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.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
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.”
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Israel in God's Plan
Israel in God’s Plan
In order to undercut the idolatry of nationalism in the United States many Christian thinkers have defended the proposition that God’s nationalistic agenda ended with Christ and that Christians are not to be conditioned by national or ethnic allegiances. I certainly agree that American Christians especially need to wake up and start treating Iraqi and Palestinian Christians for example, of which there are quite a few, on par with American Christians. In fact, American Christians need to start treating all people as those beloved of God. However, where does this put the Jewish question? Is God done with the nation of Israel/Jewish people. What is the theological significance of the State of Israel?
I want to argue that, based primarily on Romans 11, God’s national agenda for Israel has not ended.
Israel in the Teachings of Jesus
Israel certainly figures in the teachings of Jesus. Here are a few key texts:
Matthew 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent out commanding them saying: “Do not go among the Gentiles and do not enter a city of the Samaritans, but go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24: He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
These two passages find indirect support from a comment made by Paul in Romans 15:8: “For I say Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God, and to confirm the promises to the patriarchs.”
In Matthew 10:5, the fact that Jesus sends out twelve, a number that harkens back to the twelve tribes of Israel, is highly significant. Also, Paul’s use of the word “circumcision” in Romans 15:8 is clearly directed to physical Israel and not some sort of spiritual Israel.
An historical argument is that a lot of theological spade work was needed to be done by Paul in order for the Gentiles to have equal standing in the Church. This begs the question "why?"
Romans 11
I contend that according to Paul, Israel is not a non-factor in God’s plans after Jesus’ death and resurrection. There is a pattern that Paul hits a couple of times:
11:12b their failure → riches for the Gentiles » their fullness → greater riches (implied)
11:15 their rejection → reconciliation of the world » their acceptance → life from the dead
By “fullness” Paul is probably referring quantitatively because that is also the use in 11:25 as applied to the Gentile. In context, the “their” in “their fullness” and “their acceptance” clearly refers to that which is contrasted with a remnant in 11:7: “the rest were hardened.” In 11:16, Paul uses two metaphors which again make reference to the whole of Israel:
Firstfruits [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the lump [the whole of Israel]
Root [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the branches [the whole of Israel]
All of this leads to 11:26: “and so all Israel will be saved.” The controversy concerns what Paul means by “all Israel.” Some take this to refer to the church, the entire spiritual Israel (see Gal. 6:16). However, Paul has used the word “Israel” in this section (9-11) to this point to refer to national Israel and not to a spiritual Israel. Paul wants to prevent Gentile boasting and it would undercut that purpose to all of a sudden invoke a term that includes Gentiles. Of course, “all” is hyperbolic and probably does not refer to each and every Jew, but only to a representative whole.
Some have argued that Paul was not referring to a large-scale Jewish conversion at the end. I find their arguments unconvincing.
(1) In 11:26 it is argued that "and so" better means "thus, in this manner" and not "in the end". We can grant the point without destroying the temporal aspects. The manner in which Israel is saved is by being provoked by jealousy which doesn't happen until [the until in verse 11:25 rules out giving no temporal weight to "and so" in 11:26] the fullness of Gentiles comes in.
(2) It is also argued that the addition of the "now" in 11:31 rules out the future interpretation of 11:26. A look at 11:30-31 is helpful as it informs our interpretation of 11:26.
For just as you once disobeyed God, but now have received mercy by their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient for your mercy, that also they may [now] receive mercy.
The "now" in "they may now receive mercy" is (a) not in every manuscript and (b) if it is original it most likely is added only to highlight the eschatological imminence of this phase (so Dunn).
(3) It is also argued that Paul's quote of Isaiah 59:20-21 in 11:26-27a is referring to Jesus' past and not to the Parousia. However, the verb tense is future: "will come out of Zion the one delivering". Also, Paul's use of "delivering" elsewhere refers to eschatological events on par with the Parousia: Romans 7:24, 1 Thess. 1:10 (so Dunn again).
(4) Paul's use of Isaiah 27:9 in 11:27b ("when I take away the sins of them") is glossed by these arguers to be "whenever" in order to eliminate the temporal aspect. However, Isaiah 27:9 (from the "Isaiah Apocalyspe") was most likely chosen by Paul to highlight the eschatolocal timeframe and so is totally in-line with viewing 11:26-27a as the Parousia.
Once we establish that Paul is referring to a future Jewish salvation, we are now in a position to go back to 11:12b and 11:15 and took at how Jewish fullness and acceptance figure in God’s plan. Paul implies greater riches and “life from the dead.” That Paul is referring some sort of eschatological state is indicated by a comparison of 11:15 with 5:10: “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved [future, cf. 13:11] by his life.” It would seem then that future role of national Israel is to have eschatological significance.
Theological upshot
If national Israel is to have eschatological significance, this ought to inform Christian theology. The Jewish Philosopher Emil Fackenheim claims that the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel are “root events” in Jewish history. I think it behooves us Christians to take these root events seriously and learn from them. Also, we might have a clue as to why the imminence of the Kingdom sensed by Jesus, Paul, and the early church has taken so long to consummate. The Jews have yet to realize their God-given mandate, a mandate lived out by Jesus the Jew.
In order to undercut the idolatry of nationalism in the United States many Christian thinkers have defended the proposition that God’s nationalistic agenda ended with Christ and that Christians are not to be conditioned by national or ethnic allegiances. I certainly agree that American Christians especially need to wake up and start treating Iraqi and Palestinian Christians for example, of which there are quite a few, on par with American Christians. In fact, American Christians need to start treating all people as those beloved of God. However, where does this put the Jewish question? Is God done with the nation of Israel/Jewish people. What is the theological significance of the State of Israel?
I want to argue that, based primarily on Romans 11, God’s national agenda for Israel has not ended.
Israel in the Teachings of Jesus
Israel certainly figures in the teachings of Jesus. Here are a few key texts:
Matthew 10:5-6: These twelve Jesus sent out commanding them saying: “Do not go among the Gentiles and do not enter a city of the Samaritans, but go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24: He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.”
These two passages find indirect support from a comment made by Paul in Romans 15:8: “For I say Christ has become a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truthfulness of God, and to confirm the promises to the patriarchs.”
In Matthew 10:5, the fact that Jesus sends out twelve, a number that harkens back to the twelve tribes of Israel, is highly significant. Also, Paul’s use of the word “circumcision” in Romans 15:8 is clearly directed to physical Israel and not some sort of spiritual Israel.
An historical argument is that a lot of theological spade work was needed to be done by Paul in order for the Gentiles to have equal standing in the Church. This begs the question "why?"
Romans 11
I contend that according to Paul, Israel is not a non-factor in God’s plans after Jesus’ death and resurrection. There is a pattern that Paul hits a couple of times:
11:12b their failure → riches for the Gentiles » their fullness → greater riches (implied)
11:15 their rejection → reconciliation of the world » their acceptance → life from the dead
By “fullness” Paul is probably referring quantitatively because that is also the use in 11:25 as applied to the Gentile. In context, the “their” in “their fullness” and “their acceptance” clearly refers to that which is contrasted with a remnant in 11:7: “the rest were hardened.” In 11:16, Paul uses two metaphors which again make reference to the whole of Israel:
Firstfruits [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the lump [the whole of Israel]
Root [Jewish Christians and/or patriarchs] is holy → also the branches [the whole of Israel]
All of this leads to 11:26: “and so all Israel will be saved.” The controversy concerns what Paul means by “all Israel.” Some take this to refer to the church, the entire spiritual Israel (see Gal. 6:16). However, Paul has used the word “Israel” in this section (9-11) to this point to refer to national Israel and not to a spiritual Israel. Paul wants to prevent Gentile boasting and it would undercut that purpose to all of a sudden invoke a term that includes Gentiles. Of course, “all” is hyperbolic and probably does not refer to each and every Jew, but only to a representative whole.
Some have argued that Paul was not referring to a large-scale Jewish conversion at the end. I find their arguments unconvincing.
(1) In 11:26 it is argued that "and so" better means "thus, in this manner" and not "in the end". We can grant the point without destroying the temporal aspects. The manner in which Israel is saved is by being provoked by jealousy which doesn't happen until [the until in verse 11:25 rules out giving no temporal weight to "and so" in 11:26] the fullness of Gentiles comes in.
(2) It is also argued that the addition of the "now" in 11:31 rules out the future interpretation of 11:26. A look at 11:30-31 is helpful as it informs our interpretation of 11:26.
For just as you once disobeyed God, but now have received mercy by their disobedience, so also they have now been disobedient for your mercy, that also they may [now] receive mercy.
The "now" in "they may now receive mercy" is (a) not in every manuscript and (b) if it is original it most likely is added only to highlight the eschatological imminence of this phase (so Dunn).
(3) It is also argued that Paul's quote of Isaiah 59:20-21 in 11:26-27a is referring to Jesus' past and not to the Parousia. However, the verb tense is future: "will come out of Zion the one delivering". Also, Paul's use of "delivering" elsewhere refers to eschatological events on par with the Parousia: Romans 7:24, 1 Thess. 1:10 (so Dunn again).
(4) Paul's use of Isaiah 27:9 in 11:27b ("when I take away the sins of them") is glossed by these arguers to be "whenever" in order to eliminate the temporal aspect. However, Isaiah 27:9 (from the "Isaiah Apocalyspe") was most likely chosen by Paul to highlight the eschatolocal timeframe and so is totally in-line with viewing 11:26-27a as the Parousia.
Once we establish that Paul is referring to a future Jewish salvation, we are now in a position to go back to 11:12b and 11:15 and took at how Jewish fullness and acceptance figure in God’s plan. Paul implies greater riches and “life from the dead.” That Paul is referring some sort of eschatological state is indicated by a comparison of 11:15 with 5:10: “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved [future, cf. 13:11] by his life.” It would seem then that future role of national Israel is to have eschatological significance.
Theological upshot
If national Israel is to have eschatological significance, this ought to inform Christian theology. The Jewish Philosopher Emil Fackenheim claims that the Holocaust and the founding of the state of Israel are “root events” in Jewish history. I think it behooves us Christians to take these root events seriously and learn from them. Also, we might have a clue as to why the imminence of the Kingdom sensed by Jesus, Paul, and the early church has taken so long to consummate. The Jews have yet to realize their God-given mandate, a mandate lived out by Jesus the Jew.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
My take on the "Mosque" at Ground Zero
Is a Mosque (Cultural Center) at (near) Ground Zero a good idea? Let’s work with a worse-case scenario: let’s assume that Feisal Abdul Rauf, the mastermind behind the “Mosque”, wants to stick it to the West and that he wants the “Mosque” to be a symbol of Islamic supremacy (and Western weakness in letting it get built) and that he chose the name “Cordoba House” as purposely provocative. [Cordoba was the seat of the caliphate in what is now Spain after the Islamic invasion from North Africa; in Cordoba a Mosque was built over the site of a Cathedral.] Let’s assume that every Muslim that visits the “Mosque” wants the death of America and let’s assume that Islam itself, not just the brand practiced by the terrorist few, is inconsistent with Western values. [It is a well known philosophical axiom going back to at least Plato that relativism, and in this case religious relativism, is self-refuting. Not all religions can be as good as any other for the simple reason that there can be religions that claim exclusive truth.]
So what?
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York stated his case thus: “should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.” There is no question of rights, as Bloomberg’s response evidences, but there is a question of right. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director Abraham H. Foxman argued along these lines when he stated his opposition in terms of the sensitivity of the victims.
Again, so what?
We really can’t police other people’s decency. If Islam wants to be insensitive, let them, but it is also our right to point out insensitivity without being labeled bigots, a point made by Foxman. We are so blinded by our mistaken equation that tolerance = relativism that we feel strange critiquing other’s religion. I’m a Christian and I have no qualms critiquing my religion, and critiquing versions of Christianity I once held. If you look up “tolerance” in the dictionary you will find that it often pertains to views that are against one’s own.
I think the best response is to preserve toleration and if we really want to change Islam it will be by loving Muslims as ourselves. Show kindness to the Muslim that you come across in everyday situations. Your kindness might just be the key to stopping the tit-for-tat morality that fuels Islamic terrorism in the first place.
So what?
Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York stated his case thus: “should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.” There is no question of rights, as Bloomberg’s response evidences, but there is a question of right. The Anti-Defamation League’s national director Abraham H. Foxman argued along these lines when he stated his opposition in terms of the sensitivity of the victims.
Again, so what?
We really can’t police other people’s decency. If Islam wants to be insensitive, let them, but it is also our right to point out insensitivity without being labeled bigots, a point made by Foxman. We are so blinded by our mistaken equation that tolerance = relativism that we feel strange critiquing other’s religion. I’m a Christian and I have no qualms critiquing my religion, and critiquing versions of Christianity I once held. If you look up “tolerance” in the dictionary you will find that it often pertains to views that are against one’s own.
I think the best response is to preserve toleration and if we really want to change Islam it will be by loving Muslims as ourselves. Show kindness to the Muslim that you come across in everyday situations. Your kindness might just be the key to stopping the tit-for-tat morality that fuels Islamic terrorism in the first place.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Love (Agape), Wrath and God
Agape: Self-sacrifice or Mutuality?
Ever since Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros), the Christian conception of love has been basically equated with self-sacrifice. This conception is rooted in a Christology in which Jesus gives himself over for those whom he loves. However, some have contested this conception and prefer to define love in terms of mutuality. This mutuality is in turn rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel Beyond Belief, with its emphasis on the obedience of Jesus, falls on the mutuality side. Jesus’ death on the cross was not just his self-giving for sinners but operated in a mutual relationship with the Father. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death with an eye on Jesus’ relationship to the Father. For example, in Gethsemane Jesus conceives of his death as God’s will and his submission to that fate as his willingness to obey. It’s clear that Jesus thought that his death played a part in God’s plan, a plan that included Jesus, for after Gethsemane Jesus states that he will be seated at the right hand of God. This is to say that Jesus’ death, while a self-sacrificial happening, cannot be solely conceived in terms of self-sacrifice but also in terms of mutuality. Of course, this isn’t to say that self-sacrifice is not a crucial component in mutuality, but it is to say that it is not the last word.
Agape and Wrath
Once one defines love (agape) as self-sacrifice, then one has a hard time reconciling God’s love and God’s wrath. If God is love and is always sacrificing his agenda for those whom he loves, then there is precious little room for wrath. However, if agape is viewed in terms of mutuality then wrath is the expression of a failure in mutuality.
Ever since Anders Nygren (Agape and Eros), the Christian conception of love has been basically equated with self-sacrifice. This conception is rooted in a Christology in which Jesus gives himself over for those whom he loves. However, some have contested this conception and prefer to define love in terms of mutuality. This mutuality is in turn rooted in the doctrine of the Trinity. The Gospel Beyond Belief, with its emphasis on the obedience of Jesus, falls on the mutuality side. Jesus’ death on the cross was not just his self-giving for sinners but operated in a mutual relationship with the Father. The Gospels tell the story of Jesus’ death with an eye on Jesus’ relationship to the Father. For example, in Gethsemane Jesus conceives of his death as God’s will and his submission to that fate as his willingness to obey. It’s clear that Jesus thought that his death played a part in God’s plan, a plan that included Jesus, for after Gethsemane Jesus states that he will be seated at the right hand of God. This is to say that Jesus’ death, while a self-sacrificial happening, cannot be solely conceived in terms of self-sacrifice but also in terms of mutuality. Of course, this isn’t to say that self-sacrifice is not a crucial component in mutuality, but it is to say that it is not the last word.
Agape and Wrath
Once one defines love (agape) as self-sacrifice, then one has a hard time reconciling God’s love and God’s wrath. If God is love and is always sacrificing his agenda for those whom he loves, then there is precious little room for wrath. However, if agape is viewed in terms of mutuality then wrath is the expression of a failure in mutuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
