Review of Greg Boyd's Crucifixion of the Warrior God Vol. 2

The Cruciform Thesis

In volume two, Boyd uses the cruciform hermeneutic developed in volume one to interpret the violence in the Old Testament.  He presents and defends four principles that comprise his thesis:

1. Principle of Cruciform Accommodation
2. Principle of Redemptive Withdrawal
3. Principle of Cosmic Conflict
4. Principle of Semiautonomous Power

Boyd's overall goal is to argue that God never commits any violence and his principles are ways he can both claim this while also agreeing that scripture is God-breathed.  His main thesis is that the violence in the Old Testament is only a literary mask that God allows himself to be strapped with in the same way as God's historical mask was a dying criminal on the cross.  God as guilty perpetrator of violence versus God as guilty victim of violence.

Cruciform Accommodation

Boyd contends that in the Old Testament God acted like a missionary that couldn't just will away certain barbaric practises of the natives.  He had to accommodate to the society he found.  As I stated in the volume 1 review, my main problem with Boyd's principle is that he hasn't argued well enough that the  New Testament doesn't accommodate either.  I also questioned the crucicentric lens.  Boyd thinks that the cross must be the lens we use to weed out the indirect revelation from the direct revelation.  I don't understand this because Boyd seems to speak out of both sides of his mouth.  For example, on page 783 he says that the cross and the resurrection are two sides of one event and quoting Barth that God's "No" is never spoken without his "Yes".  He also says that Jesus' whole life is a manifestation of the cross.  However, if Jesus' whole career is important, then why narrow the lens to the cross? 

Redemptive Withdrawal

My main critique of this principle and of this volume in general is that it undermines Boyd's crucicentric lens if by this we mean that the cross represents self-sacrificial, agape-centered love, which is certainly how Boyd glosses it.  Boyd's principle is that God punishes merely by withdrawing his providential care.  I claim that this means that God is no longer self-sacrificing; and this means that love ought not be reducible to mere self-sacrifice.  There are a few instances where Boyd admits that love is no longer self-sacrificing:

• p784: ...God sees that continuing to shower them with mercy would only serve them in their sin and thus become more deeply entrenched in it.
• p.788: ...there can come a point where God sees his merciful protection is being counterproductive...
• p.1136: ...the alternative of continuing to protect people from the consequences of their decisions would result in them sinking even further into evil.

If God allows people to destroy themselves, I can't see how this could be defined as "self-sacrifice" even if God grieves all the while and even if it is likened to "divine euthanasia" (p.789). 

Boyd makes much of the difference between doing and allowing and the dual-speech pattern.  He claims that the Old Testament sometimes speaks as if God is doing something when really he is just withdrawing and letting other forces do the acting.  He says that all the violence we see in the Old Testament is mere permitting. 

I have no real problem with the concept of withdrawal but it just isn't self-sacrifice anymore and is better accounted for in the mutuality model of love.  Boyd even highlights that when God withdraws he withdraws his presence.  However, God's presence is the ideal and identical with the mutuality model of love.  The reason why God withdraws is precisely because the mutuality of love is being contravened.  

One of the problems with the claim that God ought not to be viewed as doing violence because there is an ambiguous duality in the language is that there probably is a duality in the language when God is seen as doing anything.  In the words of Brueggemann Boyd quotes: "we are not told what Yahweh did or how it was done" (p.993).  God is transcendent and so his action in the world may be a bit opaque.  His promise to increase descendents to the patriarchs probably still required human participation.  Boyd admits that God could be working behind the scenes even when he withdraws but this is probably how he works in blessing too (p.830n.39; p.1000n.82).

The only emotion Boyd seems comfortable pinning to God is grieving because God is always self-sacrificing.  This explains why Boyd always puts "wrath" in quotes.  God's wrath is nothing more that what God's love looks like when people resist it (p.796).  But on the mutuality model of love, wrath becomes easy to accommodate.  Throughout the Old Testament God is seen as a jealous God (Ex 20:5, 34:14; Deut. 6:14-15, 4:22, 24, 5:9, 32:21-22; Josh. 24:19; Nah. 1:2-3; Ezek 36:5-6; Zeph 3:8; Ps 79:5; Num 5:14, 30).  On the self-sacrificial model this would have to be an indirect revelation, but on the mutuality model it is a direct revelation.  God really is angry and wrathful when he is not given his due.

Cosmic Conflict

I have no issues with Boyd's warfare worldview, it is what scripture demands.  I think his application of this principle outruns the evidence at times for I'm not entirely happy with some of his accounts (flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) but overall he has some very insightful ideas.

Semiautonomous Power

This principle gets around some violence in the Old Testament because by giving persons power, God let them have some say-so in how that power is used.  There are cases that Boyd claims where that power was abused and were not cases of God acting violently.  

My only comment on this principle is that Boyd gives an excellent account of Jesus' obedience. and I wish he had made that the centerpiece of his thesis and not the cross because the cross is too laden with bad theology in my humble opinion.  I take it to be Jesus' obedience (or his love for the Father) that is the engine of the atonement.

Conclusion

Boyd's work is very thought provoking and I would have liked a deeper treatment of the meaning of "God-Breathed".  I think the Church still needs to do a lot of work in thinking about Scripture/Canon/inspiration/God breathed etc.  For Boyd, there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between saying the Old Testament is God breathed but very often false and just saying it is very often false. 

 
  

Review of Greg Boyd's Crucifixion of the Warrior God Vol. 1

Purpose of the Crucifixion of the Warrior God

Greg Boyd wants to reconcile the Old Testament's violent portrayal of God as smiting his enemies with the New Testament's portrayal of Jesus as loving his enemies, while at the same time recognizing that the Old Testament is "God-breathed".

In the first volume Boyd presents his Cruciform Hermeneutic as the lens through which we should interpret the Old Testament including all the violent passages.  In the second volume, Boyd applies this hermeneutic; the results form his Cruciform Thesis, which I will discuss in another blog.

Cruciform Hermeneutic

Boyd begins with the claim that the true character of God is fully revealed in the crucified Christ.  According to Boyd, the God we find portrayed in the Old Testament accommodates the situation he finds Israel in so lets himself be portrayed as violent.  However, Christ is the culmination of all revelations of God and so we should interpret all scripture through the lens of Christ.  Boyd goes further because he thinks just having a Christological hermeneutic is too ambiguous, so he puts forward the cross as the heart of the heart, the absolute true lens through which to interpret scripture.

Two Fundamental problems with Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic

I would register two fundamental and related issues with Boyd's project.  First, why restrict the hermeneutic lens to the cross and second, why define "love" as self-sacrifice?

Why Restrict the Hermeneutic Lens to the Cross?

First of all, work needs to be done to show that all of scripture needs to be interpreted through a Christocentric lens, let alone a crucicentric lens.  One of Boyd's arguments comes across to me having the following form:

1. God accommodates (in the Old Testament)
2. Jesus is God
3. Therefore Jesus is the non-accommodating God

Paul Eddy brought up this point in a Q and A devoted to Boyd's book.  He pointed out that the Sitz im Leben of the first century was not all that different from that in Old Testament times.  So, if God accommodates, why couldn't Jesus?  I would add a couple of verses from John to highlight this point.  In John 16:12, Jesus says he has more to say but the disciples "cannot bear" it now and in 16:25 he says that even though now he speaks in figures of speech the day will come when he will speak plainly.  Most commentators think that the "day' in the latter refers to either after the resurrection or via the Spirit.  Both these verses hint that Jesus was accommodating his speech.  I'm being a bit facetious here, but what if one of the issues the disciples couldn't bear was "just war theory" for the time when certain Christians would gain political power?

This is an avenue I myself wouldn't go down but there are interpreters that place some stock in the context of Jesus's audience.  They would say that Jesus said different things to his disciples than he did to the common crowds.  Could it be that some of his more strident demands were only meant for the disciples?  It could be pointed out that Jesus did say things to individuals in New Testament that are not meant to be normative.  Also, did Jesus's political situation help influence his teaching?  Again, I wouldn't go down this route for I think the Church has interpreted Jesus's teaching to his disciples as pertaining to all the Church, that is, we are all disciples.  Likewise, in some sense the particular political situation of the early Church does not significantly affect the applicability of Jesus's teaching thorough out Church history. .

One of Boyd's arguments is that the New Testament writers used a Christocentric hermeneutic.  It is interesting that Boyd make the apologetic point that the fact that the Old Testament is fulfilled "so awkwardly" is many cases proves that the Gospel portraits of Jesus are not fabrications.  I agree, but this is an admission that the Christological lens may be a bit tricky.  For example, there is a respected pre-Constantine Christological interpretation of Genesis 18 in which the three vistitors to Abraham were the Son of Man and two angelic associates.  Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen are a few who held this view.  This Christological interpretation later vied with a Trinitarian interpretation in which which the three visitors were the three members of the Trinity.  So either the Son of Man was associated with the desolation angels (Christological) who destroyed Sodom (Genesis 19) or he was one of them (Trinitarian).

What is particularly pertinent about the destruction of Sodom is that Jesus mentions it in the Gospels.  In Luke 17:29 Jesus says that that it rained fire and brimstone from heaven.  That Jesus means from the realm of God by "heaven" is clear but also backed up linguistically because every instance of "heaven" in Luke with the preposition "from" has this realm in mind and not merely "sky" (see especially Lk. 9:54, 21:11, and 22:43 which use the same "from"-preposition).  Not coincidentally, the book of Revelation, which I will discuss in depth later, alludes to the destruction of Sodom with it use of the phrase "fire and brimstone".  The important point is that Jesus did not seem to correct the equation that the judgment on Sodom was in some sense "from" God.

But let's assume the revelation of Jesus is "special" perhaps using the idea of the "fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4, cf. Rom 5:6).  Perhaps God chose this time precisely because Israel's political situation was what it was.  However, the question remains why narrow the Christological lens with the cruciform lens?  I want to now question Boyd's arguments for the cruciform lens.  After all, preexistence, incarnation, earthly teaching/miracles, resurrection, ascension to right hand, parousia and final rule are all important aspects of Jesus in the New Testament.  The most quoted Old Testament verse in the New Testament, Psalm 110:1, has Jesus's enthronement in view and not the cross.

One argument Boyd gives is that a Christological lens is too ambiguous.  My main response to this is simple, the cross itself is ambiguous, and this is admitted by Boyd when he argues against the penal substitution view of the atonement which also elevates the cross.  I would claim that Boyd's emphasis on the cross is a tactical error precisely because much of his audience (evangelical Christians) will hear his mantra of "cross, cross, cross", as "penal substitution, penal substitution, penal substitution".  I believe it would have been better to have emphasized Jesus's obedience (Rom. 5, Phil. 2) or to use a broader concept, Jesus's love. This way evangelicals would be faced with a concept that demands an imitative response.  Even Boyd is clear that what he means by the "cross" goes beyond merely the crucifixion. For Boyd, the cross expresses everything that Jesus was about from the incarnation to his ascension.

Boyd marshals a few argument for the centrality of the cross.  First, the Gospels center on the cross.  True, but the Gospels also include the resurrection.  Furthermore, Boyd notes the predictions of Jesus death in the Gospels, but those often include the resurrection.  Famously, the set of three predictions in the Gospels (Mt. 16:21, 17:22-23, 20:18-19 and par.--note how Boyd cuts short these predictions on p. 175) all also refer to the resurrection.  Furthermore, the cross in not the sole element in the prediction; they also highlight suffering in the form of mocking, arrogant mistreatment, spitting, and scourging.

Boyd also claims that the cross is the central message of scripture and quotes Luke 24 where Jesus explains to the two followers on the way to Emmaus from Scripture that the Messiah should suffer before entering his glory (v. 26).  Note that his verse ends with the ascension/enthronement.  Also, later in that chapter, Jesus explains to the disciples from Scripture that the Messiah must suffer and to rise from the dead (vs. 45-46--quoted by Boyd himself pp. 43, 176). Boyd quotes 1 Corinthians 15:3: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures".  But that verse continues: "...and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with Scripture."  Boyd quotes Paul's preaching to Agrippa from Acts 26:22-23 that he is "saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen--that the Messiah would suffer..."  Guess what, the verse continues: "...and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles."  Boyd quotes Peter in Acts when he says "God fulfilled what he had foretold through the prophets, saying that his Messiah would suffer" (3:18).  But Peter's sermons are replete with mention of the resurrection.  For example, in 2:24, Peter mentions resurrection and backs it up with a Christological reading of Psalm 16:8-11.  In 4:10, Peter mentions resurrection and backs it up with a Christological reading of Psalm 118:22 (Acts 4:11--Jesus used the Psalm in the same way in Matthew 21:42).

Boyd also points to the call to the cruciform life.  But it is interesting that for Paul, this cruciform life is made possible by the resurrection.  Romans 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 by his life" (see also Rom. 4:25: "handed over to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification").

John's Gospel also has a set of three predictions of Jesus's death (Jn. 3:13-14, 8:28, 12:32,34).  However, even though one of them explicitly refers to Jesus' death (12:33), some scholars interpret "lifted up" to include the ascension/enthronement.

One of Boyd's go-to verses is 1 Corinthians 2:2: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Christ, and him crucified."  Boyd admits there is a bit of hyperbole here but there is also a context to this statement.  Paul was self conscious of his missionary style (and appearance?) and so by highlighting Jesus's humble death, he could show his "super-apostles" that Jesus too was not a show-off.

Why define Love as Self-Sacrifice?

I think the heart of Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic is the belief that love is best defined as self-sacrifice.  He states that "the depth of love one has for a beloved can me measured by the sacrifice the lover is willing to make for the beloved" (p. 154).  The citadel of this belief are these verses:

• I John 3:16 We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us--and we ought to lay down our lives for one another.
• John 15:13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends.

However, even if self-sacrifice is the greatest proof of love, I do not think it is the ideal definition.  First of all, it should be noted that the word apape is not used in the New Testament as a special divine self-sacrificing word.  James Barr has critiqued Anders Nygren, who championed this idea in his influential Love and Eros, by arguing that there is too much semantic overlap with other love-words to make the case.  Barr states that "the effect of his book on a large public was to leave them thinking that agape formed the unequivocal designation of a particular kind of love, self-giving and self-sacrificing."  Boyd recognizes the critique of Nygren but continues to use the word agape in a thematic sense (see pp. 144-4 n.4).

According to some thinkers true morality requires death because otherwise the moral would not be pure because it would be tainted with self-interest.  However, if self-sacrifice implies death, then death cannot be the ideal of love.  The theologian John Milbank has stated the point well:

Now all this is of course not to deny that to preserve conviviality, to preserve the spirit of feasting, one may very often have to make one-way gestures, without apparent return.  Indeed, one can go further to say that in a corrupt, fallen world, the only way to the recovery of mutual interaction will pass through sacrifice unto death.  But the point is that his sacrifice is not in itself good, but rather that which sustains a road to the good in adverse circumstances.  If one values every single individual as unique and irreplaceable, and if one's image of the good is of the widest possible conviviality, then in order fully to aim for the good, even the sacrificial offering of oneself must sustain the hope of one's own ultimate redemption.  I myself am unique and irreplaceable; without oneself, as without anyone, the universe would have lost something good.

 Milbank's point is that self-sacrifice unto death requires resurrection because it aims at mutual conviviality.  I take this to be the ideal of love: "infinite reciprocity".  The ideal of love in the Trinity to me involves mutual give-and-take where self-giving expects return.  How could death be an ideal of divine love?  This idea comes up Biblically in the idea of a covenant. The Gospel of John is especially relevant because I take the idea of "abiding" to be the divine ideal.  The ideal love-relationship is when two being are abiding in each other, what the Orthodox call perichoresis.

I understand Jesus's overall mission to be one of reconciliation to create the oneness that the ideal of love implies.  After all, the word atonement, means "at oneness".  Sure, Jesus gave his life but he expected it back.  The whole salvation drama was just one give-and-take that defines the ideal of mutual love.  Jesus's crucifixion demanded the resurrection.  (A Christological reading of Hab. 2:4 says just this: "the righteous by faithfulness will live"--a growing nmber of scholars argue that Paul and Hebrews used this verse this way).  Of course, this death needed to happen because of sin, otherwise I'm not sure if there would be death in the love-defined Trinity.  God's mercy is supposed to lead to repentance.  There is a claim God's grace makes.

Given this, I'm not sure what to make when Boyd states: "I contend that this divine perichorsis entails a sort of self-emptying (kenosis) in the very essence of the Trinity" and the "very identity of each distinct divine person is found in the unique way each selflessly and completely offers himself up in love to the other two."  That might be, but the context of that mutual selflessness is always returned.  There is no (ultimate) death in the Trinity only life.

Theological Upshot

I think I have cast a big enough doubt on Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic to make sense of at least some of God's wrath found in both testaments.  The reason I think Boyd wants to hammer home self-sacrifice as the ideal of love is because it does away with any divine motive to punish evil.  If God is always self-sacrificing, then punishment makes little sense.  However, even Boyd does not go this far, but I think it proves the case that love is not reducible to self-sacrifice.  The mechanism that Boyd gives for God's wrath is that he simply withdraws and lets evil have its way--punishment by omission, not punishment by commission.  However, this withdrawing in and of itself is no long self-sacrificing.  Even Boyd, admits that complete self-sacrifice leads to the concept of enabling.

Divine Wrath as Divine Jealousy

I'm not here claiming I have solved Boyd's "conundrum" because I have not, but I do think I have gone a bit further than Boyd's self-sacrifice model can go.  I want to imagine a situation similar to Boyd's which opens his second volume.  Suppose Boyd finds out that his wife has been unfaithful.  He comes home one night and finds her with another man.  He might get angry.  In the same way, on my model of love, when God is not loved correctly, he gets angry or jealous.  The Old Testament often views God as a jealous God, even in the ten commandments.  Now Boyd has nothing against God having emotions.  So, why would the emotion of jealousy not be a part of God's emotional world?  On the mutuality model of love, this would make sense.  There has been a breakdown in the mutual give-and-take.  One party has proved unfaithful.

Appendix 1: Interpretation of the Book of Revelation

One of the weaknesses of Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic is that it leads him to misinterpret Revelation, or so I claim.  I totally agree that Revelation demands non-violence from human actors, but I don't think Boyd makes sense of divine "violence".  One of the key verses in Revelation is 6:10, where the saints pray for God to uphold his reputation as a just God in punishing sin and vindicating the saints.  This verse is answered in various portions in the book and especially 19:2: "he has avenged on her the blood of his servants."  The rest of Revelation 19 has been a battleground of interpretation.  I want to claim that there is a sort of chiastic structure:

A) 12: His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself.
B) 13a: He is clothed in a robe is dipped in blood
C) 13b:  and his name is called The Word of God
D) 14: And the armies of heave, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses.
C') 15a: From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron
B') 15b: he will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty
A') 16: On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, "King of kings and Lord of lords."

If this is true than 13a and 15b correspond and this would seem to prove that the blood on Jesus robe was of his enemies.  That the blood is on the robe before that battle is not decisive, something the Boyd's interpretation depends upon.  Following Beale, the ironic conquering by shedding ones own blood makes sense in the inaugurated Kingdom, but this does not preclude a more literally conceived final conquering that consummates the Kingdom.  Ironically, the argument is also too mechanical: "The seeming contradiction is explained by the nature of the prophetic genre, which describes future events as past or present in order to stress the certainty of their occurrence.  That this is true here is clear from the fact that v. 13 alludes to Isa. 63:1-3, where the same prophetic language employing past and present tenses is woven throughout to give assurance of future fulfillment."  Boyd's interpretation of Revelation 14 which he uses to bolster his interpretation of 19:15b is also weak.  He claims that the grapes in this imagery are there simply to represent the harvest.  But in Revelation 14:17-20, we are told nothing of  drinking wine, which is what Boyd thinks is main judgment imagery of the winepress metaphor.

A word about the Lamb is also in order.   There are 29 references to Jesus as a lamb in Revelation (a 30th 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 29 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.

Appendix 2 Reasons why the Resurrection is Shortshrifted in Modern Scholarship

The resurrection involves the miraculous and the crucifixion does not.  This may explain a couple of facts about two modern day Catholic scholars.  Fact one:  Raymond Brown's two volume work on the crucifixion is some 1608 pages, while his book on the resurrection is 95 (though he does have another half of a book devoted to the resurrection).  J. P. Meier's multi-volume set on the historical Jesus will not cover the resurrection because it involves the miraculous, even though Meier treats Jesus' miracles performed during his ministry.  This trickle down effect no doubt has passed on to evangelical scholars.  I'm not claiming that Boyd's Cruciform Hermeneutic is a product of this prejudice but I'm sure it didn't help.      
             

Jesus an Open Theist? A Look at the Parable of the Wicked Tenants and Mt. 23:39/Lk. 13:35b.

Preamble:
I argue here that the parable of the Wicked Tenants and Mt. 23:39/Lk. 13:35b provide strong evidence that God can change his plans contingent on human obedience/disobedience.  This is an ax worth grinding because I am convinced that the belief that everything happens according to a fixed "blueprint" is both unbiblical and leads to disastrous theology.

The Problem:
It is notoriously difficult to put all the Gospel events in chronological order but both Mark (1:15) and Matthew (4:17) summarize Jesus' initial preaching with the claim that the Kingdom of God/Heaven (in all its full glory) was imminent (Mk. 9:1, 13:30; Mt. 10:23; Jn. 8:51-52).  The problem is that the Kingdom did not come (in all its full glory).  Echoes of this problem can be seen in the rest of the New Testament where the "Kingdom of God" is relatively rarely used.

A Solution:
Ben F. Meyer, in his The Aims of Jesus, wrestles with this problem but he dismisses a solution which I take to be the correct one.  Meyer entertains a solution given by Romano Guardini that "God subsequently changed the scheme of things which Jesus had proclaimed" but he says that this "can hardly be anything other than a deus ex machina."

The reason I think why Meyer dismissed Guardini's solution is that Meyer just did not reckon with Open Theism as a live theological option and that God does change his plans contingent on human obedience/disobedience.  I will argue for this solution by looking at a couple of passages in which Jesus' teachings are in line with Open Theism.     

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mk. 12:1-11/Mt. 21:33-43/Lk. 20:9-18):
If the parable of the wicked tenants is an allegory, then a case can be made that Jesus envisions a case in which God made plans which were foiled by human disobedience.  A common identification is as follows:

• landowner/man = God
• vineyard = Kingdom of God or some such
• tenants = Jewish leaders
• servants = prophets and messengers
• the son = Jesus

That the parable is eschatological can be argued using Matthew 21:34: "when came near the time of the harvest" contains language/concepts that appear elsewhere in Matthew in eschatological contexts:

• "near" in reference to the Kingdom of God--Mt. 3:2, 4:17, 10:7; and in reference to the end times--Mt. 24:33.
• "time" in reference to the end times--Mt. 8:28.
• "harvest" in reference to end times--Mt. 13:30.

The important point for my purposes is the sending of the servants to the tenants.  There is no indication in the parable itself that the owner expected the missions of the slaves to be sham exercises of non-collection.  [At least this is true of Mark and Matthew; I will treat Luke below.]  It is even stated in reference to the son (again only in Mark and Matthew) that "they will respect my son".  This is a problem if the landowner is suppose to represent God unless one has recourse to Open Theism.  

Scholars have even conjectured that Luke was aware of this problem and that he glossed Jesus' parable in ways to lessen the problem.  For example, in 20:10 the landowner says that he sent a slave to the tenants in order that he might get his share of the produce.  Also, in 20:13, the landowner reasons that the tenants will perhaps respect his son.  Even if Luke added these they do not really resolve the problem because the landowner still does not know for sure the outcomes of the sendings.

I understand that one can can only prove so much from a parable given its literary peculiarities but it does give an indication how Jesus conceived of salvation history.  A related passage is Matthew 23:39/Luke 13:35b.

Matthew 23:39/Luke 13:35b as a Conditional Prophecy

Dale C. Allison has argued that the following is a conditional prophecy: "For I say to you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord.'"  He considers two common ways of taking this passage:

1. John Calvin, T.W. Manson, J.C. Fenton: the passage is a declaration of unqualified judgment.  Against this, Allison notes that the word "Blessed" is not used by those expecting only destruction.
2. The passage is a promise of salvation.  Against this, Allison argues that this would create a very discontinuous situation with the judgment passages immediately preceding (Mt. 23:38, Luke 13:35a).
3. This leaves the conditional option.  "The text then means not, when the Messiah comes, his people will bless him, but rather, when his people bless him, the Messiah will come."  This conditional interpretation accords with Acts 3:19-21.  God's plans do seem contingent on human obedience/disobedience. 

Theological Upshot

One of the crucial theological points that the "Blueprint" view of God gets wrong is God's loving response to human disobedience.  This is ironically enshrined in Romans 11, a chapter often viewed as a citadel for the Blueprint view!


 

A defense against a criticism of "Faithfulness of Jesus"

Preamble:  A growing number of scholars are interpreting Paul's quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 in Romans 1:17 Christologically, that is, Romans 1:17 should be glossed something like:

For the righteousness of God is revealed in it from [Christ's] faith[fulness] to [our] faith[fulness], as it has been written, "but the righteous one [i.e. Jesus] by faith[fulness] will live [i.e. have resurrected life]".

Criticism of Christological interpretation:  One criticism of the Christological interpretation is that it turns Romans 1:16-18 on its head [see Charles Quarles].  If Christ achieved eschatological life by his faithfulness then given that Paul says that Christ was born under the law it would seem to follow that the righteous are those who observe the law and this runs counter to Paul's sustained argument in Romans 3:19-4:25.

Answer to criticism: I intend to show that this criticism is weak by giving an account that actually reinforces the Christological interpretation.

Without argument I claim that Paul held to some such argument:

• Those who embrace the works of the law are identifying with Israel-as-a-whole.
• The law promises the curse (ending in death) for Israel-as-a-whole, if they do not observe the entire law.
• Israel-as-a-whole have failed to observe the entire law.
• Therefore, Israel is under the curse (ending in death).
• Therefore Gentiles ought not to embrace the works of the law.

The problem with the law is that it sentences disobedience with death. This is particularly clear in 2 Corinthians 3:

• Verse 6: the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life
• Verse 7: the law is a ministry of death
• Verse 9: the law is a ministry of condemnation 

Whatever Paul thinks of the Christ event, he clearly thinks that it is "apart from the law" (Romans 3:21).  If this is Quarles' quarrel then I think his beef is with Paul for Paul has detached faithfulness or fidelity from law observance in the cases of both Abraham and Jesus.  In the case of Abraham the point can be made temporally: Abraham evidenced fidelity before he observed any work of law.  In the case of Jesus Paul seems to think that Jesus' chief act of fidelity (death on the cross) was outside the law in that the law curses anyone "hanging on a tree".  Better, the law as an entity had run its course with the advent of Jesus (see Romans 10:4).  Paul's main point is that the Christ event (but not the law) inaugurated the new covenant which brings obedience (law written on heart) and with it life.  Therefore, it makes perfect sense to argue that Romans 1:17 ought to be interpreted Christologically.  Jesus' faithfulness on the cross did lead to his resurrection and to all his faithful followers' eschatological resurrection!

Romans 11:26 and Politics

Preamble

It is no doubt true that one's political commitments effects how one reads the New Testament.  I believe this is especially true in regard to Romans 11:26 and the modern state of Israel.  I contend that parties to the debate about the meaning of "all Israel will be saved" sometimes let their politics seep into their exegesis.  Christian Zionists tend to see "all Israel" as ethnic Israel and those angry at Christian Zionist's for their blind support for the state of Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinians tend to view "all Israel" as the Church. Be that as it may, I want to give my take on this passage and how it might or might not relate to the modern state of Israel.  My basic conclusion is that Paul has said enough before verse 26 to claim the ethnic Israel plays a part in Paul's eschatology.

Romans 11

I first want to present an argument that 11:26 does refer to ethnic Israel as its primary meaning.  The structure of chapter 11 revolves around the questions Paul asks: "has God rejected his people" (v. 1) and "have they stumbled so as to fall? (v. 11).  That the chapter has to do with ethnic Israel is clear by theses questions and the number of clear references to ethnic Israel:

• His people (vs. 1,2)
• Israel (vs. 2,7,25)
• [those of] my flesh (v.14)
• lump (v.16)
• branches (v.16,17,18,19,21)
• natural branches (v.24)
• Jacob (v.26b)

This laundry list is meant to point out that v.26 is clearly embedded in a discussion of Israel.  Those who think that "all Israel" in v.26 is the Church have to basically claim that vs. 25-27 or 25-32 are summarizing a larger argument and in this larger argument Paul does include Gentiles in "Israel" (see 9:24).  My point is that even if "all Israel" includes Gentiles here it is also true that Paul is emphasizing ethnic Israel's salvation in this verse and in this section.  I think this is bolstered by the scripture from Isaiah 59 in v.26b that mentions Jacob, which even if includes Gentiles in Paul's mind, I think here pertains to ethnic Israel.  Paul's point is that God is able to banish ethnic Israel's ungodliness.  Note the symmetry between v.25, 26b and v.27 which sandwich v.26a:

v.25 hardness in part to Israel has happened
v.26b he will turn away ungodliness from Jacob
v.27 when I take away the sins of them

Therefore, I think that verse 26 is meant to emphasize Jewish ability to be grafted back in.  It is hard to view vs.25-7 as purely summary unless vs.28-32 are also summary but these verses also discuss ethnic Israel as distinct from Gentiles.

Now I want to argue that it is not really decisive if v.26a refers to ethnic Israel or not.  There are four main stages in Romans 11.

1. Jewish disobedience
2. Gentile salvation
3. Jewish salvation
4. Consequences of Jewish salvation

There are also the transitions between these stages that I will describe thus:

• (1)- (2) It is not exactly clear how (1) leads to (2) but a popular conjecture is that according to Acts when the Jews rejected the Gospel, the preachers turned to the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-21; 13:45-48; 18:6; 19:8-10; 28:23-29).
• (2)- (3) It is Jewish jealousy that drives this transition (10:19 [Deut. 32:21]; 11:14).
• (3)- (4) Stage four is only mentioned twice (11:12 and 11:15) and Paul does not give us details how Jewish salvation is beneficial.  However, it is precisely this stage that I think has important theological consequences. 

Christological Role

Many scholars have noted the similarity between 5:10 and 11:15:

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, we will be saved by his life.

11:15: For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead.

Paul is describing Israel in Christological terms.  This, I contend, shows that ethnic Israel does have a role in Paul's eschatology.  Even though there is no difference between Jew and Gentile in the sense of membership, that does not mean there cannot be a difference in role--as one scholar has put it: "unity does not mean uniformity" (this should have already been clear in Paul's body of Christ metaphor).

Therefore, a role can be found for ethnic Israel even if one sees Paul as including Gentiles in "Israel", even if the mystery of 11:25 is not new, even if Israel has to believe in Jesus to be saved, even if there is no necessary connection with the Parousia (though reference to the dead and the fullness-of-Gentiles-already-accomplished hints at this) etc.  The "fullness" mentioned in 11:12 relates to "all Israel" in 11:26.

State of Israel

None of this, or course, has any necessary relationship to the modern State of Israel, which is as of right now not believing in Jesus.  However, given the Christological role that Paul hints at for Israel, I find it interesting that the two major Jewish event in the twentieth century come very close to death/resurrection vocabulary: holocaust/birth of Israel.  This is just a conjecture but maybe the delay in the Kingdom of God on earth is related to the continuing Jewish unbelief/unfullness of Gentile making Jew jealous.  Given how much God values free will, his patience is amazing. 

Be that as it may, I think I have shown that Paul does have a role for Israel even if he didn't (and we don't) know exactly what that role was (is).     

Ephesians 2:8-9

Preamble

Ephesians 2:8-9 is probably on the Mt. Rushmore of Bible passages for American Evangelical Christians.  BibleGateway.com once compiled the 100 most read Bible verses and Ephesians 2:8 came in 11th and 2:9 came in 28th (2:10 came in 37th). In my humble opinion, however, this passage is by and large misinterpreted.

Ephesians 2:8-9

For by grace you have been save through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--not the result of works, so that no one may boast.

The topic of this blog concerns the meaning of "through faith".  Most Evangelicals think this faith is our faith, but I will argue that the faith in question is Jesus' faithfulness, that is, Jesus' obedient death on the cross.

Strategy

I will first relate Ephesians 2:18 to 3:12.  Then I will relate both to 2:8, while drawing on 2:13 and 16 and Colossians 1:20.

Ephesians 2:18 and 3:12

2:18: because through him we have the access

3:12: in whom we have boldness and access in confidence through the faith of(in) him 

In both 2:18 and 3:12 access to the Father is mentioned and how Jesus made that happen.  The grounds in 3:12 are already stated in the verse itself, it is "through the faith of(in) him".  Now, I have purposely left the translation of "of(in)" vague so as not to prejudice the argument.  It could mean our faith in Jesus, or it could mean Jesus' faith(fulness), that is, his obedience.  However, it is when we determine the grounds for the access mentioned in 2:18 that I think everything falls into place for arguing that it is Jesus' faith(fulness).

Since 2:18 does not mention the grounds for access we have to look for it in the context.  The best candidate seems to be 2:13: "But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ."  The grounds of access here is "the blood of Christ".  In 2:16, reconciliation in "through the cross".  Colossians 1:20 has "and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of the cross."  The argument from here is simple: the grounds of access simply have nothing to do with our faith but with Jesus' faithful death on the cross where he shed his blood.

Ephesians 2:8-9 revisited

The common language and themes shared between 2:8-9 and 3:12 and 2:18 argue strongly that we are saved by Jesus' faithful death on the cross and not by our faith.  If it was our faith then why would 2:8 add "and this is not of yourselves"?  If it was by our faith it would be of ourselves.

Theological Upshot

This discussion (which basically comes from Paul Foster) sheds light on the pistis Christou debate in Paul and argues for the subjective genitive. We are saved by something Jesus did, not by our faith.  Our faith has a role, no doubt, but not in the way most evangelicals think.

"It is has been accomplished" and the Resurrection

Preamble:

The Greek word for "has been accomplished" (tetelestai) appears twice in the New Testament--both in John 19 (vss. 28 and 30).  Many Christians gloss this to mean that Jesus paid in full the debt of human sin trading off a particular meaning of telelestai in the commercial realm having to do with the satisfaction of debt.  I don't think this is what it means in John and this has important ramifications.

John 19:28-30:

28After this, aware that all was now finished [tetelestai], in order to bring the Scripture to its complete fulfillment, Jesus said, "I am thirsty."  29There was at hand a jar full of common wine, so they struck a sponge soaked in this wine on some hyssop and raised it to his lips.  30When Jesus tool the wine, he exclaimed, "It is finished [tetelestai]"; and bowing his head, he handed over his spirit.

The "all" in verse 28 most likely refers to all that the Father had given Jesus to do (see 4:34; 5:36; and 17:4).  Importantly, the "all" includes activity that goes beyond merely Jesus' sacrificial death.  It makes sense to claim that Jesus thought of his death as the end of his earthly mission and viewed this mission as having been foretold in Scripture--it is the Father's mission after all.  Luke/Acts also views 1) Jesus' death, 2) telos, 3) Scripture fulfilled as a triad (see Luke 18:31; 22:37; and Acts 13:29).

The Resurrection:

However, Jesus did not view his death as his end.  The Gospel sees Jesus' death as his departure to the Father (for example see 13:1--mention here is made of Jesus loving his own to the end [telos]). Jesus says that he lays down his life that [hina] he might take it up (10:17).  It is clear that Jesus views his resurrection has part of what God planned (15:18; 17:5).  It is interesting that eternal life is mentioned in close approximation to those text which mention Jesus completion of God's plan (4:34/4:36; 5:36/5:39; 17:4/17:3).

Theological Upshot:

"It is accomplished" refers to more than Jesus' atoning death.  Rather, it refers to Jesus' whole mission which included returning to the Father and giving the Spirit (7:39).  When Jesus' says that he must be lifted up (3:14; 8:28; 12:32) he most likely includes the resurrection/ascension in that lifting.  The death of Jesus is not the end!