §117:
For Herod killed him, although he was a good man and [simply] bade the Jews to join in baptism, provided that they were cultivating virtue and practicing justice toward one another and piety toward God. For [only] thus, in John’s opinion, would the baptism [he administered] indeed be acceptable [to God], namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as [it was taken for granted that] their souls had already been purified by justice.
This account jibes well with one of the horns of the dilemma Jesus forced on his opponents in Mark 11:31. Jesus seems to accuse his opponents for not believing John. The point is that John’s baptism signifies repentance and the willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus surely accuses his opponents elsewhere of exactly this fault, which is brought out even in the parable of the vineyard which immediately follows (Mark 12:1-12). It also jibes well with Mark 1:4 where John’s baptism is described as a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” The addition of “repentance” gives the impression that forgiveness is not the magical outcome of the baptism.
My thesis is that the theophany is in response to Jesus’ willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus had to come out to be baptized, not a trifling event and already shows the commitment of Jesus. The bugaboo is of course that Jesus did not sin, but that is of no real objection to the thesis. A comparison of Mark 1:5 (those from the Judean countryside and Jerusalem who confess their sins) with 1:9 (only Jesus with no mention of confession of sin) shows that Mark did not think Jesus’ sinlessness was an embarrassment to Jesus’ baptism. The reason is that the baptism was only the symbol of the obedient dedication Jesus demonstrated. Sure, Jesus was always obedient and always God’s Son, but it was only at the baptism that Jesus seems to have made the decision to follow God’s plans in a special, public way. I take it that this was the occasion for God’s pleasure expressed in Mark 1:11. Regardless of what “Son of God” also means, it at least means the obedient relationship a son has with his father, a relationship that is getting harder and harder for us in the individualistic West to understand.
Why Temptation after the Theophany?
This question is less controversial. Mark does not say why Jesus was tested/tempted nor does he relate any dialogue between Jesus and Satan. I take the connection to be related to Satan’s attempt to undermine Jesus’ obedient dedication. A similar dynamic is involved in Job. After (because!) Job is described as a righteous man (Job 1:1,8), Satan tests him because he doubts Jobs true character.
Theological Upshot
I think it is hard for most evangelicals to view Jesus as commending God’s favor because of something he does, however that is precisely what is happening according to my hypothesis. Commentators are fond to point out that Mark does not seem to offer Jesus as an example to follow in Mark 1:9-13. However, I do not think Mark related these incidents with no eye to discipleship. Jesus was obedient and expected others to be obedient. This is why his message is summarized in Mark 1:15 as “Repent, and believe in the Good News.”
I offer a hypothesis that the progression from baptism (1:9) to theophany or epiphany (1:10-11) to testing/temptation (1:12-13) is related to the obedience of Jesus. This hypothesis has the advantage of offering an explanation as to why the theophany follows the baptism and why the testing follows the theophany. I chose Mark because I believe my hypothesis is easier to make with Matthew for example because of Matthew 3:15 and a more full account of the temptation.
Why Theophany after Baptism?
A question seldom asked is why does the theophany follow the baptism? Is the baptism just the occasion for the theophany which could have occurred at any time? Mark 1:10-11 is as follows:
And immediately coming up out of the water he saw being open up the heavens and the Spirit as a dove descending towards [or “into”] him. And there was a voice out of the heavens, “You are the son of me, the beloved, with you I am well pleased.”
Of importance is that the descending Spirit occurs after the baptism; we are not led to think that the baptism in itself confers the Spirit. So, if the baptism in itself does not explain the theophany, then what does? The answer to that question depends on what the baptism meant.
The Importance of the Baptism
The importance of Jesus’ baptism can be seen by a few factors. First, Jesus’ public ministry only begins after the account of the baptism in all Gospels. In Mark, the gospel itself begins with John the Baptist and Mark 1:1 (“the beginning of the good news”) could be interpreted to refer to John the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism. This is further bolstered by what Peter says in Acts 10:37 (“You know the things having happened throughout all Judea, having begun from Galilee after the baptism which John preached”), especially if Mark was connected to Peter in a special way. Furthermore, we have a significant clue from Jesus himself in the controversy over his authority (Mark 11:27-33). There, we may infer that Jesus thought that John’s baptism was from God.
The last point segues to the actual meaning of John’s baptism. Josephus gives us an independent account of John’s baptism in Antiquities 18 §117:
For Herod killed him, although he was a good man and [simply] bade the Jews to join in baptism, provided that they were cultivating virtue and practicing justice toward one another and piety toward God. For [only] thus, in John’s opinion, would the baptism [he administered] indeed be acceptable [to God], namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as [it was taken for granted that] their souls had already been purified by justice.
This account jibes well with one of the horns of the dilemma Jesus forced on his opponents in Mark 11:31. Jesus seems to accuse his opponents for not believing John. The point is that John’s baptism signifies repentance and the willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus surely accuses his opponents elsewhere of exactly this fault, which is brought out even in the parable of the vineyard which immediately follows (Mark 12:1-12). It also jibes well with Mark 1:4 where John’s baptism is described as a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” The addition of “repentance” gives the impression that forgiveness is not the magical outcome of the baptism.
My thesis is that the theophany is in response to Jesus’ willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus had to come out to be baptized, not a trifling event and already shows the commitment of Jesus. The bugaboo is of course that Jesus did not sin, but that is of no real objection to the thesis. A comparison of Mark 1:5 (those from the Judean countryside and Jerusalem who confess their sins) with 1:9 (only Jesus with no mention of confession of sin) shows that Mark did not think Jesus’ sinlessness was an embarrassment to Jesus’ baptism. The reason is that the baptism was only the symbol of the obedient dedication Jesus demonstrated. Sure, Jesus was always obedient and always God’s Son, but it was only at the baptism that Jesus seems to have made the decision to follow God’s plans in a special, public way. I take it that this was the occasion for God’s pleasure expressed in Mark 1:11. Regardless of what “Son of God” also means, it at least means the obedient relationship a son has with his father, a relationship that is getting harder and harder for us in the individualistic West to understand.
Why Temptation after the Theophany?
This question is less controversial. Mark does not say why Jesus was tested/tempted nor does he relate any dialogue between Jesus and Satan. I take the connection to be related to Satan’s attempt to undermine Jesus’ obedient dedication. A similar dynamic is involved in Job. After (because!) Job is described as a righteous man (Job 1:1,8), Satan tests him because he doubts Jobs true character.
Theological Upshot
I think it is hard for most evangelicals to view Jesus as commending God’s favor because of something he does, however that is precisely what is happening according to my hypothesis. Commentators are fond to point out that Mark does not seem to offer Jesus as an example to follow in Mark 1:9-13. However, I do not think Mark related these incidents with no eye to discipleship. Jesus was obedient and expected others to be obedient. This is why his message is summarized in Mark 1:15 as “Repent, and believe in the Good News.”
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Israel in God's Plan
Israel in God’s Plan
In order to undercut the idolatry of nationalism in the United States many Christian thinkers have defended the proposition that God’s nationalistic agenda ended with Christ and that Christians are not to be conditioned by national or ethnic allegiances. I certainly agree that American Christians especially need to wake up and start treating Iraqi and Palestinian Christians for example, of which there are quite a few, on par with American Christians. In fact, American Christians need to start treating all people as those beloved of God. However, where does this put the Jewish question? Is God done with the nation of Israel/Jewish people. What is the theological significance of the State of Israel?
I want to argue that, based primarily on Romans 11, God’s national agenda for Israel has not ended.
Israel in the Teachings of Jesus
Israel certainly figures in the teachings of Jesus. Here are a few key texts:
Matthew 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent out commanding them saying: “Do not go among the Gentiles and do not enter a city of the Samaritans, but go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24: He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
These two passages find indirect support from a comment made by Paul in Romans 15:8: “For I say Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God, and to confirm the promises to the patriarchs.”
In Matthew 10:5, the fact that Jesus sends out twelve, a number that harkens back to the twelve tribes of Israel, is highly significant. Also, Paul’s use of the word “circumcision” in Romans 15:8 is clearly directed to physical Israel and not some sort of spiritual Israel.
An historical argument is that a lot of theological spade work was needed to be done by Paul in order for the Gentiles to have equal standing in the Church. This begs the question "why?"
Romans 11
I contend that according to Paul, Israel is not a non-factor in God’s plans after Jesus’ death and resurrection. There is a pattern that Paul hits a couple of times:
11:12b their failure → riches for the Gentiles » their fullness → greater riches (implied)
11:15 their rejection → reconciliation of the world » their acceptance → life from the dead
By “fullness” Paul is probably referring quantitatively because that is also the use in 11:25 as applied to the Gentile. In context, the “their” in “their fullness” and “their acceptance” clearly refers to that which is contrasted with a remnant in 11:7: “the rest were hardened.” In 11:16, Paul uses two metaphors which again make reference to the whole of Israel:
Firstfruits [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the lump [the whole of Israel]
Root [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the branches [the whole of Israel]
All of this leads to 11:26: “and so all Israel will be saved.” The controversy concerns what Paul means by “all Israel.” Some take this to refer to the church, the entire spiritual Israel (see Gal. 6:16). However, Paul has used the word “Israel” in this section (9-11) to this point to refer to national Israel and not to a spiritual Israel. Paul wants to prevent Gentile boasting and it would undercut that purpose to all of a sudden invoke a term that includes Gentiles. Of course, “all” is hyperbolic and probably does not refer to each and every Jew, but only to a representative whole.
Some have argued that Paul was not referring to a large-scale Jewish conversion at the end. I find their arguments unconvincing.
(1) In 11:26 it is argued that "and so" better means "thus, in this manner" and not "in the end". We can grant the point without destroying the temporal aspects. The manner in which Israel is saved is by being provoked by jealousy which doesn't happen until [the until in verse 11:25 rules out giving no temporal weight to "and so" in 11:26] the fullness of Gentiles comes in.
(2) It is also argued that the addition of the "now" in 11:31 rules out the future interpretation of 11:26. A look at 11:30-31 is helpful as it informs our interpretation of 11:26.
For just as you once disobeyed God, but now have received mercy by their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient for your mercy, that also they may [now] receive mercy.
The "now" in "they may now receive mercy" is (a) not in every manuscript and (b) if it is original it most likely is added only to highlight the eschatological imminence of this phase (so Dunn).
(3) It is also argued that Paul's quote of Isaiah 59:20-21 in 11:26-27a is referring to Jesus' past and not to the Parousia. However, the verb tense is future: "will come out of Zion the one delivering". Also, Paul's use of "delivering" elsewhere refers to eschatological events on par with the Parousia: Romans 7:24, 1 Thess. 1:10 (so Dunn again).
(4) Paul's use of Isaiah 27:9 in 11:27b ("when I take away the sins of them") is glossed by these arguers to be "whenever" in order to eliminate the temporal aspect. However, Isaiah 27:9 (from the "Isaiah Apocalyspe") was most likely chosen by Paul to highlight the eschatolocal timeframe and so is totally in-line with viewing 11:26-27a as the Parousia.
Once we establish that Paul is referring to a future Jewish salvation, we are now in a position to go back to 11:12b and 11:15 and took at how Jewish fullness and acceptance figure in God’s plan. Paul implies greater riches and “life from the dead.” That Paul is referring some sort of eschatological state is indicated by a comparison of 11:15 with 5:10: “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved [future, cf. 13:11] by his life.” It would seem then that future role of national Israel is to have eschatological significance.
Theological upshot
If national Israel is to have eschatological significance, this ought to inform Christian theology. The Jewish Philosopher Emil Fackenheim claims that the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel are “root events” in Jewish history. I think it behooves us Christians to take these root events seriously and learn from them. Also, we might have a clue as to why the imminence of the Kingdom sensed by Jesus, Paul, and the early church has taken so long to consummate. The Jews have yet to realize their God-given mandate, a mandate lived out by Jesus the Jew.
In order to undercut the idolatry of nationalism in the United States many Christian thinkers have defended the proposition that God’s nationalistic agenda ended with Christ and that Christians are not to be conditioned by national or ethnic allegiances. I certainly agree that American Christians especially need to wake up and start treating Iraqi and Palestinian Christians for example, of which there are quite a few, on par with American Christians. In fact, American Christians need to start treating all people as those beloved of God. However, where does this put the Jewish question? Is God done with the nation of Israel/Jewish people. What is the theological significance of the State of Israel?
I want to argue that, based primarily on Romans 11, God’s national agenda for Israel has not ended.
Israel in the Teachings of Jesus
Israel certainly figures in the teachings of Jesus. Here are a few key texts:
Matthew 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent out commanding them saying: “Do not go among the Gentiles and do not enter a city of the Samaritans, but go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24: He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
These two passages find indirect support from a comment made by Paul in Romans 15:8: “For I say Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God, and to confirm the promises to the patriarchs.”
In Matthew 10:5, the fact that Jesus sends out twelve, a number that harkens back to the twelve tribes of Israel, is highly significant. Also, Paul’s use of the word “circumcision” in Romans 15:8 is clearly directed to physical Israel and not some sort of spiritual Israel.
An historical argument is that a lot of theological spade work was needed to be done by Paul in order for the Gentiles to have equal standing in the Church. This begs the question "why?"
Romans 11
I contend that according to Paul, Israel is not a non-factor in God’s plans after Jesus’ death and resurrection. There is a pattern that Paul hits a couple of times:
11:12b their failure → riches for the Gentiles » their fullness → greater riches (implied)
11:15 their rejection → reconciliation of the world » their acceptance → life from the dead
By “fullness” Paul is probably referring quantitatively because that is also the use in 11:25 as applied to the Gentile. In context, the “their” in “their fullness” and “their acceptance” clearly refers to that which is contrasted with a remnant in 11:7: “the rest were hardened.” In 11:16, Paul uses two metaphors which again make reference to the whole of Israel:
Firstfruits [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the lump [the whole of Israel]
Root [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the branches [the whole of Israel]
All of this leads to 11:26: “and so all Israel will be saved.” The controversy concerns what Paul means by “all Israel.” Some take this to refer to the church, the entire spiritual Israel (see Gal. 6:16). However, Paul has used the word “Israel” in this section (9-11) to this point to refer to national Israel and not to a spiritual Israel. Paul wants to prevent Gentile boasting and it would undercut that purpose to all of a sudden invoke a term that includes Gentiles. Of course, “all” is hyperbolic and probably does not refer to each and every Jew, but only to a representative whole.
Some have argued that Paul was not referring to a large-scale Jewish conversion at the end. I find their arguments unconvincing.
(1) In 11:26 it is argued that "and so" better means "thus, in this manner" and not "in the end". We can grant the point without destroying the temporal aspects. The manner in which Israel is saved is by being provoked by jealousy which doesn't happen until [the until in verse 11:25 rules out giving no temporal weight to "and so" in 11:26] the fullness of Gentiles comes in.
(2) It is also argued that the addition of the "now" in 11:31 rules out the future interpretation of 11:26. A look at 11:30-31 is helpful as it informs our interpretation of 11:26.
For just as you once disobeyed God, but now have received mercy by their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient for your mercy, that also they may [now] receive mercy.
The "now" in "they may now receive mercy" is (a) not in every manuscript and (b) if it is original it most likely is added only to highlight the eschatological imminence of this phase (so Dunn).
(3) It is also argued that Paul's quote of Isaiah 59:20-21 in 11:26-27a is referring to Jesus' past and not to the Parousia. However, the verb tense is future: "will come out of Zion the one delivering". Also, Paul's use of "delivering" elsewhere refers to eschatological events on par with the Parousia: Romans 7:24, 1 Thess. 1:10 (so Dunn again).
(4) Paul's use of Isaiah 27:9 in 11:27b ("when I take away the sins of them") is glossed by these arguers to be "whenever" in order to eliminate the temporal aspect. However, Isaiah 27:9 (from the "Isaiah Apocalyspe") was most likely chosen by Paul to highlight the eschatolocal timeframe and so is totally in-line with viewing 11:26-27a as the Parousia.
Once we establish that Paul is referring to a future Jewish salvation, we are now in a position to go back to 11:12b and 11:15 and took at how Jewish fullness and acceptance figure in God’s plan. Paul implies greater riches and “life from the dead.” That Paul is referring some sort of eschatological state is indicated by a comparison of 11:15 with 5:10: “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved [future, cf. 13:11] by his life.” It would seem then that future role of national Israel is to have eschatological significance.
Theological upshot
If national Israel is to have eschatological significance, this ought to inform Christian theology. The Jewish Philosopher Emil Fackenheim claims that the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel are “root events” in Jewish history. I think it behooves us Christians to take these root events seriously and learn from them. Also, we might have a clue as to why the imminence of the Kingdom sensed by Jesus, Paul, and the early church has taken so long to consummate. The Jews have yet to realize their God-given mandate, a mandate lived out by Jesus the Jew.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
My take on the "Mosque" at Ground Zero
Is a Mosque (Cultural Center) at (near) Ground Zero a good idea? Let’s work with a worse-case scenario: let’s assume that Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mastermind behind the “Mosque”, wants to stick it to the West and that he wants the “Mosque” to be a symbol of Islamic supremacy (and Western weakness in letting it get built) and that he chose the name “Cordoba House” as purposely provocative. [Cordoba was the seat of the caliphate in what is now Spain after the Islamic invasion from North Africa; in Cordoba a Mosque was built over the site of a Cathedral.] Let’s assume that every Muslim that visits the “Mosque” wants the death of America and let’s assume that Islam itself, not just the brand practiced by the terrorist few, is inconsistent with Western values. [It is a well known philosophical axiom going back to at least Plato that relativism, and in this case religious relativism, is self-refuting. Not all religions can be as good as any other for the simple reason that there can be religions that claim exclusive truth.]
So what?
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York stated his case thus: “should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.” There is no question of rights, as Bloomberg’s response evidences, but there is a question of right. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director Abraham H. Foxman argued along these lines when he stated his opposition in terms of the sensitivity of the victims.
Again, so what?
We really can’t police other people’s decency. If Islam wants to be insensitive, let them, but it is also our right to point out insensitivity without being labeled bigots, a point made by Foxman. We are so blinded by our mistaken equation that tolerance = relativism that we feel strange critiquing other’s religion. I’m a Christian and I have no qualms critiquing my religion, and critiquing versions of Christianity I once held. If you look up “tolerance” in the dictionary you will find that it often pertains to views that are against one’s own.
I think the best response is to preserve toleration and if we really want to change Islam it will be by loving Muslims as ourselves. Show kindness to the Muslim that you come across in everyday situations. Your kindness might just be the key to stopping the tit-for-tat morality that fuels Islamic terrorism in the first place.
So what?
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York stated his case thus: “should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.” There is no question of rights, as Bloomberg’s response evidences, but there is a question of right. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director Abraham H. Foxman argued along these lines when he stated his opposition in terms of the sensitivity of the victims.
Again, so what?
We really can’t police other people’s decency. If Islam wants to be insensitive, let them, but it is also our right to point out insensitivity without being labeled bigots, a point made by Foxman. We are so blinded by our mistaken equation that tolerance = relativism that we feel strange critiquing other’s religion. I’m a Christian and I have no qualms critiquing my religion, and critiquing versions of Christianity I once held. If you look up “tolerance” in the dictionary you will find that it often pertains to views that are against one’s own.
I think the best response is to preserve toleration and if we really want to change Islam it will be by loving Muslims as ourselves. Show kindness to the Muslim that you come across in everyday situations. Your kindness might just be the key to stopping the tit-for-tat morality that fuels Islamic terrorism in the first place.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Love (Agape), Wrath and God
Agape: Self-sacrifice or Mutuality?
Ever since Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros), the Christian conception of love has been basically equated with self-sacrifice. This conception is rooted in a Christology in which Jesus gives himself over for those whom he loves. However, some have contested this conception and prefer to define love in terms of mutuality. This mutuality is in turn rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel Beyond Belief, with its emphasis on the obedience of Jesus, falls on the mutuality side. Jesus’ death on the cross was not just his self-giving for sinners but operated in a mutual relationship with the Father. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death with an eye on Jesus’ relationship to the Father. For example, in Gethsemane Jesus conceives of his death as God’s will and his submission to that fate as his willingness to obey. It’s clear that Jesus thought that his death played a part in God’s plan, a plan that included Jesus, for after Gethsemane Jesus states that he will be seated at the right hand of God. This is to say that Jesus’ death, while a self-sacrificial happening, cannot be solely conceived in terms of self-sacrifice but also in terms of mutuality. Of course, this isn’t to say that self-sacrifice is not a crucial component in mutuality, but it is to say that it is not the last word.
Agape and Wrath
Once one defines love (agape) as self-sacrifice, then one has a hard time reconciling God’s love and God’s wrath. If God is love and is always sacrificing his agenda for those whom he loves, then there is precious little room for wrath. However, if agape is viewed in terms of mutuality then wrath is the expression of a failure in mutuality.
Ever since Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros), the Christian conception of love has been basically equated with self-sacrifice. This conception is rooted in a Christology in which Jesus gives himself over for those whom he loves. However, some have contested this conception and prefer to define love in terms of mutuality. This mutuality is in turn rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel Beyond Belief, with its emphasis on the obedience of Jesus, falls on the mutuality side. Jesus’ death on the cross was not just his self-giving for sinners but operated in a mutual relationship with the Father. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death with an eye on Jesus’ relationship to the Father. For example, in Gethsemane Jesus conceives of his death as God’s will and his submission to that fate as his willingness to obey. It’s clear that Jesus thought that his death played a part in God’s plan, a plan that included Jesus, for after Gethsemane Jesus states that he will be seated at the right hand of God. This is to say that Jesus’ death, while a self-sacrificial happening, cannot be solely conceived in terms of self-sacrifice but also in terms of mutuality. Of course, this isn’t to say that self-sacrifice is not a crucial component in mutuality, but it is to say that it is not the last word.
Agape and Wrath
Once one defines love (agape) as self-sacrifice, then one has a hard time reconciling God’s love and God’s wrath. If God is love and is always sacrificing his agenda for those whom he loves, then there is precious little room for wrath. However, if agape is viewed in terms of mutuality then wrath is the expression of a failure in mutuality.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Pacifism and the Lamb in Revelation
Introduction
I want to question the pacifist reading of Revelation by analyzing the use of the “Lamb” Christology. I hope to show that the Lamb Christology is meant to provide an example for a pacifist Christian response in the here and now (the “Tribulation and Persecution” stage) but is not meant to apply to the divine violence we find at the end (the “Wrath and Judgment” stage).
The Pacifist Reading of Divine Violence in Revelation
The pacifist reading of the divine violence in Revelation is to claim that it is only figurative and that the only way Jesus confronts evil is by being “lamblike”. For example, advocates of the pacifist reading find it very significant that in 19:11-21, a passage where Jesus is viewed as Divine Warrior, there is no actual description of a battle. As another example, they will point out that in chapter five the lion motif is replace by the lamb (5:5—lion; 5:6—lamb).
I agree that the lamb motif is meant to provide Christians with an example to follow in the here and now. However, this example does not pertain to how God/Jesus deals with evil at the eschatological end. To show this I want to analyze the use of the term “lamb” in Revelation.
The Use of “Lamb” in Revelation
There are 28 references to Jesus as a lamb in Revelation (a 29th involves a pseudo-Christ=13:11): 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4(x2), 10; 15:3; 17:14(x2); 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3. The distribution of this term in the structure of Revelation is highly significant. In part one of my blog, I claimed that there are basically three time periods in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution
2. Wrath and Judgment
3. Salvation
I argue that “lamb” is used mainly in stage one and is largely absent in stage two. This is a significant indication that the divine violence we find in stage two is not easily swept under the pacifist rug. This makes sense. Christians are to be pacifists in the here and now precisely because evil will be dealt with by divine powers at the end (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19). If this is the logic of Revelation, and a strong argument can be made that it is, then the pacifist reading is in trouble.
There are heavenly worship scenes in Revelation (4:1-5:14, 7:1-17; 10:1-11:14; 14:1-20; 15:1-4; 19:1-10, 21:9-22:5). Of the 28 references to the lamb, 22 appear in those sections. I claim that those scenes are meant to remind persecuted Christians of heavenly realities and encourage them to imitate the Lamb in the face of evil powers. Significantly, in those passages directly related to wrath (the trumpets, bowls and 19:11-21:8) there are zero references to the Lamb. I think the reason for this is obvious, in the wrath scenes Christians are not given a model of imitation. Rather, they are only given a vision of justice to comfort them in their suffering.
Theological Upshot
I think Revelation gives Pacifists what they really want: human pacifism; but it also gives non-pacifists what they really want: real justice. I believe that when pacifism turns into idolatry bad consequences can follow just as much as anything idolatrous.
I want to question the pacifist reading of Revelation by analyzing the use of the “Lamb” Christology. I hope to show that the Lamb Christology is meant to provide an example for a pacifist Christian response in the here and now (the “Tribulation and Persecution” stage) but is not meant to apply to the divine violence we find at the end (the “Wrath and Judgment” stage).
The Pacifist Reading of Divine Violence in Revelation
The pacifist reading of the divine violence in Revelation is to claim that it is only figurative and that the only way Jesus confronts evil is by being “lamblike”. For example, advocates of the pacifist reading find it very significant that in 19:11-21, a passage where Jesus is viewed as Divine Warrior, there is no actual description of a battle. As another example, they will point out that in chapter five the lion motif is replace by the lamb (5:5—lion; 5:6—lamb).
I agree that the lamb motif is meant to provide Christians with an example to follow in the here and now. However, this example does not pertain to how God/Jesus deals with evil at the eschatological end. To show this I want to analyze the use of the term “lamb” in Revelation.
The Use of “Lamb” in Revelation
There are 28 references to Jesus as a lamb in Revelation (a 29th involves a pseudo-Christ=13:11): 5:6, 8, 12, 13; 6:1, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8, 11; 14:1, 4(x2), 10; 15:3; 17:14(x2); 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3. The distribution of this term in the structure of Revelation is highly significant. In part one of my blog, I claimed that there are basically three time periods in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution
2. Wrath and Judgment
3. Salvation
I argue that “lamb” is used mainly in stage one and is largely absent in stage two. This is a significant indication that the divine violence we find in stage two is not easily swept under the pacifist rug. This makes sense. Christians are to be pacifists in the here and now precisely because evil will be dealt with by divine powers at the end (Deuteronomy 32:35, Romans 12:19). If this is the logic of Revelation, and a strong argument can be made that it is, then the pacifist reading is in trouble.
There are heavenly worship scenes in Revelation (4:1-5:14, 7:1-17; 10:1-11:14; 14:1-20; 15:1-4; 19:1-10, 21:9-22:5). Of the 28 references to the lamb, 22 appear in those sections. I claim that those scenes are meant to remind persecuted Christians of heavenly realities and encourage them to imitate the Lamb in the face of evil powers. Significantly, in those passages directly related to wrath (the trumpets, bowls and 19:11-21:8) there are zero references to the Lamb. I think the reason for this is obvious, in the wrath scenes Christians are not given a model of imitation. Rather, they are only given a vision of justice to comfort them in their suffering.
Theological Upshot
I think Revelation gives Pacifists what they really want: human pacifism; but it also gives non-pacifists what they really want: real justice. I believe that when pacifism turns into idolatry bad consequences can follow just as much as anything idolatrous.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Jesus the Divine Warrior: Violence in the NT
Introduction
Critics of religion will point out that religion, Christianity included, fosters violence. It behooves Christians to be prepared to answer those critics and persons from other faiths who will defend their violence by pointing out the violence in the Bible, even if this gambit commits the fallacy of tu quoque. I don’t think Christians can easily make some sort of Old Testament/New Testament distinction, for while it is true that in the Old Testament God is often viewed as a Divine Warrior, it is equally true that in the New Testament (Revelation) Jesus is also viewed as a Divine Warrior. I intend to assess the theological significance of the divine violence we find in Revelation. I intend to show that the divine violence in Revelation is of a specific sort and in no way justifies human violence in the here and now.
The Basic Timeline in Revelation
Without argument I claim that there are three basic time divisions in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution (directed against Christians but also includes wrath against the persecutors, since sin tends to bring about its own punishment)
2. Wrath and Judgment (directed against the persecutors of the Christians)
3. Eschatological Salvation (for the persecuted Christians)
I take it that certain passages rehearse the same basic storyline:
1:9-3:22 (7 letters)
4:1-8:5 (7 seals)
8:6-11:19 (7 trumpets)
12:1-15:4
15:5-16:21 (7 bowls)
19:11-21:8
7 Letters (1:9-3:22)
This section ties to 19:11-21:8 in a sort of promise-fulfillment relationship. In the initial vision John sees Jesus with a sharp two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. Some interpreters take this sword to represent “words” since it comes from the mouth and so the violent image would be only figurative. However, it has also been noted that a short Roman sword resembled a tongue. Furthermore, this tongue/sword functions elsewhere in Revelation in equally violent imagery:
2:16: repent therefore, but if not I will come to you soon and war with them by the sword of my mouth.
19:15 and out of his mouth goes forth a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.
19:21 and the rest were killed with the sword of the one sitting on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth.
Since the letters are tied to 19:11-21:8, it is of importance that the latter section concerns Jesus’ return and his armies and does not involve human violence at all.
Another violent image in the letters involves the promise to the conquerors in the church of Thyatira that they will rule the nations with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken (2:27). However, this scene again links up with 19:11-21:8 and there Jesus rules (shepherds) the nations with a rod of iron (19:15). It follows that when the conquerors rule the nations it refers to the time after Jesus’ return and not to the here and now (see 20:4-6).
Finally, and again in the letter to Thyatira, we read that Jesus will kill the “children” (i.e. followers) of the false prophetess Jezebel if they do not repent (2:23). This graphic image probably pertains to the Last Judgment and we are not told how Jesus will kill or how Jesus is involved in the process. The image is probably meant to foster repentance and there is really nothing unusual that the unrighteous suffer death at the Last Judgment.
7 Seals
The seven seals appear on a scroll with writing on the inside and on the back; some scholars take these to be the trumpet and bowl plagues respectively. It should not be forgotten that the seals are opened by Jesus. However, this may only mean that the plagues of the seals are under divine authorization even if they are not divinely willed. This is likely given that the divine passive (“it was given”) occurs throughout the seals and considering that the agents in the seals are most likely evil themselves. For example, in 6:8 Death and Hades are mentioned but these same two appear later to be demonic actors (20:14). Therefore, the violence of the seals need not be attributed to divine action, even if they further God’s plans.
Those plans seem to involve judgment for the persecution of Christians. In the fifth seal, the martyrs ask when God will judge and avenge their blood. The context seems to show that the plagues are on account of the persecution of the Christians. The sixth seal, the great day of divine wrath, follows this prayer in the fifth seal and therefore suggests that the great end-time battle is in response to the suffering of Christians. This also suggests that there are two stages: tribulation and persecution (the “short time”) involving the first five seals and wrath and judgment involving the sixth seal.
The seventh seal introduces the seven angels who are given seven trumpets. These angels could also be the angels involved in the bowl plagues and that they stand before God again highlights that the trumpets and bowls are under God’s authorization, even if he is not implicated in the actual violence.
7 Trumpets
The seven trumpets are introduced by an angelic symbolic event that shows their intent. In 8:3-5, an angel (who stands at the altar before the throne—which proves this angel is not demonic) takes a censer filled with the prayers of the saints (see the fifth seal) and fills it with fire and throws it on the earth. The implication is that the trumpet plagues are in response to the suffering of Christians.
The fifth trumpet features the violence of the locusts. That the divine passive occurs in this section (9:1,3,5) and that the angel ruling the locusts appears to be demonic, shows that the violence here is not God’s doing but under his authority. God allows evil to punish itself. The sixth trumpet also appears to involve demonic agents (the four angels) but they are summoned by a voice from the altar before God who tells the angel with the sixth trumpet to release the four demonic angels.
The seventh trumpet features the 24 elders who sing that God will destroy the destroyers of the earth. However, we are not told how God would do this.
12:1-15:4
The divine passive (“it was given”) appears in this section too (13:5, 7, 14, 15) which again shows that the violence is not willed by God but is perpetrated by evil agents under God’s authority.
Many scholars take the 144,000 in chapter 14 to be a militaristic image, however, we are not told how they fight and they are no longer in the here and now as they probably have already been martyred. On this score, this section has a passage that best encapsulates the attitude that Christians ought to have in the face of violence (13:10): if anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he goes; if anyone is to be killed by the sword, he by the sword is to be killed.
This section includes some passages that are not kind to the unrighteous. They will:
• Drink of the wine of God’s wrath (14:10)
• Tormented by fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the lamb (14:10)
The unrighteous will be gathered and thrown into the winepress of the wrath of God. This violence is done by angels and is at the final Judgment.
7 Bowls
The bowls evoke the bowl which contains the prayers of the saints (5:8) and the smoke in the opening scene also evokes the prayers of the saints (8:2-5). This would indicate that the bowls are in response to the suffering of the saints. Again, the bowls are commissioned by a voice from the temple and explicitly represent the wrath of God. The reason for the bowls is also explicitly stated: because they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets (16:6). None of the violence in this section is said to implicate God.
19:11-21:8
This section contains the image of Jesus as a Divine Warrior. However, the timing of the violence is at the end of time and does not involve humans in the here and now. Jesus is accompanied by an army but this army is explicitly said to be in heaven.
In 19:13, we are told that Jesus’ is wearing a garment dipped in blood. This evokes Isaiah 63:3 where God’s garments are stained by the blood of his enemies. Some scholars believe that the blood here refers to Jesus’ crucifixion because Jesus’ garment is already stained before he enters battle (even though the winepress imagery is used two verses later!). More likely is the theory that the blood refers to the martyrdom of his followers and Jesus’ martyrdom would be included in this. In this way, the blood would be a reason why Jesus is warring with the enemies.
Conclusion
The divine violence in Revelation is in response to the violence committed against Christians. This is a clue as to the purpose of the book of Revelation. Christians are not to resort to violence in the here and now because vengeance will be had by divine powers at the end. Also, significantly, most of the divine violence is attributed to angels and not to God directly. Interestingly, Jesus’ reference to violence in the gospels follows this pattern. Violence is relegated to the end (final judgment) and is usually attributed to angels (see Matthew 8:11-12//Luke 13:28-29; Mt. 24:45-51//Lk. 12:42-46; Mt. 25:14-30//Lk. 19:11-27; Mt. 22:2-14//Lk. 14:16-24; Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 7:19).
Critics of religion will point out that religion, Christianity included, fosters violence. It behooves Christians to be prepared to answer those critics and persons from other faiths who will defend their violence by pointing out the violence in the Bible, even if this gambit commits the fallacy of tu quoque. I don’t think Christians can easily make some sort of Old Testament/New Testament distinction, for while it is true that in the Old Testament God is often viewed as a Divine Warrior, it is equally true that in the New Testament (Revelation) Jesus is also viewed as a Divine Warrior. I intend to assess the theological significance of the divine violence we find in Revelation. I intend to show that the divine violence in Revelation is of a specific sort and in no way justifies human violence in the here and now.
The Basic Timeline in Revelation
Without argument I claim that there are three basic time divisions in Revelation:
1. Tribulation and Persecution (directed against Christians but also includes wrath against the persecutors, since sin tends to bring about its own punishment)
2. Wrath and Judgment (directed against the persecutors of the Christians)
3. Eschatological Salvation (for the persecuted Christians)
I take it that certain passages rehearse the same basic storyline:
1:9-3:22 (7 letters)
4:1-8:5 (7 seals)
8:6-11:19 (7 trumpets)
12:1-15:4
15:5-16:21 (7 bowls)
19:11-21:8
7 Letters (1:9-3:22)
This section ties to 19:11-21:8 in a sort of promise-fulfillment relationship. In the initial vision John sees Jesus with a sharp two-edged sword coming out of his mouth. Some interpreters take this sword to represent “words” since it comes from the mouth and so the violent image would be only figurative. However, it has also been noted that a short Roman sword resembled a tongue. Furthermore, this tongue/sword functions elsewhere in Revelation in equally violent imagery:
2:16: repent therefore, but if not I will come to you soon and war with them by the sword of my mouth.
19:15 and out of his mouth goes forth a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations.
19:21 and the rest were killed with the sword of the one sitting on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth.
Since the letters are tied to 19:11-21:8, it is of importance that the latter section concerns Jesus’ return and his armies and does not involve human violence at all.
Another violent image in the letters involves the promise to the conquerors in the church of Thyatira that they will rule the nations with an iron rod, as vessels of pottery are broken (2:27). However, this scene again links up with 19:11-21:8 and there Jesus rules (shepherds) the nations with a rod of iron (19:15). It follows that when the conquerors rule the nations it refers to the time after Jesus’ return and not to the here and now (see 20:4-6).
Finally, and again in the letter to Thyatira, we read that Jesus will kill the “children” (i.e. followers) of the false prophetess Jezebel if they do not repent (2:23). This graphic image probably pertains to the Last Judgment and we are not told how Jesus will kill or how Jesus is involved in the process. The image is probably meant to foster repentance and there is really nothing unusual that the unrighteous suffer death at the Last Judgment.
7 Seals
The seven seals appear on a scroll with writing on the inside and on the back; some scholars take these to be the trumpet and bowl plagues respectively. It should not be forgotten that the seals are opened by Jesus. However, this may only mean that the plagues of the seals are under divine authorization even if they are not divinely willed. This is likely given that the divine passive (“it was given”) occurs throughout the seals and considering that the agents in the seals are most likely evil themselves. For example, in 6:8 Death and Hades are mentioned but these same two appear later to be demonic actors (20:14). Therefore, the violence of the seals need not be attributed to divine action, even if they further God’s plans.
Those plans seem to involve judgment for the persecution of Christians. In the fifth seal, the martyrs ask when God will judge and avenge their blood. The context seems to show that the plagues are on account of the persecution of the Christians. The sixth seal, the great day of divine wrath, follows this prayer in the fifth seal and therefore suggests that the great end-time battle is in response to the suffering of Christians. This also suggests that there are two stages: tribulation and persecution (the “short time”) involving the first five seals and wrath and judgment involving the sixth seal.
The seventh seal introduces the seven angels who are given seven trumpets. These angels could also be the angels involved in the bowl plagues and that they stand before God again highlights that the trumpets and bowls are under God’s authorization, even if he is not implicated in the actual violence.
7 Trumpets
The seven trumpets are introduced by an angelic symbolic event that shows their intent. In 8:3-5, an angel (who stands at the altar before the throne—which proves this angel is not demonic) takes a censer filled with the prayers of the saints (see the fifth seal) and fills it with fire and throws it on the earth. The implication is that the trumpet plagues are in response to the suffering of Christians.
The fifth trumpet features the violence of the locusts. That the divine passive occurs in this section (9:1,3,5) and that the angel ruling the locusts appears to be demonic, shows that the violence here is not God’s doing but under his authority. God allows evil to punish itself. The sixth trumpet also appears to involve demonic agents (the four angels) but they are summoned by a voice from the altar before God who tells the angel with the sixth trumpet to release the four demonic angels.
The seventh trumpet features the 24 elders who sing that God will destroy the destroyers of the earth. However, we are not told how God would do this.
12:1-15:4
The divine passive (“it was given”) appears in this section too (13:5, 7, 14, 15) which again shows that the violence is not willed by God but is perpetrated by evil agents under God’s authority.
Many scholars take the 144,000 in chapter 14 to be a militaristic image, however, we are not told how they fight and they are no longer in the here and now as they probably have already been martyred. On this score, this section has a passage that best encapsulates the attitude that Christians ought to have in the face of violence (13:10): if anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he goes; if anyone is to be killed by the sword, he by the sword is to be killed.
This section includes some passages that are not kind to the unrighteous. They will:
• Drink of the wine of God’s wrath (14:10)
• Tormented by fire and sulfur before the holy angels and before the lamb (14:10)
The unrighteous will be gathered and thrown into the winepress of the wrath of God. This violence is done by angels and is at the final Judgment.
7 Bowls
The bowls evoke the bowl which contains the prayers of the saints (5:8) and the smoke in the opening scene also evokes the prayers of the saints (8:2-5). This would indicate that the bowls are in response to the suffering of the saints. Again, the bowls are commissioned by a voice from the temple and explicitly represent the wrath of God. The reason for the bowls is also explicitly stated: because they have shed the blood of the saints and prophets (16:6). None of the violence in this section is said to implicate God.
19:11-21:8
This section contains the image of Jesus as a Divine Warrior. However, the timing of the violence is at the end of time and does not involve humans in the here and now. Jesus is accompanied by an army but this army is explicitly said to be in heaven.
In 19:13, we are told that Jesus’ is wearing a garment dipped in blood. This evokes Isaiah 63:3 where God’s garments are stained by the blood of his enemies. Some scholars believe that the blood here refers to Jesus’ crucifixion because Jesus’ garment is already stained before he enters battle (even though the winepress imagery is used two verses later!). More likely is the theory that the blood refers to the martyrdom of his followers and Jesus’ martyrdom would be included in this. In this way, the blood would be a reason why Jesus is warring with the enemies.
Conclusion
The divine violence in Revelation is in response to the violence committed against Christians. This is a clue as to the purpose of the book of Revelation. Christians are not to resort to violence in the here and now because vengeance will be had by divine powers at the end. Also, significantly, most of the divine violence is attributed to angels and not to God directly. Interestingly, Jesus’ reference to violence in the gospels follows this pattern. Violence is relegated to the end (final judgment) and is usually attributed to angels (see Matthew 8:11-12//Luke 13:28-29; Mt. 24:45-51//Lk. 12:42-46; Mt. 25:14-30//Lk. 19:11-27; Mt. 22:2-14//Lk. 14:16-24; Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43, 47-50; 7:19).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
