For Whom Did Christ Die? - Ben Witherington (Arminian View)

According to Ben Witherington (Asbury Theological Seminary):

Christ died for the sins of the world, and to ransom that world. 1 Tim. 2.4-5 puts the matter succinctly. God our savior "wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and human beings, Christ Jesus, himself human, who gave himself as a ransom for all people." One could compare this to John 3.17, God sent his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but to save the world, or the repeated refrain in Hebrews that Christ died once for all time, for all persons, and so on. (See the discussion of these matters in my forthcoming volumes on NT Theology and Ethics entitled The Indelible Image).

But this is not just a matter of finding sufficient proof texts (of which there are many more), it is a matter of one's theology of the divine character. God is love, holy love, to be sure, but nonetheless love, and as 1 Tim. 2.4 says, the desire of God's heart is that all persons be saved. It is not just the elect whom God loves, but as John 3.16 says, the world, for whom Christ was sent to die. It follows from this that Christ's atoning death is sufficient for the salvation of all persons, but only efficient for those who respond in faith to God's gracious provision of redemption.

Even more foundational is the understanding of the meaning of saying that God is love. Among other things, this means God is committed to relating to those created in his image in love. Now real love must be freely given, and freely received. It cannot be predetermined, manipulated, coerced or else it becomes contrary to what the Bible says love is (see 1 Cor. 13). In the debate between whether the primary trait of God is God's sovereignty or God's love, it seems clear that God exercises his power in love, and for loving ends. Even his acts of judgment, short of final judgment, are not meant to be punitive but rather corrective and restorative. God in short, is unlike vindictive human beings, very unlike them. Thus Hosea relates that God says "All my compassion is aroused. I will not carry out my fierce anger ... For I am God and not a human being." God, the divine parent, is not less loving than the best of human parents, God is more loving. If Christ is the perfect incarnation of the character of God, then the answer to the question, for whom did Christ die, becomes theologically self-evident--- for the world which God created and still loves.

Ben Witherington on NT Ethics

BW3 has a post from the second volume of his forthcoming book on NT Theology and Ethics. Here is a foretaste:

"It is sad but true to say that NT ethics has been the step-child of NT studies throughout the 20th and into the 21st century. There are a variety of reasons for this in the scholarly world. One is the disparaging remarks made about NT ethics by various highly influential NT scholars. When you complain that what we have in large portions of the NT is ‘bourgeois’ ethics (e.g. in the Pastoral Epistles), or an ethical miscellany cobbled together from Greco-Roman and Jewish ethics, or a baptizing of various forms of the status quo, the contempt for what is being urged in the NT is not far beneath the surface of the discourse. But there is another reason why NT ethics has suffered both abuse and neglect and it is theological. In some forms of Reformed theology, ethics is frankly an after-thought. Reformed theology is all about God’s sovereignty, and grace and divine salvation, and there is an allergic reaction to the notion that the ethics of the NT might have something to do with theology, might have something to do with human salvation, because of course ethics is almost exclusively about human behavior, not God’s behavior. Even when a Reformed scholar emphasizes ethics as an essential act of gratitude in response to grace, he has failed to do justice to the inherent and necessary connection between theology and ethics in the NT. For example, salvation has to do with both theology and ethics in the NT. And there is a crucial epistemological issue to consider—how exactly can you ‘know’ a truth in the Biblical sense without living into and out of that truth? In the Bible, understanding often comes from doing or experiencing. Belief and behavior are not meant to be separated from one another into hermetically sealed off containers. The obedience which flows from faith is also the obedience which reassures, strengths and more fully forms faith."

Re: the bold type, I understand his objection and I've seen Reformed theology go doctrinaire and antinomian, but this still strikes me as a Weslyan/Arminian caricature of Reformed Theology. I'd like to know which Reformed Theology he is talking about. That said, BW3 does have some genuinely good stuff in his post on NT ethics, esp. in relation to the role of the Holy Spirit in ethics, the commonality of NT ethics being a shared narratological framework, and his focus on the kingdom .

Forthcoming BWIII Books

Two books from Ben Witherington that are coming out from Wipf & Stock in the future include:

1. The Lazarus Effect (with Ann Witherington).

Archaeologist Art West makes the discovery of a lifetime in Jerusalem finding the tombstone of Lazarus, which indicates that Jesus raised him from the dead. But before he can make public his amazing discovery, the stone is stolen, sold to the British Library, and West is implicated in an antiquities fraud that will lead to a trial. West's Jewish and Muslim friends in Jerusalem rally to support West's innocence and to help find the thief who stole the stone, but then West is shot and in critical condition in a Jerusalem hospital. Can the truth be discovered in time, and West's life be saved? And what was on that Aramaic scroll that was found in Lazarus's coffin? In this fast-paced thriller, Ben Witherington, himself a NT scholar with a degree in English literature, together with his wife, Ann, introduces us to the life of an archaeologist and NT scholar and his trials and tribulations when a big find comes to light. Set in the always volatile city of Jerusalem, the Witheringtons reveal the fascinating hidden dimensions of multi-religious life in that Holy Place, and show how even today Christians, Jews, and Muslims can work together so the truth may come to light, and all may experience "the Lazarus Effect"—new life from the dead.

2. New Testament Rhetoric: An Introductory Guide to the Art of Persuasion in and of the New Testament.

I've written an endorsement for this book: "Ben Witherington has produced a sterling volume on ancient rhetoric and its applicability to New Testament studies. Witherington carefully explains the various forms of the rhetorical craft and how the New Testament authors themselves set out to persuade, exhort, rebuke, and encourage their various audiences through use of ancient rhetorical techniques. Importantly, Witherington carefully describes how an understanding of rhetoric affects biblical interpretation and Christian preaching. Anyone who is interested in the contours of early Christian discourse or would like to be able to preach and teach as persuasively as the biblical authors will find this volume highly informative and immensely helpful. Another gem from the pen of Ben!".

For my own views on NT and Rhetoric (i.e. a light handed use of them) see this journal article here.

Witherington gives 10 reasons why rhetoric matters for NT Interpretation:

1. Failure to recognize a propositio (thesis statement) or peroration leads to misunderstanding of the character and themes of a document.

2. Failure to correctly identify the species of rhetoric in a discourse leads to false conclusions.

3. Failure to recognize "impersonation" as a rhetorical device.

4. Failure to recognize the way that a rhetorical comparison works.

5. Failure to see the difference between ancient and modern persuasion.

6. Failure to recognize enthymemes leads to misunderstanding NT arguments.

7. Overlooking the way personificiations work in a rhetorical discourse.

8. Mistaking amplification for either redundancy or for saying more than one thing.

9. Mistaking asiatic rhetoric for verbal excess.

10. The importance of recognizing micro-rhetoric - recognizing a gradatio.

Ben Witherington's Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians

I want to offer praise for Ben Witherington's recent commentary on 1 & 2 Peter entitled Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians. I am most encouraged by Witherington’s view of the social milieu of the letter of 1 Peter. He asserts, "We will argue that the early church fathers were right that 1 Peter is written by Peter to Jewish Christians" (2007:17, emphasis added).

.

The prevailing assumption today among Petrine interpreters is that 1 Peter was written to Gentile Christians. I have believed for quite sometime now however that this consensus position on the question of audience at best does not adequately explain the content of the letter and at worst renders 1 Peter the most thoroughgoing supersessionist text in the New Testament.

Ben Witherington on Scripture

Ben Witherington is Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and I interviewed him about his forthcoming book on Scripture.

1. What led you to write your triology of books on the sacraments?

There has been far too much fuzzy thinking, or indeed, no thinking in some cases, about the sacraments in many Evangelical and Protestant contexts, and what passes for thinking is so poorly grounded in what the NT says about baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the Word of God that I thought it was time to offer three short pithy discussions on these inter-related topics.

2. By way of summary, what is your forthcoming book The Living Word of God: Rethinking the Theology of the Bible arguing for?

I am arguing for a lot of different things in my Living Word book out this fall. One of the main points is that we are making a mistake by looking at the Bible as a 'text' in the modern sense of the word. The environment in which the Bible was written is an oral culture, a culture in which only 10% or so of the populus could read and write. Among other things then, the fact that we have a plethora of people leading Christianity who could read and wrote these books speaks volumes about the social level of the authors. They were not bucolic peasants, and they were all deeply steeped in the OT. Furthermore, they all had a strong sense of how sacred texts, inspired texts, functioned in a basically oral culture. A good example of where this study is going comes early when I deal with what Paul says in 1 Thess. 2-- he says that his converts received his preaching of the Gospel as not merely the words of human beings, but as it really was, the inspired word of God. In other words, the primary sense of the phrase word of God applies in the first instance to an inspired oral proclamation, in the second instance to Christ himself, and in the third instance, to a written sacred text, the OT (see 2 Tim. 3.16). In other words, Paul, and other NT writers believed they were speaking and writing God's Word, inspired by God's Spirit telling the truth about God, Christ, salvation and other subjects.

3. What do you make of terms such as "inerrant" and "infallible"?

The terms inerrant and infallible are modern ways of attempting to make clear that the Bible tells the truth about whatever it intends to teach us about. I much prefer the positive terms truthful and trustworthy. When you start defining something negatively (saying what it is not) then you often die the death of a thousand qualifications, not to mention you have to define what constitutes an error. I am happy to say that the Bible has three main subjects-- history, theology, and ethics, and that it tells us the truth about all three.

4. How do Scripture and Tradition relate together?

It is true to say that Scripture is one form of tradition that has become a sacred text. So yes, Scripture contains a plethora of different traditions. But to say this is not enough. What was believed about these sacred texts is that they were God-breathed, and so different in various ways from other traditions which were more mundane or purely human. Without an inadequate undestanding of ancient views of inspiration and how they effects texts, we can't get very far in discussing the relationship of ordinary traditions to inspired or sacred ones.

5. What place should the Bible have in the Church?

The Bible, as the written expression of the Word of God, should have final authority in and over the church in all matters of faith and practice, at least in regard to those subjects on which it makes pronouncements.

6. How important is it to learn how to interpret the Bible properly?

This question is too broad. I will simly respond by saying 'a text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean'. That is, unless the Bible is interpreted in its various historical and literary and rhetorical and social contexts, it will inevitably be misused and abused.

7. For many of my students topics such as source criticism, debates about authorship, ancient standards of history, textual criticism, and the process of canonisation, often make them nervous and even defensive at times. As a New Testament lecturer I am constantly challenged as to how introduce them to the humanity of Scripture and the phenomenon of how Scripture came into existence, but without them thinking that they have to forfeit their high view of Scripture. What are your thoughts on that problem?

I think that one has to have a certain amount of insight into one's audience's level of Christian maturity to decide how to talk to them about the humanness as well as divine character of Scripture. It never helps to just blow them out of the water. I do however think that if one is commited to the Bible as the Word of God, then one needs to be honest with them about the 'truth' and the 'Word'. Among other things, bibliolatry is as much of a problem as too low a view of Scripture.

8. To follow that up, based on your forthcoming volume Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians: A Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter what is your opinion on the authorship of 2 Peter, and how does your conclusion to that issue relate to your view of Scripture?

2 Peter is a composite document involving some genuine Petrine material in chapter one, some material from Jude in chapter 2, and a knowledge of a collection of Paul's letters in chapter 3. The book is labeled according to its most famous contributor Peter, but it has been put together probably in the 90s by a member of the Petrine circle, probably in Rome (Linus would be a good guess). Ancient documents which were composite could be anonymous, or could be attributed to their most famous contributor-- in this case because of a testimony of Peter about his experience at the Mt. of Transfiguration. In other words, I do not think that even this document should be labeled pseudonymous, nor do I think there are any such documents in the NT if this one is not.

9. What are the failings of some evangelical approaches to the Bible and what are the failings of some liberal approaches to the Bible?

Too often Evangelicals tend to treat the Bible in a Gnostic manner, as if it dropped straight from heaven, and that the human contribution to the text is nil, or unimportant. This of course is false, and it is also a violation of the very character of these texts which are historical documents through and through, written in specific languages to specific people at specific times with timely (as well as timeless) remarks. Liberals on the other hand, tend to underestimate the divine inspiration of these documents and their profound truth content in regard to matters of history, theology, and ethics.

10. Finally, what makes you believe that Scripture is Inspired and what do you find inspiring about Scripture?

What makes me think the Scriptures are inspired comes not merely from studying them so long, and finding they stand up to every sort of challenge including the intellectual ones, but seeing how many millions of lives they had and continue to change. This did not happen by accident, and certainly not over thousands of years. There is no comparable ancient document that had had, and continues to have that sort of effect. Period. As for what I find inspiring about it, the answer is-- basically everything. Here is a book which provides us with a clear window into the mind and character of God, the nature of the human dilemma, and the nature of salvation. It answers the deeps questions and longings we could have.

BW3

Thanks Ben!

Ben Witherington on the Lord's Supper

Ben Witherington introduces his new book Making a Meal of it: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord's Supper. Here's his description:

In this study I argue that the Lord's Supper was originally part of a large meal, not a separate ritual or ceremony, and as such brought into play all the ancient understandings about hospitality, the welcoming of people to the table, and the like. I am also arguing that the early church did not see the Lord's Supper as merely a symbolic memorial ceremony. They actually saw some sort of spiritual transaction happening in the partaking of the Lord's Supper, and believed that partaking in an unworthy manner was spiritually dangerous, as Paul suggests in 1 Cor. 11. But what sort of spiritual transaction is going on in the Lord's Supper? This is discussed in some detail in the book, and I won't spoil it for you by dealing with that here.

Sounds interesting. I think Protestant churches should turf out their morsel of bread and drop of juice and its accompanying three minute guilt-trip sermonette in favour of a communal love feast instead.

Ben Witherington on Baptism

Just out is Ben Witherington's new book: Troubled Waters: Rethinking the Theology of Baptism (Baylor University Press, released 30 May 2007).

The blurb reads: Baptism has been a contested practice from the very beginning of the church. In this volume, Ben Witherington rethinks the theology of Baptism and does so in constant conversation with the classic theological positions and central New Testament texts. By placing Baptism in the context of the covenant, Witherington shows how advocates of both believer's baptism and infant baptism have added some water to both their theology and practice of baptism.