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.