Preamble
Why did the early Christians call themselves "the Way"? I think an answer to that question will tell us a lot about early Christianity and will provide us Christians today with a challenge as to how we ought to define ourselves.
Thesis
My thesis is this: early Christians called themselves "the Way" because salvation for early Christians is a journey the goal of which is to be with God. This way was exemplified by Jesus, which played out in his obedience (unto death) and resurrection--a course that is to be followed by his disciples.
Proof
Luke is clear in the book of Acts that the early Christians called themselves "the Way" (see 9:1; 18:25-26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). There are clues that this was a self-designation. The term probably comes from Isaiah 40:3, a verse quoted elsewhere in the New Testament (Mt. 3:3; Mk. 1:3; Lk 3:4; Jn 1:23). There is also evidence that the Jews at Qumran used Isa, 40:3 in a similar manner, but for them "the way" was a strict obedience to the law. Even so, the evidence of Qumran will bolster my argument later.
Jesus Followed the Way
Another point to establish is that Jesus followed the way. This is brought out in the reference to Isaiah 40:3 since this has to do with the way of the Lord (Jesus, for Christians), but it is also brought out in Acts (see 18:25-26). Of course the clearest example of this is John 14:6 where Jesus says he is the Way (more on this below).
The Way Followed by Jesus is to be the Way Followed by his Disciples
The gospel of Mark is especially telling that the way of Jesus is the way of the disciples. It is interesting that in all three major predictions of his death and resurrection, which just is "the way", we are told that Jesus said these things on the way! (see Mk. 8:27; 9:33-34; and 10:32). These predictions of Jesus' fate are all tied to the fate of his disciples. The way of Jesus is the way of the disciples. Even outsiders knew that Jesus taught the way of God (Mk. 12:14).
More Evidence that the Way is about a Course in Life
The use of the word "way" in the New Testament refers to concrete actions (works if you will). In Matthew 21:32 we are told about the way of righteousness (see also 2 Peter 2:21) and in 2 Peter 2:2 we are told about the way of truth. A very nice segue to my discussion of the Gospel of John is Hebrews 10:20, where Jesus has opened a new and living way.
John
In John 14:6 we are told that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He is the way to the Father because he obeyed and was resurrected to be with God (a prominent theme in the gospel--13:1, 3, 33, 36; 14:12, 28; 16:5-7, 16-22, 28; 17:11, 13). It's probable that in John 14:3, the way governs both the truth and life. Jesus is the way to truth and the way to life. He is the way to truth because he obeyed God. In John 3:21, we are told to "do the truth"--a very odd way of talking to us evangelicals! The way of truth as a course of action is also found in Psalms 119:30 and 86:11. Truth even leads to life (see Prov. 15:24; Jer, 21:8; Psalms 16:11). Jesus leads to life because he conquered death. Jesus leads the way to the Father and his example is to be followed (see the conversation with Peter in Jn. 13:36-38).
Theological Upshot
It is a very significant fact that Christians called themselves "the Way". The way is not just about beliefs and though it is true Christians were called believers, they were and we are to be much more than that!
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Sunday, May 20, 2012
God is (unrequited) love
To experience unrequited love is to experience the Divine.
Preamble
I want to draw a few lessons from the fact that God is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16).
God and Unrequited Love
It's not hard to show that God is intimately acquainted with unrequited love:
Does God experience Unrequited Love?
If you take the Bible seriously, the answer is yes! The God of the Bible is not the product of the "philosophy shop", to borrow a phrase of William James (a philosopher!). I think the biggest obstacle in assessing God's relationship to unrequited love is that our conception of God precludes such emotions. However, the Bible witnesses to God's emotions. Take Isaiah 63:10 as an example:
If we need any more proof that God experiences emotions akin to unrequited love we need look no further than the famous verse in John: "Jesus wept" (11:35). The very next verse speaks of Jesus' great love associated with this weeping.
Lessons
God feels our pain when we love but are not loved back. We need not feel guilty in loving someone who does not love us back. God is not guilty for loving those who do not love back (most people) or do not love as they ought (everyone).
For me, the trickiest aspect of unrequited love is to let love be love and not to try to coerce or manipulate the beloved into loving back. Love requires freedom and God risked a universe where people were free to love or not. God does not coerce. I claim the essence of love is a reciprocal, give-and-take relationship, based on the trinity. The Biblical record is pretty clear that God's pursuit of our love is not coercive. I get the hunch that when Jesus preached he simply offered himself freely but did so in a way that protected the freedom of the hearers. The passage in Luke about the rich man and Lazarus is instructive. At the end of this story, the rich man is sort of begging that his kin be coerced so that they will love God, but Abraham says that God's side of the love equation is sufficient (Moses and the prophets, let alone a resurrected Son!) so that the rich man's kin are without excuse.
Sure, God pursues us hard and he sent his Son to die and rise again, but this pursuit is not coercive. God doesn't infringe on human freedom, and does so at great costs, so neither should we. Love is a reciprocal deal and when the give-and-take breaks down love will eventually cease. That is a bitter pill to swallow but that is the witness of Scripture. People reject God even after the love shown at the cross.
Unrequited love is a bummer. This is a lesson we can learn from God's love for us. God's will is not always done here on earth. This is why Jesus prays that it will be done! You don't pray for something you think is a theological impossibility. But the bummer of unrequited love is not alleviated by manipulating our beloved. God doesn't do it and neither should we. To borrow another phrase from William James, unrequited love proves there are always dregs at the bottom of the cup, no matter how good the coffee.
Preamble
I want to draw a few lessons from the fact that God is love (1 Jn 4:8, 16).
God and Unrequited Love
It's not hard to show that God is intimately acquainted with unrequited love:
- God loves everyone. God desires all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4). God loves the world, not just the "saved" (Jn 3:16, cf. Mt 5:45)
- Not everyone loves God and everyone does not love God as they ought.
Does God experience Unrequited Love?
If you take the Bible seriously, the answer is yes! The God of the Bible is not the product of the "philosophy shop", to borrow a phrase of William James (a philosopher!). I think the biggest obstacle in assessing God's relationship to unrequited love is that our conception of God precludes such emotions. However, the Bible witnesses to God's emotions. Take Isaiah 63:10 as an example:
But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit...The Hebrew word for "grieved" here means to hurt or to pain. A similar idea is expressed in Ephesians 4:30, where Paul commands: "do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God". The Greek word lupeo means to cause sadness. It is because of this verse that Barth said "the God proclaimed in Ephesians is not an unmoved mover."
If we need any more proof that God experiences emotions akin to unrequited love we need look no further than the famous verse in John: "Jesus wept" (11:35). The very next verse speaks of Jesus' great love associated with this weeping.
Lessons
God feels our pain when we love but are not loved back. We need not feel guilty in loving someone who does not love us back. God is not guilty for loving those who do not love back (most people) or do not love as they ought (everyone).
For me, the trickiest aspect of unrequited love is to let love be love and not to try to coerce or manipulate the beloved into loving back. Love requires freedom and God risked a universe where people were free to love or not. God does not coerce. I claim the essence of love is a reciprocal, give-and-take relationship, based on the trinity. The Biblical record is pretty clear that God's pursuit of our love is not coercive. I get the hunch that when Jesus preached he simply offered himself freely but did so in a way that protected the freedom of the hearers. The passage in Luke about the rich man and Lazarus is instructive. At the end of this story, the rich man is sort of begging that his kin be coerced so that they will love God, but Abraham says that God's side of the love equation is sufficient (Moses and the prophets, let alone a resurrected Son!) so that the rich man's kin are without excuse.
Sure, God pursues us hard and he sent his Son to die and rise again, but this pursuit is not coercive. God doesn't infringe on human freedom, and does so at great costs, so neither should we. Love is a reciprocal deal and when the give-and-take breaks down love will eventually cease. That is a bitter pill to swallow but that is the witness of Scripture. People reject God even after the love shown at the cross.
Unrequited love is a bummer. This is a lesson we can learn from God's love for us. God's will is not always done here on earth. This is why Jesus prays that it will be done! You don't pray for something you think is a theological impossibility. But the bummer of unrequited love is not alleviated by manipulating our beloved. God doesn't do it and neither should we. To borrow another phrase from William James, unrequited love proves there are always dregs at the bottom of the cup, no matter how good the coffee.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Resurrection as Salvation in Ephesians
Preamble
I want to demonstrate that for Paul in Ephesians it is the Resurrection (and Exaltation) of Jesus that is the primary instrument of salvation.
Ephesians 2:1-10
That Ephesians 2:1-10 is a unit can be seen by the inclusio using the verb "walk" (vs 2, 10). The opening idea states the problem: we are dead because of trespasses and sins. This disobedience (v. 2) brings about God's wrath (v. 3). The solution does not come until v. 5 and again the idea is repeated that we are dead in out trespasses. The first verbs are "he made [us] alive with" (v. 5) and "he raised [us] with [him]" (v.6). This is the grace by which we are saved (v. 5). It is clear that the solution is our resurrection from spiritual death. This is predicated on the resurrection of Jesus. Ephesians 1:20, which immediately precedes 2:1-10, says that God raised him from the dead.
The next verb in v. 6 is "seated us with [him]" in the heavenlies. This exaltation again echoes what happened to Jesus in 1:20 where Jesus is seated on the right of God in the heavenlies. This resurrection and exaltation no doubt is what is in mind in the very beginning of Ephesians when we are told that we are blessed with (1) every spiritual blessing, (2) in the heavenlies, and (3) in Christ (v. 1:3).
When we come to 2:8, a verse so dear to evangelicals, we read that we are saved by grace. I have already contended that the grace involved here is Jesus' resurrection/exaltation. But we read on: we are saved "through faith". I have already blogged on this verse but I will hammer my point again.
Jesus' Obedience as key to his Resurrection/Exaltation
I will lay out the evidence with the condition and the instrument of that condition:
Our Faith/Belief in Ephesians
It is argued when determining the meaning of "faith" in 2:8 and 3:12 that a believers faith has already been mentioned in 1:1, 13, 15, and 19. However, in all of these cases, it is not clear that this argument has much value. Faith in these passages do not play an instrumental role as it is claimed for 2:8 and 3:12.
Twice Ephesians calls attention to some authoritative text (Ephesians 4:8 [Ps. 68:18] and 5:14 [baptismal liturgy?]) using the phrase "therefore it says". Both these passages refer to resurrection/exaltation.
The Resurrection is crucial in Ephesians. Being raised and exalted with Jesus is the template for the Christian life. It is how sin is defeated and how the life God intends is to be lived.
I want to demonstrate that for Paul in Ephesians it is the Resurrection (and Exaltation) of Jesus that is the primary instrument of salvation.
Ephesians 2:1-10
That Ephesians 2:1-10 is a unit can be seen by the inclusio using the verb "walk" (vs 2, 10). The opening idea states the problem: we are dead because of trespasses and sins. This disobedience (v. 2) brings about God's wrath (v. 3). The solution does not come until v. 5 and again the idea is repeated that we are dead in out trespasses. The first verbs are "he made [us] alive with" (v. 5) and "he raised [us] with [him]" (v.6). This is the grace by which we are saved (v. 5). It is clear that the solution is our resurrection from spiritual death. This is predicated on the resurrection of Jesus. Ephesians 1:20, which immediately precedes 2:1-10, says that God raised him from the dead.
The next verb in v. 6 is "seated us with [him]" in the heavenlies. This exaltation again echoes what happened to Jesus in 1:20 where Jesus is seated on the right of God in the heavenlies. This resurrection and exaltation no doubt is what is in mind in the very beginning of Ephesians when we are told that we are blessed with (1) every spiritual blessing, (2) in the heavenlies, and (3) in Christ (v. 1:3).
When we come to 2:8, a verse so dear to evangelicals, we read that we are saved by grace. I have already contended that the grace involved here is Jesus' resurrection/exaltation. But we read on: we are saved "through faith". I have already blogged on this verse but I will hammer my point again.
Jesus' Obedience as key to his Resurrection/Exaltation
I will lay out the evidence with the condition and the instrument of that condition:
- 1:3 having blessed us ------------- in Christ
- 1:4 he chose us ------------------- in Him
- 1:5 having predestined us to sonship ------------------ through Jesus Christ
- 1:6 he favored us -------------------------- in the Beloved One
- 1:7 we have redemption/forgiveness of trespasses ----- in whom/through the blood of him
- 1:9 having made known to us the mystery -------------- in Him
- 1:10 to sum up all things ------------------ in Christ/in Him
- 1:11 we were made an inheritance --------------- in whom/in Christ
- 1:13 salvation, sealed -------------- in whom/in whom
- 1:14 inheritance/redemption ----------------- [in whom]
- 1:20 he exerted ----------------------- in Christ
- 2:7 grace --------------------------- in Christ
- 2:8 grace, saved ------------------ through faith
- 2:10 masterpiece -------------------------- in Christ Jesus
- 2:13 brought near -------------------------- in Christ Jesus/in the blood of Him
- 2:14 peace ------------------------------ in the flesh of Him
- 2:16 reconciled ---------------------------- through the cross
- 2:18 access --------------------------------through Him
- 3:12 access -----------------------------in whom/through the faithfulness of Him
Our Faith/Belief in Ephesians
It is argued when determining the meaning of "faith" in 2:8 and 3:12 that a believers faith has already been mentioned in 1:1, 13, 15, and 19. However, in all of these cases, it is not clear that this argument has much value. Faith in these passages do not play an instrumental role as it is claimed for 2:8 and 3:12.
- 1:1 The faith here is most likely does not have Jesus as the object but is exercised in the realm of Jesus or incorporated with Jesus. Hence, the NRSV translates 1:1 as the "faithful in Christ Jesus", This is especially meaningful because if Jesus was faithful then to be incorporated with Jesus is to be faithful too (see Eph. 4:20, where the Ephesians are said to have learned Christ in terms of morality).
- 1:13 Again, it doesn't appear that it is Jesus as the object of faith. Lincoln translates this verse as follows: "you also are in him, .... In Him also, when you believed, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit..."
- 1:15 Again, "in the Lord Jesus" need not be the object of the faith but the realm in which the faith is exercised.
- 1:19 The "ones believing" does not have any immediate instrumental role so this verse is really a moot point.
- 3:17 this later verse does seem to have instrumental import, but it pertains to the believers heart so the believers faith having instrumental powers would make sense here. It does not however mention faith in/of Him.
Twice Ephesians calls attention to some authoritative text (Ephesians 4:8 [Ps. 68:18] and 5:14 [baptismal liturgy?]) using the phrase "therefore it says". Both these passages refer to resurrection/exaltation.
- 4:8 "Having ascended on high he made captivity itself a captive, he gave gifts to his people".
- 5:14 "Arise, the one sleeping, and rise up from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
The Resurrection is crucial in Ephesians. Being raised and exalted with Jesus is the template for the Christian life. It is how sin is defeated and how the life God intends is to be lived.
Friday, April 6, 2012
John 3:36 and the word apeithon
Preamble
I want to examine one word in one verse from the Gospel of John. In particular, I want to question why the NIV translators chose the translation they did. My hunch is that there may be some theological machinations going on under the surface but I will let the reader decide for him or herself.
The Verse: 3:36
The one believing in the Son has eternal life, but the one apeithon the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
The Word: apeithon
Most modern English translations translate apeithon as "disobeys". However, the two most influential translations for Evangelicals, the King James and the NIV, use different words:
King James: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
NIV: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.
Raymond Brown points out that the Latin tradition reads "disbelieves" on the analogy of 3:18 (The one believing in Him is not judged, but the one not believing already has been judged...), and that it is a natural contrast to the "believes" in the first part of 3:36. This would explain the King James, but what about the NIV? Why did the NIV chose the word "rejects"?
Other uses of apeithon in the New Testament
Unfortunately, John does not use the word elsewhere, but it is used in other NT books (Acts 14:2; 19:9; Rom. 2:8; 10:21; 11:30; 11:31; 15:31; Heb. 3:18; 11:31; 1 Pet. 3:1; 3:20; 4:17).
Romans 2:8 is instructive. In Romans 2:6, Paul states a principle that God will recompense to each man according to his works (erga). In verse 2:7, Paul states the positive outcome: to those who work (ergou) good, life eternal (sounds like John!). But 2:8 states the negative outcome: to those being selfish and apeithousi the truth, wrath and anger (sounds like John!). There is little question that our word in question is at least related to an action verb, especially given the emphasis on works in these verses. This would make the word "disobeys" a natural translation.
Some of Paul's other uses of the word also pertain to actions. In Romans 10:21, he quotes Isaiah 65:2: I reach out my hands toward a people apeithounta and opposing. Isaiah 65:2 talks about those who "go the way not good", which is definitely an action. Hebrews 3:18, similarly, mentions our word in relation to rebellion in 3:16 and sin in 3:17, both which have to do with action in relation to God, for which "disobedience" would be a dead-on translation.
It's interesting that both Hebrews 3:18 and 11:31 relate our word to either faith or unbelief, as does John 3:36. I think the moral here is not to change the meaning of apeithon but to broaden our conception of "belief" as used by NT writers!
NIV and John 3:36
So, why did the NIV use the word "rejects". It could be that the root word of apeithon has to do with persuasion or the like and so rejects might seem appropriate. My own sense is that the word "rejects" can naturally pertain to beliefs. One can reject proposition such as "Jesus is the Son of God" or "Jesus died for my sins". Is this a theological tipping of the hat by the NIV translators? You be the judge!
Theological Upshot
To disobey the Son has to do with actions (works) and not just beliefs. John is not just talking about believing the right stuff. However, as I hope this exercise has shown, in order to teach obedience we first have to get the word right! As I point out on my website, John 3:36 ought to inform our take on John 3:16, which for many is the Gospel in a nut-shell.
I want to examine one word in one verse from the Gospel of John. In particular, I want to question why the NIV translators chose the translation they did. My hunch is that there may be some theological machinations going on under the surface but I will let the reader decide for him or herself.
The Verse: 3:36
The one believing in the Son has eternal life, but the one apeithon the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
The Word: apeithon
Most modern English translations translate apeithon as "disobeys". However, the two most influential translations for Evangelicals, the King James and the NIV, use different words:
King James: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
NIV: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them.
Raymond Brown points out that the Latin tradition reads "disbelieves" on the analogy of 3:18 (The one believing in Him is not judged, but the one not believing already has been judged...), and that it is a natural contrast to the "believes" in the first part of 3:36. This would explain the King James, but what about the NIV? Why did the NIV chose the word "rejects"?
Other uses of apeithon in the New Testament
Unfortunately, John does not use the word elsewhere, but it is used in other NT books (Acts 14:2; 19:9; Rom. 2:8; 10:21; 11:30; 11:31; 15:31; Heb. 3:18; 11:31; 1 Pet. 3:1; 3:20; 4:17).
Romans 2:8 is instructive. In Romans 2:6, Paul states a principle that God will recompense to each man according to his works (erga). In verse 2:7, Paul states the positive outcome: to those who work (ergou) good, life eternal (sounds like John!). But 2:8 states the negative outcome: to those being selfish and apeithousi the truth, wrath and anger (sounds like John!). There is little question that our word in question is at least related to an action verb, especially given the emphasis on works in these verses. This would make the word "disobeys" a natural translation.
Some of Paul's other uses of the word also pertain to actions. In Romans 10:21, he quotes Isaiah 65:2: I reach out my hands toward a people apeithounta and opposing. Isaiah 65:2 talks about those who "go the way not good", which is definitely an action. Hebrews 3:18, similarly, mentions our word in relation to rebellion in 3:16 and sin in 3:17, both which have to do with action in relation to God, for which "disobedience" would be a dead-on translation.
It's interesting that both Hebrews 3:18 and 11:31 relate our word to either faith or unbelief, as does John 3:36. I think the moral here is not to change the meaning of apeithon but to broaden our conception of "belief" as used by NT writers!
NIV and John 3:36
So, why did the NIV use the word "rejects". It could be that the root word of apeithon has to do with persuasion or the like and so rejects might seem appropriate. My own sense is that the word "rejects" can naturally pertain to beliefs. One can reject proposition such as "Jesus is the Son of God" or "Jesus died for my sins". Is this a theological tipping of the hat by the NIV translators? You be the judge!
Theological Upshot
To disobey the Son has to do with actions (works) and not just beliefs. John is not just talking about believing the right stuff. However, as I hope this exercise has shown, in order to teach obedience we first have to get the word right! As I point out on my website, John 3:36 ought to inform our take on John 3:16, which for many is the Gospel in a nut-shell.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
My Critique of Campbell's take on Leviticus 18:5
Preamble (!)
It's too bad that I'm picking on one the the few disagreements I have with Douglas Campbell's The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Overall, his take on "Justification" mirrors what on my website I refer to as the "Standard Evangelical Story". However, I still think he gets Paul's use of Leviticus 18:5 wrong, and I think the problems he admits he faces with respect to Romans 9:27-10:5 and Galatians 3:6-14 would vanish if he were to adopt my interpretation.
Works of Law
Ultimately, my disagreement with Campbell has to do with his understanding of "works of Law". On my interpretation, "works of law" are something less than obeying the law in the full sense. Campbell criticises Dunn's attempt to explain works of law in terms of Jewish identity markers. But whatever "work of law" are, they seem to fall short of complete obedience to the law. This is all my interpretation needs because my argument free-flows from the assumption that "works of law" are not the same as obeying the law and certainly not the same as "good works". One of my main pieces of evidence is in Galatians 6:13: "Even the circumcised [those who are of the works of law] do not themselves obey the law." This is confirmed in Galatians 3:10, cf. Romans 2 and Jesus' teaching in Matthew 23:23-24. So, the problem isn't legalism nor is the problem that the law cannot be perfectly fulfilled, the problem is that the law is not completely fulfilled.
Galatians 3:6-14
Campbell notices a nice chiasm in this section
A 3:6-9 Abraham
B 3:10 curse
C 3:11 life
C' 3:12 life
B' 3:13 curse
A' 3:14 Abraham
However, I think this structure actually reinforces my interpretation. One would think that both middle sections (C/C') would say similar things and that is what they do on my interpretation, but are contrasting on Campbell's interpretation.
3:11a Now by law no one is being justified before God is clear,
3:11b because the just by fidelity will live [Hab. 2:4]
3:12a But the law is not of fidelity
3:12b but the one doing these things will live in them [Lev. 18:5]
Note that both 3:11a and 3:12a say something negative about the law and so I claim that both 3:11b and 3:12b say something positive and provide proof of the truth of the a's.
Here is how I see the argument go in verses 11 and 12:
(1) [3:11b] Those who are faithful get life (= justification).
(2) [3:12b] To be faithful to the law, one has to faithful to [do!] all the law
(3) [3:10] Those who are of the works of law do not obey all the law
(4) [3:12a] therefore, those who are of the works of law are not faithful
(5) [3:11a] therefore, those who are of works of law are not justified [get life] before God.
Campbell lays out his take in argument form of this section (p. 863) but does not address why Leviticus 18:5 fails.
Romans 9:27-10:5
Many commentators agree with my interpretation when it comes to Romans, even if they don't with regard to Galatians. However, I want to make the case here too.
One of my key assumptions, that works of law is not the same as obeying the law completely, seems to be stated in 9:31: "But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness to that law did not arrive". I take it that Israel failed to reach the goal of the "righteousness race". Their proper goal was the law but they failed to reach it. Campbell's translation of 9:31 is awkward: "But Israel, pursuing a torah of righteous activity toward that law, did not [attain righteousness]".
Campbell thinks that when Paul says "works of law" in 9:32 he is referencing Leviticus 18:5. Furthermore, he does not think that "the person doing these things" or talk about Jesus doing anything reprises anything that Paul says about Jesus earlier. However, he ignores 10:4 where Paul says that Jesus is the goal/end [telos] of the law. If Jesus is the goal of the law then it would make sense to use Leviticus 18:5 positively.
Here is how I would make sense of 10:5 and it connection to 6-8 [see my website]:
For Moses writes of the righteousness of the law that the one having done these things will live in/by them, and...[Deut. 30:12-14]
Most translations interpret the connective de as 'but' which would imply a contrast between Leviticus 18:5 [10:5] and Deuteronomy 30:12-13 [10:6-8]. However, the connective can mean "and" which is how Paul uses the gar...de sequence elsewhere (Rom. 10:10; 11:15; 7:8). It would be odd for Paul to claim that Leviticus 18:5 fails and conflicts with another passage from the law!
Conclusion
These passages are the citadel of the standard evangelical story and so when they fail to defend that story the story is in big trouble. The rest of Campbell's book, for the most part, does a great job presenting an alternative rereading of Paul's theology.
It's too bad that I'm picking on one the the few disagreements I have with Douglas Campbell's The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul. Overall, his take on "Justification" mirrors what on my website I refer to as the "Standard Evangelical Story". However, I still think he gets Paul's use of Leviticus 18:5 wrong, and I think the problems he admits he faces with respect to Romans 9:27-10:5 and Galatians 3:6-14 would vanish if he were to adopt my interpretation.
Works of Law
Ultimately, my disagreement with Campbell has to do with his understanding of "works of Law". On my interpretation, "works of law" are something less than obeying the law in the full sense. Campbell criticises Dunn's attempt to explain works of law in terms of Jewish identity markers. But whatever "work of law" are, they seem to fall short of complete obedience to the law. This is all my interpretation needs because my argument free-flows from the assumption that "works of law" are not the same as obeying the law and certainly not the same as "good works". One of my main pieces of evidence is in Galatians 6:13: "Even the circumcised [those who are of the works of law] do not themselves obey the law." This is confirmed in Galatians 3:10, cf. Romans 2 and Jesus' teaching in Matthew 23:23-24. So, the problem isn't legalism nor is the problem that the law cannot be perfectly fulfilled, the problem is that the law is not completely fulfilled.
Galatians 3:6-14
Campbell notices a nice chiasm in this section
A 3:6-9 Abraham
B 3:10 curse
C 3:11 life
C' 3:12 life
B' 3:13 curse
A' 3:14 Abraham
However, I think this structure actually reinforces my interpretation. One would think that both middle sections (C/C') would say similar things and that is what they do on my interpretation, but are contrasting on Campbell's interpretation.
3:11a Now by law no one is being justified before God is clear,
3:11b because the just by fidelity will live [Hab. 2:4]
3:12a But the law is not of fidelity
3:12b but the one doing these things will live in them [Lev. 18:5]
Note that both 3:11a and 3:12a say something negative about the law and so I claim that both 3:11b and 3:12b say something positive and provide proof of the truth of the a's.
Here is how I see the argument go in verses 11 and 12:
(1) [3:11b] Those who are faithful get life (= justification).
(2) [3:12b] To be faithful to the law, one has to faithful to [do!] all the law
(3) [3:10] Those who are of the works of law do not obey all the law
(4) [3:12a] therefore, those who are of the works of law are not faithful
(5) [3:11a] therefore, those who are of works of law are not justified [get life] before God.
Campbell lays out his take in argument form of this section (p. 863) but does not address why Leviticus 18:5 fails.
Romans 9:27-10:5
Many commentators agree with my interpretation when it comes to Romans, even if they don't with regard to Galatians. However, I want to make the case here too.
One of my key assumptions, that works of law is not the same as obeying the law completely, seems to be stated in 9:31: "But Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness to that law did not arrive". I take it that Israel failed to reach the goal of the "righteousness race". Their proper goal was the law but they failed to reach it. Campbell's translation of 9:31 is awkward: "But Israel, pursuing a torah of righteous activity toward that law, did not [attain righteousness]".
Campbell thinks that when Paul says "works of law" in 9:32 he is referencing Leviticus 18:5. Furthermore, he does not think that "the person doing these things" or talk about Jesus doing anything reprises anything that Paul says about Jesus earlier. However, he ignores 10:4 where Paul says that Jesus is the goal/end [telos] of the law. If Jesus is the goal of the law then it would make sense to use Leviticus 18:5 positively.
Here is how I would make sense of 10:5 and it connection to 6-8 [see my website]:
For Moses writes of the righteousness of the law that the one having done these things will live in/by them, and...[Deut. 30:12-14]
Most translations interpret the connective de as 'but' which would imply a contrast between Leviticus 18:5 [10:5] and Deuteronomy 30:12-13 [10:6-8]. However, the connective can mean "and" which is how Paul uses the gar...de sequence elsewhere (Rom. 10:10; 11:15; 7:8). It would be odd for Paul to claim that Leviticus 18:5 fails and conflicts with another passage from the law!
Conclusion
These passages are the citadel of the standard evangelical story and so when they fail to defend that story the story is in big trouble. The rest of Campbell's book, for the most part, does a great job presenting an alternative rereading of Paul's theology.
Monday, February 13, 2012
The Importance of the Resurrection in Colossians
The resurrection is key in Colossians. Oddly enough Paul grounds the Colossians' faith and love upon the hope they heard in the word of truth of the good news (1:5). The gospel here is defined as the Colossians' hope. This is reiterated in 1:23 when Paul writes about the "hope of the good news". What is this hope? I contend that this is the resurrection of the Colossians at the end of the age, a resurrection made possible by Jesus' resurrection. This hope is stored in heaven (1:5) but this does not mean that when the hope is fully realized it will "be in heaven". Paul says that when Christ is revealed then those in him will also be revealed in glory (3:4). This is because Christ in you is the hope of glory (1:27). It is clear that this hope is the future eternal resurrected life made possible by Jesus' resurrection.
Further prove of this found in 1:12 where the Colossians are told that they have been qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints "in the light". The "in the light" probably refers to the glory of the eternal kingdom where the resurrected dwell. The next verse (1:13) says that the Colossians have been rescued from the authority of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of the Son. This rescue reminds us of Exodus where God rescued Israel (see Ex. 6:6; 12:27; 14:30). The Exodus from the slavery of sin is clear in 1:14 when it states that in Jesus we have redemption the forgiveness of sins.
It is very significant that the cure for sin is the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in 2:12-13. In 2:12 we are told that the Colossians are buried and raised with Jesus. In 2:13, they are dead in their trespasses (same word used in the singular in Rom. 5:15), but that they are made alive in Jesus. They are made alive because Jesus was raised from the dead. This is reiterated in 3:1, where the Colossians are told that they have been raised with Christ. Christ is their life (3:4).
The process of salvation in Colossians is therefore one of incorporation into Christ (hence all the talk of being "in Christ"). We die in Christ and we are made alive in Christ because he was killed and raised. This is a far cry from just saying that our sins are forgiven because Jesus was sacrificed like an animal.
Further prove of this found in 1:12 where the Colossians are told that they have been qualified to share in the inheritance of the saints "in the light". The "in the light" probably refers to the glory of the eternal kingdom where the resurrected dwell. The next verse (1:13) says that the Colossians have been rescued from the authority of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of the Son. This rescue reminds us of Exodus where God rescued Israel (see Ex. 6:6; 12:27; 14:30). The Exodus from the slavery of sin is clear in 1:14 when it states that in Jesus we have redemption the forgiveness of sins.
It is very significant that the cure for sin is the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is evident in 2:12-13. In 2:12 we are told that the Colossians are buried and raised with Jesus. In 2:13, they are dead in their trespasses (same word used in the singular in Rom. 5:15), but that they are made alive in Jesus. They are made alive because Jesus was raised from the dead. This is reiterated in 3:1, where the Colossians are told that they have been raised with Christ. Christ is their life (3:4).
The process of salvation in Colossians is therefore one of incorporation into Christ (hence all the talk of being "in Christ"). We die in Christ and we are made alive in Christ because he was killed and raised. This is a far cry from just saying that our sins are forgiven because Jesus was sacrificed like an animal.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Some thoughts on Jesus' death in Colossians
Colossians 1:20 and 1:22
Jesus' death is mentioned in both Colossians 1:20 and 1:21-22:
The first argument pertains to the structure of 1:21-22:
This brings me to Colossians 1:20, which does mention blood. However, there is no reason to assume that an animal-like sacrifice is meant. "Blood" could just be an example of metonymy (as "Hollywood" would be a stand-in for the movie business). "Blood" could still be a reference to Jesus' obedience and could even pertain to the "war" Jesus waged against the forces of evil (see Colossians 2:14-15). "Blood" elsewhere in the Scripture can refer to death and not animal-like sacrifice (see Genesis 9:6 for a famous example).
It's true that Paul does not spell out the mechanism of atonement in Colossians but he tends to use language of incorporation which is not the language of animal-like sacrifice (see Colossians 2:11-12 as just one example).
Jesus' death is mentioned in both Colossians 1:20 and 1:21-22:
- 1:20: and through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of the cross of him.
- 1:21-22: and you once having been alienated and enemies in the mind by evil works, yet now he reconciled in the body of the flesh of him through his death to present you holy and blameless and without reproach before him.
The first argument pertains to the structure of 1:21-22:
- 21a and you once ------ 22a yet now
- 21b having been alienated and enemies in the mind ------ 21b he reconciled
- 21c by/in evil works ------ 22c by/in the body of the flesh of him through his death
This brings me to Colossians 1:20, which does mention blood. However, there is no reason to assume that an animal-like sacrifice is meant. "Blood" could just be an example of metonymy (as "Hollywood" would be a stand-in for the movie business). "Blood" could still be a reference to Jesus' obedience and could even pertain to the "war" Jesus waged against the forces of evil (see Colossians 2:14-15). "Blood" elsewhere in the Scripture can refer to death and not animal-like sacrifice (see Genesis 9:6 for a famous example).
It's true that Paul does not spell out the mechanism of atonement in Colossians but he tends to use language of incorporation which is not the language of animal-like sacrifice (see Colossians 2:11-12 as just one example).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
