Introduction
My purpose here is to recenter Christianity on the Resurrection of Jesus and away from the Crucifixion by examining the book of Acts. It is my contention that evangelical theology has put way too much focus on the Crucifixion and that this has damaged both evangelical theology and evangelical praxis. The book of Acts is, I think, a superb example of the relative importance of the Resurrection of Jesus vis-a-vis the Crucifixion.
Luke's Summaries
Luke summarizes his gospel's presentation by noting that Jesus "presented himself living, after he suffered." Peter states that Jesus' suffering fulfilled what was foretold in the prophets (3:18). Similarly, Paul uses scripture to show that it was necessary for Jesus to suffer (17:2-3). In fact, in Luke's gospel, Jesus also says that "it has been written that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day" (Lk 24:26). No doubt, Jesus death comes under the rubric of suffering but the word suffering seems to go beyond mere crucifixion. These summaries are small clues that the focus of Luke (and Peter, Paul, and Jesus) was not the crucifixion.
Choosing the Twelve
Peter says something interesting when he claims that the twelfth disciple must be a witness to the resurrection (1:22). Notice he does not mention that the twelfth must be a witness to the death of Jesus. The theme of being a witness to Jesus' resurrection is found in other passages in Acts:
2:32: This Jesus God raised of which we are all witnesses
3:15: the Author of life you killed, whom God raised from the dead, of which we are witnesses
4:33: with great power the apostles were giving testimony of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus
10:40-41: this one God raised up...and granted him to be visible...to witnesses...
13:30-31: God raised him up...to those who are now witnesses of him to the people.
The notion of being a witness to Jesus' crucifixion is entirely absent.
Peter's Pentecost Sermon
Peter's Pentecost sermon highlights Jesus' resurrection: "God raised him up, having destroyed the birth pains of death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power" (2:24). After noting that David had died and was buried, he goes on to quote a psalm where David alludes to the resurrection of Jesus: "For you will not abandon my soul to Hades, or let your Holy One experience corruption" (2:31, quoting Psalm 16:10). Peter does mention Jesus' death but only to mention the role taken by his audience: "this man...you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (2:23). Most of the references to Jesus' death are stated to implicate his killers: 3:15; 4:10; 7:52; 10:39; 13:28.
Another theme in Peter's sermon is Jesus' exaltation, a direct result of his resurrection (and not his crucifixion). "This Jesus God raised up...being therefore exalted at the right hand of God." David is again used as a foil (2:34) and a Psalm is quoted (2:34-35, quoting Psalm 110:1). Jesus' exaltation also appears many times in Acts, passages often referred to as exhibiting "Resurrection Christology." Besides 2:32-36, we have: 5:31: "God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins." Note that the notion of Jesus as Savior and of the forgiveness of sins is not at all connected with Jesus' crucifixion, but with Jesus' resurrection/exaltation. Another exaltation passage is 7:55-56 and another "Resurrection Christology" passage is 13:32-33: "And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as it is written in the second psalm, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you.'"
Peter's Speech at Solomon's Portico
As quoted above (3:15), Peter says that Jesus is the Author of life. There is some question as to the exact meaning of the greek word for "author" but is may have to do with Jesus as the firstfruits of the resurrection.
Peter's and John's Arrest
We are told that what annoyed the priests, the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, was that Peter and John were proclaiming that in Jesus there is the resurrection of the dead (4:2). Interestingly, Peter describes Jesus as a Nazarene whom his audience crucified but that God raised him from the dead (4:10). No mention is made of the crucifixion as a theologically significant event. Similarly, at his second arrest, Peter and the apostles open their defense with a direct reference to Jesus' resurrection: "The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you killed by hanging on a tree" (5:30).
Peter's speech in Caesarea
Peter offers a summary of Jesus earthly life to Cornelius and again refers to Jesus' resurrection: They put him to death by hanging him on a tree; but God raised him on the third day..." (10:39-40).
Paul at Athens
In Athens we are told that Paul was said to be a proclaimer of strange divinities, because he was preaching Jesus and the Resurrection (17:18, it seems it was thought that "Resurrection" was the name of a god/goddess). Paul also states that God "has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead" (17:31-32).
Paul's Arrest and Defense
When he was before the Sanhedrin, Paul says he was "on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead" (23:6). Paul says the same thing at a later trial (24:21). At the trial before Felix, Paul says he has a hope in God that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous. Before Agrippa and Bernice, Paul says: "I stand on trial on account of my hope in the promise made by God to our ancestors, a promise that our twelve tribes hope to attain, as they earnestly worship day and night. It is for this hope, your excellency, that I am accused by Jews! Why is it incredible by any of you that God raises the dead" (16:6-8)?
Lack of Crucifixion Atonement Theology
Forgiveness of sins in Acts mostly is dependent upon repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus (see 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 22:16; 26:18). The only possible exceptions are 8:32-33 and 20:28. 20:28 reads as follows: "...the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son." However, blood here may just be another term for life because Paul uses the same word a couple of verses prior: "I am innocent of the blood of all" (20:26). Isaiah 53 is proof-texted in 8:32-33 but the section quoted stops just short of the part about being put to death for the transgressions of others.
Conclusion
I have tried to show the importance of the resurrection as a theological category and how it overshadows any crucifixion theology. This is true in Paul's letters (as I have argued elsewhere) and especially true in Acts. It's time for us evangelicals to follow suit.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Meaning of "Hallowed be thy name"
Hallowed be Thy Name
I want to point out that there is a sense of “Hallowed be thy name” in the Lord’s Prayer that is probably original but is not the usual sense given to that phrase.
The archaic English word “hallowed” means to sanctify or to make holy. In the OT, there are two basic senses of hallowing: 1) humans hallow God’s name or do not profane God’s name by being rightly related to God; 2) God sanctifies his own self or name. The first is the more usual sense given to “hallowed” and so on this reading the phrase in question is really a pious exclamation. The second sense, however, is the more common one in the OT, and it is this sense that I want to claim is the one Jesus meant. On this reading, Jesus is asking God to sanctify his own name. God does this by manifesting his Godly qualities. This is especially true in Ezekiel (20:41; 28:22, 25; 36:23; 38:16, 23; 39:27).
One argument for the second sense is to analyze the structure of the Lord’s Prayer which is certainly obscured in English translations (I’ll take Matthew’s version):
Our Father, the one in the heavens,
Let be revered the name of you
Let come the kingdom of you
Let be done the will of you
As in heaven also on earth
The three middle phrases all share a similar grammatical structure and all are not connected by the word “and”. These facts help tie together the three phrases. Once the three phrases are treated on par, then it is easy to take the sense of hallowing as something God himself does. If Jesus is asking God to rule as king and to do his will, then it is likely that he is asking God to sanctify his name. The last phrase most likely pertains to all three middle phrases and not just to the last as is commonly thought. Jesus is asking God for the eschatological realities to be realities in the here-and-now.
Another argument for the second sense of hallowed comes from the Gospel of John 12:28 where Jesus says “Father, glorify your name.” Note the use of “Father”, which is all we find in Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer. It is clear that Jesus is asking God to glorify his own name.
I want to point out that there is a sense of “Hallowed be thy name” in the Lord’s Prayer that is probably original but is not the usual sense given to that phrase.
The archaic English word “hallowed” means to sanctify or to make holy. In the OT, there are two basic senses of hallowing: 1) humans hallow God’s name or do not profane God’s name by being rightly related to God; 2) God sanctifies his own self or name. The first is the more usual sense given to “hallowed” and so on this reading the phrase in question is really a pious exclamation. The second sense, however, is the more common one in the OT, and it is this sense that I want to claim is the one Jesus meant. On this reading, Jesus is asking God to sanctify his own name. God does this by manifesting his Godly qualities. This is especially true in Ezekiel (20:41; 28:22, 25; 36:23; 38:16, 23; 39:27).
One argument for the second sense is to analyze the structure of the Lord’s Prayer which is certainly obscured in English translations (I’ll take Matthew’s version):
Our Father, the one in the heavens,
Let be revered the name of you
Let come the kingdom of you
Let be done the will of you
As in heaven also on earth
The three middle phrases all share a similar grammatical structure and all are not connected by the word “and”. These facts help tie together the three phrases. Once the three phrases are treated on par, then it is easy to take the sense of hallowing as something God himself does. If Jesus is asking God to rule as king and to do his will, then it is likely that he is asking God to sanctify his name. The last phrase most likely pertains to all three middle phrases and not just to the last as is commonly thought. Jesus is asking God for the eschatological realities to be realities in the here-and-now.
Another argument for the second sense of hallowed comes from the Gospel of John 12:28 where Jesus says “Father, glorify your name.” Note the use of “Father”, which is all we find in Luke’s version of the Lord’s Prayer. It is clear that Jesus is asking God to glorify his own name.
Good Friday 4/15/22
Monday, November 21, 2011
Judgment Seat of Christ
It is common among evangelicals to separate the "judgment seat of Christ" (as used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:10) from the last, Great White Throne judgment. The logic of this separation is backed up by the concept stated in Romans 8:1 that in Christ there is no condemnation, so that the "judgment seat of Christ" must be a sort of sham kangaroo court for Christians where no judgment is really rendered. The Great White Throne judgment is for non-Christians, where the judgment is always in the negative.
I think there are at least three devastating arguments against this separation.
Argument 1: Analysis of Romans 8:1
This argument undercuts most of the rationale for having two separate judgments. In Romans 8:1, Paul says that "There is now then no condemnation to the ones in Christ Jesus." The key to this verse is the phrase "in Christ". To be "in Christ" for Paul is to be incorporated with Christ so as to share things that are of Christ. A natural reading of Romans 8 would be to take this "in Christ" as a sort of eschatological ideal. Those who walk in the Spirit are those "in Christ". However, we are not told if there is any tension within a person that doesn't totally walk in the Spirit but also walks in the flesh. It is in this double walking case, which includes everyone, and not the eschatological ideal of Romans 8:1, that calls for judgment.
Argument 2: Romans 14:10
This argument relies on a sister-wording "judgment seat of God" which in context clearly includes Christians. Therefore, the special wording "judgment seat of Christ" may not be of much significance. This reminds me of an error Mormans make in interpreting the doublets of Hebrew poetry. Just because there are two different words used (for example: "Zion" and "Jerusalem"), does not mean that two different locations are in mind.
Argument 3: Jesus' Parables do not allude to a Kangaroo Court
When Jesus speaks of judgment, it always seems to involve one process. A prime example of this is the parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:24-30 where clearly one judgment is in mind.
I believe these arguments show that the "judgment seat of Christ" as a sham judgment is itself a sham. It is motivated by a theological picture that ignores any mention of good/bad works and how that is judged.
I think there are at least three devastating arguments against this separation.
Argument 1: Analysis of Romans 8:1
This argument undercuts most of the rationale for having two separate judgments. In Romans 8:1, Paul says that "There is now then no condemnation to the ones in Christ Jesus." The key to this verse is the phrase "in Christ". To be "in Christ" for Paul is to be incorporated with Christ so as to share things that are of Christ. A natural reading of Romans 8 would be to take this "in Christ" as a sort of eschatological ideal. Those who walk in the Spirit are those "in Christ". However, we are not told if there is any tension within a person that doesn't totally walk in the Spirit but also walks in the flesh. It is in this double walking case, which includes everyone, and not the eschatological ideal of Romans 8:1, that calls for judgment.
Argument 2: Romans 14:10
This argument relies on a sister-wording "judgment seat of God" which in context clearly includes Christians. Therefore, the special wording "judgment seat of Christ" may not be of much significance. This reminds me of an error Mormans make in interpreting the doublets of Hebrew poetry. Just because there are two different words used (for example: "Zion" and "Jerusalem"), does not mean that two different locations are in mind.
Argument 3: Jesus' Parables do not allude to a Kangaroo Court
When Jesus speaks of judgment, it always seems to involve one process. A prime example of this is the parable of the wheat and weeds in Matthew 13:24-30 where clearly one judgment is in mind.
I believe these arguments show that the "judgment seat of Christ" as a sham judgment is itself a sham. It is motivated by a theological picture that ignores any mention of good/bad works and how that is judged.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
1 Thessalonians as Test Case
Introduction
Raymond E. Brown, in his Introduction to the New Testament, claims that "1 Thess has at times been neglected because it does not treat the great Pauline theme of justification by faith apart from works of the Law." I agree that 1 Thess does not treat what has become the standard Protestant/evangelical reading of Paul, but this is strong evidence that the standard reading is defective. I hope to show that 1 Thess is in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief. Therefore, we will get a glimpse as to the relative importance of Jesus' resurrection over against the importance of his crucifixion in early Christianity.
Paul's Summary in 1:9-10
Paul summarizes the Thessalonians state thus: You turned to God from idols, to serve a God living and true, and to wait for his Son from the heavens, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, the one delivering us from the coming wrath." The first thing to notice about this passage is that the relevant descriptions of Jesus are (1) resurrection (not crucifixion) and (2) delivering from coming wrath (we are not told this is done by the crucifixion). The question is how does Jesus deliver us from the coming wrath? The standard interpretation claims that it is the crucifixion that seals the deal. However, if this were the case we would have expected a past tense verb in 1:10 (the one who delivered us from the coming wrath).
The Importance of Resurrection
Also, the rest of the letter speaks against the standard reading. The alternative manner in which Jesus delivers is primarily by raising from the dead and making resurrection possible for his followers. This is perhaps why Paul emphasizes that God is "living" in 1:9 (as opposed to dead idols?).
The first crucial passage is 4:13-18, where we are told that Jesus "died and rose again" (4:14), and this is the foundation for the "hope" (4:13) of future resurrection. I singled out the word "hope" from 4:13 because the very same word is used to describe salvation in 5:8: "and for a helmet the hope of salvation". This is clearly future and so cannot refer to the crucifixion which would have been past tense for Paul.
The second crucial passage is 5:9-10: "For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him." The standard reading would put all the weight of their interpretation on the words "died for us" and so read this passage as one that exalts the crucifixion. However, as Morna Hooker has pointed out, the words "live with him" totally undermine the standard reading. Jesus died, yes, one has to die to rise again, but it is the rising again that is the important factor in this passage. The reason Jesus died is to rise again, so that he can conquer death for those who are slaves to sin/death. The salvation that is obtained is life after death on account of Jesus' resurrection NOT forgiveness of sin on account of Jesus' crucifixion.
Theological Upshot
One is struck by the absence of "forgiveness" in 1 Thessalonians. Sure, forgiveness is taken for granted by Paul, but the salvation goes well beyond the mere verdict of forgiveness.
Raymond E. Brown, in his Introduction to the New Testament, claims that "1 Thess has at times been neglected because it does not treat the great Pauline theme of justification by faith apart from works of the Law." I agree that 1 Thess does not treat what has become the standard Protestant/evangelical reading of Paul, but this is strong evidence that the standard reading is defective. I hope to show that 1 Thess is in line with the Gospel Beyond Belief. Therefore, we will get a glimpse as to the relative importance of Jesus' resurrection over against the importance of his crucifixion in early Christianity.
Paul's Summary in 1:9-10
Paul summarizes the Thessalonians state thus: You turned to God from idols, to serve a God living and true, and to wait for his Son from the heavens, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, the one delivering us from the coming wrath." The first thing to notice about this passage is that the relevant descriptions of Jesus are (1) resurrection (not crucifixion) and (2) delivering from coming wrath (we are not told this is done by the crucifixion). The question is how does Jesus deliver us from the coming wrath? The standard interpretation claims that it is the crucifixion that seals the deal. However, if this were the case we would have expected a past tense verb in 1:10 (the one who delivered us from the coming wrath).
The Importance of Resurrection
Also, the rest of the letter speaks against the standard reading. The alternative manner in which Jesus delivers is primarily by raising from the dead and making resurrection possible for his followers. This is perhaps why Paul emphasizes that God is "living" in 1:9 (as opposed to dead idols?).
The first crucial passage is 4:13-18, where we are told that Jesus "died and rose again" (4:14), and this is the foundation for the "hope" (4:13) of future resurrection. I singled out the word "hope" from 4:13 because the very same word is used to describe salvation in 5:8: "and for a helmet the hope of salvation". This is clearly future and so cannot refer to the crucifixion which would have been past tense for Paul.
The second crucial passage is 5:9-10: "For God has destined us not for wrath but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live with him." The standard reading would put all the weight of their interpretation on the words "died for us" and so read this passage as one that exalts the crucifixion. However, as Morna Hooker has pointed out, the words "live with him" totally undermine the standard reading. Jesus died, yes, one has to die to rise again, but it is the rising again that is the important factor in this passage. The reason Jesus died is to rise again, so that he can conquer death for those who are slaves to sin/death. The salvation that is obtained is life after death on account of Jesus' resurrection NOT forgiveness of sin on account of Jesus' crucifixion.
Theological Upshot
One is struck by the absence of "forgiveness" in 1 Thessalonians. Sure, forgiveness is taken for granted by Paul, but the salvation goes well beyond the mere verdict of forgiveness.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The meaning of "Grace"
The concept of "grace" for most evangelicals includes some notion of unmerited or undeserved favor or gift. I want to argue that the Biblical concept of grace (gk: charis; heb: chen) does not necessarily have to be unmerited or undeserved, and viewing it so can lead to misinterpretations.
Genesis 6:8
The Greek of the LXX interprets the Hebrew chen of Genesis 6:8 as charis (grace): "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." The very next verse (Gen. 6:9) describes Noah as "righteous", "blameless" and that he "walked with God." The point seems to be that the reason Noah found favor with God was that he was righteous, blameless and walked with him. The same logic seems to be involved in Genesis 7:1 where the LORD commands Noah to go into the ark because Noah alone was found to be "righteous".
Evangelical gambit
The evangelical retort would be to claim that Genesis 6:8 precedes 6:9 and so it is the grace that makes Noah righteous. However, there are two major problems with this gambit. First, the fact that Genesis 6:8 precedes 6:9 may only be due to structural concerns. Genesis 6:8 acts as a sort of introductory proclamation that is interrupted with a genealogical comment on Noah in 6:9-10. [In fact, some scholars would say that the rest of chapter 6 (6:9-22) is an interruption and that the story doesn't pick up again until 7:1 where again we are told that Noah was righteous!] Second, and more importantly, there is no indication in the story that Noah was a part of the wickedness that led to the LORD's decision to wipe out humanity. We are never told that Noah was a bad man and that the LORD's choice of him is based solely on the LORD's whim. On the contrary, the statement that the earth was corrupt "in the view of the LORD" (6:11) seems to be purposely contrasting itself with 7:1 where Noah was righteous "in the view of the LORD." Also, the statements about Noah's righteousness are not relativized to after he was made righteous by the LORD's grace but are relativized by "in this age" (6:9 and 7:1); this would be an odd way to put the fact that Noah was a bad man until the LORD's grace made him good. The natural way to read the flood narrative is that Noah was chosen because he walked with the LORD (6:9).
Other uses of "find favor" in Genesis also seem to undermine the fact that grace must be unmerited. In Genesis 33:15, Jacob protests to Esau: "Why should I find such favor in the eyes of my lord." The logic is that Jacob is wondering what he has done to merit Esau's favor, indicating that favor is usually given in response to something merited. This seems to be the case in Genesis 39:4 where Joseph finds favor with Pharaoh but only after we are told that Pharaoah saw that the LORD was with Joseph and that all he did succeeded (39:3).
Luke 2:40
In Luke 2:40 we are told that the grace of of God was upon Jesus. Grace cannot involve something that is unmerited because Jesus is not a sinner. If anything, God's favor is due to Jesus' strength and wisdom, descriptions which immediately precede God's favor.
Theological upshot
We must be careful not to allow a certain theological picture dominate how we think about and interpret Scripture. "Grace" is an important concept in Christianity and it behooves us to be clear what it means in all contexts and uses.
Genesis 6:8
The Greek of the LXX interprets the Hebrew chen of Genesis 6:8 as charis (grace): "Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD." The very next verse (Gen. 6:9) describes Noah as "righteous", "blameless" and that he "walked with God." The point seems to be that the reason Noah found favor with God was that he was righteous, blameless and walked with him. The same logic seems to be involved in Genesis 7:1 where the LORD commands Noah to go into the ark because Noah alone was found to be "righteous".
Evangelical gambit
The evangelical retort would be to claim that Genesis 6:8 precedes 6:9 and so it is the grace that makes Noah righteous. However, there are two major problems with this gambit. First, the fact that Genesis 6:8 precedes 6:9 may only be due to structural concerns. Genesis 6:8 acts as a sort of introductory proclamation that is interrupted with a genealogical comment on Noah in 6:9-10. [In fact, some scholars would say that the rest of chapter 6 (6:9-22) is an interruption and that the story doesn't pick up again until 7:1 where again we are told that Noah was righteous!] Second, and more importantly, there is no indication in the story that Noah was a part of the wickedness that led to the LORD's decision to wipe out humanity. We are never told that Noah was a bad man and that the LORD's choice of him is based solely on the LORD's whim. On the contrary, the statement that the earth was corrupt "in the view of the LORD" (6:11) seems to be purposely contrasting itself with 7:1 where Noah was righteous "in the view of the LORD." Also, the statements about Noah's righteousness are not relativized to after he was made righteous by the LORD's grace but are relativized by "in this age" (6:9 and 7:1); this would be an odd way to put the fact that Noah was a bad man until the LORD's grace made him good. The natural way to read the flood narrative is that Noah was chosen because he walked with the LORD (6:9).
Other uses of "find favor" in Genesis also seem to undermine the fact that grace must be unmerited. In Genesis 33:15, Jacob protests to Esau: "Why should I find such favor in the eyes of my lord." The logic is that Jacob is wondering what he has done to merit Esau's favor, indicating that favor is usually given in response to something merited. This seems to be the case in Genesis 39:4 where Joseph finds favor with Pharaoh but only after we are told that Pharaoah saw that the LORD was with Joseph and that all he did succeeded (39:3).
Luke 2:40
In Luke 2:40 we are told that the grace of of God was upon Jesus. Grace cannot involve something that is unmerited because Jesus is not a sinner. If anything, God's favor is due to Jesus' strength and wisdom, descriptions which immediately precede God's favor.
Theological upshot
We must be careful not to allow a certain theological picture dominate how we think about and interpret Scripture. "Grace" is an important concept in Christianity and it behooves us to be clear what it means in all contexts and uses.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Jesus' Faith in Mark 9:23?
A case can be made that Jesus is refering to his own faith in the story of the demonic boy and his father (Mark 9:14-29). A man brings his boy to Jesus and tells Jesus that his disciples were not strong enough to cast out the demon. Jesus responds: "O faithless generation, how long will I be with you, how long will I put up with you? Bring him to me." Why does Jesus say, "how long will I be with you?" A case can be made that Jesus is pointing out that he does have the power to cast out because he has the requisite faith. The flow from 9:22 to 9:23 bolsters this conclusion. The man asks Jesus "if you can do anything [ei ti dyne], help us [boetheson hemin]." Jesus replies by quoting the man's question: "if you are able [ei dyne]?" The logic seems to be that Jesus is annoyed at the thought that he might not be able. Jesus goes on to say that "all things are possible [panta dynata] for the one believing [to pisteuonti]." The focus seems to clearly be Jesus and his power, a power his pistis makes possible. Jesus also seems to allude to his own faith in Mark 11:22. After the cursing of the fig tree, Jesus seems to teach that similar things can happen if you "have faith in God," implying that the fig tree incident was on account of Jesus' faith in God.
Theological upshot
If Jesus believes, that belief is always active, it does things through the power of God. Jesus is the founder and perfecter of our faith because he walked the talk.
Theological upshot
If Jesus believes, that belief is always active, it does things through the power of God. Jesus is the founder and perfecter of our faith because he walked the talk.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Jesus' Obedience in Mark 1:9-13
Jesus’ Obedience and Mark 1:9-13
I offer a hypothesis that the progression from baptism (1:9) to theophany or epiphany (1:10-11) to testing/temptation (1:12-13) is related to the obedience of Jesus. This hypothesis has the advantage of offering an explanation as to why the theophany follows the baptism and why the testing follows the theophany. I chose Mark because I believe my hypothesis is easier to make with Matthew for example because of Matthew 3:15 and a more full account of the temptation.
Why Theophany after Baptism?
A question seldom asked is why does the theophany follow the baptism? Is the baptism just the occasion for the theophany which could have occurred at any time? Mark 1:10-11 is as follows:
And immediately coming up out of the water he saw being open up the heavens and the Spirit as a dove descending towards [or “into”] him. And there was a voice out of the heavens, “You are the son of me, the beloved, with you I am well pleased.”
Of importance is that the descending Spirit occurs after the baptism; we are not led to think that the baptism in itself confers the Spirit. So, if the baptism in itself does not explain the theophany, then what does? The answer to that question depends on what the baptism meant.
The Importance of the Baptism
The importance of Jesus’ baptism can be seen by a few factors. First, Jesus’ public ministry only begins after the account of the baptism in all Gospels. In Mark, the gospel itself begins with John the Baptist and Mark 1:1 (“the beginning of the good news”) could be interpreted to refer to John the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism. This is further bolstered by what Peter says in Acts 10:37 (“You know the things having happened throughout all Judea, having begun from Galilee after the baptism which John preached”), especially if Mark was connected to Peter in a special way. Furthermore, we have a significant clue from Jesus himself in the controversy over his authority (Mark 11:27-33). There, we may infer that Jesus thought that John’s baptism was from God.
The last point segues to the actual meaning of John’s baptism. Josephus gives us an independent account of John’s baptism in Antiquities 18 §117:
For Herod killed him, although he was a good man and [simply] bade the Jews to join in baptism, provided that they were cultivating virtue and practicing justice toward one another and piety toward God. For [only] thus, in John’s opinion, would the baptism [he administered] indeed be acceptable [to God], namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as [it was taken for granted that] their souls had already been purified by justice.
This account jibes well with one of the horns of the dilemma Jesus forced on his opponents in Mark 11:31. Jesus seems to accuse his opponents for not believing John. The point is that John’s baptism signifies repentance and the willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus surely accuses his opponents elsewhere of exactly this fault, which is brought out even in the parable of the vineyard which immediately follows (Mark 12:1-12). It also jibes well with Mark 1:4 where John’s baptism is described as a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” The addition of “repentance” gives the impression that forgiveness is not the magical outcome of the baptism.
My thesis is that the theophany is in response to Jesus’ willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus had to come out to be baptized, not a trifling event and already shows the commitment of Jesus. The bugaboo is of course that Jesus did not sin, but that is of no real objection to the thesis. A comparison of Mark 1:5 (those from the Judean countryside and Jerusalem who confess their sins) with 1:9 (only Jesus with no mention of confession of sin) shows that Mark did not think Jesus’ sinlessness was an embarrassment to Jesus’ baptism. The reason is that the baptism was only the symbol of the obedient dedication Jesus demonstrated. Sure, Jesus was always obedient and always God’s Son, but it was only at the baptism that Jesus seems to have made the decision to follow God’s plans in a special, public way. I take it that this was the occasion for God’s pleasure expressed in Mark 1:11. Regardless of what “Son of God” also means, it at least means the obedient relationship a son has with his father, a relationship that is getting harder and harder for us in the individualistic West to understand.
Why Temptation after the Theophany?
This question is less controversial. Mark does not say why Jesus was tested/tempted nor does he relate any dialogue between Jesus and Satan. I take the connection to be related to Satan’s attempt to undermine Jesus’ obedient dedication. A similar dynamic is involved in Job. After (because!) Job is described as a righteous man (Job 1:1,8), Satan tests him because he doubts Jobs true character.
Theological Upshot
I think it is hard for most evangelicals to view Jesus as commending God’s favor because of something he does, however that is precisely what is happening according to my hypothesis. Commentators are fond to point out that Mark does not seem to offer Jesus as an example to follow in Mark 1:9-13. However, I do not think Mark related these incidents with no eye to discipleship. Jesus was obedient and expected others to be obedient. This is why his message is summarized in Mark 1:15 as “Repent, and believe in the Good News.”
I offer a hypothesis that the progression from baptism (1:9) to theophany or epiphany (1:10-11) to testing/temptation (1:12-13) is related to the obedience of Jesus. This hypothesis has the advantage of offering an explanation as to why the theophany follows the baptism and why the testing follows the theophany. I chose Mark because I believe my hypothesis is easier to make with Matthew for example because of Matthew 3:15 and a more full account of the temptation.
Why Theophany after Baptism?
A question seldom asked is why does the theophany follow the baptism? Is the baptism just the occasion for the theophany which could have occurred at any time? Mark 1:10-11 is as follows:
And immediately coming up out of the water he saw being open up the heavens and the Spirit as a dove descending towards [or “into”] him. And there was a voice out of the heavens, “You are the son of me, the beloved, with you I am well pleased.”
Of importance is that the descending Spirit occurs after the baptism; we are not led to think that the baptism in itself confers the Spirit. So, if the baptism in itself does not explain the theophany, then what does? The answer to that question depends on what the baptism meant.
The Importance of the Baptism
The importance of Jesus’ baptism can be seen by a few factors. First, Jesus’ public ministry only begins after the account of the baptism in all Gospels. In Mark, the gospel itself begins with John the Baptist and Mark 1:1 (“the beginning of the good news”) could be interpreted to refer to John the Baptist and Jesus’ baptism. This is further bolstered by what Peter says in Acts 10:37 (“You know the things having happened throughout all Judea, having begun from Galilee after the baptism which John preached”), especially if Mark was connected to Peter in a special way. Furthermore, we have a significant clue from Jesus himself in the controversy over his authority (Mark 11:27-33). There, we may infer that Jesus thought that John’s baptism was from God.
The last point segues to the actual meaning of John’s baptism. Josephus gives us an independent account of John’s baptism in Antiquities 18 §117:
For Herod killed him, although he was a good man and [simply] bade the Jews to join in baptism, provided that they were cultivating virtue and practicing justice toward one another and piety toward God. For [only] thus, in John’s opinion, would the baptism [he administered] indeed be acceptable [to God], namely, if they used it to obtain not pardon for some sins but rather the cleansing of their bodies, inasmuch as [it was taken for granted that] their souls had already been purified by justice.
This account jibes well with one of the horns of the dilemma Jesus forced on his opponents in Mark 11:31. Jesus seems to accuse his opponents for not believing John. The point is that John’s baptism signifies repentance and the willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus surely accuses his opponents elsewhere of exactly this fault, which is brought out even in the parable of the vineyard which immediately follows (Mark 12:1-12). It also jibes well with Mark 1:4 where John’s baptism is described as a “baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” The addition of “repentance” gives the impression that forgiveness is not the magical outcome of the baptism.
My thesis is that the theophany is in response to Jesus’ willingness to be obediently subject to God. Jesus had to come out to be baptized, not a trifling event and already shows the commitment of Jesus. The bugaboo is of course that Jesus did not sin, but that is of no real objection to the thesis. A comparison of Mark 1:5 (those from the Judean countryside and Jerusalem who confess their sins) with 1:9 (only Jesus with no mention of confession of sin) shows that Mark did not think Jesus’ sinlessness was an embarrassment to Jesus’ baptism. The reason is that the baptism was only the symbol of the obedient dedication Jesus demonstrated. Sure, Jesus was always obedient and always God’s Son, but it was only at the baptism that Jesus seems to have made the decision to follow God’s plans in a special, public way. I take it that this was the occasion for God’s pleasure expressed in Mark 1:11. Regardless of what “Son of God” also means, it at least means the obedient relationship a son has with his father, a relationship that is getting harder and harder for us in the individualistic West to understand.
Why Temptation after the Theophany?
This question is less controversial. Mark does not say why Jesus was tested/tempted nor does he relate any dialogue between Jesus and Satan. I take the connection to be related to Satan’s attempt to undermine Jesus’ obedient dedication. A similar dynamic is involved in Job. After (because!) Job is described as a righteous man (Job 1:1,8), Satan tests him because he doubts Jobs true character.
Theological Upshot
I think it is hard for most evangelicals to view Jesus as commending God’s favor because of something he does, however that is precisely what is happening according to my hypothesis. Commentators are fond to point out that Mark does not seem to offer Jesus as an example to follow in Mark 1:9-13. However, I do not think Mark related these incidents with no eye to discipleship. Jesus was obedient and expected others to be obedient. This is why his message is summarized in Mark 1:15 as “Repent, and believe in the Good News.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
