Enoch, Faithfulness and Eternal Life

Preamble

The figure of Enoch in the Old Testament is a mysterious character.  I will take a closer look at the passage in Genesis where he is mentioned.  I will argue that Enoch is a classic example of Habakkuk 2:4 as I interpret that verse.  I will find excellent confirmation in the book of Hebrews in the New Testament, the only other Biblical passage where he is mentioned.  This is crucial evidence for my Gospel Beyond Belief because a certain interpretation of Habakkuk 2:4 lies at its heart, whereas its misinterpretation lies at the heart of the Standard Evangelical Story, a story that I think is a perversion of the Gospel.

The Life-Death Theme in Genesis

Since I claim that the heart of the Gospel message is Jesus' obedient death and resurrection/ascension/exaltation, and not his death as an animal-like sacrifice, it would make sense to find hints of the Gospel in the founding stories of Genesis.  That is exactly what we find.  The loss of eternal life is a major theme in Genesis.  After the disobedience in the garden, God did not want humans to attain eternal life by eating from the tree of life, so he guarded that tree with cherubim and a fiery, twirling sword (Gen. 3).  Therefore, God exiled Adam from the garden.  It is against this backdrop that we read about Adam's descendants in chapter 5.

List in Genesis 5

The descendants of Adam are listed following a set pattern: (1) A was x years old when he begot B; (2) A lived x years after begetting B and had other sons and daughters; (3) the entire lifetime of A was x years, then he died.  The list is as follows:

1. Adam
2. Seth
3. Enosh
4. Kenan
5. Mahalalel
6. Jared
7. Enoch
8. Methuselah
9. Lamech
10. Noah

What is remarkable is the addition of "then he died".  It seems added for emphasis, since one would think that that information is already given by how long A lived.  Therefore, this emphasis is telling because it was Adam's disobedience that led to death (Gen. 2:16-17; 3:19).  However, Enoch is an exception to this pattern in two ways: (1) instead of pattern 2's "A lived x years after begetting B", we read that Enoch "walked with God" (Gen. 5:22), (2) instead of patter 3's "then he died" we read that Enoch walked with God and that "he was no more, because God took him" (Gen. 5:24).

Implications

A strong case can be made that the reason we don't read "then he died" for Enoch is because he walked with God.  To walk with God is in part to be obedient.  This is why we are told that Noah walked with God (Gen. 6:9) who was "righteous" and "blameless", and why we are told Abraham walked with God (Gen 17:1) who was "blameless".  The conclusion is that Enoch was rewarded with life because he was faithful.

Habakkuk 2:4

On my website I argue that Paul and the Book of Hebrews quote Habakkuk 2:4 to mean that the righteous by faith[fulness] (obedience) will (be rewarded with eternal) live/life.  The verse is not saying that the righteous will live by faith as opposed to live by works or by anything else.  However, this is how the Standard Evangelical Story interprets Hab. 2:4.

Confirmation in Hebrews

On my website (Gospel Beyond Belief) I argue that Hebrews understands Habakkuk 2:4 as I do.  It is interesting to note that the great chapter on Faith[fulness] (chapter 11) is preceded by the quote of Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38.  This is significant.  In 11:5, we are told that Enoch "had pleased God" and that is why he did not experience death.  The author of Hebrews is most likely using the LXX because the LXX uses "pleases God" instead of "walks with God" in Genesis 5:22, 24.  This sheds light on the famous next verse: without faithfulness is impossible to please him (God).  One must also believe he rewards faithfulness.  The next verse talks about Noah who also walked with God!  Both Enoch and Noah were rewarded with kinds of life because they were obedient.  Therefore, chapter 11 mutually reinforces the meaning of Habakkuk 2:4 in 10:38.  Life is a reward for obedience.

Jesus as Prime Example of Habakkuk 2:4

On my website I claim that Paul uses Jesus as the quintessential example of Habakkuk 2:4.  Jesus was righteous (obedient unto death) and was rewarded with eternal life (resurrection).  This is also the way Paul envisions his ministry and the Christian path in general.  This has monstrous consequence for how we interpret Paul and hence the Gospel, since the Standard Evangelical Story is wedded to a particular misinterpretation of Paul.

Resurrection as Primary

If I'm right about Habakkuk 2:4, then the resurrection of Jesus ought to be accorded the importance that it deserves, and as I argue, the New Testament proves.  Eternal life and the victory over death is the GOOD NEWS!

A Misinterpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21

Preamble

An influential evangelical pastor/author has written a book in which he defends what I have called the standard evangelical story.  In chapter 11 (and 3) of that book he criticizes a certain interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 (see especially pp. 174-180).  I intend here to defend the interpretation that this author criticizes in part by showing that his interpretation is false and a disaster for Christianity.  It will turn out that the verses he thinks support his case actually undermine it.   


The Basic Issue

His basic error is to assume that for Paul salvation leaves the Christian "ungodly" and that the righteousness we receive "is not the moral quality of our souls" (he is quoting here Charles Hodge).  In other words, he continues to defend imputation as a legal fiction and sees 2 Corinthians 5:21 as a classic statement of that doctrine.

2 Corinthians 5:21

The one not knowing sin he made sin on behalf of us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.

His contention is that Christ is made sin (as a legal fiction--for he knew no sin) so that we are made righteous (as a legal fiction--for we are not really righteous).  He highlights this by italicizing the verse as follows:

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The problem for him is that one would have expected on his interpretation something like this: "he made him sin so that we would be made righteous."  But that is not what we read.  The puzzle for his interpretation is the addition "of God".  Why did Paul talk of the righteousness of God when on his reading it is with Christ's righteousness we are clothed? 

The Interpretation Criticized

According to the interpretation I wish to defend, the "righteousness of God" is not Christ's righteousness (which in his case would be a genitive of origin), but is the power of God to set things right (see Romans 1:16-17 where the "power of God" is parallel to the "righteousness of God").  In other words, the phrase "the righteousness of God" is a subjective genitive or a possessive genitive (if righteousness is an attribute of God, but an attribute that pertains to action).  So, what 2 Corinthians 5:21 is saying is that Paul and his fellow evangelists are becoming the righteousness of God in the sense that they are God's ambassadors in carrying out God's saving activity, which for Paul is primarily resurrected life (both figurative and literal).  In other words, 2 Corinthians 5:21 has nothing to do with the legal fiction of imputation. He realizes this (see his p. 175), hence his attack.

Point #1

He seems to want to discredit the target interpretation because of its novelty ("unprecedented" is the word he prefers).  However, he ought to be aware by now that there are others who share the target interpretation other than N.T. Wright (his main opponent).  Morna Hooker gave a lecture in which she supported the alternative interpretation.  This lecture was given in honor of C.K. Barrett, the same person he quotes in approval of the standard interpretation ("The root of the thought is forensic: man is arraigned in God's court, and is unable to satisfy the judge unless righteousness, which he cannot himself produce, is given him.... Christ himself becomes righteousness for him (2 Cor. 5:21), and God the judge views him not as he is in himself but in Christ").  Douglas Campbell follows Wright and Hooker in supporting the alternative interpretation (see his The Deliverance of God: an Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, pp. 912-13).  He knows that just because this reading has not been the dominant one does not mean it is not true (see his p. 115).  However, he seems overly interested in conforming to Reformed tradition instead of the Truth (see the title of his chapter 8).  The question why God allowed a faulty interpretation to last so long is a different issue but that issue is not solved by adhering to a faulty interpretation despite the claim to "tradition" (see Mark chapter 7!).

Point #2

His definition of the  righteousness of God is constructed by him to allow the possibility that God's righteousness can be passed to the Christian.  However, as N. T. Wright has responded in his Justification (p. 66):

...it is not at all clear how [his] idiosyncratic definition of "God's righteousness" works out within the scheme of imputation that lies at the heart of his own reading.  If "God's righteousness" is "God's concern for God's own glory," what does it mean to suggest that this is imputed to the believer?  It could only mean "the believer's concern for God's own glory."  But concern for someone else's glory is not the same as concern for one's own.

 Wright's basic thrust is that it does not make sense for the judge to impute anything to the defendant.  Our author is clearly making a category mistake.

Point #3

Our author criticizes Wright for thinking that the traditional interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21 makes that verse a "throw in".  He points out that Christ's death is for Paul "squarely underneath his apostolic ministry as its foundational, controlling impulse" (p. 176).  He points to 2 Corinthians 5:14:

For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore we all have died.

He ties this verse to 5:21.  He also ties verse 5:21 to verse 5:17 ("If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation").  He thinks that the phrase "become the righteousness of God" is analogous to "become a new creation" (p. 177). 

His logic here undermines his case!  Morna Hooker, in her lecture advocating the interpretation he is against, pointed out that in 5:14-15, 18 and 21 Paul give summaries of the Gospel.  However, Hooker posits that he did so in order to apply them to his own ministry.  She also argues contra our author that the contrast between God's righteousness and our own as seen in Romans 10:3 and Philippians 3:9 simply is not relevant here.  See my blog on Resurrection in 2 Corinthians where I give an argument totally in line with  Hooker's contentions.  In that blog, I point out that Paul defends his ministry by noting that it follows the template of Jesus.  I will return to this point below, especially in regard to the resurrection--a point totally lost on our author.

His quote of 5:14 works against him.  The verse says that Christ died for all, therefore we all have died.  Note that it says we died, not the Christ died in our place.  That is a crucial difference (noted by Hooker).  We died to sin so that we might live to him (note "resurrection" talk seeping in here).  In my blog mentions above I noted that though Paul bases his ministry on the template of Jesus, there is no analogue to Jesus' death as a sacrificial animal.  Instead, the resurrection of Jesus is the what is always on the other side of the equation of Jesus's (or Paul's or the believer's) death.  The death is a death to sin so that real righteousness can flow from the believer.  The new creation (which for me is "resurrection talk") mentioned in 5:17 is just that!  The believer is created new to evidence the real righteousness that the believer did not evidence before the Gospel came.

He goes on to quote 5:18 as proof that we are being told how people are reconciled (p. 177):

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation... 

He seems oblivious that his quote undermines his case.  The analogue to "we become the righteousness of God" in 5:21, is "gave us the ministry of reconciliation" in 5:18 and "entrusting to us the message of reconciliation" in 5:19.  We are ambassadors of God to do what God does.  Note the similarities between the "power of God" and the "weapons of righteousness" in 6:7.  The righteousness of God is an active power, not something that is transferred from a judge to a defendant.

Theological Upshot

Our author's take on 2 Corinthians 5:21 reminds me of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg, a desperate measure by the losing side.  It comes down to radically different interpretation of Christianity.  A weak, sinful humanity or a resurrected and transformed humanity.  That is the choice.  It is utterly amazing to me how little he discusses the resurrection, which for Paul is decisive!

     

  

  

Encouragement and Resurrection in John

Preamble

I claim that much of Jesus' encouragement in the gospel of John is related to resurrection (life).  This will show that salvation for John is described in terms of life and not in terms of forgiveness of sins though the latter is included in the former.

The Goal

The goal of Jesus is described by himself to be the return to the Father (see my last post: 13:1 [cf. Lk 9:51], 3; 14:12, 28; 16:5, 17, 28; 17:11, 13; 20:17).  I suggest that the reason for this is that the Father possesses life and gives that life to the Son (5:26, see also 14:19 where Jesus is said to have life).  That Jesus is resurrected and ascends to the Father is important for it makes possible the gift of the Spirit (7:39; 16:7).  I think the logic here is that Jesus makes possible the template (the "way") for the disciples to follow.

The Spirit and Life

It is the Spirit that begets eternal life (6:63: "the Spirit is the thing making alive...the words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.").  Earlier Jesus had claimed that unless one be born of water and spirit one cannot enter the kingdom of God (3:5).  The reason is that the Spirit gives life (see Gen. 2:7 where God's breath (= spirit) enlivens).  Death results when God's breath is removed (Gen. 6:3).

Trouble vs. Peace and Joy

I now turn to Jesus' words of encouragement with the purpose of arguing that they are related to the resurrected life.  Early in his last discourse Jesus tells the disciples not to be troubled (14:1).  It is interesting that the word "trouble" appears elsewhere in John in relation to death (11:33 in relation to Lazarus and in 13:21 in relation to Jesus).  Jesus immediately talks about the afterlife of the disciples (14:2-4), so the consolation of 14:1 seems to mean that the disciples are not to worry because life will follow any death.  This is why he says that they ought to trust in God and Jesus (14:1) because they grant life (5:21: "for just as the Father raises the dead and makes alive, so also the Son...makes alive.").

 In 14:27, Jesus says that his peace is his gift to the disciples, but it is not as the world gives peace.  A similar saying occurs in 16:33, which I think helps interpret 16:27.  For in 16:33, Jesus says that the disciples will find suffering in this world but not to fear because he has conquered the world.  I take it as given that the suffering in this world pertains to death.  But Jesus has conquered death precisely by raising from the dead.  In Revelation the martyrs are described as "conquerors" in part because they too will escape the evil of death. Another similarity between 14:27 and 16:33 is that they both are referenced to Satan and his realm of death.  14:27 is followed by 14:30 where Jesus says the prince of this world has no hold over him.  I think the thought is clear: Jesus, by raising from the dead has dealt a death-blow (if you will) to the Satanic realm of death.

Jesus' gift of peace is worded very similarly to the gift of eternal life in 10:28 ("and I give to them eternal life").

Jesus' peace is related to Jesus' joy, which is also related to resurrected life.  Joy in the gospel is often related to eternal life:

• 4:36 the reaper is receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that the sower and reaper may rejoice together.
• 8:56 Abraham rejoiced at seeing Jesus' day; this is said in the context of talk of Abraham and death.
• 9:15 Jesus rejoiced that he was not there when Lazarus died so that the disciple would believe (that he was a life giver?).

Therefore, when in 15:11 Jesus says that his joy may be the disciples' joy he is talking about life after death (cf. 17:13).

A clearer link between joy and resurrection occurs in 16.  There, Jesus says that the disciples' sadness at Jesus' death will turn to joy (16:20).  He then compares the situation to the pain of a woman in labor who rejoices at the birth of her child (16:21).  The pain corresponds to Jesus' death, but the joy corresponds to Jesus' resurrection.  In Revelation 12:5 (or so it can be argued) Jesus' resurrection is compared to birth (in Rev. 1:5 Jesus is called the first born from the dead).  Interestingly, in 16:16 Jesus uses a phrase (in a little while) that may come from Isaiah 26 and it is in Isaiah 26 where there is arguably one of the few mentions of resurrection in the Old Testament!  This is not a stretch because 16:21 also uses imagery from Isaiah 26. 

Conclusion

This exercise has shown that the resurrected life in John is the essence of the gospel message.  We are given encouragement because as Bob Dylan would say "death is not the end"!  There are few more powerful verses in the New Testament than John 16:33:

  I have said these things to you so that in me you may have peace.  In the world you will find suffering, but be cheerful, I have conquered the world.

Amen!

    

  

Why did early Christians call themselves "the Way"?

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!





 

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:

• 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.

Given the understatement of the last point, it is safe to say that if God is love, then God knows unrequited love like no other, it is God's predominate emotion!

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.

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:

• 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

This catalogue proves, I think, that the faith mentioned in 2:8 and 3:12 are related to those passages concerning Jesus death (vs. 1:7, 2:13, and 2:16).  This would only make sense if we are talking of Jesus' faithfulness/obedience and that his death is ultimately viewed as an act of obedience, even if it is also viewed metaphorically as animal-like sacrifice (5:2).

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.

More Indications of the Importance of Resurrection/Exaltation in Ephesians

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."

Conclusion

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.

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.