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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Upshot

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


 

A defense against a criticism of "Faithfulness of Jesus"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romans 11:26 and Politics

Preamble

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

Romans 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christological Role

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

5:10: For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, we will be saved by his life.

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

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

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

State of Israel

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

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

Ephesians 2:8-9

Preamble

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

Ephesians 2:8-9

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

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

Strategy

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

Ephesians 2:18 and 3:12

2:18: because through him we have the access

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

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

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

Ephesians 2:8-9 revisited

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

Theological Upshot

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

"It is has been accomplished" and the Resurrection

Preamble:

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

John 19:28-30:

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

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

The Resurrection:

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

Theological Upshot:

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

Jesus Violent in Temple?

Preamble

I will argue that Jesus' action in the temple is not only nonviolent, but that Jesus was demonstrating against violence (among other things).

Cleansing the Temple

The synoptic Gospels have Jesus driving/throwing out the ones buying and selling in the temple.  Mark and Matthew add that he overturned the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.  Mark adds that he would not let anyone carry things through the temple.  John's Gospel has Jesus throwing everyone out, including coin dealers and those selling oxen, sheep and doves.  He does this with a whip made of rope.  He pours out the coins and overturns the tables.  He finally orders those selling doves to leave.

Why did Jesus do this?

On the assumption that Jesus was cleansing the temple, we have to conclude that Jesus' violent actions were symbolic in the sense that he did not succeed in permanently altering the temple modus operandi.  Arguments that Jesus would have needed a small army to permanently alter the temple modus operandi or that he would have been arrested if he had tried have at least some weight.  Therefore, the weight of evidence points to these actions as symbolic.

Given the prophetic precedence of symbolic action (nakedness [Isaiah 20:1-6]; smashed pot [Jeremiah 19:1-15]; brick [Ezekiel 4:1-17]) it would not be strange at all for Jesus to enact a symbolic event.  But what did Jesus' mean by this symbolism?  Was it just that he was against what was going on in the temple?

Symbol of Destruction

There is one solid fact that we have regarding Jesus' relation to the temple and that is destruction.

• The gospel of Mark sandwiches Jesus' action in the temple (Mk 11:15-19) with the fig tree incident (Mk 11:12-14 and 11:20-24).  This strongly suggests that the destruction of the fig tree is related to the incident in the temple.
• Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple (Mk 13:2//Mt 24:1-3; cf. Jn 2:19).
• Jesus is accused of claiming the intent to destroy the temple (Mk 14:58//Mt 26:61).
• Jesus is taunted for his supposed statement regarding the temple's destruction (Mk 15:29//Mt 27:40).
• Stephen is accused of mentioning Jesus' destructive statements (Acts 6:13-14).

I conclude that Jesus did say something about the destruction of the temple and this bolsters the hypothesis that what Jesus did in the temple was a symbol of destruction.

Proof Texts (Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11)

The question is whether we can jibe the hypothesis that Jesus was symbolizing the temple's destruction with his actions with the words he says.  To answer this we have to state the reason for the temple's destruction and that is the nations' disobedience (not just the temple merchants' corruption, though that would be included).  This of course relates directly with the fig tree incident. Seen in this way, the texts, Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11, fit the bill.  The Isaiah passage is close to passages critical of Israel's disobedience (Isaiah 56:9-12; 57:1-21) and the Jeremiah passage is part of the famous sermon against the temple.  In the Jeremiah passage, Israel's violence is included in the list of disobedience (murder).

The "robbers" in Jesus' quote from Jeremiah (Gk. lestes; Heb. parisim) better means those who use violence to rob (bandits/brigands).

The hypothesis thus receives ample confirmation.  Jesus was enacting a symbolic destruction of the temple and the reason was because of Jerusalem's overall condition of disobedience.  Therefore, Jesus' actions included a critique of Jerusalem's violence and perhaps militant violent stance against Rome.

Theological Upshot

Jesus' action is the temple (or his action against the fig tree) cannot be flippantly used to condone violence on the part of Christians.  Jesus was symbolizing an event that would be undertaken by Rome and not himself!  Therefore, the violence we see done by Jesus cannot by any means justify Christians using violence to punish.  Vengeance is mine says the Lord.

  

Jesus Prohibits Divorce (a look at Mark 10:2-9)

Jesus Prohibits Divorce

It is not often remarked that Jesus prohibits divorce.  The evidence is pretty clear: 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; Matthew 5:32//Luke 16:18 (note no exception); Mark 10:2-12//Matthew 19:3-12.  I want highlight what Jesus says in Mark 10:2-9.

Mark 10:2-9

The Pharisees test Jesus by asking whether divorce is lawful (v.2).  Jesus retorts by asking what Moses commanded (v.3).  They respond by alluding to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 where divorce is allowed via a certificate of dismissal (v.4).  However, Jesus response to this is very interesting and has far reaching implications.  Jesus answers that Moses wrote this command because of "hardness of heart" (v.5).  In other words, this law was because of human frailty and is not in the deeper sense the result of God's will.  For Jesus, God's will on this matter is that divorce is not permitted.  He uses Genesis (1:27; 2:24) to argue that divorce is contrary to God's designs.

Jesus Trumps the Law

What is interesting about Jesus' argument is that he assumes that Scripture (Deuteronomy) is not the last word concerning God's true will and this will is written into creation (Genesis). Perhaps we could say that the Law is evidence that God adjusts his message to the state of humanity because he is merciful and gracious (and a realist?).  However, Jesus thinks there is a new game in town (Mt. 9:17) and the situation is changed so that the previous divine accommodation is no longer operative.  Christianity brings the Spirit and the Spirit brings the condition that makes divorce a thing of the past.

Theological Upshot

It is true that at the consummation of all things there will be no marriage at all (Mk 12:25) but in the meantime there is no excuse for Christians to divorce.  The new heart promised in the the prophets has come.  What God has joined together, let no one separate!