God is (unrequited) love

To experience unrequited love is to experience the Divine.

Preamble

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

God and Unrequited Love

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

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

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

Does God experience Unrequited Love?

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

But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit...

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

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

Lessons

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

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

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

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

Resurrection as Salvation in Ephesians

Preamble

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

Ephesians 2:1-10

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

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

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

Jesus' Obedience as key to his Resurrection/Exaltation

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

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

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

Our Faith/Belief in Ephesians

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

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

More Indications of the Importance of Resurrection/Exaltation in Ephesians

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

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

Conclusion

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

John 3:36 and the word apeithon

Preamble

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

The Verse: 3:36

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

The Word: apeithon

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

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

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

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

Other uses of apeithon in the New Testament

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

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

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

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

NIV and John 3:36

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

Theological Upshot

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

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

Preamble (!)

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

Works of Law

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

Galatians 3:6-14

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 9:27-10:5

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

The Importance of the Resurrection in Colossians

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts on Jesus' death in Colossians

Colossians 1:20 and 1:22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

Ephesians 3:12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ephesian 2:8

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

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

Answer to Objection

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

Food For Thought

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